What makes a "Radio Mix" a radio mix ?

[adam_w]

Sure, we all understand the "radio edit", but to you hotshots out there, what contributes to a "Radio Mix" - i.e the kind of thing where a single is mixed again for the sole purpose of garnering airplay. I'd love to hear from any of you guys who specifically get gigs mix for radio with any wisdom...

[oaklandmatt]

Radio mixes I've been requested to do have usually been centered around louder (sometimes absurdly) lead vocals. Also, I usually have the overall mix EQ reflect FM broadcast and radio playback devices a little more - i.e. more midrange, less sub bass, etc.

The other main thing I've done is automate parts to feature. I guess this is saying that not just lead vocals get boosted, but lead EVERYTHING. For example: a guitar lick or solo gets automated up.

A lot of guys like to compress more for radio mixes, but that always seemed wrong to me because radio stations are already going to compress your mix more. I usually keep most other stuff the same.

Those are my experiences!

-Matt

[BackHand]

Originally Posted by abilityrecords

Radio mixes I've been requested to do have usually been centered around louder (sometimes absurdly) lead vocals. Also, I usually have the overall mix EQ reflect FM broadcast and radio playback devices a little more - i.e. more midrange, less sub bass, etc.

The other main thing I've done is automate parts to feature. I guess this is saying that not just lead vocals get boosted, but lead EVERYTHING. For example: a guitar lick or solo gets automated up.

A lot of guys like to compress more for radio mixes, but that always seemed wrong to me because radio stations are already going to compress your mix more. I usually keep most other stuff the same.

Those are my experiences!

-Matt

The reason why to compress "Radio mixes" mor and limit them more is to avoid the crappy radio compressors of doing anthing..saving what can be saved so to speak...follow ?

[dave-G]

Originally Posted by BackHand

The reason why to compress "Radio mixes" mor and limit them more is to avoid the crappy radio compressors of doing anthing..saving what can be saved so to speak...follow ?

Ah... but that's actually shooting yourself in the foot; doing more harm than good.

The mix that's more compressed and more limited will actually sound smaller and quieter after the radio processing chain than the mix that is LESS compressed and LESS limited!

Have a look at this article, the authors of which are the designers of the limiters in use at most radio stations: http://www.omniaaudio.com/tech/mastering.htm

Here's a highlight:

There is a myth that broadcast processing will affect hypercompressed material less than it will more naturally produced material. This is true in only one aspect-if there is no long-term dynamic range coming in, then the broadcast processor's AGC will not further reduce it. However, the broadcast processor will still operate on the short-term envelopes of hypercompressed material and will further reduce the peak-to-average ratio, degrading the sound even more.

Hypercompressed material does not sound louder on the air. It sounds more distorted, making the radio sound broken in extreme cases. It sounds small, busy, and flat. It does not feel good to the listener when turned up, so he or she hears it as background music. Hypercompression, when combined with "major-market" levels of broadcast processing, sucks the drama and life from music. In more extreme cases, it sounds overtly distorted and is likely to cause tune-outs by adults, particularly women.

-dave

[Brad Blackwood]

We get quite a few projects through here that have radio mixes - it's generally about length and content (clean versions) - not about the sound of the mix. The 'biggest' mixers in the world mix the radio version the same as the album version...

[Gomez]

There's a pretty good article written by Bob Katz that comes with the TC Electronics Finalizer. There is some technical/useful information about getting your stuff "radio ready".

You can download the PDF from here:

http://www.tcelectronic.com/media/bobkatz.pdf

I think the whole text is really good and straight forward.

Check it out!

Gomez

[C.Lambrechts]

Originally Posted by adam_w

Sure, we all understand the "radio edit", but to you hotshots out there, what contributes to a "Radio Mix" - i.e the kind of thing where a single is mixed again for the sole purpose of garnering airplay. I'd love to hear from any of you guys who specifically get gigs mix for radio with any wisdom...

