|
Post by Johnkenn on Mar 19, 2018 14:35:34 GMT -6
I know we've covered this before...but I can't remember what all the good ones were. I think I'm going to go back to using Stealth instead of Ozone 8 for the final limiter...so I need some decent metering...Wasn't really crazy about IK's metering. Or Ozone's...
I LOVE the Youlean Loudness meter, but it's VST/AU only and I have to use Bluecat to open which is a PITA.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Mar 19, 2018 14:40:01 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Mar 20, 2018 16:22:41 GMT -6
So which won? I can't tell.. there are a million links. TL:DNR
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Mar 20, 2018 17:08:16 GMT -6
I ended up going back to Youlean lol
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2018 2:33:06 GMT -6
If you are talking purely LUFS loudness meters, I have a couple but only use the offline one in iZotope RX. I sometimes use the LUFS Integrated readings on the loudest sections of each track on an album to give me a starting point for loudness matching from track to track, before the final tweaks, layout and authoring. Don't really have a need for the moving ones here here, might do if I was doing more TV or film work etc. Of the ones I have the ToneBoosters is the nicest, small and clear.
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Mar 24, 2018 20:17:14 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by spock on Mar 27, 2018 9:26:24 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by drsax on Mar 27, 2018 15:08:38 GMT -6
I’ve had the TC Clarity M here the last few months. It’s fantastic
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Mar 27, 2018 15:48:53 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by allbuttonmode on Mar 28, 2018 3:09:58 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Mar 28, 2018 8:10:42 GMT -6
I've never used a loudness meter and find it all generally confusing. In the link John posted, it shows Slate FG-X and Logic X is "incorrect", but Waves Dorrough is correct.
I have FG-X but never use it. I used Logic and my last plug is usually Wave L2 or L3.
I have a Waves bundle and hardly use it, but I do ave Dorrough. Should I put Dorrough last, and what am I looking for?
|
|
|
Post by jeremygillespie on Mar 28, 2018 8:41:13 GMT -6
I feel like I'm going crazy... but I cant find a BUY button on their website anywhere for this product.
|
|
|
Post by spock on Mar 28, 2018 9:21:41 GMT -6
I've never used a loudness meter and find it all generally confusing. In the link John posted, it shows Slate FG-X and Logic X is "incorrect", but Waves Dorrough is correct. I have FG-X but never use it. I used Logic and my last plug is usually Wave L2 or L3. I have a Waves bundle and hardly use it, but I do ave Dorrough. Should I put Dorrough last, and what am I looking for? Dorrough is great, I have two hardware dorrough 283Cs and the waves plugin. I use them to check level and phase of anything. As far as mix...put it last on your mix bus.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Mar 28, 2018 10:53:13 GMT -6
I've never used a loudness meter and find it all generally confusing. In the link John posted, it shows Slate FG-X and Logic X is "incorrect", but Waves Dorrough is correct. If you are referring to the Ian Shepherd article, it is from 2013 and could probably use an update. My LMs - TRackS, Limitless, Waves, all agree to ~0.1 LUFS.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Mar 28, 2018 13:24:04 GMT -6
Thanks guys.
