how much head room for mastering?

[rynugz007]

This may be a dumn question or one that has been asked many times-

Im mixing in cubase sx. what kinda dynamic range should i leave for the mastering engineer on the master output? Also, somebody told me that my peaks shouldnt be any hotter than -6 db. This seems a bit silly to me. Maybe this person has this confused for 6 db of dynamic range. That makes a bit more sense. Can anyone shed some light on this? What are your thoughts?

thanks, rynugz

[MASSIVE Master]

Originally Posted by rynugz007

This may be a dumn question or one that has been asked many times-

Im mixing in cubase sx. what kinda dynamic range should i leave for the mastering engineer on the master output? Also, somebody told me that my peaks shouldnt be any hotter than -6 db. This seems a bit silly to me. Maybe this person has this confused for 6 db of dynamic range. That makes a bit more sense. Can anyone shed some light on this? What are your thoughts?

thanks, rynugz

Why would -6dBfs peaks seem silly? A lousy 6dB of headroom isn't going to hurt anyone... In contrast, 6dB of dynamic range would sound like a broken chain saw.

You leave headroom - The mix should have whatever dynamic range it naturally "wants" to have.

-6dBfs is (IMHO) a perfect place to keep the peaks. A little higher is okay also. As is lower. One studio I work with regularly send me 24-bit mixes that PEAK at -12dBfs. A little low, but better to be a little low than too high. Another runs his mixes at -3dBfs, which is fine also. Typical hard rock mixes might have (compensated for full-scale) RMS levels of around -17 or -18dBRMS.

[DeeDrive]

When you say "how much dynamic range shoud I leave", I think what you mean is where should your audio peak at. The only critical thing here is to make sure you're not clipping. Whether your songs peaks at -6 or 0db, a good Mastering Engineer will be able to work with this. The only thing to worry about is not making your audio so quiet that noise will be introduced once compression or limiting is used. Also, if you're audio is peaking below -6db, say at like -8db, don't freak out and think you have to raise it 2db, because it's really not a big deal.

[theblue1]

Of course, the above applies to 24 bit recording. Those who are still working at 16 bit depth have only 1/256 th as much dynamic resolution and hence should probably pay attention to keeping levels optimal while not crashing zero.


Some mastering engineers I've come across do suggest their clients go no higher than -6 or -3 dB in order to "leave them room" to work. I have to say that the more I think about that, the more I think it's a head scratcher. If the ME is working in the digital domain he's going to be moving those values all around anyway. And if he's going to be doing his mastering in the analog domain, well, it's moot anyhow, right?

Maybe my own thinking on this isn't straight. But, just entres nous, it's almost enough to make you think, sometimes, that some of your fellow professionals have a less than solid grasp on the theory and practice of what they do.

But, hey, I've just prodded the bee's nest. Let's see who comes out...

[EngineEars]

I've been to guys that tell me to leave 3dB of headroom and I've been to guys that tell me to go all the way to the top (without going over.)

I'm happier with the work of the ones that I've submitted full scale 24 bit recordings to. One of these ME's worked strictly in the digital domain and the other worked in a analog/digital hybrid. That didn't matter, they both turned out better than previous experiences with lesser levels requested by previous ME's.

I've even went as far as putting a hardware L2 (I know kill me) at -0.1 with the threshold only kicking back barely at the absolute peak of the song. From what I understand you get a much better sounding capture by filling up your window. Keep in mind I'm not mixing for loudness, but I am doing what I can to keep the dynamic range reasonable so that mastering compression doesn't suck the life of my last choruses when all the instruments are at eleven.

I got to see the levels of a very well known mix engineer that I really respected (prior to mastering) and was blown away at how low the 16 bit dat was printed (but then again they might have ended using the 1/2"analog print instead.) Will gain boosting 3dB digitally really make a difference in the end (maybe not) but so far my best work has come back sounding great using these methods. And until a ME blows me away with a recording that I submitted with 3dB of headroom I'm not changing.

[Edward_Vinatea]

Originally Posted by theblue1

Some mastering engineers I've come across do suggest their clients go no higher than -6 or -3 dB in order to "leave them room" to work. I have to say that the more I think about that, the more I think it's a head scratcher. If the ME is working in the digital domain he's going to be moving those values all around anyway. And if he's going to be doing his mastering in the analog domain, well, it's moot anyhow, right?

