[Tukishiro Hikari]

jono, on 11 July 2011 - 12:09 PM, said:

Compression/limiting is very important of course.

All I would say is that a Waves L3 in the wrong hands can be disastrous, as some of the demos/promos that we get sent show. My point was mainly directed at brick wall limiting and its over-use, and particularly an L3 seems to be abused more than say an L2 or similar. Some people are using these tools to compensate for a poor mix, and in the process you make it worse.

We're in a loudness war era, and that's a fact. Hard to fight it.

There are loud tracks that sound ok pretty loud, and there are loud tracks that sound dreadful, and like I said to some extent it depends on the type of track/style of mix on how loud you can comfortably go. As I said, the empty/minimal house stuff can normally pushed a bit harder when limiting. Some brick-walled tracks do sort of sound ok like that when someone knows what they are doing and are going for a certain effect. Deadmau5 material for example is slammed hard, but he clearly knows what he is doing.

As for the ridiculously loud tracks - well I just have to turn them down a bit in a set because they sound crazily out of place against normal (still loud!) tracks, so they don't end up much perceivably louder/more exciting to the audience in the end.

Certain artists are also supplying their own masters these days which leaves less options for the label sometimes.

So should I send demos in self-mastered version(if I knew what I am doing, but may not be as good as a professional mastering engineer) or should I send demos without mastering or limiting?

I always do some EQ in master track and then compression/limiting. But when sending demo I don't know if this is ok for labels(or for you).

Also, Can't labels ask artists to send their pre-mastered version of tracks to master together and maintain a proper mastering level of their releases?

[innerlyte]

Tukishiro Hikari, on 13 July 2011 - 03:27 AM, said:

So should I send demos in self-mastered version(if I knew what I am doing, but may not be as good as a professional mastering engineer) or should I send demos without mastering or limiting?

I always do some EQ in master track and then compression/limiting. But when sending demo I don't know if this is ok for labels(or for you).

Also, Can't labels ask artists to send their pre-mastered version of tracks to master together and maintain a proper mastering level of their releases?

I think it's okay to send a demo that has a little compression/limiting and EQ on the master as long as it's not overdone. If you can, just include a note saying something like "master track is compressed and EQed for demonstrational purposes." If the label likes what they hear, they'll ask for the unmastered version or ask you to get it professionally mastered.

[jono]

Sending "mastered" (ie, masters that are are limited/EQ'd) demos, promos etc is absolutely fine and is welcomed as it presents the music in a good light if done properly.

As innerlyte says above, if Anjunabeats sign you then we will normally master from the unmastered version but you don't need to worry about this until signed!

[Zico]

The best way to finish things off is to slap an Izotope Ozone preset on the master and call it a day. Anjuna mastering has nothing on Ozone...

[S.E.H]

Zico, on 14 July 2011 - 01:16 PM, said:

Anjuna mastering has nothing on Ozone...

I lold.

[djlavisse]

Cracking thread here, probably the best I've read on this forum, proper meat and drink posts. More like this please.
And cheers Jono for taking some time out for this, look forward to sending some stuff in to you guys soon

[jono]

Zico, on 14 July 2011 - 01:16 PM, said:

The best way to finish things off is to slap an Izotope Ozone preset on the master and call it a day. Anjuna mastering has nothing on Ozone...

I assume you are joking but FYI, some artists have used their own masters/mastering people by request, so there is no such thing as "Anjuna mastering" as you describe.

djlavisse, on 14 July 2011 - 04:29 PM, said:

Cracking thread here, probably the best I've read on this forum, proper meat and drink posts. More like this please.
And cheers Jono for taking some time out for this, look forward to sending some stuff in to you guys soon

Pleasure. It's a pleasure to contribute when the discussion is constructive.

[Arksun]

jono, on 14 July 2011 - 01:10 PM, said:

Sending "mastered" (ie, masters that are are limited/EQ'd) demos, promos etc is absolutely fine and is welcomed as it presents the music in a good light if done properly.

And a good tip for checking to see if your home mastering is doing far more harm then good is to adjust the out gain on the limiter (or insert a plugin after with volume control) so that the percieved volume is the same as with the master bus plugins all bypassed.
That way you can flick between the two with no audible increase in volume tricking you into a more euphoric state so you can more accurately listen and tell if its making any improvements or causing too much harm to the way the mix sounds.

