Maintaining the punchiness of drums

[doug hazelrigg]

Okay. Something I've noticed for awhile now. If a use a limiter to tame the odd peak now and then in a tune, no problem, I can get it peaking at 0 dBFS. However, the overall loudness of the tune (RMS) still doesn't compete with the typical, REASONABLE commercial release. So I push the input gain of the limiter a bit until the loudness DOES come closer to the commercial release. Again, I'm talking REASONABLE RMS levels here, not anything insane or squashed to the hilt.

Here's the issue: when I do this, I notice a subtle but very noticeable loss in punchiness of my drums (and to a degree, bass guitar attack). Again, this difference isn't drastic, but definitely noticeable. So, instead of using a limiter, I leave it off and simply push the gain into the red. The thing is, I can't HEAR any artifacts of this clipping. The tune seems to translate well to various media (car stereo, boom box).

What I am suggesting here is that, contrary to "the book", I'm finding it's better to just live with some overs instead of slightly reducing the punchiness of my drums by using a limiter (to obtain loudness).

I've noticed this issue on some major releases, too. The other day I was listening to Bruce Springsteen'sMagic (2007). On there there's a song "Girls With Their Summer Clothes" that starts off with full band EXCEPT the drums. After the first verse, the drums come in by way of a crescendoing lead-in to the second verse. It's supposed to be a big dramatic entrance when these drums come in, taking the song to the next level.

Alas, I noticed that when the drums DO come in, the resulting volume of the song is exactly as it was BEFORE they came in. I thought that was interesting. Ideally, when the big drums come in, you'd expect the song to be that much fuller and louder, taking the tune to a higher level. That I'm sure was their aim. But they (mixers, producers, ME's) utterly failed to accomplish this. My guess is that they had a limiter strapped on there and the song was already loud, and when the drums came in, the limiter justed quashed the impact. And that's a major release.

Tell me what you think.

[Table Of Tone]

That'll be over use of a limiter to match modern levels.

I hate when stuff does that!

When it lacks punch N' dynamics and the drums almost transparently disappear (apart from the cymbals) when you know full well they should be hitting you.

[wado1942]

I always felt my heart sink when I had a great master and the client said "perfect, now make it really loud". Then the sound falls apart, your ears hurt even though you're listening at a low level, the impact is gone, but the meter says -6 RMS so it must be good right? That's when I decided to stop participating in this war. War has no winners.

Why do you care what the dial says? Nobody even uses CD changers anymore so why are people still competing to be the loudest? Why is destroying music worth a smaller number on a meter nobody but us own? Is there some magic behind a smaller number?
Sorry, you seem to know as well as the next guy what the consequences for intrinsic loudness are and seem to be against such practices as well. I just don't understand how a number became the most important part of a production. I've decided that I don't care about this stupid war anymore. If enough people make the same choice, the magic numbers lose their power.

[Table Of Tone]

Originally Posted by wado1942

I always felt my heart sink when I had a great master and the client said "perfect, now make it really loud". Then the sound falls apart, your ears hurt even though you're listening at a low level, the impact is gone, but the meter says -6 RMS so it must be good right? That's when I decided to stop participating in this war. War has no winners.

Why do you care what the dial says? Nobody even uses CD changers anymore so why are people still competing to be the loudest? Why is destroying music worth a smaller number on a meter nobody but us own? Is there some magic behind a smaller number?
Sorry, you seem to know as well as the next guy what the consequences for intrinsic loudness are and seem to be against such practices as well. I just don't understand how a number became the most important part of a production. I've decided that I don't care about this stupid war anymore. If enough people make the same choice, the magic numbers lose their power.

There is what I call "The event horizon" of any given mix.

That's of course, the point where serious damage will start to occur when crossed!

Every mix has it's own event horizon!

[Darius van H]

The devil will sell you punch, but you've got to pay him in distortion.

[Table Of Tone]

Originally Posted by Darius van H

The devil will sell you punch, but you've got to pay him in distortion.

Oh that's good!

