What should be the target loudness? MASTERING

[selig]

I’ve long heard professionals say VU stand for “Virtually Useless”.

Most early uses of the VU were to hit tape at the optimal level, nothing more. It was the first attempt to try to define the undefinable: loudness.

I see it sort of like a manual transmission: fun for folks who know how to use it, but largely unnecessary for the task of using a car to get you from point a to point b.


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

[RobC]

No doubt the music is what counts, and that as they say 'poor sound can be forgiven, but not the other way around'. Keyword being "forgivable". If both are good, you get something you'll barely ever get tired of.

Mixing is different. I focused on tone. When it comes to a busy, progressive song, I was like: I'm gonna automate every channel nearly all the time and am gonna let every new sound that comes in, shine for a bit. There is no such thing like a perfect mix that works throughout the whole song if there are a lot of sounds. I mean, it will just sound crowded and some sounds will remain buried if just left as-is - unless we talk about a more minimalistic song, sound wise.
One thing I learned from Robert Katz, is part of macro dynamics where you subtly lower your fader(s) just before a chorus or whatever, then jump back to get sort of a dynamic impact.

True ~ I never go for extreme perfection, though and the method I'm working on, (which is mostly about tone and equalization) just balances the tone out in a gentle way, so the character of a sound remains. As for odd things, sure, one can bring out bass from a cymbal for example, but that's audible, so that would get filtering, clearly.

In the era of Bernie Grundman, if I remember right, there weren't even many, or any Mastering classes, so they had to learn from each-other. And I think, the method I'm developing, is nothing new either, just simply kept a secret. I mean, it was a really big surprise when I got a similar tone with a very simple, easy method (without any 'song' references) - that only needed my equalization experience.
Then again, there are a lot of things, I agreed with, too. Such as that surround is not really necessary, since we have 2 ears, and indeed it's possible to create such sound with stereo.

Now, sometimes, engineers, experts, etc. can say such things, that want me to tell them: you don't master for your fellow engineers, you master for 'people' whom 'listen'.


See, selig - that's how I think, too - outside the box.

[selig]

Oh, and Target Loudness.

I like the new euro Rules:

-16.0 -1.0 ... I think MRapp mentioned ~ this. ( I remember people writing "MAKE it -15!!)

Tough to achieve, but it's absolutely possible to have explosions, guitars, and a singer sound like they're on Battle Ground.

then, put on headsets. close eyes.

beats -8 dogcrap.

Rules are fun!

But seriously, unless you are engaged in loudness wars, that is to say unless you are concerned that your mix MIGHT sound slightly softer than another mix (IF you are so lucky to have folks listen to your work among other commercial releases), then your primary concern is how good it sounds. I would never compress my mix beyond what sounded good just to hit a target - but I would also never dial back what I thought sounded good to hit a target!


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

[RobC]

O1B, I was thinking about setting a reference for me by equalizing noise and with that, a target loudness. That because, noise is the busiest sound with random waveforms and frequencies - now, if there are many sounds playing at the same time, you also get a busy waveform. - From that, I can determine an average loudness for sounds. It can be useful since the equalized noise doesn't have transients, tops some peaks.

Yeah, this will take a few more retries to explain what I mean. xD Maybe a demonstration sometime could work better.

[aeox]

For me, Bernie Grundman is one of the mixing and mastering kings, and I couldn't be happier when I achieved a better tone (with just a half-work test project) - even if some don't understand my methods at first glance.

Is there any way for me to hear an example of this?

[O1B]

Schtick... i wouldn't listen to that, OP. That's nonsense, IMO.

got any bs schtick for GAUGES, Selig?
better yet... any real advice besides what NOT to do.

METERS are important... as many as one can understand/track...
Monitoring is important.. as good a room/ monitors as one can manage.

all standard info on the inter webs... I say: go back to basics, OP... for the 'answer'
(then, ... with some science... or magic, as some call it, anything's possible)

VISIBILITY: under all lighting conditions... so you can "see" your instruments.
PIXEL PERFECT display: all critical instruments in various formats (bar, as well)
NASCAR... street version, as well...
https://youtu.be/IaORsNLo0Wo?t=81

types of GAUGES... durrrr..... that's about cars, O1B, ... durrrr.......

Selling feels to BIG for this, OP. But, give it a listen... Digital vs Analog in there, too.
Boost, Pressure, RATIO... slow down, Selig.

I’ve long heard professionals say VU stand for “Virtually Useless”.

