# How loud?



## MikeH (Jul 13, 2010)

Right now I'm thinking about remixing a few rather bombastic tracks from scratch to make them hotter. Where they sit right now is very comfortable (no clipping, but close). I don't want necessarily want it to be 'loudness war' loud, but as of right now it's a bit softer than most commercial filmscore CD's. I personally don't have a problem with having to turn up my system to listen to the finished tracks a bit more than a commercial soundtrack, but my main concern is putting the tracks online and sending them to clients for demo purposes-- in other words, is it a detriment if my mixes are softer?

I noticed that Avatar was a CD I had to turn up quite a bit when listening to it, and right now my mixes are sitting at that loudness level (much softer than stuff like Zimmer, David Arnold, etc). 

Maybe I'm monitoring too loudly when composing? I know this is a can of worms. I'd just like to be able to compose, mix, and then master without having to do severe audio work in order to bring it up to a suitable level--or maybe I am at a suitable level and I'm just overthinking it. Am I making this too difficult?

Thanks all


----------



## Hannes_F (Jul 14, 2010)

Idea: you could become a member of this organisation:

http://www.pleasurizemusic.com/

and receive their meter which is more sophisticated than it looks at first sight and very handy in order to compare full tracks dynamic-wise.


----------



## Scott Cairns (Jul 14, 2010)

Hi,



MikeH @ Wed Jul 14 said:


> Maybe I'm monitoring too loudly when composing?



how loudly you play your music when composing should have nothing to do with the overall 'loudness' oòï`   ÜaNï`   ÜaOï`   ÜaPï`   ÜaQï`   ÜaRï`   ÜaSï`   ÜaTï`   ÜaUï`   ÜaVï`   ÜaWï`   ÜaXï`   ÜaYï`   ÜaZï`   Üa[ï`   Üa\ï`   Üa]ï`   Üa^ï`   Üa_ï`   Üa`ï`   Üaaï`   Üabï`   Üacï`   Üadï`   Üaeï`   Üafï`   Üagïa   Üahïa   Üaiïa   Üajïa   Üakïa   Üalïa   Üamïa   Üanïa   Üaoïa   Üapïa   Üaqïa   Üarïa   Üasïa   Üatïa   Üauïa   Üavïa   Üawïa   Üaxïa   Üayïa   Üazïa   Üa{ïa   Üa|ïa   Üa}ïb   Üa~ïb   Üaïb   Üa€ïb   Üaïb   Üa‚ïb   Üaƒïb   Üa„ïb   Üa…ïb   Üa†ïb   Üa‡ïb   Üaˆïb   Üa‰ïb   ÜaŠïb   Üa‹ïb   ÜaŒïb   Üaïb   ÜaŽïb   Üaïb   Üaïb   Üa‘ïb   Üa’ïb   Üa“ïb   Üa”ïb   Üa•ïb   Üa–ïb   Üa—ïb   Üa˜ïb   Üa™ïb   Üašïb   Üa›ïb   Üaœïb   Üaïb   Üažïb   ÜaŸ


----------



## MikeH (Jul 14, 2010)

Thanks guys! On the master buss, does Ozone always go last or could I put a limiter or Inflator plugin after it? I'm guessing if Ozone is set to dither then it should go last but I was recently reading that the limiter should be the last thing (I use a different limiter plugin rather than ozone).


----------



## Mike Greene (Jul 14, 2010)

I agree with everything Scott said, although I personally do tend to monitor too loud. (Old habits die hard. I'm lucky my hearing isn't worse than it is.)

I think it's okay to be a little under a Zimmer CD's level if it's orchestral stuff, because people are used to wide differences in volume there. But if it's straight bombastic or rock or techno, I think you have to play the volume game.

My personal method is to run the final mix through a multiband compressor, then into a limiter set to either -1 db or -0.01 db (that difference is a long discussion in itself as to which I choose.) I rarely bother with dithering or anything, but that's just me.


----------



## MikeH (Jul 14, 2010)

Is dithering really necessary then? If I'm working in 24 bit, skip dithering in Ozone and then bounce to 16bit does DP do a dither-like process?


----------



## synthetic (Jul 14, 2010)

Mike Greene @ Wed Jul 14 said:


> I think it's okay to be a little under a Zimmer CD's level if it's orchestral stuff, because people are used to wide differences in volume there.



I happen to be listening to Inception right now on a CD player with good meters on it (DV-RA1000HD). The quiet bits are around -20dBfs with peaks at at -4dBfs. On the loud bits the meters hover between -8 and 0, but not like a modern rock CD which usually goes between -2 and 0. 

So I don't think you need to smash a soundtrack CD. Anyway it doesn't sound good so don't do it unless you have to.


