LOUD commercial VO!

[tom_lowe]

Originally Posted by Marogru

Everyone is talking about how we should turn down the loudness, but no one does it.

let's do the opposite discuss your ideas and favorites how to make it LOUD!

Favorite plugins?
Favorite plugin chains?
Special eq for the VO to be more upfront?

I found out while mixing for some Polish TV's that I have to put ridiculous amounts of high shelf eq for the voice to sound "normal", it feels like the TV station was so used to the high freq overdo in the ads they received, they have put the shelf down for the ad to sound "normal"> kinda strange.

MY to go VO crush workflow:

Deesser (UA)->EQ (PSP)->comp 1 (high ratio, copping spikes, RC etc.)->comp 2 (lower ratio, H-Comp) -> eq (or c4, PSP WV) ->limiter (L or UA)

Given that the current trend is to move towards standardised loudness practices and more dynamic range, this thread is pointless.

[tpad]

I agree with Tom. This topic (how to make it LOUD) is discussed ad nauseum over in the mastering forum, so we really don't need anymore. Average broadcast level control becomes LAW over here (U.S.) in December, so you actually will get cited by Uncle Charlie if you persist in flaunting the regulation.

[Marogru]

Originally Posted by tpad

I agree with Tom. This topic (how to make it LOUD) is discussed ad nauseum over in the mastering forum, so we really don't need anymore. Average broadcast level control becomes LAW over here (U.S.) in December, so you actually will get cited by Uncle Charlie if you persist in flaunting the regulation.

There are lots of people on this form that are actually not form U.S. and the ABLC will be long non existing in many countries.

I do not know what a Loud VO has to do with audio mastering forum. Maybe you think of mastering the ads or something.

If the topic would be dead and not interesting, it wouldn't gain views, if you are not interested, please go by.

[Kuba_Pietrzak]

Originally Posted by Marogru

I found out while mixing for some Polish TV's that I have to put ridiculous amounts of high shelf eq for the voice to sound "normal", it feels like the TV station was so used to the high freq overdo in the ads they received, they have put the shelf down for the ad to sound "normal"> kinda strange.

No, as I know, the whole loudness is measured and THE WHOLE MIX is turned down, if necessary. Some stations also use a multiband broadcast processor, so the mix is also affected by it and that's why might sound different.

The key in mixing, is to predict all those processes and deliver the mix, which would go through all of this without any change.

Most stations started to use the R128 Loudness Recomendation at the beginning of this year.

best,
Kuba

[tpad]

...I do not know what a Loud VO has to do with audio mastering forum. Maybe you think of mastering the ads or something...

I don't know what Loud VO has to do with the mastering forum either. What YOU said was "Everyone is talking about how we should turn down the loudness, but no one does it. let's do the opposite discuss your ideas and favorites how to make it LOUD!". And what I said in response was that there is enough discussion on "making it LOUD" and we don't need anymore! Pretty sure that it is the general consensus around here. If you don't like it, then YOU move on.

Furthermore, it is only a matter of time until the rest of the world adopts a broadcast level control standard similar to what we are doing over here in the U.S., so you might as well get used to the idea.

[tom_lowe]

Originally Posted by tpad

...I do not know what a Loud VO has to do with audio mastering forum. Maybe you think of mastering the ads or something...

I don't know what Loud VO has to do with the mastering forum either. What YOU said was "Everyone is talking about how we should turn down the loudness, but no one does it. let's do the opposite discuss your ideas and favorites how to make it LOUD!". And what I said in response was that there is enough discussion on "making it LOUD" and we don't need anymore! Pretty sure that it is the general consensus around here. If you don't like it, then YOU move on.

Furthermore, it is only a matter of time until the rest of the world adopts a broadcast level control standard similar to what we are doing over here in the U.S., so you might as well get used to the idea.

Sorry to say tpad, but most of Europe (at least) has adopted loudness, in fact, we went as far as to customise the algorithm a bit an introduce EBU R.128 which the ITU then used as the basis for BS.1770-2

anyway, that aside, I fully agree with everything else you said. I'm amazed loudness specs haven't hit Poland yet. Read that comment as you like.

[renec]

I think the trickiest part of getting loud VOs is controlling the s's.

I'll typically run a subtractive eq, fast attack compressor, de-es, and then another comp - usually the H-comp. If I really want to crush it at that H comp stage I'll slam it the hell out and then back the mix percentage down.

from there its a manual volume ride, and then another compressor on the master bus.

[Kuba_Pietrzak]

Originally Posted by tom_lowe

I'm amazed loudness specs haven't hit Poland yet. Read that comment as you like.

I can confirm, that EBU R.128 has already hit Poland at the beginning of 2012, as I wrote above...

I've seen several delivery specs from different national tv stations.

best,
Kuba

[tpad]

...Sorry to say tpad, but most of Europe (at least) has adopted loudness...

Fully conversant with the EBU specs. However, my understanding was that it was still advisory over there, but not law yet. ATSC used to be advisory over here until they finally passed the CALM act, and the FCC then gave everyone a 1-year reprieve to get their shop in order before it becomes mandatory in December.