By your own admission, you are not thinking straight. The only reason we suggest -6 or -3dBFS is to prevent any clipping from passing right through you. Sometimes it only takes a second to miss one's attention. Arguably, if you know for sure that your highest peak is at -0.01dBFS, then there is no reason to reduce it by 6 or whatever amount of dB - and, providing there exists a healthy amount of dynamics in the mix, it's good for mastering. However, if one uses a brick-wall limiter to prevent clipping, all bets are off. The logic to this is that we make changes to eq, apply compression and set the correct level with the least damage {i.e. adding artifacts} to your mix, period. We also take care of translation issues.

Regards,

[Bob Olhsson]

Mastering engineers don't need headroom but sometimes the monitor path in a mix room will benefit greatly from it.

The reason I leave limiting for mastering is because there is no way to know what the final level needs to be outside the context of the rest of the album and whatever track is going to define the overall level.

[Edward_Vinatea]

Originally Posted by SafeandSound

Edward, there are always peak hold clip indicators

We can't assume everyone uses them now can we?

The bigger problem is when someone asks for more punch when it has been limited or clipped already, then the tools to create punch have more or less had what they need to work already removed.

You still have the same problem when someone presents you a mix for mastering with a very high theoretical RMS value and at -6dBFS peak, don't you?

[Cellotron]

The peak level of received mixes, as long as it's below 0dBFs and above say -24dBFs for a 24bit file, for the most part doesn't really matter to me. If I get it in too hot for my process chain I can easily attenuate it to the exact peak level I need, and if it's too low (a pretty rare case) then I can raise it pretty transparently as well.

What DOES matter though is making sure that the audio has not been either already processed with a limiter on the 2-bus, or clipped (i.e. flat topped wave forms) at any part in the signal chain. In other words people should make sure that no input, output, auxillary, insert or effect is being overloaded (i.e. going into the red). I've received mixes where the track was completely clipped and after a request for a new mix with more head room people just lowered the output fader so I received the same mix but just peaking at -6dBFs instead!

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[Bob Olhsson]

FWIW I've gotten mixes in that peaked at -35 and sounded way way above average.

[wado1942]

Typical hard rock mixes might have (compensated for full-scale) RMS levels of around -17 or -18dBRMS.

That's RMS levels of course, not peak. This is what I find the optimal level for mixes. But yeah, peaking between -12dB and -2dB or so is fine. Please, PLEASE don't use a limiter on the mix though to cram your peaks down to a lower level. Just leave the limiter off the mix and pull down the track levels.

I used to mix a 1-hour live show with a full band. They tracked to Cubase at 16-bit because their HDDs weren't fast enough to handle 16x 24-bit tracks at a time. At first, they pushed the levels as hard as they could. I kept complaining that there was distortion in the tracks and that they should leave some headroom. So they started sending me tracks that PEAKED at -20dBfs. That's over compensating but the mixes I handed back to be broadcast/sold on DVD sounded way better without any clipping. There's no need to artificially force yourself to turn down your monitors when you're mixing by having the digital levels too high.

[dcollins]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

FWIW I've gotten mixes in that peaked at -35 and sounded way way above average.

Same here. Assuming reasonably linear conversion (which is 90%) too low is preferable to too high.

I have gain for days.


DC

[huejahfink]

Am I correct in thinking that with a fixed point 24 bit file you could anything have up to 48db of headroom and it would still have more depth than a 16 bit file peaking at 0dbfs?

Obviously not ideal, but puts things into perspective if that's definitely the case.

[dcollins]

Originally Posted by huejahfink

Am I correct in thinking that with a fixed point 24 bit file you could anything have up to 48db of headroom and it would still have more depth than a 16 bit file peaking at 0dbfs?

Well, roughly the same as starting at 16 bits.

24*6-48=96

Obviously not ideal, but puts things into perspective if that's definitely the case.

Noise is never a problem in digital, but clipping, both at the input and internally, as well as inter-sample peaking (which I do think is somewhat overrated) are actual issues.


DC

[huejahfink]

OK cool Dave, it seems we agree then.

More depth is more depth, but if we receive mixes at -30 something, it's really no biggy as long as it is a good mix. Glad to hear this confirmed by some 'seasoned' MEs.

However, re : noise is never a problem in digital.... hmmm, I'd agree in most cases, but occasionally there is some super dynamic material (like very expressive jazz for example) that if the mix/recording is not levelled well, we could be losing the most intimate details under the least significant bit.
Not a dissimilar story? Mind you, I don't master any jazz or classical music at the moment, so what do I care?

