Benefits of getting a mix as loud as possible (without limiting) before mastering ?

[hitsville]

Hello gentlemen, I'd like to get your opinion on something.

I'm not a pro mixer but I think I'm not too bad at what I do, I've mixed a few albums & ended up being disapointed by the mastering almost everytime.

My problem is that I work hard on my dynamics & levels, I pay a lot of attention to details, and I've found that a lot of times the limiting happening at mastering really screws up that part of my mixes. Drums get softer, dynamics get lost...

So what I started to do is making my mixes as loud as I could while trying to retain the dynamic qualities I care about. I'm talking about usually around -12db RMS average. -11.5 at the very worst. (and I think that no master should be hotter than -10db)

I recently finished a mix that averaged -12.5 RMS, and the artist asked me to send him a quieter mix, so that the ME gets more head room to work with. I asked him if he wanted the final master to be louder than my mix, & he said yes (I wouldn't be surprised if the master ends up being VERY loud). The very sound of the mix wasn't an issue, it was not about my mix sounding too compressed or even clipping. He couldn't justify it, he just kept saying it needed more head room for mastering.

So if I can get a mix to sound just like I want to @ -12db, is it not a good thing ? Then if the ME can get it 1 or 2 db hotter without making it sound (much) different, that's perfect ! In my opinion I'm just helping him getting it louder, so he doesn't have to rely on limiting/clipping as much. If my mixes are gonna get slammed anyway, shouldn't I be able to get the most control over my dynamics until the butchery happens ?

What do you think ?

[huejahfink]

Sounds good to me. Get the mix sounding as good as you can without applying processes over the master 'just' for level.
Then make sure whoever is mastering it knows your intentions.

[SimmonsCS28]

I may be wrong in my thinking but just giving my two cents. If you get it as loud as you want it before sending the mix to the ME, than it would seem to me that you are in fact limiting what he can do as far as making changes do to the fact, as whomever your client was stated, he needed more headroom for the ME to work with.

I was reading a post the other day about the importance of setting your input levels from tape to 0 on the VU meters when mixing so that you've got enough head room to work with. My thought is that the same principle would apply to mastering in that if you receive something that already super loud, you leave very little room to work with. Don't know if this thinking is correct or helps to answer your question (I've done very little mastering) but hopefully it will spark some conversation for you

[hitsville]

Simmons, well the very goal of mixing loud for me is to limit these (bad) changes that could occur at mastering.

What I understand, though, is that a loud mix might force the ME to turn down the level a bit before applying EQs, for example, & that this lowering of the level will lessen the quality of the mix, because of quantization (am I right ? far from an expert on this subject)

[SimmonsCS28]

I see what you're saying. Maybe the best thing to do is what Hue said and make sure the ME knows your intentions?

[Andy Krehm]

Originally Posted by hitsville

Simmons, well the very goal of mixing loud for me is to limit these (bad) changes that could occur at mastering.

What I understand, though, is that a loud mix might force the ME to turn down the level a bit before applying EQs, for example, & that this lowering of the level will lessen the quality of the mix, because of quantization (am I right ? far from an expert on this subject)

A bit?!? Mixes this loud often have to be turned down 8 to 12 dB (and more sometimes) in order to properly gain stage into an analog mastering loop.

I find that the resultant masters from overly loud mixes sound more "stressed", for lack of better word, that the ones that are mixed with old school levels.

If you've had your mixes sent to several good mastering engineers it's hard to believe that everyone of them did unsatisfactory work!

Hopefully you are not making sweeping generalizations based on one or two experiences.

The best thing to do is develop a relationship with a couple of mastering engineers who you like and try and persuade your clients to go there.

Also this is a good example of why some mix engineers are deciding to master their own mixes...they don't like what happens when their clients send their mixes out to be mastered. Unfortunately we are all getting tarred with the same brush by the proliferation of bad mastering studios!

[hitsville]

oh Andy I'm not saying that these engineers did bad work, I'm just saying that I didn't like the results because it changed the dynamics of my mixes too much. Most of the times the artist were happy and I guess that's what's important. But I'd like to be happy too

Would it help these quantization issues if I send the same loud mixes, only printed 10db quieter ?

I've had very, very good results with a couple ME's at Sterling (with pretty loud mixes actually, and the masters weren't much louder), but unfortunately most artists I'm working with are on a tight budget, so 95% of the times Sterling is out of the question.