Once you're happy with how it sounds dont forget to re-adjust the outgain again before rendering.

[Benne Z]

A piece in "The Atlantic" yesterday on the possible end of the loudness war. There may be a way out. Brought to us in part by mastering uber-guru Bob Ludwig.

The Loudness Wars: Is Music's Noisy Arms Race Over?

http://www.theatlant...ce-over/242293/

I love the last line... "And there's no better way to keep something out of music than to make it seem uncool."

[ChrisQ]

Arksun, on 17 July 2011 - 06:52 PM, said:

And a good tip for checking to see if your home mastering is doing far more harm then good is to adjust the out gain on the limiter (or insert a plugin after with volume control) so that the percieved volume is the same as with the master bus plugins all bypassed.

I dont get it , I used to always compare an exported Production to a commercial track and after reading this I figured out its a pretty stupid idea so I removed all my tracks from my itunes library and set the volume on my Audio Interface to to half its maximum headphone output and mixed the track , its a lot softer than a commercial release even with very slight use of a limiter so I have no idea if thats a good thing - The master volume on logic when mixing the project was quite low as well ( -4.5 db)to made sure it wasnt clipping - shall I increase the volume of Logics master and decrease the output on my Audio Interface and use the limiter a bit more or do I just need to work on my mix

http://www64.zippysh...06003/file.html

[andrepaulryan10]

Does anyone mix with their monitors all the way up? I'm just curious.... I like to do that. Cause then I eq the drums/synths/bassline whatever it is so it's not distorted on full volume I know it will sound different on all systems until mastered perfectly though.

[00264167]

jono, on 06 July 2011 - 10:10 PM, said:

Jer asked me to also post this up in this forum, so see below. Interestingly perhaps the biggest culprits I've found are those trying to do the classic Anjuna sound FYI....

Polite music production tech "mini-rant" to some budding producers:

Please don't compress/limit your tracks so hard.

I just spent today putting together Trance Around the World, and some of the tracks submitted are so compressed, that while they may have a decent musical idea, they are going to sound awful on the radio because they are then going to go through the Trance Around the World compressors, optimods at the radio stations and get compressed all over AGAIN.....

Also when it comes to club play, by over-compressing you are effectively throwing away a tool in any musician's/producer's arsenal - DYNAMICS! There is melody/harmony, rhythm/groove etc, but let's not forget dynamics! Don't be afraid to have quiet moments - they make the loud moments feel even bigger.

I'm sorry to say that many "nice" tracks that might get a spin on the radio show don't make their way into our live sets because of the over-compression issue - the tracks sound weak in a club and often don't move enough air! Particularly in the bass department (which tends to suffer when smashing a master to bits with a limiter). Don't forget there will also most likely be a compressor/limiter on the front of house system in a club/arena so there's another opportunity for those lovely transients to take another punishing....

There has been a loudness war on for years now, but when it gets to the point that dance music suffers (dance music is already probably the most compressed music next to pop), I think it's time to review!

Perhaps the issue is that people are using radio streams for reference material in the studio rather than proper masters? Of course we do need stuff to sound sensibly loud and punchy, so just like adding the right amount of salt to a meal, compression and limiting are very important. But going to far actually makes stuff sound worse and very fatiguing to listen to.

Over & out!

mmm....mmm, shi', ain' that the truth bro. i hear wat yall sayin bro, u dis wi' the man wi' yall compression and all and yall get a cap in yo ass. 'spect mofo

[Arksun]

ChrisQ, on 24 July 2011 - 12:38 PM, said:

I dont get it

It's simple, generally the sound of something slightly louder seems to sound better to our ears. Play the same identicle recording, one slightly louder than the other, pretty much everyone would pick the louder version as the better sounding version in a blind test, even though they're actually the same!.

The point being, this louder phenomenon can sometimes mask our ability to detect the actual changes in sound that is occuring and whether they're a benefit or really making it sound worse, particularly in any process that increases the volume a lot.

So by eliminating the volume increase aspect out of it (ie by lowering the output gain on the limiter down so it sounds the same volume) all you are then hearing is what exactly the limiter is doing to change the sound by squashing the waveform.

Not just good for checking limiter damage, but also any other process where the change is subtle enough to be potentially masked by any volume inrease.