[doug hazelrigg]

I thought I CLEARLY wrote in my OP that we're talking about REASONABLE levels of loudness, nothing extreme. Although I'm "hip" to the loudness wars, I also realize realistically that in today's world it has to have SOME level in order to compete. After all, we want to be heard, don't we?

In any case, I'm sold on the idea of just hitting the red instead of losing impact from a bit of limiting. Am I crazy?

[kjg]

Originally Posted by doug hazelrigg

In any case, I'm sold on the idea of just hitting the red instead of losing impact from a bit of limiting. Am I crazy?

yeah sort of. but you are not alone. a lot of people clip converters for the exact same reasons you mention.

but Darius already told you what the deal is...

[doug hazelrigg]

Originally Posted by Darius van H

The devil will sell you punch, but you've got to pay him in distortion.

I don't HEAR any distortion. On the contrary, I hear distortion when I employ a limiter (instead of just going into the red)

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by doug hazelrigg

Okay. Something I've noticed for awhile now. If a use a limiter to tame the odd peak now and then in a tune, no problem, I can get it peaking at 0 dBFS. However, the overall loudness of the tune (RMS) still doesn't compete with the typical, REASONABLE commercial release. So I push the input gain of the limiter a bit until the loudness DOES come closer to the commercial release. Again, I'm talking REASONABLE RMS levels here, not anything insane or squashed to the hilt.

Here's the issue: when I do this, I notice a subtle but very noticeable loss in punchiness of my drums (and to a degree, bass guitar attack). Again, this difference isn't drastic, but definitely noticeable. So, instead of using a limiter, I leave it off and simply push the gain into the red. The thing is, I can't HEAR any artifacts of this clipping. The tune seems to translate well to various media (car stereo, boom box).

You're talking about mastering, not mixing, right? Well, first of all, it's a very good thing that your monitoring is capable of showing you and that you can recognize the degradation that can occur in a drum set with dynamics processing. Imagine how much better those "competitive commercial level" recordings must have sounded BEFORE they were mastered too hot! At least when we're honest with ourselves. And you cited some good examples that show how far off base we've gone with these levels.

As far as the clipping choice goes, I agree that up to 1 dB of analog domain clipping (in an ADC) is often the better choice, less of an audible compromise than 1 dB of peak limiting. But when you start pushing further either way it's a lose-lose proposition. Next, see if that clipping that you let go through sounds good in your room, but not so good on a cheaper DAC or when it passes through mp3 conversion, for example. Are you fooling yourself with false impressions?

And when that 1 dB is not enough, instead of pushing a single tool too far, try combining tools together. Or, better yet, try to convince the client his CD is just too hot for its britches and demonstrate by giving him an example and see if he can hear the sound get worse. Good luck. Welcome to the club!

[Audio Enginerd]

Yes, try compression in small incremental stages. Try the Voxengo Elephant limiter. It retains a lot of punch and girth and it is a great price! (Don't forget to experiment with the settings) Anything over done is going to give you this effect, and it is indeed very sad to hear a powerful mix go down the wrong path. We try to make the modern music volume levels go to rehab, but they say no no no. Okay, I'm going to stop talking now.

[doug hazelrigg]

Originally Posted by bob katz

You're talking about mastering, not mixing, right?

Yes, mastering; but wouldn't the same concept apply to mixing into buss compression? For years, given the appropriate material, I've mixed into a bit of 2-buss compression. But even there I've noticed that even at some moderate settings my drums can lose punch (I guess I like to mix drums up high -- I love a BIG kick drum). So I tried mixing without buss compression and just let a few overs go. To my ears, it sounds better, subtly, but noticeably.

When I do this, it seems to translate okay to various media -- car stereo, boom box, AND iPod (I've adopted the habit of checking mixes in an iPod). But maybe I'm living dangerously?

[Table Of Tone]

Originally Posted by doug hazelrigg

I thought I CLEARLY wrote in my OP that we're talking about REASONABLE levels of loudness, nothing extreme. Although I'm "hip" to the loudness wars, I also realize realistically that in today's world it has to have SOME level in order to compete. After all, we want to be heard, don't we?

In any case, I'm sold on the idea of just hitting the red instead of losing impact from a bit of limiting. Am I crazy?