[Andy Krehm]

Originally Posted by hitsville

oh Andy I'm not saying that these engineers did bad work, I'm just saying that I didn't like the results because it changed the dynamics of my mixes too much. Most of the times the artist were happy and I guess that's what's important. But I'd like to be happy too

Would it help these quantization issues if I send the same loud mixes, only printed 10db quieter ?

I've had very, very good results with a couple ME's at Sterling (with pretty loud mixes actually, and the masters weren't much louder), but unfortunately most artists I'm working with are on a tight budget, so 95% of the times Sterling is out of the question.

AFAIK, printing 10 dB quieter is the same as the ME turning down 10 dB before his analog loop.

I've mastered plenty of loud mixes, including some from very good engineers, but still stand by my earlier statement which was the masters end up sounding a little better if they are printed with lower levels.

I have experimented with a couple of my regular mixer/producer clients where they sent loud mixes and quieter ones (as in tracks going into the buss) and there was a subtle but noticible difference. However a good mix, esp. where limiting wasn't used for volume, still turns out good!

[Trakworx]

OP - have you tried putting a limiter on the 2 buss when mixing, then removing it before printing the mix to be mastered? 'Might help you avoid unexpected dynamic changes down the road...

[KyleDiSanto]

Originally Posted by Trakworx

OP - have you tried putting a limiter on the 2 buss when mixing, then removing it before printing the mix to be mastered? 'Might help you avoid unexpected dynamic changes down the road...

+1 Sometimes the best thing. I have a few clients who do this and we work with great success everytime. They do their mix, and then "crunch" it up a little bit to see what the mastering "might do to it." Make any corrections, and then send it off.

But in all honesty, just do whatever works for you. I would try to get in touch with the mastering engineer personally instead of going through the artist.

[hitsville]

Originally Posted by Trakworx

OP - have you tried putting a limiter on the 2 buss when mixing, then removing it before printing the mix to be mastered? 'Might help you avoid unexpected dynamic changes down the road...

never tried that. sounds like a good idea but I guess it's a bit of a gamble. Couldn't the master end up very different depending on the difference of the gear & the amount of limiting we use ? but yeah I'll definitely give it a try

[KyleDiSanto]

Originally Posted by hitsville

never tried that. sounds like a good idea but I guess it's a bit of a gamble. Couldn't the master end up very different depending on the difference of the gear & the amount of limiting we use ? but yeah I'll definitely give it a try

You should always find your loudness "potential" (as Chris Athens has dubbed I believe)...within your mix first IMO.

However, There's alot of mixers putting a limiter on their two buss just to see what the "squash" is going to do.

Yes it will sound somewhat different, but the philosophy behind this method is to get an idea of what it will sound like after its mastered.

[Mark D.]

It may best suit you to continue searching for mastering you can afford that will not ruin the mix,
as you'd stated. I am sure it could be found. I wouldn't blame lack of quality on lack of RMS level,
in what you send. That said, sending them a mix in an area of -12db RMS is loud. It is possible to
get there without bus compression. I've had it happen. I've gotten mixes in that RMS range, with
that mix engineer rattling off a list of his favorite 'vibe' compressors used at every channel. I had
to use a complex expansion scheme to get dynamics back. Mixes I get that are a lot closer to an
-18db RMS fare better. I have to imagine if one gets to -12db RMS in a mix, you must be clipping
things at the mix bus, and possibly the tracks, and plug-ins themselves. This could affect qualtiy.

If you put a limiter on to prevent that then you've replaced that step up in volume and brick wall
protection that a mastering person could do, with likely an inferior limiter. There's a lot of info on
why you don't even want to go near zero at any step in the recording or mix, track input/output,
plug-ins, sends, mix bus and at final output. It might seem unrealistic at first, but that will sound
better. Plus, if you've got a dynamic, non-squashed mix, at a more reasonable RMS (ie. no louder
than -16 db RMS, peaks near but not at zero) you put 100% of the burden in retaining dynamics,
and increasing the volume without a decrease in quality, on that mastering person. You can then
best evaluate them, without them just pushing back that: 'your mix was squashed to begin with'.

[Red Mastering]

Originally Posted by hitsville

Hello gentlemen, I'd like to get your opinion on something.

I'm not a pro mixer but I think I'm not too bad at what I do, I've mixed a few albums & ended up being disapointed by the mastering almost everytime.