One example of that is the T-Racks Vintage Comp 670. I noticed that a lot of the presets boost the volume quite a bit. At first impression I thought they were really adding improvement to the sound BUT, once I'd adjusted the volume accordingly so by hitting bypass there was no percievably volume jump I realised that actually no, those preset settings weren't really benefitting the sound at all. Tbh I haven't been all that impressed with the 670 plugin in the end. The T-Racks opto comp is much better imho.

[innerlyte]

andrepaulryan10, on 27 July 2011 - 08:24 AM, said:

Does anyone mix with their monitors all the way up? I'm just curious.... I like to do that. Cause then I eq the drums/synths/bassline whatever it is so it's not distorted on full volume I know it will sound different on all systems until mastered perfectly though.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying, but a common monitoring level to use during mixing is about 85dB, while occasionally checking the mix at lower and higher levels. If you mix at high levels only, the low and high frequencies of your mix will be understated at lower listening levels. Google the Fletcher-Munson Curve for more info.

Arksun, on 27 July 2011 - 06:51 PM, said:

One example of that is the T-Racks Vintage Comp 670. I noticed that a lot of the presets boost the volume quite a bit. At first impression I thought they were really adding improvement to the sound BUT, once I'd adjusted the volume accordingly so by hitting bypass there was no percievably volume jump I realised that actually no, those preset settings weren't really benefitting the sound at all. Tbh I haven't been all that impressed with the 670 plugin in the end. The T-Racks opto comp is much better imho.

Yep, I did the same thing when demoing the 670. Glad I didn't fall for the hype during the recent No-Brainer deal at audioMIDI.

[ChrisQ]

Arksun, on 27 July 2011 - 06:51 PM, said:

It's simple, generally the sound of something slightly louder seems to sound better to our ears. Play the same identicle recording, one slightly louder than the other, pretty much everyone would pick the louder version as the better sounding version in a blind test, even though they're actually the same!.

The point being, this louder phenomenon can sometimes mask our ability to detect the actual changes in sound that is occuring and whether they're a benefit or really making it sound worse, particularly in any process that increases the volume a lot.

So by eliminating the volume increase aspect out of it (ie by lowering the output gain on the limiter down so it sounds the same volume) all you are then hearing is what exactly the limiter is doing to change the sound by squashing the waveform.

Not just good for checking limiter damage, but also any other process where the change is subtle enough to be potentially masked by any volume inrease.

One example of that is the T-Racks Vintage Comp 670. I noticed that a lot of the presets boost the volume quite a bit. At first impression I thought they were really adding improvement to the sound BUT, once I'd adjusted the volume accordingly so by hitting bypass there was no percievably volume jump I realised that actually no, those preset settings weren't really benefitting the sound at all. Tbh I haven't been all that impressed with the 670 plugin in the end. The T-Racks opto comp is much better imho.

Thank you , this is great stuff

[intense]

This compression\limithing thing confuses me tbh. I dont know mutch about compression and limiting, the only time i use a compressor, is on a bus\group channel to glue things togehter abit and for sidechaining, but verry subtle. I always start my mixes with the master set to -6\8db and i make sure i never go above -2db when im done. I never put a limiter or a compressor on the master, becouse i dont know jack shit about mastering:p

So if im getting things to sound decent without using alot of compressors\limiters, is it still wrong?

[PaulLoebMusic]

Really good thread! Although the subject is compression/limiting - I find a common problem among many tracks I receive for my mastering service: Even with no limiting, the mix is RED-HOT!
Turn the faders down! I start every track at -10dB. Bring in a new sample? Turn it down! Trust me, it will save you a lot of time later in the mixing stage - as well as sound much better!!

[wayfu]

intense, on 08 August 2011 - 12:44 PM, said:

This compression\limithing thing confuses me tbh. I dont know mutch about compression and limiting, the only time i use a compressor, is on a bus\group channel to glue things togehter abit and for sidechaining, but verry subtle. I always start my mixes with the master set to -6\8db and i make sure i never go above -2db when im done. I never put a limiter or a compressor on the master, becouse i dont know jack shit about mastering:p

So if im getting things to sound decent without using alot of compressors\limiters, is it still wrong?

What does "gluing things together a bit" really do though?