[O1B]

Yes, rules are fun, and necessary.

And, for practical purposes, one song to the next is a smooth transition. That's all.

quote=selig post_id=384169 time=1522327395 user_id=5179]
Rules are fun!

I wouldn't dial it back either.... that's what EQ's, Compression, Dist..., etc, etc is for...

I would also never dial back what I thought sounded good to hit a target!

[selig]

Schtick... i wouldn't listen to that, OP. That's nonsense, IMO.

got any bs schtick for GAUGES, Selig?
better yet... any real advice besides what NOT to do.

Yea, I guess I’d say go back and read all the posts I’ve made over the years.

Through the years I’ve tried to make a point of not telling folks what to do and instead share what has worked for ME. It may or may not work for you. I’ve sat behind countless great engineers over the years, and some of what they do worked for me and some has not. They are still great engineers, and NONE of them ever told me what to do - they simply shared what worked for them!

BTW, I DO use VU meters, only in conjunction with Peak meters. I’ve described my process countless times, of how I’m comfortable using crest factor as a basic loudness gauge.

So anyone can claim that mastering the VU is the key - but only if it works FOR YOU. It doesn’t work for everyone, rules, bla bla bla...


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

[selig]

Yes, rules are fun, and necessary.

And, for practical purposes, one song to the next is a smooth transition. That's all.

quote=selig post_id=384169 time=1522327395 user_id=5179]
Rules are fun!

I wouldn't dial it back either.... that's what EQ's, Compression, Dist..., etc, etc is for...

I would also never dial back what I thought sounded good to hit a target!

I was talking about EQ/compression when I mentioned dialing it back. Seems my words are lost in translation?

[O1B]

Happens a lot with schtick! Dont worry. I get bogged down in it too sometimes.
Yes, it works for some. Yes. Now, about "Virtually USELESS??" you mean, to you?

it may work for the OP, like it worked for me.
Actually, the first device that really helped me was another RED ROCK SOUND RE. The RE 60:

Arguably not a VU meter,... arguably...


Those little LIFTS at 40, 63, and 80 Hz were quite... informative. GREat, RE, RRS.
And, then monitoring the audio, one band at a time... VIRTUALLY USELESS, huh?
Your words, Selig.

BASICS. The VU meter is actually much easier - once you 'discern' (see, hear, feel, etc) the Power capabilities of each band. Then EQ, Distortion, Phase shifting, Compresssion, become useful. IMO, of course.

I was talking about EQ/compression when I mentioned dialing it back.
Seems my words are lost in translation?

[avasopht]

It's also good to search for the worst sounding stuff. Some of it were hits, was popular. So sound is not important in popmusic, it doesn't have to sound perfect. Not good even. There's stuff with no low end. Stuff with vocals pushed all the way back. Etc.

It's great to think about how relative it all is. Maybe today we try to mix far too perfect because we have the tool. The old stuff is not perfect and that's probably why we like it so much. Not quantised. Not autotuned. Lively. Dynamics.

I recently listened to a podcast op Tape Op with legend Ken Scoot. He said that even 'till this day he not uses much hardware and alwasy tries to do it all when recording, not when mixing. Crime of the Century was using one plate reverb.

Simplicity is also and old rule which works for most art. People can relate to that. And people adopt to stuff. So if something jumps out of the mix, the human ear detects it and adjusts to it.

It's great to let people listen to your stuff who are not experts. If they say it sounds weird, it is probably weird. But I believe that many mixing engineers are fixing stuff which totally kills it. kills the lively tone. You have a couple of YouTube people who are so much in details, it is insane. Takes too much time and has nothing to do with art. Trying too be too perfect is a real danger. Never go there. Too perfect is boring and killing.

That's all depending on what is core about the song.

If the core element is lyrics, then neither the music nor the sound is as important.

If the core is the syncopation, then the sound and lyrics are less important.

If the core is how everything fits together, complements each other, and creates a unique character -- then it all matters.

So sure, if you are just doing guitar and flute music you can make comments like, "I don't need to use much hardware, I just focus on capturing the recording right." But that does not translate to EDM. With EDM you need to select, tweak and / or create your sounds, and then modulate them to make them sound right in the track. It is especially not true when the production is an integral part of the whole package.

[selig]

Happens a lot with schtick! Dont worry. I get bogged down in it too sometimes.
Yes, it works for some. Yes. Now, about "Virtually USELESS??" you mean, to you?
…Your words, Selig.

