Less Loudness= More Dynamic Range
Moderator: Capt. Black
- crowbgood1
- Vintage Post Junkie
- Posts: 2898
- meble-kuchenne.warszawa.pl
- Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 4:19 pm
- Location: New Plymouth
- Has liked: 353 times
- Been liked: 254 times
Less Loudness= More Dynamic Range
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.
It seems to sound better to me than "radio style" mastering ie: squashing the crap out of it.
A sure cure for seasickness is to sit under a tree.
- sizzlingbadger
- Vintage Post Junkie
- Posts: 8298
- Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 7:12 am
- Location: Wire Wrapper
- Has liked: 1213 times
- Been liked: 1407 times
Re: Less Loudness= More Dynamic Range
Yes it does, its the one thing that drives me mad with many modern bands....
"Revolt Against the Solid State"
- Danger Mouse
- Vintage Post Junkie
- Posts: 11586
- Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 3:32 pm
- Location: Jafa Land
- Has liked: 354 times
- Been liked: 666 times
Re: Less Loudness= More Dynamic Range
Yep, me too... don't get me started on brickwalling either...sizzlingbadger wrote:Yes it does, its the one thing that drives me mad with many modern bands....
The older I get, the more disappointed in myself I become.
Re: Less Loudness= More Dynamic Range
+ 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...
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...
- bender
- Darth Fader
- Posts: 11864
- Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 12:46 pm
- Location: Dorkland
- Has liked: 417 times
- Been liked: 1017 times
Re: Less Loudness= More Dynamic Range
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.Danger Mouse wrote:Yep, me too... don't get me started on brickwalling either...sizzlingbadger wrote:Yes it does, its the one thing that drives me mad with many modern bands....
I approve of the message in this thread. LLP- Less Loud Please.
Kthxbye.
- dylan
- Gibson
- Posts: 627
- Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 8:24 pm
- Location: Wanganui
- Has liked: 39 times
- Been liked: 25 times
Re: Less Loudness= More Dynamic Range
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...
of course, every different program seems to come up with a different average volume for the same song...
![Evil or Very Mad :evil:](./images/smilies/icon_evil.gif)
![Evil or Very Mad :evil:](./images/smilies/icon_evil.gif)
- bender
- Darth Fader
- Posts: 11864
- Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 12:46 pm
- Location: Dorkland
- Has liked: 417 times
- Been liked: 1017 times
Re: Less Loudness= More Dynamic Range
-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.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...
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.
- Rog
- The Self-Proclaimed Voice of Reason
- Posts: 9276
- Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2003 12:30 pm
- Location: Under de mountain
- Has liked: 19 times
- Been liked: 66 times
Re: Less Loudness= More Dynamic Range
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.
He hit a chord that rocked the spinet and disappeared into the infinite ...
- Bg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 43348
- Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 12:13 am
- Location: Auckland
- Has liked: 2269 times
- Been liked: 3924 times
Re: Less Loudness= More Dynamic Range
we moved forward into the 21st Century.... sad I know.
So, is that low alcohol or no alcohol at all? mmmm, no alcohol, do you want to try it? Noooooooooo.
- Capt. Black
- Vintage Post Junkie
- Posts: 6550
- Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 12:39 am
- Location: Valles Marineris
- Has liked: 170 times
- Been liked: 254 times
Less Loudness= More Dynamic Range
Will be in touch.benderissimo wrote:-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.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...
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.
- Capt. Black
- Vintage Post Junkie
- Posts: 6550
- Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 12:39 am
- Location: Valles Marineris
- Has liked: 170 times
- Been liked: 254 times
Less Loudness= More Dynamic Range
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?
....Unless you seriously have a shot at AirPlay.....
..... In which case, re-master for radio. No?
Re: Less Loudness= More Dynamic Range
Na, they master for iPod... to compete with the radio tracks already on the iPod.
Hot_Grits wrote:Someone should print this thread out and hang it in an art gallery.
- Capt. Black
- Vintage Post Junkie
- Posts: 6550
- Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 12:39 am
- Location: Valles Marineris
- Has liked: 170 times
- Been liked: 254 times
Re: Less Loudness= More Dynamic Range
But iPod has sound check.
Oh well, I like to try to mix for impact anyways...
Oh well, I like to try to mix for impact anyways...
- sizzlingbadger
- Vintage Post Junkie
- Posts: 8298
- Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 7:12 am
- Location: Wire Wrapper
- Has liked: 1213 times
- Been liked: 1407 times
Re: Less Loudness= More Dynamic Range
iPod soundcheck is just an auto volume setting, it does nothing for the dynamic range or compression of the recording as I understand it.
"Revolt Against the Solid State"
- Capt. Black
- Vintage Post Junkie
- Posts: 6550
- Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 12:39 am
- Location: Valles Marineris
- Has liked: 170 times
- Been liked: 254 times
Less Loudness= More Dynamic Range
Yes correct. It simply checks the tracks and reduces the loudest to match the quietest.
Much like a sound check.![Wink ;)](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
Much like a sound check.
![Wink ;)](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)