The Quietness Wars (mastering)

dynomike · Post by **dynomike** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 11:18 pm

I was thinking about starting this thread on the gearslutz mastering forum, but I forgot my password there, and it'll probably turn out better here anyway.

So I'm working on a new disc of my own material and the way its going, I'm really happy with the one mix I've got down.. to the point where I'm considering not even having any mastering. Right now in a dynamic song, my levels are hitting RMS -15ish in the loud parts and more like -20, -22 in the quiet parts. I feel that this is actually loud enough on a properly dithered CD, but I open the debate to you...

How quiet is TOO quiet?

-mike

Scodiddly · Post by **Scodiddly** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 11:19 pm

Tom Waits' "Swordfishtrombones" is definitely on the quiet side, even for an older album. That's probably a decent starting point if you can scrounge up a copy to compare with.

MoreSpaceEcho · Post by **MoreSpaceEcho** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 12:06 am

if it sounds good to you then it's good.

is the mix peaking at 0dbfs with those RMS numbers? that's pretty freakin' dynamic if so. i mean even shellac records are considerably louder than that. a bit of compression/limiting might actually serve it well, and kinda pull it together a bit without compromising anything.

also depends on the style of music...what do you mean by loud? for example i think a super heavy duty death metal record that sat at -15 would probably not sound 'right', you WANT something like that more mushed together...whereas more acoustic kinda stuff would be fine around there...

dynomike · Post by **dynomike** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 8:03 am

I'm sure it can probably can come up a couple db. I just wonder why it needs to I guess. Its definately not heavy duty death metal, but in the loud part there is a full rock band sound.

@?,*???&? · Post by **@?,*???&?** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 8:06 am

Would we all agree peaks should be just under dbFS?

logancircle · Post by **logancircle** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 8:28 am

MoreSpaceEcho wrote:...a bit of compression/limiting might actually serve it well, and kinda pull it together a bit without compromising anything....

+1

Dynamic records are cool, BUT... you might want to try just enough compression so the listener doesn't have to ride the volume knob. That shit is annoying. A record (I think) did not get this right is Jeremy Enigk's Return of the Frog Queen. I played a show with him last year and, drunk, I almost mentioned it, but then what would be the point of that. You may want to get it mastered anyway because, contrary to popular belief, there's more to mastering than loudness. my $.02

MoreSpaceEcho · Post by **MoreSpaceEcho** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 9:34 am

@?,*???&? wrote:Would we all agree peaks should be just under dbFS?

i assume you meant 0dbfs? for the master, of course. -.3 or so.

for mixes sent to mastering, printing that hot is ok, but really it's better to leave some headroom for the ME. i like getting stuff that peaks around -6, though it doesn't happen that often...

vvv · Post by **vvv** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 9:35 am

In your heart, you know it won't be right until it looks like this:

MoreSpaceEcho · Post by **MoreSpaceEcho** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 9:38 am

pfffft, that's not loud, you can still see some peaks and valleys there. it's gotta COMPETE dammit!

*drops L2 threshold to -20, nods wisely*

logancircle · Post by **logancircle** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 9:47 am

It's funny/sad that the word Mastering gets confused with the word Compressing. I have heard a musician say, upon hearing a crushed mix, say "Damn, [they] mastered the shit out of this song."

MoreSpaceEcho · Post by **MoreSpaceEcho** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 9:51 am

and i bet you most ME's would tell you they generally spend way more time working with the EQ than they do with the compressor/limiter. i know i do.

I'm Painting Again · Post by **I'm Painting Again** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 10:10 am

"how quiet is too quiet" depends on your goals and tastes..

there is no one correct answer..

vvv · Post by **vvv** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 10:17 am

MoreSpaceEcho wrote:pfffft, that's not loud, you can still see some peaks and valleys there. it's gotta COMPETE dammit!

*drops L2 threshold to -20, nods wisely*

Oh yeah, sorry, I just ran it through the "acoustic singer-songwriter" preset.

logancircle · Post by **logancircle** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 10:42 am

Beauty&Wonder wrote:...there is no one correct answer..

Yes there is.

rwc · Post by **rwc** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 2:16 pm

logancircle wrote:It's funny/sad that the word Mastering gets confused with the word Compressing. I have heard a musician say, upon hearing a crushed mix, say "Damn, [they] mastered the shit out of this song."

That's all it is for most modern music though. Roll off bass, boost mids, and compress heavily(in no specific order). I think it's a good thing. Once enough people think mastering is the process of killing the music, maybe it'll get done less.

Message Board

The Quietness Wars (mastering)

The Quietness Wars (mastering)

Who is online