----------



## MikeH (Jul 14, 2010)

This session turned out to be a bear because I set my monitors about 7db higher than I normally do while writing which turned out to be a mistake (possibly). What is the best way to set all the various volume controls? (not counting all the CC7/CC11 midi track info) For this project I had the individual virtual instrument volume controls set around -6db for each group of instruments (strings I, strings II, etc), then audio tracks that I eventually bounced the stems onto for mixing set around -5db, and then the master fader was around -6db. Was any of this superfluous or wrong? When I bounced the midi down to 9 audio stems they had pretty healthy thick waveforms with no clipping. It's been difficult to get the mix as a whole hotter (about 6db hotter) without clipping. 

To be honest, I'm just very confused at the moment as to how to properly set things up volume wise to have the least amount of problems during mixing so it doesn't clip. Perhaps I've overlooked the bleeding obvious (I do that sometimes). Even after I've done all sorts of EQ, high pass filters, creative automation of the stems so that not everything is blaring at once, it's still not 'there'. 

I very rarely do bombastic material so this is always a sort of battleground for me. Basically what I'm seeking is advice on how to approach each stage in the volume chain so that ultimately the mix doesn't need to be slammed at the end. I'm confident that my orchestration is not the problem...I think it has something to do with the way I set up the volume chain (whether it was setting the monitors too high initially or anything along those lines). Any help would be greatly appreciated-- hope this all made sense!


----------



## rgames (Jul 14, 2010)

Read through quickly so maybe I missed it - are you using a loudness maximizer? If you're getting clipping when mixing then you need to pull everything back. Better to "pull" things out of the way than to "push" them to the front. Then apply multiband comp and loudness maximization to get the volume back up. And dither. I always apply dither - I've never done an A/B to see if I could tell the difference but it seems like the right thing to do 

re: how loud: anyone can make a track loud. So if you send off a track with a lower overall loudness to someone who knows anything about audio, he probably won't care. However, taking a loud track and pulling it back doesn't sound as good because you can't regain the dynamic range that you squashed out.

So, it depends on what you're delivering. If it's underscore that's mixed in elsewhere, don't pump up the loudness. If it's a master that's going to a commercial CD or someone who doesn't know better, well, then you might want to.

rgames


----------



## MikeH (Jul 14, 2010)

Perhaps what I _could_ do is go back and re-bounce the midi but make sure that the volume slider for each VI is set to where the peaks don't hit above -6db before I bounce down to the stems...that way the stems will have ample headroom to work with during mastering.... how does that sound? 


Another question-- if I'm doing volume automation on the finished track after all is said and done...where is it better to do that? On the Ozone input or output meters? Or on the master fader and then just insert Ozone post-fader?


----------



## MikeH (Jul 14, 2010)

Thanks Richard! I've been doing lots of trial and error for the past two days-- I have used compression and a loudness maximizer in various different combinations along with others (Oxford Inflator). After writing that last post I think I realized that I need to lower the output of the VI's and record the stems at a lower level...they weren't clipping but at some points they almost were....so I'm guessing it's better to have the stems fairly low before going into mastering. My issue is I'm not sure which part of the chain to go to during master to raise the levels-- is it the individual stems? the master fader? or do I just go straight to the compressors and loudness maximizers? The music is pretty much mixed during the composition phase so I feel that there shouldn't be a lot of volume automation going on between the stems during mastering, but I could be wrong...


----------



## rgames (Jul 14, 2010)

I never use the master fader to control overall track volume unless there's a fade-in/out for the track. Much better to adjust all faders to get the balance you want - pulling back the master fader will, of course, reduce the volume of the track but it also tends to change the balance away from what you want. So it's a better idea to leave the master fader alone and adjust the levels of the individual tracks.

You don't want to record your VI's at too low a level becuase then you're losing the sound down in the bits. But, of course, too high and you'll start to clip. A good approach is to mix everything at a level where the balance is good and you're close to clipping at the loudest section (also allowing for dynamic range in the track). Then hit the master bus with a loudness maximizer if you need it.

The level where the "the balance is good and you're close to clipping at the loudest section" is entirely dependent upon the track. If you have a lot of instruments playing, then individual VI's (usually) will have to be at a bit lower level. For only a few instruments, that level is usually higher. Therein lies the art of mixing!

My overall approach is this: use individual track faders to achieve balance and dynamic range; use the output bus to achieve loudness.

rgames


----------



## Scott Cairns (Jul 15, 2010)

MikeH, it sounds like you're on the right track.

Id suggest treating the mixing and mastering as two processes;

Mixing:

- keep individual tracks, stems etc around -20dbfs with peaks going anywhere up to -10dbfs to -6dbfs
- leave the master fader at 0dbfs and don't touch it. Ever.

If you track properly, you shouldnt see anything come anywhere NEAR 0 on the master fader.

Now render out your track as a stereo 24bit file.