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Mar 28, 2018 15:28:59 GMT -6
I'm lazy I just use the new loudness meter on the FabFilter Pro L2 limiter, which is also the best limiter I personally know of.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2018 14:55:34 GMT -6
Ozone has nice options to compare to reference tracks. You can do the usual A/B with more than one reference at the time while comparing their spectra in realtime, and the "tonal balance" plugin also look very interesting - comparing to single spectral characteristics not only for single pieces of music, but also for a batch of files e.g. for matching a certain genre's characteristics to be competetive. And their Maximizer can learn to adopt the threshold from a given target LUFS loudness. This looks really interesting. I am very interested, if anyone actually uses these features and how useful they are. Really, i can not imagine mastering even my own stuff without proper references, IMHO listening to competitive music, and possibly the best of it, makes it more real, than just matching dynamic ranges and loudness. I mean - music is never something outside of an artistic context, right? Of course you can compare and THEN do it differently if you think you can do even better for this specific piece of music. As an example, if i compare a piece of brutal extreme metal of today against other bands in similar genres, that are high quality in production, i notice more than once, that they differ in a wide range, and i am much better off to compare in an artistic way and and having all metering and spectral analysis just as an (important) hint if i identify a problem. But often enough e.g. i can't keep up with clarity at high compression rates/small dynamic ranges of the competitors and then realize, that really each and every instrument is somehow maxed out in compression, most probably in 2 or more stages, before hitting the master bus, while i tend to leave much more dynamics in even if i already think i am using a heap of compression. Trying to go down to other's low dynamic range can not sound equally good. Heck, the "Spectre" track from radiohead i found on soundcloud, when they released it for free, had a ridiculous low dynamic range of 4 while still sounding...great (IMHO). So more and more, i just give up on this and apply just as much "maximizing", that it does not strangely alter balance of the mix. Still, there are industry standards, and even if broadcast more and more turns down loudness anyways, people do listen to niche genres often still from CD (collectors) or downloads, not radio or streaming. And THERE the loud is better paradigm/shit is still going on. I generally like balanced mixes and i struggle with the competitive standards. Funny enough, if you remember the death metal production of "Horrendous" first album, where they were honorably mentioned at the Dynamic Range Day, this one had a DR of 11, and i saw the last one has a DR of 5. Bam. In my genre of brutal exreme metal styles, there seem to be a quasi standard of a DR of 6, which is just enough to compromise quality not tooo much, i guess. I get very distracted by metering often, and got to the point to just try to match by ear, try to generally match the spectral balance of references somehow, but finally it is ONLY the ear deciding. It is a tough game, considering i don't do this professionally but for fun and the sake of it. I recently heard productions of a (very) low budget producer whom i actually know from decades ago, when we started to record stuff at the same time, and these really are very high quality to my ears, so i am more and more thrilled, how the high expectations lead to sometimes astounding high quality productions even in the lowest budget segment Hard to imagine, that those who actually have to make a living from it, can still survive... Is it a matter of time that certain professions will simply disappear in favor of skilled amateurs that have day jobs or other income? I mean, this guy makes mobile recording in rehearsal rooms and mixes and masters an EP with 7 songs for 400 Euros. So "not for the money", but for fun and minimum cost compensation.. Sorry, if i got distracted. But you might get the point. Thought a lot about this recently.
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Mar 29, 2018 15:59:47 GMT -6
Hi Martin,
My thoughts seem to go along with yours. I still mix for "hard copy" since streaming is not really a part of my personal reality, other than when it is "necessary" for convenience.
I agree with the idea of setting loudness by ear rather than "by the number." I know a guy in town who does this professionally. A lot of his mixes are "quiet" and I sat in on a session and he does seem to mix "to a number" which in my opinion is not necessarily doing him favors in this playlist scenario you are describing.
I think we are all competing with the best in our genres, so that's a great place to compare, certainly.
I have found the Tonal Balance Control to be pretty darned useful. It helps me be "reasonable" when otherwise I might be making weird decisions in the moment. I know it's a bit like training wheels, but I also know that I'm still learning how to control my bass end, etc.
To me this sort of digital tool is almost more useful than a reference mix, since it gives you real time feedback. I haven't used it a lot but a little bit of "advice" has helped me "recalibrate" a bit. I'm always changing instruments, have recently changed my monitoring a lot, any sort of helpful reference is welcome in these situations.
Regarding my general "LUFS" reading, I do like it louder than most would recommend, but not as loud as the most extreme death metal. It's just what works for me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2018 16:11:06 GMT -6
O, ,well, as i wrote, even Radiohead had even less DR than brutal death metal styles. WTF? I mean, they are top avantgarde and a huge fanbase that would listen to whatever they produce, they have virtually no real competitor at all. Do they? And DR4 is what the dance club music producers see as a magical "there is no louder" borderline...