[Marcioz Pollack]

PaulLoebMusic, on 14 September 2011 - 05:44 PM, said:

Really good thread! Although the subject is compression/limiting - I find a common problem among many tracks I receive for my mastering service: Even with no limiting, the mix is RED-HOT!
Turn the faders down! I start every track at -10dB. Bring in a new sample? Turn it down! Trust me, it will save you a lot of time later in the mixing stage - as well as sound much better!!

hey, ive checked your website, you may change the examples there, they actually sound pretty over compressed and over limited

[Adam Szabo]

7skies - Caffeine is over compressed like there is no tomorrow. There are almost no dynamics, its like a big block of wave. Where is this track signed? Ah right. Who mastered it? Ah right... I guess over compression is a good thing after all!

[ChrisQ]

Adam Szabo, on 25 September 2011 - 11:09 AM, said:

7skies - Caffeine is over compressed like there is no tomorrow. There are almost no dynamics, its like a big block of wave. Where is this track signed? Ah right. Who mastered it? Ah right... I guess over compression is a good thing after all!

haha yeah ..Rebound ( at least the track made available to the public ) seemed to be smashed to bits as well ..I think Jono is trying to say ''we dont want you to smash it and send it ! we wanna do the smashing !'' haha

I still love you Anjuna

[Cobalt Infusion]

Here is my 2 cents...

I know for a fact that if you EQ correctly (cut the frequencies you don't want rather than boosting) and then compress after that fact you can use a significantly less ratio of compression to get a bigger sound. This applies for each stem of your mix as well as the entire mixdown.

My process of putting a track together from start to finish (including mastering) will include compression on the parts that need it and EQing on ALL tracks. When you really realize how many low frequencies hang out on each sample you use it starts to add up by the end. When the full track is done I pull all of the faders down and start my mixdown. I bring my kick to a peaking level of -10db with the knowledge that that will be the most powerful instrument. I bring the bass up do a good level (it is already processed to work with the kick though sidechaining or other methods. Then the rest of the mix comes together and I keep the peak levels between -6db and -3db. This entire process I NEVER put any dynamics processors on the master bus not even to see how it sounds. I believe that if you can't make it hit hard enough without it then you still have work to do.

Once the mixdown is done then I put on an EQ and roll off the very high and very low frequencies. I never alter the overall EQ because the frequency mix should have been done before or during the mixdown. So, next is a multiband compressor and I compress the 3 bands just slightly about a 2:1 or 3:1 ratio. Remember the EQing and levels should already be sufficient enough to get the clarity and sound you need, this is just enhancing it. Then to blend it a bit more I use a tiny bit of compression on the full spectrum.

At this point I have a master that still peaks between -6db and -3db (theoretically you should too if you used the make up gain correctly). Now this gives me lots of wiggle room to use the limiter. You can leave it as is or bring up the volume so it just barely touches it OR you can smash the living hell out of it! IF you have done each step efficiently you will have a very powerful track that really doesnt need a limiter at all. It will be powerful AND dynamic which is what I think we all want.

Trust me when I say I have smashed the hell out of my tracks because I thought it was better. I have only just learned this and I believe it sounds much better when you are 100% focused at each step of the way to get the best sound possible. If it doesn't sound right when you compress or limit it is probably because of a step earlier on. Remember, you can't polish a turd.

Cheers!

[failbook]

Adam Szabo, on 25 September 2011 - 11:09 AM, said:

7skies - Caffeine is over compressed like there is no tomorrow. There are almost no dynamics, its like a big block of wave. Where is this track signed? Ah right. Who mastered it? Ah right... I guess over compression is a good thing after all!

Jono or Paavo... any take on that?

[Adam Szabo]

failbook, on 16 October 2011 - 09:10 PM, said:

Jono or Paavo... any take on that?

I just said that because 7skies said it himself to me once that even he didnt like that it was so overcompressed. And now we get the information that we should not compress our tracks too much. So now they are confusing everyone and I dont know what is good or bad anymore...

[7 Skies]

Adam Szabo, on 25 September 2011 - 11:09 AM, said:

7skies - Caffeine is over compressed like there is no tomorrow. There are almost no dynamics, its like a big block of wave. Where is this track signed? Ah right. Who mastered it? Ah right... I guess over compression is a good thing after all!