Open your stereo file in a new session setup just for mastering. Apply multiband compression, loudness maximizes, whatever you want to your stereo track, including overall volume fades if need be. One tip is to use a wav form editor like Wavelab or Soundforge where you can actually see what you are doing to the wav file as you apply the edits. If you squash a track too much and kill the transients, you'll actually see it in the wav file.



rgames @ Thu Jul 15 said:


> You don't want to record your VI's at too low a level becuase then you're losing the sound down in the bits.


 With respect Richard thats not really true. If you're working in 24bit you have 144db of headroom! Bear in mind, your VI library has already been recorded over and above a potential noise floor. Its probably had noise gates, compression, and batch processing done on the files before we even touch it. There should be no fear to track your VIs and even your own recorded material at -20dbfs, -30 heck, even -60dbfs! 

I highly recommend reading this article from mastering engineer John Scrip; http://www.massivemastering.com/blog/in ... Levels.php

It certainly changed the way I approach recording digitally, and in more recent years than I care to admit. (meaning I shouldve been doing it long before) :?

BTW, the idea of recording loud enough digitally to overcome noise and poor resolution came from the early 16bit digital recorders that DID sound like crap if you recorded too low. Unfortunately, that mindset stayed with us (and is also a hangover from analog recording) It simply doesnt hold true for modern recording. ESPECIALLY if you are working with a pre-recorded sample library that you are simply mixing "in the box"


----------



## chimuelo (Jul 15, 2010)

I tend to agree w/ Scott.

http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-db-volt.htm

ITB mixing that I do is around -20dbfs--18dbfs now. 
I took my stems over to master and I recorded them at -9dbfs at home thinking I was fine. I ended up screwing myself out of alot of dynamic range.
Sure they sounded fine at home but check out track 24 on the deck in the below attachment..
That's why I had to re record everything at -18dbfs and voila. Major difference.

Besides on the 4000G it accepts a very high line level of 33dbU.
I have never worked like this before, but the folks I am working with are on tour with other groups, so after the gig everybody uses their Control 24 rigs and sends the stems to the engineer. We combine everything there.
Pretty cool way to get material mastered and save hours of time.
Now that I undestand the calibration and methods using a voltagemeter and a Sine wave @ 1Khz, I realize how ITB works the best now.
You'll never talk these guys out of using their ProTools rigs either.

Here's what many engineers claim are the finest meters and very helpful for analog/digital work.
http://www.rtw.de/en/products/peakmeter/table-top-1200-series.html (http://www.rtw.de/en/products/peakmeter ... eries.html)


----------



## lux (Jul 15, 2010)

i only can tell that while, as Mike, i'm naturally inclined to monitor stuff very loud, expecially on headphones, i force myself to low down a lot the volume when i want to figure out balancements.

There are so many susprising thing a quiet listen can tell about a piece..


----------



## synthetic (Jul 15, 2010)

chimuelo @ Thu Jul 15 said:


> ITB mixing that I do is around -20dbfs--18dbfs now.
> I took my stems over to master and I recorded them at -9dbfs at home thinking I was fine. I ended up screwing myself out of alot of dynamic range.
> Sure they sounded fine at home but check out track 24 on the deck in the below attachment..
> That's why I had to re record everything at -18dbfs and voila. Major difference.







> Here's what many engineers claim are the finest meters and very helpful for analog/digital work.
> http://www.rtw.de/en/products/peakmeter/table-top-1200-series.html (http://www.rtw.de/en/products/peakmeter ... eries.html)



Nice. I've been looking for something like that. Though for that kind of money I'd probably get Dorroughs (combination peak/average metering).


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 15, 2010)

Dithering is absolutely necessary. Work in 24 bits and dither down to 16 at the final stage.

You can compare the two and the difference is pretty easy to hear in the spaces (reverb tails, etc.). If you want to hear what it does, take the very end of a reverb tail (where it's very quiet) and bounce dithered and undithered versions from 24 bits to 16. Then import them and boost them, say, 40dB so you can really hear the difference.

The dithered version will fade into the noise, as opposed to just cutting off abruptly.

Now, there is music in which you won't hear the difference, but most of the time the difference is pretty obvious. Once your ears become attuned, you'll notice the undithered version sounding harsh compared to the dithered one.

And then you can get really into it and compare different kinds of dither.

***

Four different issues about level: 1. monitoring level; 2. recording level; 3. mixing level when tracks are combined; 4. final mastered level.

1 is a matter of preference, as people have said (I like pink noise @ 85dB at the listening position).

2 is also preference, and of course the old idea about slamming the tape to the limit to get a sound doesn't apply anymore; you still want to record a reasonable level so the signal is above the noise (and by the way to capture as much low-level detail as possible), but it's not like you have to squeeze every dB out with 24-bit digital systems.