My problem is that I work hard on my dynamics & levels, I pay a lot of attention to details, and I've found that a lot of times the limiting happening at mastering really screws up that part of my mixes. Drums get softer, dynamics get lost...

So what I started to do is making my mixes as loud as I could while trying to retain the dynamic qualities I care about. I'm talking about usually around -12db RMS average. -11.5 at the very worst. (and I think that no master should be hotter than -10db)

I recently finished a mix that averaged -12.5 RMS, and the artist asked me to send him a quieter mix, so that the ME gets more head room to work with. I asked him if he wanted the final master to be louder than my mix, & he said yes (I wouldn't be surprised if the master ends up being VERY loud). The very sound of the mix wasn't an issue, it was not about my mix sounding too compressed or even clipping. He couldn't justify it, he just kept saying it needed more head room for mastering.

So if I can get a mix to sound just like I want to @ -12db, is it not a good thing ? Then if the ME can get it 1 or 2 db hotter without making it sound (much) different, that's perfect ! In my opinion I'm just helping him getting it louder, so he doesn't have to rely on limiting/clipping as much. If my mixes are gonna get slammed anyway, shouldn't I be able to get the most control over my dynamics until the butchery happens ?

What do you think ?

absolutely agree, make mix sounding as you wish master should sound,
then me's job is just to check mix, and eventually shape things a bit
why everyone think that mastering is about tweaking knobs ???
if the mix is good and someone spent a day or more on it,
why destroy it in mastering ?
make loud mix, so ME won't 'spoil' it with adding 2-3 dBs RMS.
difficult part be to convince musicians/band to this approach,
'cause ME's job is to make it bloody loud innit ?'

[Red Mastering]

Originally Posted by Mark D.

It may best suit you to continue searching for mastering you can afford that will not ruin the mix, as you'd stated. I am sure it could be found. I wouldn't blame lack of quality on lack of RMS level, in what you send. That said, sending them a mix in an area of -12db RMS is loud. It is possible to get there without bus compression. I've had it happen. I've gotten mixes in that RMS range, with that mix engineer rattling off a list of his favorite 'vibe' compressors used at every channel. I had to use a complex expansion scheme to get dynamics back. Mixes I get that are a lot closer to an
-18db RMS fare better. I have to imagine if one gets to -12db RMS in a mix, you must be clipping things at the mix bus, and possibly the tracks, and plug-ins themselves. This could affect qualtiy.

If you put a limiter on to prevent that then you've replaced that step up in volume and brick wall protection that a mastering person could do, with likely an inferior limiter. There is a lot of info on why you don't even want to go near zero at any step in the recording or mix, track input/output, plug-ins, sends, mix bus and at final output. It might seem unrealistic at first, but that will sound better. Plus, if you've got a dynamic, non-squashed mix, at a more reasonable RMS (ie. no louder than -16 db RMS, peaks near but not at zero) you put 100% of the burden in retaining dynamics, and increasing the volume without a decrease in quality, on that mastering person. You can then best evaluate them, without them just pushing back that: 'your mix was squashed to begin with'.

I agree with first part - seeking ME should continue,
but second part - not really...
If I have mix (any type) I set up gain (add/subtract) correctly
and then get to work (if mix needs it),
anyway no clipping at any stage..
again, communication with client/mixer - crucial

[Trakworx]

Originally Posted by tresperros

absolutely agree, make mix sounding as you wish master should sound,
then me's job is just to check mix, and eventually shape things a bit
why everyone think that mastering is about tweaking knobs ???
if the mix is good and someone spent a day or more on it,
why destroy it in mastering ?
make loud mix, so ME won't 'spoil' it with adding 2-3 dBs RMS.
difficult part be to convince musicians/band to this approach,
'cause ME's job is to make it bloody loud innit ?'

Umm... How is the ME supposed to eventually shape things without tweaking knobs?

One reason why it would be difficult to convince musicians/band to this approach might be because they know that a decent ME will likely have higher quality tools for achieving the desired loudness at their disposal.

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by hitsville

What do you think ?

If the client likes your sound and the mixes sound great, stick with what you are doing and tell the client to find someone else to master. Look around for someone that gets what you are trying to do.

If its a single only than just do it yourself. Its not worth the headaches of having the results change so much after wards.