A radio mix means primarely that it's adapted for airplay meaning first and most important : THE LENGTH ... round here that means between 3 minutes and 3:30 minutes. That's the general guide.

Now ... knowing that , it is important that you stick everything in there that's relevant for the listener and makes it interesting to listen to. Long intro's for example are to be avoided. Often you go straight to a chorus or at least refer to a part of the chorus in the intro. 4 minute guitar solo's a la Deep Purple for example are best put into the album versions.

Soundwise, at least from my point of view, I make no difference between a radio mix and an album mix. Arrangement wise often yes.

A related / similar discussion is DJ / vinyl mixes .... contrary of what radio mixes are, DJ's often prefer to have LOOOOOOONG intro's .... breakdowns .... breaks etc etc ... any 'info' that enables them to blend / mix it in with another track over a length of time.

[max cooper]

Originally Posted by Brad Blackwood

We get quite a few projects through here that have radio mixes - it's generally about length and content (clean versions) - not about the sound of the mix. The 'biggest' mixers in the world mix the radio version the same as the album version...

Exactly; shorter guitar solos; changes to the arrangement to get to the chorus sooner like cutting off intro sections that may repeat; etc. etc. etc.

[Lagerfeldt]

Radio is all about length: short & sweet - and getting right to the point.

Mix wise: lead vocals up, be sure to control those s- and t-sounds in the vocals. Mono tends to sound better (= louder), and be sure to check for phase problems. Or just mix right the first time around, a special radio version won't be necessarily be called for.

Mastering wise: same eq/comp settings (perhaps minding the subs and super highs) but less digital limiting or digital clipping may sound better on many commercial radio stations. As mentioned above, hard limiting/clipping will not make things better on air.

I also work for the Danish Broadcasting Coporation (Denmark's biggest radio stations), and even on the public stations (=less compression) excessive subs/highs and hard digital limiting/clipping will make things a lot worse.

[Bob Olhsson]

Radio mixes are often really just radio edits when it would be likely stations would do their own edits otherwise. Sometimes they are just better, more compelling mixes because somebody didn't like what the original sounds like on the air. Other times they solve mono compatibility issues or, as somebody else said, just have the vocal up a little more.

It's been common practice since I began in 1963.

[kk@jamsync.com]

Originally Posted by adam_w

Sure, we all understand the "radio edit", but to you hotshots out there, what contributes to a "Radio Mix" - i.e the kind of thing where a single is mixed again for the sole purpose of garnering airplay. I'd love to hear from any of you guys who specifically get gigs mix for radio with any wisdom...

The radio promo mixes I've been seeing lately have two tracks:

1) the track (usually with vocal up 1 dB)
2) the callout for research, usually the "high point" of the track, not necessarily the hook.

[Winey]

Cut out all the cool non vocal bits and turn up the cheesy stuff.
Instant radio mix.

[picksail]

This also applies to compilation discs where you have trim the fat to allow room for many artists on one CD.

I mean, when the client hands you a list of eighteen artists, many of whom have submitted seven minute songs, you have to make some adjustments.

[thethrillfactor]

Radio mixes to me were always mixes that just caught your ear on the radio.

This would be not only in the length and arrangement, but in the sound of the mix itself.

[adam_w]

Thanks for the great replies, all. I guess I was more relating to sound of mixes done, often at great expense by a name guy "so it'll work on daytime" (disclaimer - not my weasel words) rather than your normal structure & length edit, or naughty word removal. I have a feeling I'd prefer the mix that works at night-time or all day ! ;-)

[ttauri]

I remember hearing this piece on NPR about Semisonic's "Closing Time" talking about how it had different mixes for different types of radio stations (i.e. acoustic guitars pushed up for adult contemporary stations, electrics and drums up for the rock stations...).