3 is a matter of preference again, and it's a good idea to leave some room for processing if you're going to master as a separate step. -18 and -20 are good.

4 is a creative decision if you're making CDs, and the relative level of tracks is very important. Big stuff should be near the maximum but a solo flute would sound stupid like that. And of course you'd want a slamming hip-hop track to be near the top, or it'll sound like sissy stuff next to everything else.

The exception is when delivering for specific media. For example, I've heard that broadcast stations want peaks at -18 or -20 just because they don't want to have to bother monitoring during transfers to ensure that stuff doesn't distort. They get a lot of material in, and they don't want any hassles.


----------



## MikeH (Jul 15, 2010)

I can't thank you guys enough for all the great advice! I really appreciate it.

I have a very nice digital meter thanks to Hans' suggestion (thanks!). I know that the meters in DP go up to +6, but I seem to remember that DP's +6 is actually unity (0)....correct?


----------



## Hannes_F (Jul 16, 2010)

MikeH @ Fri Jul 16 said:


> I can't thank you guys enough for all the great advice! I really appreciate it.
> 
> I have a very nice digital meter thanks to Hans' suggestion (thanks!). I know that the meters in DP go up to +6, but I seem to remember that DP's +6 is actually unity (0)....correct?



Hi Mike,

just to make sure how the pleasurize meter works ... it includes a realtime meter too but I never use that for a certain reason. The point is that you bounce your song and feed the complete file into the standalone version of the meter. What you get then is your dynamic range, weighted with an algorithm over the whole song. It is a number like 12 or 14 or 9. 

Since it can be assumed that you normalize your track anyways which sets the loudest peak to say -0.3 dB or so this number becomes smaller if the track gets louder overall. Lady Gaga will read out 6 or 5, a classical recording will be in the range of 12 to 14.

Run a few commercial tracks through this thing and make a table.

Then, when you want to know whether you are in the ballpark, bounce your own track and run it through the meter. If it says 18 you know you will have to reduce the dynamic (make the soft passages louder) by about 4 to 6 dB in order to be in the usual range of orchestral recordings.

Of course it all depends on taste still and you decide with your ears ... but having a dynamic meter is like having a tachometer in your car ... you know where you stand.


----------



## MikeH (Jul 16, 2010)

Another quick question-- 

Are we talking about peaks at -18-20db or the overall track level?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 16, 2010)

> Since it can be assumed that you normalize your track anyways which sets the loudest peak to say -0.3 dB or so this number becomes smaller if the track gets louder overall.



Actually the conventional wisdom is that it's usually better to use a limiter than to normalize a whole mix - assuming you have a good limiting plug-in. The reason is that normalizing sets the whole level relative to the loudest peak - possibly even one stray transient in the whole piece. A limiter will catch the transients and let you make a creative judgement about the level rather than an automated one.

Or you can go farther and use a multiband limiter like tiny Mike Greene does.

EDIT: Oh, you're talking about normalizing individual tracks. That's different. I can't think of a time I've done that, and actually I'm not crazy about the idea because you risk not leaving enough room for things like EQ boosts, but you can ignore what I wrote above. It's still true, but in a different context.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 16, 2010)

MikeH: that depends on whether you're talking about the final mix (in which case it would be peaks) or the working level (average).


----------



## synthetic (Jul 16, 2010)

MikeH @ Fri Jul 16 said:


> Another quick question--
> 
> Are we talking about peaks at -18-20db or the overall track level?



Typically the average level (sustained strings, choir, etc) is around -20dB and the peaks (drum hits, transients) go as high as -0.5dB.


----------



## MikeH (Jul 16, 2010)

Hi all! 

If anybody has 6 minutes to spare I'd love some opinions/advice on the dynamics/loudness of this track I just finished mastering--

http://www.officialmichaelhuey.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/finalconflict.mp3 (http://www.officialmichaelhuey.com/wp-c ... nflict.mp3)

Thanks again for all the help!


----------



## Hannes_F (Jul 16, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Jul 16 said:


> > Since it can be assumed that you normalize your track anyways which sets the loudest peak to say -0.3 dB or so this number becomes smaller if the track gets louder overall.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the conventional wisdom is that it's usually better to use a limiter than to normalize a whole mix - assuming you have a good limiting plug-in. The reason is that normalizing sets the whole level relative to the loudest peak - possibly even one stray transient in the whole piece. A limiter will catch the transients and let you make a creative judgement about the level rather than an automated one.



That is what I do. 



> EDIT: Oh, you're talking about normalizing individual tracks.



No. Actually I never normalize anything ... except of clicks or the like.

I was just trying to bring the idea across that the loudest part minus the softest part is roughly your dynamic range, ... but the dynamical meter takes that idea and adds some intelligent weighting of how long these passages are. Regarding what you said about normalizing I agree 150 %, Nick.


----------

