|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Dec 9, 2015 10:53:55 GMT -6
I've got a chick I'm working with that just wants me to do my whore mastering instead of sending it to someone. (Money constraints) I can make things sound good, but my question is this - how do I make sure each one is pretty close in volume? (God forbid I use my ears) Do you just master to a certain RMS peak level on each song?
|
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Dec 9, 2015 11:39:23 GMT -6
I use Wavelab. It gives me the ability to specify the loudness I want, analyze the current loudness of each file and peak level and select the required gain to achieve the specified loudness. Much more effective than trying to do it by ear for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Dec 9, 2015 12:04:17 GMT -6
I've got a chick I'm working with that just wants me to do my whore mastering instead of sending it to someone. (Money constraints) I can make things sound good, but my question is this - how do I make sure each one is pretty close in volume? (God forbid I use my ears) Do you just master to a certain RMS peak level on each song? i'd try to mix all the tracks so they show up on your master at -14db rms, then monitor around 79-83db spl(that is basically the Ksystem for pop), that should keep things relatively consistent, then import all the tracks into a new mastering session in succession and .1 them to 0, thats about all i know about mastering haha, i think it is a good idea to try to get your master bus rms up as high as possible, apply final tweaks with no overs prior to limiting, so that final limiting won't change your sound too much, but again, i ain't no masterer er r er guy. |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Dec 9, 2015 12:06:02 GMT -6
I typically do a "statistics" on each track in my mixdown program. This gives me a rough estimate of the RMS loudness.
However, bass frequencies have more power, but are less apparent, so a bass-y song can have a high RMS value but still sound weak and low. Songs with a higher percentage of high frequencies seem louder to the ear but don't have high RMS values.
|
|
|
|
Post by carymiller on Dec 9, 2015 12:31:28 GMT -6
John I PM'd you. But to reiterate. RMS metering at -14dB to -14dB prior to gain staging things loud is key.
|
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Dec 9, 2015 12:35:18 GMT -6
You could also use EBU R128 loudness standard, which is an attempt to improve on RMS as it compensates for aural perception, and an integrated LUFS target level for all tracks, such as -16LUFS for Pop/Rock/Country to preserve dynamics which is about the iTunes standard, or to -13 which is more or less the YouTube standard. Izotope Insight/Nugen/Toneboosters EBULoudness/Klangfreund are some metering tools for this. I think toneboosters has a free mode. www.tcelectronic.com/loudness/loudness-explained/A lot of engineers, like Bob Katz, are using/recommending the EBU standard these days for music. For broadcast, it's becoming mandated. Talked about here www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb14/articles/loudness-war.htm |
|
|
|
Post by carymiller on Dec 9, 2015 12:44:29 GMT -6
You could also use EBU R128 loudness standard, which is an attempt to improve on RMS as it compensates for aural perception, and an integrated LUFS target level for all tracks, such as -16LUFS for Pop/Rock/Country to preserve dynamics which is about the iTunes standard, or to -13 which is more or less the YouTube standard. Izotope Insight/Nugen/Toneboosters EBULoudness/Klangfreund are some metering tools for this. I think toneboosters has a free mode. www.tcelectronic.com/loudness/loudness-explained/A lot of engineers, like Bob Katz, are using the EBU standard these days for music. For broadcast, it's becoming mandated. Talked about here www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb14/articles/loudness-war.htmThis is solid advice for people who want to take mastering to a professional level. But if this is just for a client who wants something fast...-12dB to -14dB should be OK as a ballpark depending on the mastering signal chain. Still solid post. |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Dec 9, 2015 13:20:49 GMT -6
On the other hand, I've had the unfortunate circumstance of handing over mixes to "mastering" engineers only to have it completely mangled. Since then, I've adopted the stance of getting the mix to where I want it, both tone-wise and loudness-wise, so that any potential mastering engineer shouldn't be able to really tear it up.
Besides, I find that making things loud is a process best done in mixing. Loudness is about balance, not about the best compression algorithm.
|
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Dec 9, 2015 13:27:41 GMT -6
Send it to Old Colony Mastering, he's like $35/song and does solid work, good vibe and professionalism.
|
|
|
|
Post by carymiller on Dec 9, 2015 13:36:52 GMT -6
On the other hand, I've had the unfortunate circumstance of handing over mixes to "mastering" engineers only to have it completely mangled. Since then, I've adopted the stance of getting the mix to where I want it, both tone-wise and loudness-wise, so that any potential mastering engineer shouldn't be able to really tear it up. Besides, I find that making things loud is a process best done in mixing. Loudness is about balance, not about the best compression algorithm. Sometimes this is a good approach, but more often than not I find that having a trained ear for mastering usually results in a better final product. I'll get "mixes" people are dead set on often, and they're terrible! Over-limited with balances that just don't translate on a wide variety of speakers, etc. If you're going to take this approach, you had better deliver on a professional balance. |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Dec 9, 2015 13:54:51 GMT -6
On the other hand, I've had the unfortunate circumstance of handing over mixes to "mastering" engineers only to have it completely mangled. Since then, I've adopted the stance of getting the mix to where I want it, both tone-wise and loudness-wise, so that any potential mastering engineer shouldn't be able to really tear it up. Besides, I find that making things loud is a process best done in mixing. Loudness is about balance, not about the best compression algorithm. Sometimes this is a good approach, but more often than not I find that having a trained ear for mastering usually results in a better final product. I'll get "mixes" people are dead set on often, and they're terrible! Over-limited with balances that just don't translate on a wide variety of speakers, etc. If you're going to take this approach, you had better deliver on a professional balance. Agreed, but nobody cares about the mastering engineer's name in the end. If the mixes come back messed up, it's ALWAYS the mix engineer's fault, even when it's not. That's an unfortunate truth about the industry. Running a business is about delivering the goods, but it's also about defending your goods too. I've found that mastering engineers live in a privileged place where they are able to say that a bad mix was the cause of the mastering to be bad at all times and nobody questions it. I think it's a byproduct of everyone being in the studio game, while mastering is still considered black magic enough so that people don't question it. |
|