No, lol, not “MY” words!!! But thanks for thinking I was that clever!!!

It’s an old industry joke - google it to learn more if it really interests you that much. First saw it written in an SOS article by Paul White on metering in the digital age.

I’ve explained how I use VU meters.


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

[RobC]

For me, Bernie Grundman is one of the mixing and mastering kings, and I couldn't be happier when I achieved a better tone (with just a half-work test project) - even if some don't understand my methods at first glance.

Is there any way for me to hear an example of this?

Well, since I don't have the files anymore... - but it's easy. If your system is calibrated with the common method I described, all you have to do is to equalize the music so that it will sound nicely balanced (starting from bass up to treble). By now, I'll leave it up to everyone how they find it best to achieve it.

[aeox]

Is there any way for me to hear an example of this?

Well, since I don't have the files anymore... - but it's easy. If your system is calibrated with the common method I described, all you have to do is to equalize the music so that it will sound nicely balanced (starting from bass up to treble). By now, I'll leave it up to everyone how they find it best to achieve it.

My system is a pair of headphones currently. I was just curious to hear some of your work with the methods you've been describing.

[RobC]

Well, since I don't have the files anymore... - but it's easy. If your system is calibrated with the common method I described, all you have to do is to equalize the music so that it will sound nicely balanced (starting from bass up to treble). By now, I'll leave it up to everyone how they find it best to achieve it.

My system is a pair of headphones currently. I was just curious to hear some of your work with the methods you've been describing.

If they can reproduce sine wave tones such as 20 Hz (maybe 30 Hz works too as a bottom), and 15000 Hz, (and everything in-between) then you can calibrate them. Also, I said I wanna do a demonstration sometime.

Don't worry, there are huge debates between headphones vs. speakers. xD Let's not say anything.

[aeox]

My system is a pair of headphones currently. I was just curious to hear some of your work with the methods you've been describing.

If they can reproduce sine wave tones such as 20 Hz (maybe 30 Hz works too as a bottom), and 15000 Hz, (and everything in-between) then you can calibrate them. Also, I said I wanna do a demonstration sometime.

Don't worry, there are huge debates between headphones vs. speakers. xD Let's not say anything.

I'm not interested in calibrating anything, personally. Rather, am just interested in hearing your demonstration. I'll keep an eye on this thread!

[RobC]

I'm not interested in calibrating anything, personally. Rather, am just interested in hearing your demonstration. I'll keep an eye on this thread!

I see ~ well, I always calibrate because the sound is simply awesome when balanced.

[Marco Raaphorst]

Years ago I worked with legendary songwriter Tony Joe White, and while mixing I asked how he wanted it to sound. His answer still sticks with me today. He said he likes it when not everything is in it’s place, when some things stick out too far, and others cause the listener to have to lean in to hear it. To paraphrase, he wants the listener to be engaged, to almost have to work for the experience of getting the whole picture. Amazing educational experience on so many levels!

So if/when you hear a mix that isn’t ‘perfect’, don’t assume it’s lack of skill or accidental. Especially if the soul of the music shines through!



Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

That's it. When people talk about balancing tracks I always think it's the total opposite. Some tracks should be louder than others. It's about depth, about outspokenness, about grabbing attention of the listener, challenging the listener and not about finding that boring evenness.

[Marco Raaphorst]

It's also good to search for the worst sounding stuff. Some of it were hits, was popular. So sound is not important in popmusic, it doesn't have to sound perfect. Not good even. There's stuff with no low end. Stuff with vocals pushed all the way back. Etc.

It's great to think about how relative it all is. Maybe today we try to mix far too perfect because we have the tool. The old stuff is not perfect and that's probably why we like it so much. Not quantised. Not autotuned. Lively. Dynamics.

I recently listened to a podcast op Tape Op with legend Ken Scoot. He said that even 'till this day he not uses much hardware and alwasy tries to do it all when recording, not when mixing. Crime of the Century was using one plate reverb.

Simplicity is also and old rule which works for most art. People can relate to that. And people adopt to stuff. So if something jumps out of the mix, the human ear detects it and adjusts to it.

It's great to let people listen to your stuff who are not experts. If they say it sounds weird, it is probably weird. But I believe that many mixing engineers are fixing stuff which totally kills it. kills the lively tone. You have a couple of YouTube people who are so much in details, it is insane. Takes too much time and has nothing to do with art. Trying too be too perfect is a real danger. Never go there. Too perfect is boring and killing.