Caffeine was way too compressed not an anjuna fault though but of those who did the mastering, or probably a fault of who did the mixing wrong which in this case it was me

[Euphoria-music]

Adam Szabo, on 17 October 2011 - 11:02 AM, said:

I just said that because 7skies said it himself to me once that even he didnt like that it was so overcompressed. And now we get the information that we should not compress our tracks too much. So now they are confusing everyone and I dont know what is good or bad anymore...

Adam, come on you always know what's good and bad... It's not like you have bad ears for a start. I think the best way around it is if you can hear compression then its too much.

I mean i like to use compression as an fx as well as an effect.

Just imo

[danielkandi]

jono, on 11 July 2011 - 12:09 PM, said:

Compression/limiting is very important of course.

All I would say is that a Waves L3 in the wrong hands can be disastrous, as some of the demos/promos that we get sent show. My point was mainly directed at brick wall limiting and its over-use, and particularly an L3 seems to be abused more than say an L2 or similar. Some people are using these tools to compensate for a poor mix, and in the process you make it worse.

We're in a loudness war era, and that's a fact. Hard to fight it.

There are loud tracks that sound ok pretty loud, and there are loud tracks that sound dreadful, and like I said to some extent it depends on the type of track/style of mix on how loud you can comfortably go. As I said, the empty/minimal house stuff can normally pushed a bit harder when limiting. Some brick-walled tracks do sort of sound ok like that when someone knows what they are doing and are going for a certain effect. Deadmau5 material for example is slammed hard, but he clearly knows what he is doing.

As for the ridiculously loud tracks - well I just have to turn them down a bit in a set because they sound crazily out of place against normal (still loud!) tracks, so they don't end up much perceivably louder/more exciting to the audience in the end.

Certain artists are also supplying their own masters these days which leaves less options for the label sometimes.

Actually glad to see u and the new labelmastering-guy, are taking the foot a bit off the compression pedal, since some of the older releases tried to compete with the loudness-war. The new mastering-guy does a bang on job. Its loud but still proud in the sound. No sauce, just mostly detail. Good stuff.

[Joel_]

As someone who has been producing for only two years I still find the subject of producing and mastering quite confusing with regard to the end product.

We're rightly told to produce the cleanest and best sounding mix and then send a demo of it to a label, bearing in mind they will be the the guys mastering it most probably.

What I don't understand is, if we're not supposed to slap a limiter or mastering plugin on the master channel then how can we A/B our mix against released tunes?

In other words, if all we hear of released tunes is the version of them being mastered and slammed we don't have a comparison track for just the mixdown (pre-mastered) to know what our mixdowns should sound like before going to a label.

This post has been edited by Joel_: 18 December 2011 - 06:18 PM

[danielkandi]

Joel_, on 18 December 2011 - 06:17 PM, said:

As someone who has been producing for only two years I still find the subject of producing and mastering quite confusing with regard to the end product.

We're rightly told to produce the cleanest and best sounding mix and then send a demo of it to a label, bearing in mind they will be the the guys mastering it most probably.

What I don't understand is, if we're not supposed to slap a limiter or mastering plugin on the master channel then how can we A/B our mix against released tunes?

In other words, if all we hear of released tunes is the version of them being mastered and slammed we don't have a comparison track for just the mixdown (pre-mastered) to know what our mixdowns should sound like before going to a label.

Check out azzura, its not really as compressed as my previous work, and it´s an agreement me and Jinx made, to try and keep it clean and not too saucy. Same goes for many of Koglins tracks. Although limited, I think mixdown is spot on to make it able for a limiting that doesnt sound overcompressed like radio... Very neutral.

[ChrisQ]

Joel_, on 18 December 2011 - 06:17 PM, said:

As someone who has been producing for only two years I still find the subject of producing and mastering quite confusing with regard to the end product.

We're rightly told to produce the cleanest and best sounding mix and then send a demo of it to a label, bearing in mind they will be the the guys mastering it most probably.

What I don't understand is, if we're not supposed to slap a limiter or mastering plugin on the master channel then how can we A/B our mix against released tunes?

In other words, if all we hear of released tunes is the version of them being mastered and slammed we don't have a comparison track for just the mixdown (pre-mastered) to know what our mixdowns should sound like before going to a label.

Arksun some time ago gave me some really good advice , basically turn itunes volume down to the same level of the track coming out of your daw for A/B comparison , Mastering should just be a case of volume , nothing else

This post has been edited by ChrisQ: 20 December 2011 - 07:48 PM