Achieving loudness in stages, does it help?

Killahurts · 21st March 2006

Seems like the lament about the software maximizer/limiters is that when you get them really loud, they ruin the music. But when you use them lightly, they seem to do a lot better, less damage to the music, albeit it's not as loud...

Does it help to use them lightly, like say shaving just a couple dB and printing, and then at some step along the way, reprocess that file with more limiting/crushing? Maybe even do some EQ, or other processing in between multiple limiting "stages".

It's like you could keep getting it louder in each stage, constantly correcting the damage the limiter does after each "layer".

And I guess if it helped in the digital domain, no reason it couldn't be applied to the analog world too?

P.S. I am definitely not a ME, so be gentle.

Kiwiburger · 21st March 2006

I'm not a ME either, but my goal is to mix so the ME has little or nothing to do.

IMO - there can be advantages in multiple attempts at loudness, but ...

I don't believe eq can fix the damage done by excessive squashing,

I don't believe there is any advantage in hitting the waveform with the same limiter/compression setting - i.e. raising the gain or lowering the threshold.

Every process does damage, so if you can achieve what you want to achieve in one hit, I think that's better.

IMO - limiting some peaks before compression can be useful - the compressor doesn't have to work so hard. And compressors don't really control transient peaks anway (unless you set the attack ridiculously fast and damage your sound). So limiting after compression can deal with the stuff the compressor didn't catch.

Remember, compression is multiplicative - not additive. In other words, if you apply a 2:1 compression, then a 10:1 - the final result is 20:1, not 12:1. (Assuming minimum threshold, which is unlikely).

But I think the idea that a little bit of damage more often is better than one massive hit is probably wrong. Less is usually waay more.

In my uneducated opinion.

JP11 · 21st March 2006

I could very well be wrong, but I have found that the Waves L2 used gently is the most transparent at shaving peaks (for use before compressing or limiting again for volume gain).

Killahurts · 22nd March 2006

Thanks for the replies guys. Kiwiburger, you made some really good points - if you're going to hurt it, hurt it once bad, and get it over with.

But still, I wonder if some of those plug limiters I've tried have a threshold of severity, after which it begins to sound exponentially more like shit with every .1 dB more...

I guess if I were a real Mastering engineer, I would probably have some sort of multiple limiter/compressor setup, but only in real time.

MASSIVE Master · 22nd March 2006

I think there's murky water on this one - It's SO dependent on the dynamics of the source material that there really isn't a clear answer.

That being said - If "sheer volume" is on the menu, I tend to find that chained dynamics control "nipping" at the levels tends to work better than a slam factor.

Even then, what type of controllers (limting, leveling, compression) and in what order will be dictated by the mix.

Going through one and "printing" though... One is going to affect the next - and a lot of tweaking from the first one down is probably going to have to happen. Having them active in one chain is the only way I'd go through it.

Rick Sutton · 22nd March 2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by MASSIVE Master

Having them active in one chain is the only way I'd go through it.

My experience is similar. Multiple units carefully selected, working optimally, and interacting with each other, is superior to one unit working hard.

21st March 2006	#1
Killahurts Lives for gear Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: USA Posts: 1,694 Thread Starter	Achieving loudness in stages, does it help? Seems like the lament about the software maximizer/limiters is that when you get them really loud, they ruin the music. But when you use them lightly, they seem to do a lot better, less damage to the music, albeit it's not as loud... Does it help to use them lightly, like say shaving just a couple dB and printing, and then at some step along the way, reprocess that file with more limiting/crushing? Maybe even do some EQ, or other processing in between multiple limiting "stages". It's like you could keep getting it louder in each stage, constantly correcting the damage the limiter does after each "layer". And I guess if it helped in the digital domain, no reason it couldn't be applied to the analog world too? P.S. I am definitely not a ME, so be gentle. __________________ Analog is the new black

22nd March 2006	#5
MASSIVE Master Lives for gear Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Chicago (Schaumburg / Hoffman Est.) IL Posts: 2,632 Verified Member	I think there's murky water on this one - It's SO dependent on the dynamics of the source material that there really isn't a clear answer. That being said - If "sheer volume" is on the menu, I tend to find that chained dynamics control "nipping" at the levels tends to work better than a slam factor. Even then, what type of controllers (limting, leveling, compression) and in what order will be dictated by the mix. Going through one and "printing" though... One is going to affect the next - and a lot of tweaking from the first one down is probably going to have to happen. Having them active in one chain is the only way I'd go through it. __________________ John Scrip - Massive Mastering, LLC - www.massivemastering.com Spoon-feed a newb some answer and he'll mix for a day - Get him to think about it and figure it out for himself and he'll mix for a lifetime --- JS

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The record that issued the modern loudness era? Or as i call it the "loudness strain"	thethrillfactor	So much gear, so little time!	82	18th September 2011 05:33 PM
Achieving a vintage cabaret music vocal sound...	fr0st	Low End Theory	0	25th July 2005 11:02 PM
drum isolation on less than large stages	JayCrouch	Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music & Location Recording	13	3rd February 2003 10:28 AM
Split Mixing: Avoiding digital gain stages	Tim Glasgow	Expert Question & Answer Archives (read only archive, not open for new posts)	5	8th November 2002 09:48 AM

21st March 2006	#2
Kiwiburger Lives for gear Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 4,075	I'm not a ME either, but my goal is to mix so the ME has little or nothing to do. IMO - there can be advantages in multiple attempts at loudness, but ... I don't believe eq can fix the damage done by excessive squashing, I don't believe there is any advantage in hitting the waveform with the same limiter/compression setting - i.e. raising the gain or lowering the threshold. Every process does damage, so if you can achieve what you want to achieve in one hit, I think that's better. IMO - limiting some peaks before compression can be useful - the compressor doesn't have to work so hard. And compressors don't really control transient peaks anway (unless you set the attack ridiculously fast and damage your sound). So limiting after compression can deal with the stuff the compressor didn't catch. Remember, compression is multiplicative - not additive. In other words, if you apply a 2:1 compression, then a 10:1 - the final result is 20:1, not 12:1. (Assuming minimum threshold, which is unlikely). But I think the idea that a little bit of damage more often is better than one massive hit is probably wrong. Less is usually waay more. In my uneducated opinion.

21st March 2006	#3
JP11 Lives for gear Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 3,130	I could very well be wrong, but I have found that the Waves L2 used gently is the most transparent at shaving peaks (for use before compressing or limiting again for volume gain).