[Jamie Mac]

Although most European countries will adopt R128, there will still be countries in the rest of the world that won't (think Africa and Asia) so I think it is still a valid question for whoever is looking for a solid, loud VO that can compete with other commercials.

[narcoman]

Bit disappointing to see a manufacturer bringing this up though!

[tom_lowe]

Originally Posted by tpad

...Sorry to say tpad, but most of Europe (at least) has adopted loudness...

Fully conversant with the EBU specs. However, my understanding was that it was still advisory over there, but not law yet. ATSC used to be advisory over here until they finally passed the CALM act, and the FCC then gave everyone a 1-year reprieve to get their shop in order before it becomes mandatory in December.

This is very true. Hope we follow suit.

[thesoundpost]

The Netherlands are up to speed :-) I've been delivering R128 mixes for a year now.

[Marogru]

Originally Posted by narcoman

Bit disappointing to see a manufacturer bringing this up though!

And why is that?
First of all I'm a sound engineer, not a veteran sound wizard that knows all, but a person that learns over life.
Should I be politically right here and be polite to all because I have a product I sell and I believe in?
I understand that if all the OLDER guys say that loud is bad, I should do also...that would sell me more gear...

Every one of us struggle between loud and nice and I love both.
I'm amazed how people deliver really loud commercials or top 40 records these days, but I also really appreciate to listen to subtle (RIGHT WORD?) wide and deep music when I really will find something like this these days. I want to share my humble exp and catch some more form people that really are in to that.

Getting back to the issue that you mentioned, my clients are from both worlds so I'm not worried at all about bringing up a "controversial" for old seasoned wizards subject as making something loud. TBH, my product is not made to do things loud, so it's not a crypto if you had that in mind.

Yes, I will be flamed a 100 posts over the topic and this post, but hey, this is a FORUM, and some of you more open guys answer to my question, thank you.

Yes we have 128 directions since 2012 but it's not in executed yet in full.

BTW, Narco, I'd love to work with P.E. That had to be a major exp!

[narcoman]

You're product is super excellent. I had one here for a while and am keen to purchase.

However....

Just a bit disappointed that a company would seek to endorse something that EVERYBODY wants to go away. NOBODY wants loud but it's an arms race - everyone does it because everyone else does and they're afraid to work to better (hoho!!) sounding standards. Why disappointed? Because manufacturers and people at the stop of their profession in mixing are the ONLY people who have influence. We need those two sets of people to educate and illuminate - not stoke a fire that needs no more heat.


Oh - and the creme de la creme of top40 (pop etc) mixes AREN'T delivered loud. They're super clean and clear with the only loud part being in the final master. I love that too. It's the middle of the road crap with mixers trying to compete with masters that sounds like junk.....


It's also nothing to do with OLDER guys.

[tpad]

The problem is that what most around this website are referring to as LOUD audio sounds more like BAD audio to me (and others too). Furthermore, making it sound BAD won't accomplish your goal of making it sound significantly LOUDER if program levels are properly normalized as per BS-1770 (at least that's what they are claiming!). So. why bother? That was my point.

[Marogru]

Originally Posted by narcoman

You're product is super excellent. I had one here for a while and am keen to purchase.

However....

Just a bit disappointed that a company would seek to endorse something that EVERYBODY wants to go away. NOBODY wants loud but it's an arms race - everyone does it because everyone else does and they're afraid to work to better (hoho!!) sounding standards. Why disappointed? Because manufacturers and people at the stop of their profession in mixing are the ONLY people who have influence. We need those two sets of people to educate and illuminate - not stoke a fire that needs no more heat.


Oh - and the creme de la creme of top40 (pop etc) mixes AREN'T delivered loud. They're super clean and clear with the only loud part being in the final master. I love that too. It's the middle of the road crap with mixers trying to compete with masters that sounds like junk.....


It's also nothing to do with OLDER guys.

Thanks for kind words.

I clearly understand your point.
I'm just fed up with people pretending that they are on a war.
All of us do it and we can hare it as long as it's legal
Every pro has a trick or 2 to show in that matter even if he engineers the most delicate music or spoken word.

I understand your point that it has to end somewhere and we need authorities to show us how to end it.
But for now we will go in to 128 and then some clever guy will write a plugin that will go over the 128 and then we will start again....

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by Marogru

But for now we will go in to 128 and then some clever guy will write a plugin that will go over the 128 and then we will start again....

The point of such a windowed function means that we won't. LOUD stuff will get turned down and sound WORSE.

[tpad]

There probably are a few things that you can do to fake-out the normalizing algos and make the audio sound louder, but I'm obviously not going to say what they are, either here or in private.

[renec]

Originally Posted by tpad

There probably are a few things that you can do to fake-out the normalizing algos and make the audio sound louder, but I'm obviously not going to say what they are, either here or in private.

best way to keep a secret is not to talk about it.

so, what's your trick? distortion?

