I was noticing how terribly my mixes suffered from playback in iTunes as compared to just playing back the file in a finder window, and I learned that the cause of that horrible sound was the "enhancer" in iTunes. I'm glad to have solved that problem, but I'm still left with this nagging question: Why did my mixes suffer so much more from the 'enhancer' than did the songs from some of the commercial CDs I own? This is really a broader question. I know I'm not using the finest equipment or plugins (I use the Logic plugins in the mix and PSP VW for finalising/"mastering"), and I know my monitoring equipment and room are nowhere near up to spec, but I've found that my mixes actually sound even better on pro monitors. They sound right. But then when I try them out on my two cheapo car stereos, they suffer so much more than commercial CDs do—huge peaks and valleys in the overall EQ that I just don't hear on my Radiohead or Badly Drawn Boy or Gillian Welch CDs? Is it too optimistic for me to hope that I could make my mixes as system-proof as these CDs? I try to take what I learn by hearing the mixes on junky systems into account, but I feel a bit like I'm chasing my tail. Also, as for volume. I read a lot of people on forums like this sneering at the notion of trying to up the volume of the final mix, but my ears keep telling me that even with a good deal of compression/limiting on my overall mix, my levels don't approach those of, say, Badly Drawn Boy's 'One Plus One is One,' which to my ears still sounds incredibly open and natural and dynamic. Am I supposed to believe that they're not using a ton of compression on their mix?

Benjamin Dreessen wrote: > Message posted by Benjamin Dreessen <bjdreessen@sbcglobal.net>: > > I was noticing how terribly my mixes suffered from playback in iTunes as > compared to just playing back the file in a finder window, and I learned > that the cause of that horrible sound was the "enhancer" in iTunes. I'm glad > to have solved that problem, but I'm still left with this nagging question: > Why did my mixes suffer so much more from the 'enhancer' than did the songs > from some of the commercial CDs I own? > > This is really a broader question. I know I'm not using the finest equipment > or plugins (I use the Logic plugins in the mix and PSP VW for > finalising/"mastering"), and I know my monitoring equipment and room are > nowhere near up to spec, but I've found that my mixes actually sound even > better on pro monitors. They sound right. But then when I try them out on my > two cheapo car stereos, they suffer so much more than commercial CDs do—huge > peaks and valleys in the overall EQ that I just don't hear on my Radiohead > or Badly Drawn Boy or Gillian Welch CDs? Is it too optimistic for me to hope > that I could make my mixes as system-proof as these CDs? I try to take what > I learn by hearing the mixes on junky systems into account, but I feel a bit > like I'm chasing my tail. Not at all. Those tracks have been professionally mastered. And that means at least 4 parameters you don't have. Mastering studio monitors, mastering studio processing, mastering studio ears, mastering studio experience and a fresh perspective. I love PSP VW and I use it on demos. It sort of goes half way there but that's it. At first glance it appears to be magic, but it's not. > > Also, as for volume. I read a lot of people on forums like this sneering at > the notion of trying to up the volume of the final mix, but my ears keep > telling me that even with a good deal of compression/limiting on my overall > mix, my levels don't approach those of, say, Badly Drawn Boy's 'One Plus One > is One,' which to my ears still sounds incredibly open and natural and > dynamic. Am I supposed to believe that they're not using a ton of > compression on their mix? Some, not necessarily a ton. Much depends on the mix in the first place. It's possible to do mixes that are just plain without too much processing. So much is to do with the right sounds and combination of sounds in the first place, whether it's instruments, mics or orchestration. -- Pete Thomas www.petethomas.co.uk Logic Tutorials, Hints, Tips, free Icons, Environments EXS Instruments (donationware) ***Please support my trek in the Andes in aid of APEC*** ***info & sponsorship: http://www.justgiving.com/petethomas***

OK, Mr. Thomas's comments lead to another issue. I recently heard that a very well respected mastering guru said that, when mixing, people should back off on their levels and allow as much dynamic range as possible in the mixdown—this instead of trying to get the individual tracks as hot as possible without crossing the line. There was also some talk about gain staging involved. Anyway, I took this to heart and started backing off my track levels until there was no clipping whatsoever on the output stereo track with no plugin. I ended up dropping levels by as much as 12 or 14 db, and then I figured I could make it up with VW and should end up with a clearer, more open and dynamic sound. This did help quite a bit, but as I said, my stuff just sounded tiny and flat next to Badly Drawn Boy—until I cranked the volume a bit. Then it sounded much more comparable in volume and dynamics, though not quite as sweet and open. That part I can attribute to superior pres, mics, equipment and engineering skill. So, If I understand you right, Mr. Thomas, some of the perceived level is just better, more musical pres, mics, rooms, etc., and better skill in the use of equipment/plugins. And if VW only goes halfway there, which I don't doubt, are you of the opinion that the only way to really get all the way there, is to send the stuff to a Mastering house? Any recommendations for that?