That's all depending on what is core about the song.

If the core element is lyrics, then neither the music nor the sound is as important.

If the core is the syncopation, then the sound and lyrics are less important.

If the core is how everything fits together, complements each other, and creates a unique character -- then it all matters.

So sure, if you are just doing guitar and flute music you can make comments like, "I don't need to use much hardware, I just focus on capturing the recording right." But that does not translate to EDM. With EDM you need to select, tweak and / or create your sounds, and then modulate them to make them sound right in the track. It is especially not true when the production is an integral part of the whole package.

I understand, but on the other hand I don't like that sort of music. I am not into EDM and when Steely Dan went a little beyond perfectionism I also felt it lacked something.

For the music I love, production is important but far less important than the other things. Like a cover might be important for a book, but it's not the important thing. A lot of modern music is melodically and harmonically boring, so they put time into tweaking sounds. But that doesn't do it for me. I want music, not sound design showoffs. Production has to dress up the track in a nice way, but production should not become too much of a factor. It's the song, the composition which is most important imo.

[RobC]

(Just to be clear, I only talked about a balanced equalization, not mixing.)

[avasopht]

For the music I love, production is important but far less important than the other things. Like a cover might be important for a book, but it's not the important thing. A lot of modern music is melodically and harmonically boring, so they put time into tweaking sounds. But that doesn't do it for me. I want music, not sound design showoffs. Production has to dress up the track in a nice way, but production should not become too much of a factor. It's the song, the composition which is most important imo.

The sort of songs that you can sing around the campfire with just a guitar age the best. I know it sounds corny as hell, but when it happens it's beautiful so I get that type of music interest.

[aeox]

That's all depending on what is core about the song.

If the core element is lyrics, then neither the music nor the sound is as important.

If the core is the syncopation, then the sound and lyrics are less important.

If the core is how everything fits together, complements each other, and creates a unique character -- then it all matters.

So sure, if you are just doing guitar and flute music you can make comments like, "I don't need to use much hardware, I just focus on capturing the recording right." But that does not translate to EDM. With EDM you need to select, tweak and / or create your sounds, and then modulate them to make them sound right in the track. It is especially not true when the production is an integral part of the whole package.

I understand, but on the other hand I don't like that sort of music. I am not into EDM and when Steely Dan went a little beyond perfectionism I also felt it lacked something.

For the music I love, production is important but far less important than the other things. Like a cover might be important for a book, but it's not the important thing. A lot of modern music is melodically and harmonically boring, so they put time into tweaking sounds. But that doesn't do it for me. I want music, not sound design showoffs. Production has to dress up the track in a nice way, but production should not become too much of a factor. It's the song, the composition which is most important imo.

I think it's more like the composition is the story and the production is how well it's written. The cover is just the album art

[Marco Raaphorst]

I understand, but on the other hand I don't like that sort of music. I am not into EDM and when Steely Dan went a little beyond perfectionism I also felt it lacked something.

For the music I love, production is important but far less important than the other things. Like a cover might be important for a book, but it's not the important thing. A lot of modern music is melodically and harmonically boring, so they put time into tweaking sounds. But that doesn't do it for me. I want music, not sound design showoffs. Production has to dress up the track in a nice way, but production should not become too much of a factor. It's the song, the composition which is most important imo.

I think it's more like the composition is the story and the production is how well it's written. The cover is just the album art

A bad arrangement can not kill the composition. Badly written stuff can never be a good book.

These are old things. Will never change

[RobC]

An ugly, slightly burnt cake can be delicious, but nothing beats a beautiful, delicious, good smelling cake.

Sadly, charts are full of music that are like the cheap, pretty supermarket cakes: appears nice, is praised by the seller, but the taste is so awful, it just "stinks"...

I think, everything deserves equal attention - takes a hell lot of time, though.

[aeox]

I think it's more like the composition is the story and the production is how well it's written. The cover is just the album art

A bad arrangement can not kill the composition. Badly written stuff can never be a good book.

These are old things. Will never change

We're going to have to agree to disagree here.

I personally think the sound design and production quality can be just as important as the composition itself. Not to say that the composition doesn't matter.. it does!
It's always intrigued me how composers seem to get all the credit for their scores/soundtracks, when there is really a whole team of people behind the soundtracks. Without that team, the composition is merely notes on a piece of paper, not a fully realized story IMO.