Relative Volume?

[esamaxe]

I've been recording w/ pro tools, 002, G5 for less than a year (newbie). I'm wondering how real professionals get their tracks pumping at a loud (commercial standard) volume without losing the integrity of the original sound. A few theories of mine and some implemented experiments:

1. Record with a high input level into pt, and if going through a good pre and compressor you can increase the volume significantly without clipping.
2.Use Dynamic plugins on individual tracks, submixes, or on a master track within PT to boost overall volumes.
3. Run final mix through outboard compressor limiter and back into PT or I guess to tape.
4.Record many tracks of the same part to give it fullness and loudness.

These are some ideas I've picked up, but I'm self taught and I am not really sure about this. I'm hoping someone professional could give me some concrete answers about what methods are used most frequently in project and commercial studios, and what's best.

[johnlink]

Originally Posted by esamaxe

I'm wondering how real professionals get their tracks pumping at a loud (commercial standard) volume without losing the integrity of the original sound.

They don't. See any of the threads about loudness wars for plenty of discussion about the issue.

John Link

[MASSIVE Master]

There's no doubt that some mixes have more "volume potential" than others. But that potential is really dictated by the mix itself. It has a lot to do with the arrangement and the core sounds. The quality from "step one" has to be in the pocket - #1 listed above is basically overdriving the signal on the way in. That's not a really good first step. Tracking "hot" has absolutely postively NOTHING to do with the mix's end volume. For the most part, it can easily *rob* a mix of its volume potential.

Not like that should be the issue - But there's usually a big difference between running gear "as it was designed to run" and "getting a really hot signal" at the input. This is SO common among the "track as hot as you can without clipping" crowd... Depending on how the input chain is calibrated, getting a track "as hot as you can" can be pushing the signal 12, 15, even 20dB hotter than it's designed to be. You might as well run it through a Marshall stack. And a lot of people don't notice the damage on one or two tracks - But when you stack 16 or 24 of those tracks together, that added distortion and lack of focus and clarity from overdriving the individual signals can add up to a whole lotta mush and "why don't my mixes sound like 'pro' mixes?"

#2 - Yes and no - Same thing. Compression to serve the mix leads to quality. Compression for the sake of volume usually winds up similar to shooting yourself in the foot.

*Dynamic* and well-mixed tracks with a lot of headroom and a nice "open" quality to it normally fare much better under the "abuse" of volume hoarding during the mastering phase.

#3 & #4 - Depends on the mix.

In short, "shooting for volume" in the early stages usually insures that you won't get it.

Shooting for sheer recording quality on the other hand can give you a mix that wll handle the mastering phase in style.

I get in projects from home hobbyists to veterans with decades behind the board. I try to casually "poll" a lot of them about what they're up to about their recordings.

Project that sounds like crap at hot levels were almost always tracked and mixed hot. "As hot as possible without clipping" in many cases.

Projects that sound amazing (and handle the "volume abuse") tend to be recorded at "I just made sure the signal was around 0dBVU on the preamp" and "I dunno - Maybe the mix peaked at -12dBFS or so - I wasn't really concerned about it."

In other words, "get a decent signal, make sure it sounds good and don't use up all the headroom at every possible chance."

[esamaxe]

Thanks for replies. I've actually found this to be true. When the input meter is hanging around the half way mark and a little higher, tracks sound more clear to me. So after tracking like that, what's the next step. Treating individual tracks with eq and compression if needed, or automating volumes of tracks before using efx. Creating submixes of drums, guitars, vocals, harmonies, then treating submixes with compressors and eq. Then maybe when levels are balanced and everything sounds decent, bounce the final mix to a stereo track . Then in a new session, treat the new mixed stereo track with a limiter to increase the overall volume significantly, and a compressor, eq, and dither. Then bounce to a mastered stereo track.

This "hypothetical" process is one of the things I've tried a few times, and I am not pleased. I am musician (guitarist), and am very picky with sound. I have dynaAudio BM5a monitors, and I've been told they are accurate and good monitors, so I'm trying to single out any factors that are not satisfying my ears. I got PT LE 7.1 with production toolkit (convolution reverb, 48 tracks, soundreplacer, etc.) recently. These + other plugins make working easier then previous ones. I'm thinking that the occasional times I've worked with outboard gear (pres, eqs, eq/compressors) I gotten fuller sounds that my ears are more pleased with. I have yet to see one of my tracks come alive with only plugins, yet I don't have much experience with outboard gear. But I can only imagine that sending your track through a Manley Slam or something like that as opposed to a Waves L2 limiter has to do more for the overall product. Am I wrong? I don't know. any suggestions: methods, plugins, outboard gear?

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by esamaxe

Thanks for replies. I've actually found this to be true. When the input meter is hanging around the half way mark and a little higher, tracks sound more clear to me.

Hmmmm.... there are so many potential gotchas in that statement I don't know where to begin to start to ask you why you think that is so.

There are questions as to whether your preamps and line amps and A/ds are optimally gain-staged, whether your DAC or monitor system is getting overloaded at higher input levels... But if you have optimum gain-staging, so that preamps stay at least 6 dB below clipping at the same point as your line amps are doing the same and your A/Ds are just at 0 dBFS at that point, then you should be able to stay out of trouble recording just under 0 dBFS peak, and it will sound fine.

As to whether a Manley Slam does better for you during mixing than a Waves L2, I'd lean towards the Slam because it's a compresor which can help some individual mix elements, and the L2 is a limiter. (Though the Slam is and can be used in mastering). But in general, I find that the tools that purport to help you achieve a "mastered" "loud sound" don't belong in a mix session. They can easily produce a harsh sound that if used during a mix will turn your mix into one which sounds "wimpy loud" instead of real loud. And contrast helps, too, if the chorus is not swinging above the verse, you've stomped on it! And such a mix does not sound as "loud" as one where you left some transients.

When used in a mix, especially on the overall bus, the tools which are designed to help achieve a "loud" sound usually produce the opposite of a sound which is "natural, cohesive, clean, impacting, dynamic, and has width, depth and dimension". All of those attributes have to be balanced against the musicality of a production. Too much "punch" and "fatness" is just as undesirable as too many "transients" without any punch! So, I suggest you use your BM5As to tell you when you have a very good sounding mix and then let any other additions that are supposed to "add loudness" be considered for the mastering step in the process.

In that good sounding mix of course you can include the use of individual channel compressors, some "distortion makers", "warmers" and other tools, but I suggest you use them for the tone and the variety and depth of image more than with the goal of making it sound "loud". Even bus compressors should be questioned as being counter the creation of a "loud" sound", though experienced engineers can use a good bus compressor to "glue" their mix together and in the process it gets a hair louder without harming it. In the end, if you leave the philosophy of "make it louder" for the mastering process, you'll get a better mix and be prouder of it.