I hear you on the Sterling thing though. Lots of times i would love to recommend Chris G, Tom Coyne or Greg Calbi over there, but a lot of the clients just can't afford it or just won't pay for it, even at an unattended session which is usually less.

(And all of these guys would deal with your hot level mixes fine).

[hitsville]

Originally Posted by thethrillfactor

If the client likes your sound and the mixes sound great, stick with what you are doing and tell the client to find someone else to master. Look around for someone that gets what you are trying to do.

If its a single only than just do it yourself. Its not worth the headaches of having the results change so much after wards.

I hear you on the Sterling thing though. Lots of times i would love to recommend Chris G, Tom Coyne or Greg Calbi over there, but a lot of the clients just can't afford it or just won't pay for it, even at an unattended session which is usually less.

(And all of these guys would deal with your hot level mixes fine).

If Thrill says it's ok, I'm good ! =) thank you sir, learned a lot of things just by reading your posts on here.

[ampwax]

That thread about tracking and/or trimming individual tracks down to 0 VU at -18 has saved my life. Now, mixes are going out -20 to -18 rms, and the masters are coming back ultra nice. Just had to use that little black nob on my desk which makes things louder when I turn it. My two cents.

[Mantra]

Originally Posted by ampwax

That thread about tracking and/or trimming individual tracks down to 0 VU at -18 has saved my life. Now, mixes are going out -20 to -18 rms, and the masters are coming back ultra nice. Just had to use that little black nob on my desk which makes things louder when I turn it. My two cents.

Hey Wax, where can I find that thread?
Cheers,
Peter

[ampwax]

Originally Posted by Mantra

Hey Wax, where can I find that thread?
Cheers,
Peter

Here you go Peter:

The Reason Most ITB mixes don’t Sound as good as Analog mixes (restored)


Its a long one, but full of tons of useful information, science, and rhetoric. The gist of it is basically to track lighter and have headroom, so that its more in line with analog setups. Also, it makes it easier to patch in analog compressors and things, as well as have tons of headroom. I find the end result to be less choked sounding.

[lucey]

Mix it as you like it, just be sure you're good if you print super hot. As for delivery levels, the ME should handle anything you send them with grace.

As for the high cost of great work ... don't drink that Kool Aid. I have many ex-Supposedly Better Studio clients and surely I'm not alone. By all means, don't let the Coastal Bias of many people keep you from finding a great ME near you, or anywhere in the world. If your mix is getting F'd up, you need a new ME.

Great mastering hides all the losses so it sounds like all gains.

[Mantra]

Originally Posted by ampwax

Here you go Peter:

The Reason Most ITB mixes don’t Sound as good as Analog mixes (restored)


Its a long one, but full of tons of useful information, science, and rhetoric. The gist of it is basically to track lighter and have headroom, so that its more in line with analog setups. Also, it makes it easier to patch in analog compressors and things, as well as have tons of headroom. I find the end result to be less choked sounding.

Thanks a lot!

[Jesse Graffam]

Originally Posted by hitsville

I recently finished a mix that averaged -12.5 RMS, and the artist asked me to send him a quieter mix, so that the ME gets more head room to work with. I asked him if he wanted the final master to be louder than my mix, & he said yes (I wouldn't be surprised if the master ends up being VERY loud). The very sound of the mix wasn't an issue, it was not about my mix sounding too compressed or even clipping. He couldn't justify it, he just kept saying it needed more head room for mastering.

So if I can get a mix to sound just like I want to @ -12db, is it not a good thing ? Then if the ME can get it 1 or 2 db hotter without making it sound (much) different, that's perfect ! In my opinion I'm just helping him getting it louder, so he doesn't have to rely on limiting/clipping as much. If my mixes are gonna get slammed anyway, shouldn't I be able to get the most control over my dynamics until the butchery happens ?

What do you think ?

It depends on how accurate your monitors and room are together. You'll at least need a full spectrum monitoring system, and for it and the room to be FLAT. You'll probably want to use correction for most monitors.

I'm just starting into mastering a classic Doom (metal) project for a friend with such a room that they've been mixing this group of songs (plus the 4 on the ep) for 2 years now. So while it's getting decent action at -12dB RMS the way it's getting there is already balanced close to where we ended up. The first test song at about -10dB RMS of decent peak action on the master, and it sounds fantastic and as loud as we want. thumbsup

Getting the mixes there was far from easy for them, and the mixer and producer are established high output (film audio) people. Sometimes magic takes time.