No you are not crazy!

I hate what lookahead limiters do and do not use em myself!

[Table Of Tone]

Originally Posted by doug hazelrigg

Yes, mastering; but wouldn't the same concept apply to mixing into buss compression? For years, given the appropriate material, I've mixed into a bit of 2-buss compression. But even there I've noticed that even at some moderate settings my drums can lose punch (I guess I like to mix drums up high -- I love a BIG kick drum). So I tried mixing without buss compression and just let a few overs go. To my ears, it sounds better, subtly, but noticeably.

When I do this, it seems to translate okay to various media -- car stereo, boom box, AND iPod (I've adopted the habit of checking mixes in an iPod). But maybe I'm living dangerously?

I also love to hear (and feel) a big but punchy kick and fat snare.

Checking mixes on different media is a good thing to do.

I wish more people did that before getting stuff mastered!

[Virtalahde]

Originally Posted by bob katz

up to 1 dB of analog domain clipping (in an ADC) is often the better choice, less of an audible compromise than 1 dB of peak limiting. But when you start pushing further either way it's a lose-lose proposition.

I've seen you mention this ~1dB of range somewhere else. I don't see how anyone could come into such a strict limit of what's good and where it goes downhill. Transients are so very different, as are projects.

I don't believe pushing everything to square waves is the answer, but on the other hand I'm not saying that you couldn't clip things over and beyond. In my opinion, extreme loudness is just as valid as a sonic choice as keeping the dynamic range. The choice of doing either, or everything in between just needs to be there.

Last week I slammed a black metal EP to the A/D as hard as I could, and the band wanted more. I gained another dB from the compressor, and it was better. Even the mixing engineer who happens to like all things dynamic liked it. Happy customer.

The next day I did a beautiful acoustic album. No clipping in sight. Just a digital limiter catching a couple of peaks. Another good record done.

Which one is "better"?

[Waltz Mastering]

Originally Posted by doug hazelrigg

wouldn't the same concept apply to mixing into buss compression? I've mixed into a bit of 2-buss compression. But even there I've noticed that even at some moderate settings my drums can lose punch (I guess I like to mix drums up high -- I love a BIG kick drum). So I tried mixing without buss compression and just let a few overs go. To my ears, it sounds better, subtly

There's isn't really any advantage of doing this in the mixing stage? By taking the compressor off, you'll let more transients through but there's no advantage to be gained by clipping a two mix except digital saturation, which can be un-pleasant at times. Once the mix is clipped, it's there.

If the drums are losing something with the compressor on the buss, they probably didn't need it in the first place. A db or 2 of extra gain in a mix isn't really worth the possibility of a clipped sound.

[Trell Blaze]

Originally Posted by Virtalahde

I've seen you mention this ~1dB of range somewhere else. I don't see how anyone could come into such a strict limit of what's good and where it goes downhill. Transients are so very different, as are projects.

I don't believe pushing everything to square waves is the answer, but on the other hand I'm not saying that you couldn't clip things over and beyond. In my opinion, extreme loudness is just as valid as a sonic choice as keeping the dynamic range. The choice of doing either, or everything in between just needs to be there.

Last week I slammed a black metal EP to the A/D as hard as I could, and the band wanted more. I gained another dB from the compressor, and it was better. Even the mixing engineer who happens to like all things dynamic liked it. Happy customer.

The next day I did a beautiful acoustic album. No clipping in sight. Just a digital limiter catching a couple of peaks. Another good record done.

Which one is "better"?

DING DING DING DING!! Finally somebody gets it. I'm so sick of "more dynamic" or "low level" being surgically attatched to "good music". Some shit works with no dynamics....some things don't. Do what sounds good...period. If clipping the converters results in a better overall product then why not do it? If mic'ing your drum kit with a radioshack mic helps you express your artistic vision...hey why not? As long as you don't do something "just because...".

A lot of you guys need to get out of that pefect little box you've created...

[dualflip]

Originally Posted by doug hazelrigg

So, instead of using a limiter, I leave it off and simply push the gain into the red. The thing is, I can't HEAR any artifacts of this clipping. The tune seems to translate well to various media (car stereo, boom box).