However, this point about intersample overshoots.... can you please explain a little more about "(which I do think is somewhat overrated)"

Do you mean that this is not such a large problem as companies manufacturing upsampling limiters would have us believe? I use the TC Brickwall Limiter an awful lot these days, mainly for this purpose. Do you think I have been duped by their long technical papers? (I think it's a lovely clean limiter in anycase)

[Adam Dempsey]

Originally Posted by theblue1

Of course, the above applies to 24 bit recording. Those who are still working at 16 bit depth have only 1/256 th as much dynamic resolution and hence should probably pay attention to keeping levels optimal while not crashing zero.

I agree... many DAT machines' peak meters had little more than -6, -3, 0dBFS. A small visual error margin was often not so small, so peaking a few "segments" below full scale was the safest bet. And some PPM's were actually analogue with only digital-type displays (though some DAT machines actually gave you a headroom "margin" readout until cleared).
Stick to 24 bit always, and even -40dBFS peaks are still only approaching that of 16 bit res. It's all good.

Originally Posted by theblue1

Some mastering engineers I've come across do suggest their clients go no higher than -6 or -3 dB in order to "leave them room" to work. I have to say that the more I think about that, the more I think it's a head scratcher.

Specify (encourage) -3dBFS peak level and you may get 0dBFS or clipping, or clipping which may be mostly undetected but audible when it comes to the crunch (pun intended). Specify -6dBFS and you may get -3dBFS. No biggie. My suggestion is usually simply "a few dB" headroom.

Originally Posted by theblue1

If the ME is working in the digital domain he's going to be moving those values all around anyway. And if he's going to be doing his mastering in the analog domain, well, it's moot anyhow, right?

Being able to avoid/bypass otherwise unnecessary pre-attenuation (digital or analogue) can be a good thing, sonically.

[dcollins]

Originally Posted by huejahfink

However, re : noise is never a problem in digital.... hmmm, I'd agree in most cases, but occasionally there is some super dynamic material (like very expressive jazz for example) that if the mix/recording is not levelled well, we could be losing the most intimate details under the least significant bit.

Music with 40dB dynamic range is one thing, with 60 you would be running the volume control all the time to be listenable. With 93.3, I am not aware of any compositions that run into the 16 bit limitation.

There are ways to resolve below the LSB, but there is no sense in bringing it up as it always leads to tears, deleted posts, sock-puppets, etc.

Do you mean that this is not such a large problem as companies manufacturing upsampling limiters would have us believe? I use the TC Brickwall Limiter an awful lot these days, mainly for this purpose. Do you think I have been duped by their long technical papers? (I think it's a lovely clean limiter in anycase)

Not duped, but when we had a blind test of limiters, dumb old clipping won while the audiophiles droned on endlessly about the "depth and detail" that were so obviously maintained by the oversampled limiter.


DC

[huejahfink]

Thanks Dave, I'm primarily on GS to learn (as well, of course, to share my own opinions and experiences) so I appreciate you taking your time to answer my questions.



Although I might add, that when I mentioned about the huge dynamic range point, I refer a lot more to kind of details that make recorded works sound 'breathtakingly realistic' - by this I mean incidental noises such as the tiny finger squeaks, breaths and movements amongst the players, and not musical information as such. Of course, you are probably right... nothing really to worry about in digital when it comes to dynamic range.

[Johnny Paez]

Originally Posted by MASSIVE Master

Why would -6dBfs peaks seem silly? A lousy 6dB of headroom isn't going to hurt anyone... In contrast, 6dB of dynamic range would sound like a broken chain saw.

You leave headroom - The mix should have whatever dynamic range it naturally "wants" to have.

-6dBfs is (IMHO) a perfect place to keep the peaks. A little higher is okay also. As is lower. One studio I work with regularly send me 24-bit mixes that PEAK at -12dBfs. A little low, but better to be a little low than too high. Another runs his mixes at -3dBfs, which is fine also. Typical hard rock mixes might have (compensated for full-scale) RMS levels of around -17 or -18dBRMS.

Hello massive master

I have a question




I always use just eq, multiband compressor, and maximizer, what are the most common used on mastering??? or the most common chain for mastering??
I would like to get better my mastering works

beste regards

[MASSIVE Master]

You use what the mix tells you to use.

(If it's telling you to use maul-the-band compression, I'd question it with boldness).