Originally Posted by tresperros

if the mix is good and someone spent a day or more on it, why destroy it in mastering ?

seriously? just one day and it's exactly the way it should be mastered? that's very rare.

[fhmastering]

The largest problem that I run into with Loud mixes is that clients are still looking for a wow factor. Part of that is lack of knowledge of the mastering process. I work with both loud and not so loud mixes and have had great results with both.
What some don't understand is that even adding subtractive eq needs headroom. So in order to achieve the headroom, we have to drop the volume a few db's.
I would suggest that before you send out a loud mix to an ME, lower the volume on the master fader a few db's. Then you will know the sound the ME will be working with.
Rob Follis
fhmastering.com

[Jerry Tubb]

Originally Posted by Andy Krehm

Mixes this loud often have to be turned down 8 to 12 dB (and more sometimes) in order to properly gain stage into an analog mastering loop.

Yo Andy, we see this as well.

I've a regular client whose mixes need to I attenuate by 10dB before running thru my analog path. They've got a good selection of juicy gear, and like to get it very close to how they want the final master to sound, before it gets here. A few months ago I talked them down about 3-6dB, on the mix level, the result is a lot cleaner.

It's just a different philosophy than the guys that "go for a good mix without pushing the level".

It's really question of who gets to do the bulk of the processing.

Last single I mastered for them, I bounced to 1/2" ATR tape@30ips, made slight EQ adjustments, very little compression, light limiting, made it as loud as possible without blatant distortion, and they're happy. The result is warm, fat and balanced.

Cheers, JT

[Masterer]

Originally Posted by lucey

As for the high cost of great work ... don't drink that Kool Aid. I have many ex-Supposedly Better Studio clients and surely I'm not alone. By all means, don't let the Coastal Bias of many people keep you from finding a great ME near you, or anywhere in the world. If your mix is getting F'd up, you need a new ME.

Great mastering hides all the losses so it sounds like all gains.

Kool Aid?

Costal bias?

Man you got one ugly chip on your shoulder.

I hope, for your own sake that you grow out of that someday.

[jackthebear]

Hey Chris,

So you're biased now?? I'm shattered.....I know TJ is over biased.... I think George is untainted in that dept..... Perhaps a Sterling poll is in order to settle this? And while we're at it let's do the whole eastern seaboard's mastering houses as well....no wait......that just can't work......last time I checked you weren't quite level matched to TJ......and BK is mismatched by an even greater margin.....oh well it seemed like a good idea.....

[lucey]

Totally biased. We all are.

Originally Posted by Masterer

Kool Aid?

Costal bias?

Man you got one ugly chip on your shoulder.

I hope, for your own sake that you grow out of that someday.

Nice try. I couldn't be more happy.

Kool Aid = Coastal mastering is the standard, better, etc. The cost is there because of coastal rents, and pricing momentum from a long era when Majors were the leaders, the industry was nuclear, and expense accounts lead to a few hits along the way, with a lot of misses (as was the major label model). If the act died, the cost was a write off. If they were a hit, the cost looked small, the ME looked good and got more tries at the plate from majors and minors. Inflation, and human nature ensued, and rates rose and rose over the years. Those were good days for many, and they certainly earned and deserved their wage.

Yet thanks to this here internets, and the decentralization of the industry, the cost of the "best" mastering possible is now coming down.

So as for a chip ... I believe you're looking in the mirror.

[isaac663]

Originally Posted by hitsville

So if I can get a mix to sound just like I want to @ -12db, is it not a good thing ? Then if the ME can get it 1 or 2 db hotter without making it sound (much) different, that's perfect ! In my opinion I'm just helping him getting it louder, so he doesn't have to rely on limiting/clipping as much. If my mixes are gonna get slammed anyway, shouldn't I be able to get the most control over my dynamics until the butchery happens?

What do you think ?

Sound like a great idea, but how the hell did you get your mixes that loud? My kick is something that allways gets in the way of my mix getting too loud.

I mean -12db is only a couple of DB off comercial stuff right? I've been comparing my hardcore band to comeback kid's-wake the dead album which is avverage -10db. My stuff all ways sounds over compressed by the time i've got it anywhere near that.

Please give me advice. Especially on how you retained a good drum sound but got it loud.