Try mastering at different volume levels on different systems. I try to mix at ~95 decibels for only a few minutes at a time, then turn it down until you can barely hear it and see if it sounds the same. If you can hear what you want to hear at different volume levels on different systems, and the overall percieved volume is good, then you have a good flat mix. I used to think spectral analyzers were not very useful, but a good stereo imaging and spectral analisys plugin can show peaks and problems that your ears might not be picking up. When I use to make tracks mostly for vinyl, there were some rules we tried to follow to make sure the record came out nice and loud. Most of them came out louder than was necessary, and I/we generally overcompressed things. I always find problems on different systems with tracks that are long ago finished and released that I want to re-master. I master in headphones (Shure E2), use cheap monitors (Sony NS50s) for arranging. If you have similar music to compare to, listen side by side with your tracks on the same systems at different volumes. Most music can be mastered well with a parametric eq and a multi-band compressor and an exciter/limiter. I don't think it takes any special equipment, I have not found a big difference between software and hardware, except that software can be more flexible.

Thank you for that refreshingly inexpensive and encouraging answer. A lot of people give the impression that quality mastering requires bigtime money that I don't have. What EQ, Compression, etc. do you usually use for mastering?

--- In logic-users@yahoogroups.com, "Benjamin Dreessen" <forums@...> wrote: > > Message posted by Benjamin Dreessen <bjdreessen@...>: > >...but I feel a bit > like I'm chasing my tail. Yeah, I don't think it's chasing your tail if you actually apply things that you hear directly back to your mix. If something sticks out too far on one system, try to pare that element back a little in Logic, making sure you don't alter your main monitor image too much. Consider it another step you're taking towards a line of best fit which an ideal monitoring environment would be more likely to give you in the first place. I'm also in a very unsatisfactory monitoring environment, so while I mix on the monitors in the main, I play my mix in earbuds, on a big hi-fi, on monitors, in a car, on computer multimedia speakers, and I respond to things I hear in each and come back and make level/EQ wiggles. In effect, I'm averaging the bumps between all these sonic images, and it seems to work - I end up with mixes that carry pretty well in all of these environments. re: The loudness war. I don't totally sneer at loudening, only partly :) Heck, I use a brickwall limiter, I just push the mix into it less than most people. I try compression on all my tracks but I never leave it there just for the loudening principle if I don't like what it's doing. I really do like the fuller sounds that compression has made available to us in general, but I also believe it's mostly gone too far when every pop/rock record is represented by an eerily similar, unyielding brick like waveform in a sound editor. And I still think the majority of these sound good and big overall. I mostly notice the lack of dynamics if I take a step back and consider the percussion in comparison to everything else - that's when I am aware that no drum hit is actually really cutting or punchy, it's just that I'm seduced (and not negatively affected) by the overall loudness. If I put on some less compressed electronica immediately afterwards, I can hear an incredible snap in the percussion that pushes through the mix and which seems to be lacking from current pop/ rock records. As a sample of what I use to master tracks: Not much! Monitor speakers plus all that cross-checking on different systems. I use mostly Elemental Audio plugins. They're inexpensive but I'm not sure you can buy them in their original form atm, they're in a halfway house as their equivalents are being produced by Roger Nicholls, who absorbed EA. So I use : Firium (their linear phase EQ) if I want to make a slight overall EQ change here or there, though I'm sure I'd be happy to use Logic's own Linear Phase if I wasn't in the Firium habit from my Logic Express days. I use Inspector XL for my level and spectrum watching. My brickwall limiter is Finis, and sometimes if it's a more drastic mix, I ease it into Finis with Logic's regular limiter (on soft) to reduce pumping. I can now hear tons of 'stuff' after mixing regularly for a couple of years, yet I still find the effect of a regular limiter extremely hard to detect.

