NZGuitars.com

I have started to not worry how loud my songs come out and use less compression when mastering...(well home mastering)

It seems to sound better to me than "radio style" mastering ie: squashing the crap out of it.

Yes it does, its the one thing that drives me mad with many modern bands....

sizzlingbadger wrote:Yes it does, its the one thing that drives me mad with many modern bands....

Yep, me too... don't get me started on brickwalling either...

+ 1

A good example of good mastering with rock is Tool's 'Undertow' - it comes off as too quiet at first but when you turn it up it comes to life wickedly, unlike most modern rock which is super loud out the gate and simply cant get any louder...

Danger Mouse wrote:

sizzlingbadger wrote:Yes it does, its the one thing that drives me mad with many modern bands....

Yep, me too... don't get me started on brickwalling either...

The thing with brickwall limiting is that the potential destruction is relative to the input gain. If you don't use a brickwall limiter the same effect is achieved by clipping the main bus (either in the mix stage or at the mastering stage) which results in distortion far quicker than when using a limiter (relative to input gain). Neither tool is inherently bad, as long as you're not trying to make the track too loud in the first place.

I approve of the message in this thread. LLP- Less Loud Please.

Kthxbye.

i reckon an average of -13db is a good compromise between using all the bits available and having some dynamic range.

of course, every different program seems to come up with a different average volume for the same song...

dylan wrote:i reckon an average of -13db is a good compromise between using all the bits available and having some dynamic range.

of course, every different program seems to come up with a different average volume for the same song...

-14dB RMS to -10dB RMS is the accepted target range for reasonable dynamic mixes. -20dB RMS is a good target to aim for if you're going to be having it professionally mastered. Mastered to -10dB RMS still sounds good without sounding smashed to f*ck.

On this topic, I need some mixes to use to work on my mastering chops if anyone is keen. Single songs are fine but an EP would be better. Not looking for any money- just need material to polish my technique on.

WTF happened to putting a portable tape recorder on a desk in front of a band at a nice echoey wooden country hall and just letting them play their song, then going whoohoo and playing the tape back to all their mates until the tape shit itself, then streaming it out of the car window until it annoyed people driving behind you? This modern shit is far too tekny, uh tequibk, uh tonkign, ah feck it, far too whatever that shit is.

we moved forward into the 21st Century.... sad I know.

benderissimo wrote:

dylan wrote:i reckon an average of -13db is a good compromise between using all the bits available and having some dynamic range.

of course, every different program seems to come up with a different average volume for the same song...

-14dB RMS to -10dB RMS is the accepted target range for reasonable dynamic mixes. -20dB RMS is a good target to aim for if you're going to be having it professionally mastered. Mastered to -10dB RMS still sounds good without sounding smashed to f*ck.

On this topic, I need some mixes to use to work on my mastering chops if anyone is keen. Single songs are fine but an EP would be better. Not looking for any money- just need material to polish my technique on.

Will be in touch.

Ps. Why anyone masters for radio these days is beyond me.....


....Unless you seriously have a shot at AirPlay.....

..... In which case, re-master for radio. No?

Na, they master for iPod... to compete with the radio tracks already on the iPod.

But iPod has sound check.

Oh well, I like to try to mix for impact anyways...

iPod soundcheck is just an auto volume setting, it does nothing for the dynamic range or compression of the recording as I understand it.

Yes correct. It simply checks the tracks and reduces the loudest to match the quietest.

Much like a sound check.