Peece,
T. Tauri

[aevan]

My brother and I do a fair bit of remixing, as in a different style production of a track, for club or vinyl release and it's not uncommon to do 'radio' edits of the mixes, usually as an avenue for the label to get the artist some airplay on a station that wouldn't normally play their mainstrem single. Our normal remixes run around 7 - 8 minutes, but the radio edits are always cut down to 3 - 3'30 and the A&R guys always smile when you can get it down to 3 minutes.
We had a single of ours remixed by a few good dudes and at one point our single mix was being played day/drivetime and one of the remixes was playing nights, but the night crew wouldn't touch our mix and vice versa.
An interesting sidebar on the compressing more for radio.. Iwhen I was an assistant I did an album with Mike Stone and he mastered the singles for radio on half inch at around +12dB. This was before 'hot tape', just normal half inch but he tweeked the lineup of the ATR a bit. He said he did it because the track seemed to get under the station limiters and sounded better on air. And when I heard them they did. And soon they'll stop making tape.....
CHeers,

Andy

[Telecastr]

Originally Posted by Lagerfeldt

Mastering wise: same eq/comp settings (perhaps minding the subs and super highs) but less digital limiting or digital clipping may sound better on many commercial radio stations. As mentioned above, hard limiting/clipping will not make things better on air.

Why should we only allow less digital clipping for radio, but not the version that people actually pay for when they buy the CD. That's exactly what is wrong with this whole industry when it comes to mastering.

I was listening to The Beatles and then Jeff Buckley yesterday, and the first thing I thought was "Wow...these albums sound really good because they're not so smashed." Obviously the talent is there first and foremost, but part of what made them so enjoyable to listen to (from an engineer's perspective) was the fact that they're not so freaking bright and over compressed. The fact that I have to turn the volume up a little to listen to Hallelujah didn't bother me one bit.

[Bob Olhsson]

One of the biggest issues is how the single sounds in the meetings that decide what will be going on the air. This is where more volume often makes a difference. How it sounds on the air doesn't matter if it never gets on in the first place!

I don't have a solution but this is where I think most of the problem lies. In the long run, I suspect it's really killing people's interest in buying music.

[aidyhall]

Recently in the UK, there has been a trend of the 'radio mix' actually being a different PRODUCTION of the track, usually with added loops/drums/bells and whistles. The mixer is actually called to provide 'additional production and mix', and is usually credited as such. Two tracks that immediately spring to mind are Damien Rice's "Cannonball" and David Gray's "Babylon", both huge radio smashes, with album versions that are more stripped-back.

Regarding the loudness wars, I still use Nirvana's "Nevermind" as a reference that always sounds great on radio/TV, and that is mastered very conservatively, at about +3 VU only, just like it came off the board probably, compared to modern rock records that are at +8 or +9 or louder.

[Lagerfeldt]

Originally Posted by Telecastr

Why should we only allow less digital clipping for radio, but not the version that people actually pay for when they buy the CD. That's exactly what is wrong with this whole industry when it comes to mastering.

I was listening to The Beatles and then Jeff Buckley yesterday, and the first thing I thought was "Wow...these albums sound really good because they're not so smashed." Obviously the talent is there first and foremost, but part of what made them so enjoyable to listen to (from an engineer's perspective) was the fact that they're not so freaking bright and over compressed. The fact that I have to turn the volume up a little to listen to Hallelujah didn't bother me one bit.

Yes, a valid point.

Re. Buckley, that's one of my favourite albums. But I don't think the sound is that impressive. But it doesn't really matter because of the stunning quality of the songs/vocals. Hm, but then again you're right about it being less bright in the high freqs and rather un-compressed, perhaps making it listenable over and over.

Anybody listen to the newest Prodigy album? F*cking unlistenable, it's like taking a 0dBFS white noise test tone and putting into 12 tracks and selling it for $15.

[Telecastr]

Originally Posted by Lagerfeldt

Anybody listen to the newest Prodigy album? F*cking unlistenable, it's like taking a 0dBFS white noise test tone and putting into 12 tracks and selling it for $15.

Haha. That's hilarious.

[aevan]

The stuff Jeff Buckley did with Tom Verlaine is killer for the drumkit sound.
I think anyway.