What you are describing is how a clipper works, however, i recommend you that instead of just clipping the master fader, try using a clipper, they tend to sound better, since most of them create a particular type of clipping, others try to emulate analog clipping and some of them even let you manipulate the clipping characteristics to be more soft or hard clipping, either way, i think you will get better results with a clipper and the clipping will be less audible or at least more pleasant.

[doug hazelrigg]

Originally Posted by dualflip

What you are describing is how a clipper works, however, i recommend you that instead of just clipping the master fader, try using a clipper, they tend to sound better, since most of them create a particular type of clipping, others try to emulate analog clipping and some of them even let you manipulate the clipping characteristics to be more soft or hard clipping, either way, i think you will get better results with a clipper and the clipping will be less audible or at least more pleasant.

Okay... any suggestions? Somebody mentioned to me the T-Racks Clipper...

[Virtalahde]

Originally Posted by SafeandSound

Well the word better can have a number of meanings.

Definately. It is not an absolute value, and sound is a highly subjective thing anyway.

Originally Posted by SafeandSound

1)Did one sonically sound better than the other i.e. less harsh inharmonic distortion?

Well, the other one was floating in distortion (more distortion was the request) and the other was very clean. The distorted one was kept pretty soft in high mids pre-A/D, which did make a sort of a fuzzy, even order distortion type of a sound.

Originally Posted by SafeandSound

2)Which record satisfied the client better?

Different customers, equally happy.

Originally Posted by SafeandSound

3)Which one was better at creating a more accurate "record" of events that occurred in the recording studio, which was the point where art was created?

I don't think a recording is always supposed to represent what happened in the studio. A drummer beating a trigger pad isn't that exciting. The acoustic one was more like a window-to-the-room type of a sound, but with a psychedelic twist.

Originally Posted by SafeandSound

4)Which one was financially better for the mastering engineer, seen as very obvious technical compromises were made?

Well, the acoustic one was an album, so that one is financially better. Can't see where the compromise was made. If I gave the black metal guys a master and said "here, I preserved the highest transient for your listening pleasure", I think they'd go elsewhere.

Originally Posted by Trell Blaze

I'm so sick of "more dynamic" or "low level" being surgically attatched to "good music". Some shit works with no dynamics....some things don't. Do what sounds good...period.

Exactly. I don't pour one ingredient on everything, I do what the record needs and what the customer wants. I've definately slammed things that did not need it, but I'm not the one making the calls. I do tell if things are seriously going downhill.

If I was a pizza boy, I wouldn't deliver a ½ cheese veggie pizza to someone who ordered a salami pizza with extra lard and a defibrillator, just because "it is healthier for you".

[doug hazelrigg]

Originally Posted by SafeandSound

At the moment I just cannot bring myself to flat top the audio. (clipping)

It goes against what I think is the right technical practice, there is something
inherently wrong about that kind of distortion, it throws away the digital audio rule book.

Maybe it will change in due course, but at the moment I am not convinced that the damage in a squared off waveform is where I want to be heading.

It's a shame it's no longer seen as defect in the recording process.

But if you can't hear it, what's the problem?

On the other hand, you can certainly hear the degradation a limiter introduces.

[Waltz Mastering]

Originally Posted by doug hazelrigg

But if you can't hear it, what's the problem?

In your other post on re-mastering you mentioned that the re-mastered version of "Tatoo You" that you downloaded was clipping and distorted. This most likely was caused by the accumulation of the effect you are describing.

Not all DA's are created equal, so it also could be more present in other systems.

[wado1942]

I thought I CLEARLY wrote in my OP that we're talking about REASONABLE levels of loudness, nothing extreme.

You did. What I'm saying is ANY processing done for the sake of loudness will impact the sound. There's no free lunch.

Somebody mentioned to me the T-Racks Clipper...