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Mar 29, 2018 16:23:38 GMT -6
O, ,well, as i wrote, even Radiohead had even less DR than brutal death metal styles. WTF? I mean, they are top avantgarde and a huge fanbase that would listen to whatever they produce, they have virtually no real competitor at all. Do they? And DR4 is what the dance club music producers see as a magical "there is no louder" borderline... Ah that's the genie in the magic lamp, for me. Radiohead is one of my #1 favorite bands (somewhere between 1 and 1). The sound quality baffles me. They must have something going on behind the scenes that "most of us don't know about." I really have no other explanation for that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2018 16:34:41 GMT -6
Oh well, Thom Yorke is just obsessed with sounds. Obviously. And obviously Radiohead will have no problem to get the best mixing engineers there are. Who does not want to have them in their artist list? But who forces this ridiculous loud end product? Do really the major record labels demand this or is this just for "beeing on top no matter what it costs"? I think, you hve to even write songs having this low DR of end product in mind, because several things do not work anymore, like esp. in the low end. The best producer teams here in germany, that got really good conditions because they produce platinum albums each year, have 100% free artistic decisions on their best projects. Because - if they are selling platinum, they obviously know better than everyone else how to do it, and there is no sense in letting marketing guys into artistic decisions. I always thought, that this is somehow the same for top bands like radiohead?
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Mar 29, 2018 16:39:57 GMT -6
I once read a criticism of Radiohead about their big song endings that, "They are never going to give us the big loud explosive ending." This has to be tied in with the tight DR. It also has to be something inside the camp that they have decided on. Being people that choose their own record labels, album release formats and prices, etc. You would have to think it's intentional to someone key inside the group.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2018 16:49:16 GMT -6
Yeah, and that is somehow a sad trend. Artists that are able to make excellent music decide on going back to loudness war. I mean, how easy would it be for them to produce exceptional sound quality albums like the HD stuff Beck Hansen can blow out? DR >11? High resolution stuff? If even the best artists come back to loudness war without force from outside, how can loudness war end?
|
|
|
Post by matt on Mar 29, 2018 16:56:13 GMT -6
Ozone has nice options to compare to reference tracks. You can do the usual A/B with more than one reference at the time while comparing their spectra in realtime, and the "tonal balance" plugin also look very interesting - comparing to single spectral characteristics not only for single pieces of music, but also for a batch of files e.g. for matching a certain genre's characteristics to be competetive. And their Maximizer can learn to adopt the threshold from a given target LUFS loudness. This looks really interesting. I am very interested, if anyone actually uses these features and how useful they are. . . . . . Sorry, if i got distracted. But you might get the point. Thought a lot about this recently. I use Tonal Balance and Ozone Maximizer exactly how you describe. It's become valuable to me lately, particularly on the low end, where I struggle to hear. I honestly think my hearing is compromised from years of playing loud music, so the visual cues given by Tonal Balance are great. Personally, I blame my drummers for my hearing loss. Damn bashers. Anyway, you are not the only one thinking about this. I owe my band a bunch of mixes and I can't seem to deliver. I'm never happy with, um, the tonal balance. Only my stubborn persistence keeps me at it, mix after mix.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2018 17:17:16 GMT -6
I use references especially for the mid range and there especially for the lower mids, the critical stuff for boxy and boomy dirt. Surprisingly my low end hearing seems still to be ok, i guess i have no problem to generally get a tasteful somehow balanced mix. Despite the fact i am a bass player in heavy bands and even started like this with ridiculous high volumes in my first rehearsal rooms... Maybe a combination of luck and genetic specialties where a bat seems to have been part of my family? I could hear easily above 22kHz in the age of 19, and when a military doc tested my hearing he could not believe and tested again with another test tone generator, because he thought the machine was faulty. It was not, though. But the last years i tend to get in pretty normal ranges of hearing loss. Still quite good for my age, but in much more average regions like 16.5kHz max. ... I guess, my low end is also still pretty good. If i don't get the low end right, most of the time i just have no good enough monitoring, because i mixed at home or in other places.... Lucky me... Oh, and yes, on own music it seems i am never happy, no matter how good it already is. A half dB up and down and up again. tweaking here, tweaking there, ending in a dead end and startting all over with a different approach. The more possibilities, the worse this is. One reason i work with Mixbus. LESS options. Still enough to let me do a hundred snapshots of mixes for a band sound, if it's my own. <sigh> It's hard to care less, if it's your own music.
|
|