Benjamin Dreessen wrote: > Message posted by Benjamin Dreessen > <bjdreessen@sbcglobal.net>: > > OK, Mr. Thomas's comments lead to another issue. I recently heard > that a very well respected mastering guru said that, when mixing, > people should back off on their levels and allow as much dynamic > range as possible in the mixdown—this instead of trying to get the > individual tracks as hot as possible without crossing the line. There > was also some talk about gain staging involved. Anyway, I took this > to heart and started backing off my track levels until there was no > clipping whatsoever on the output stereo track with no plugin. Exactly right. If your audio is recorded at a decent level, many of your individual track faders will be quite low. The mix should not clip the output at all. I find it useful to set the output of all my tracks to a bus, then route the output of that bus to the stereo output. This way if I put any plugins on the output I can see (and easily raise or lower) the level going in with the bus fader. I > ended up dropping levels by as much as 12 or 14 db, Whoa! and then I > figured I could make it up with VW and should end up with a clearer, > more open and dynamic sound. This did help quite a bit, but as I > said, my stuff just sounded tiny and flat next to Badly Drawn > Boy—until I cranked the volume a bit. Then it sounded much more > comparable in volume and dynamics, though not quite as sweet and > open. That part I can attribute to superior pres, mics, equipment and > engineering skill. > > So, If I understand you right, Mr. Thomas, some of the perceived > level is just better, more musical pres, mics, rooms, etc., and > better skill in the use of equipment/plugins. No, I'm saying it can often be done in the mastering (provided your mix is basically sound, i.e not muddy, nothing too extreme and definitely no out of phase issues). If you want loud then compression of individual tracks is going to help, but will of course lead top a less dynamic track. I also like to use filtering (high and or low) to get a certain degree of separation. E.G. If my mix is just guitar bass and drums, I may do very little EQing, but if it's Guitar, organ piano bass and drums I might put a high pass filter on the guitar to get give it its own "space" in the mix and allow the warmth of the piano to fill the low mids instead, otherwise it can easily get muddy down there. These days digital mastering studios are using plugins that aren't necessarily 100 x better than many of the affordable plugins in home studios. The skill at using them (in combinations) is certainly a factor, but so are the room and monitors they have that you don't. So are the experience at amstering and ears they have that most I love VW and use it for cheap and cheerful mastering of demos to get the tracks sounding as loud as commercial tracks, but I think it does it in a way that makes the sound "dirty". > > And if VW only goes halfway there, which I don't doubt, are you of > the opinion that the only way to really get all the way there, is to > send the stuff to a Mastering house? Any recommendations for that? > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > Logic Users Group (LUG) - http://logic-users.org Search the LUG: > http://logic-users.org/forums/LUG/search Logic FAQ: > http://logicfaq.omega-art.com/ List Policy: > http://logic-users.org/forums/LUG/policy > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/logic-users/join (Yahoo! ID required) > > > > > > > > > -- Pete Thomas www.petethomas.co.uk Logic Tutorials, Hints, Tips, free Icons, Environments EXS Instruments (donationware) ***Please support my trek in the Andes in aid of APEC*** ***info & sponsorship: http://www.justgiving.com/petethomas***

Thanks to everyone who has responded so far. This is a nice forum. People are friendly and helpful, even to dilettantes like myself.

On Oct 3, 2006, at 1:00 AM, Benjamin Dreessen wrote: > > > So, If I understand you right, Mr. Thomas, some of the perceived > level is just better, more musical pres, mics, rooms, etc., and > better skill in the use of equipment/plugins. > > And if VW only goes halfway there, which I don't doubt, are you of > the opinion that the only way to really get all the way there, is > to send the stuff to a Mastering house? Any recommendations for that? > Hi Ben, seems really to be the case. For example, normally I try to make my tracks hot enough using compressor and limiter plug-ins; I can check a track loudness roughly with some analyzing plug-in with RMS measurement. But then I went once to a big studio with a huge analog Amek console (it weighs 1 ton) and mixed some of my tracks there (I brought them bounced track by track to an external HD). I had no compressor whatsoever in the master, and the tracks mixed that way did not have a rectangular waveform - but they were damn loud ! I checked the RMS with Waves PAZ, and I was amazed how loud they got without any compressor on the master. So, there are definitely some things which you just can't achieve at home. Sad but true. But - a good mastering house will help your stuff sound loud and clear at the same time. You should try it out. greets maxim