I absolutely refuse to use hard clipping. So sometimes I'll use the T-Racks clipper. I'll quad sample it (176.4KHz) then change the header back to 44.1KHz so it's now 1/4 speed but 44.1KHz. Run it through the soft clipper, usually a knee of 1.5dB-2dB works pretty well but the output level in T-Racks is inaccurate so you'll have to experiment with what gives you the soft clipping without any hard clipping. Take the output and change the header to 176.4KHz, then you can continue working however you like, downsampling at the end. This will reduce aliasing somewhat but will also cause some stray peaks here & there which I'll tame with a VERY fast hard limiter.

I have a pretty old version of T-Racks which only supports 44.1KHz. If you have a version that can take higher sample rates, you can skip that manual speed adjustment.

I'm so sick of "more dynamic" or "low level" being surgically attatched to "good music".

Good music and good production are 2 different things. Sometimes distortion is desired in a recording, but not on everything. Dynamic music and static music are also 2 different things and dynamic music should not be turned into static music. I'll bet if the industry mandated a standard level like DVDs (and many other media) a lot of your so-called "meant to be clipped, limited & destroyed" music would find transient response it would never have had otherwise. In other words, it's a numbers game that's driving this, not an artistic vision. Virtually nobody WANTS to deliberately destroy the top 10dB of their music so if you took away the loudness "advantage", then 99.9% of the rock/pop/country masters made today would still have snare & bass drums in them.

[Table Of Tone]

Originally Posted by doug hazelrigg

But if you can't hear it, what's the problem?

On the other hand, you can certainly hear the degradation a limiter introduces.

You do need to check it out on a few cheaper DAC's and also check an MP3 and AAC version.

The T Racks clipper got me out of trouble once when I was working on some stuff abroad.
It's really nothing particularly special. It's just OK.

Not being a user of plugs, as a rule.
It's the only thing in the T Racks bundle that I'd even think about using though!

[doug hazelrigg]

So I guess the lesson is that compromises have to be made to insure that a tune will translate across a variety of media. Maybe it's time to just back off the pursuit of loudness, maintain the "oomph," and let the listener to crank the volume if he so desires

[Table Of Tone]

Originally Posted by doug hazelrigg

So I guess the lesson is that compromises have to be made to insure that a tune will translate across a variety of media. Maybe it's time to just back off the pursuit of loudness, maintain the "oomph," and let the listener to crank the volume if he so desires

The loudness thing is nothing new.
Remember the birth of the first 12" single?

How great did they sound?
The listener was actually given more volume, more headroom and more dynamic range!

We didn't have to fight with the lack of punch one side of the coin or the digital "stardust" on the other!

We're all just looking for the "Holly Grail" of techniques on how to get decent sounding digital volume, that's all.

That's one of the reasons why we're on this forum!

It appears that volume is more addictive than crack!
To the listener, to the label, to the artist, to the producer and probably to most of us as well!

[doug hazelrigg]

Originally Posted by bob katz

As far as the clipping choice goes, I agree that up to 1 dB of analog domain clipping (in an ADC) is often the better choice, less of an audible compromise than 1 dB of peak limiting. But when you start pushing further either way it's a lose-lose proposition. Next, see if that clipping that you let go through sounds good in your room, but not so good on a cheaper DAC or when it passes through mp3 conversion, for example. Are you fooling yourself with false impressions?

I'm a bit confused here. At first you seem to be talking about tracking with a bit of analog clipping (been there, done that... wild vocalist, etc. ). But I'm talking on the way out, when mastering... Could you clarify this any please?

[doug hazelrigg]

Originally Posted by SafeandSound

So far I have never mastered a tune louder than -8RMS average and this sounded nice and punchy and
did not destroy or clip any audio, the drums retained all their bite, I was proud of myself to hit that and sound very good
without any clipping.

Okay, what was your secret?

[vx2000]

I'm wondering the same?

Maybe smart use of track compression controlling peaks without hard clipping?

I'd like more suggestings on bringing up track level RMS on dynamic instruments without making them "flat topped".

[Peakly]

Originally Posted by doug hazelrigg

Maybe it's time to just back off the pursuit of loudness, maintain the "oomph," and let the listener to crank the volume if he so desires

Yes! That gets my vote. Frikken limiters and clippers. Nice avatar by the way.

Mychal