[tpad]

No distortion. You need to study psychoacoustics to understand how your hearing really works and how these proposed "loudness" algorithms work (and don't work). Since I'm not an advocate the of loudness inducing processing, I'm not going to venture into the discussion any further. I was primarily making a comment on the theoretical possibility.

[Airon]

Generally you can make it sound more obnoxious and trick the loudness measuring algorithm, because it's not perfect.

Of course, everyone around your material will sound rather good in comparison. Some will sound outright dull.

Crunchy is actually pretty boring when put next to fluffy.

[GregorioM]

Originally Posted by Marogru

All of us do it and we can hare it as long as it's legal Every pro has a trick or 2 to show in that matter even if he engineers the most delicate music or spoken word.

I understand your point that it has to end somewhere and we need authorities to show us how to end it.
But for now we will go in to 128 and then some clever guy will write a plugin that will go over the 128 and then we will start again....

What's legal is largely irrelevant. For an audio post mixer what's "legal" is effectively whatever the broadcaster writes in their delivery specs. R128 will probably never become law but it won't need to, all the major broadcasters in the EU have already or will soon write R128 into their delivery specs and it won't take long for all the minor broadcasters to follow suit when they find themselves unable buy or syndicate anything which isn't either R128 or A85 spec.

I can't see a plugin as you describe existing any time soon, if at all. Measuring RMS levels and using updated Fletcher-Munson curves mean that the standard psychoacoustic tricks are already accounted for in the R128 spec. The only loop hole I see currently is with the LFE but that's not going to help much unless you want wildly unbalanced mixes.

Using a load of compression or boosting sensitive frequency ranges to make it sound louder will therefore push your mix out of the R128 spec and mean in most cases your mix will be rejected or if it is accepted, it will be normalised down and probably end up sounding quieter than it would have had you stuck to the R128 specs in the first place!

Trying to make "loud as you can" commercials is becoming an anachronism, as indeed will you be as a mixer if loudness is your focus.

G

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by tpad

No distortion. You need to study psychoacoustics to understand how your hearing really works and how these proposed "loudness" algorithms work (and don't work). Since I'm not an advocate the of loudness inducing processing, I'm not going to venture into the discussion any further. I was primarily making a comment on the theoretical possibility.

Hearing curves are taken care of in the current set of monitoring functions. Apparent loudness doesn't matter. It's the distortion from hard limiting that is the issue - and there is NO way around that since a hard limited set will show a higher RMS and will hit a higher LUFS (etc) value. In other words - they'll get turned down and end up being quieter. There is no psychoacoustic technique to get around the loudness measuring and window averaging with a weighted curve. Make is brighter in inverse Fletcher Munson? No problem - it won't distort and will be totally valid. 1770-2 is pretty darn good PLUS you're forgetting that every mix medium outside of pop music is based on an overwhelming majority of personnel who want to support less limited work.

Remember that 1770-2 and 128 are windowed functions - you can go very loud in short bursts. Hard limited stuff just gets turned down. It's not a ceiling value. It's more exiting to the ear and none limited stuff sounds louder yet not fatiguing.

[tpad]

...1770-2 is pretty darn good PLUS you're forgetting that every mix medium outside of pop music is based on an overwhelming majority of personnel who want to support less limited work....

What on earth are you talking about? Your post comes across like some sort of sour-grapes rant.

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by tpad

What on earth are you talking about? Your post comes across like some sort of sour-grapes rant.

I see. I thought I was discussing why you can't get "around it" but apparently it's sour grapes. For more sour grapes you could look at GregorioM's post above.

[tpad]

get "around" what? If you read what I posted, I said that I AM NOT an advocate of loudness processing per-se. However, BS-1770 and R128 etc. that you and others apparently are in love with, are not infallible. In particular, they DON'T measure loudness, although that is what they are being advertised as doing. Since they don't actually measure loudness, some enterprising individual (like Marogru) could probably work their way around the measuring algorithm to make their stuff sound louder. Since I'm NOT one of those enterprising individuals, I'm obviously not going to expose what I think the weak spots are. If you (or anyone else) want to know what they are, then go figure them out for yourself.

As far as "forgetting" things, I have been studying the psychoacoustics of loudness perception for the last 35 years (literally), long before it was the topic du jour. How long have you and the rest of the self appointed "experts" around here been studying this topic?

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by tpad

get "around" what? If you read what I posted, I said that I AM NOT an advocate of loudness processing per-se. However, BS-1770 and R128 etc. that you and others apparently are in love with, are not infallible. In particular, they DON'T measure loudness, although that is what they are being advertised as doing. Since they don't actually measure loudness, some enterprising individual (like Marogru) could probably work their way around the measuring algorithm to make their stuff sound louder. Since I'm NOT one of those enterprising individuals, I'm obviously not going to expose what I think the weak spots are. If you (or anyone else) want to know what they are, then go figure them out for yourself.

As far as "forgetting" things, I have been studying the psychoacoustics of loudness perception for the last 35 years (literally), long before it was the topic du jour. How long have you and the rest of the self appointed "experts" around here been studying this topic?

ah - you've got a bit of bite haven't ya!! . Ah GS - source of "men with bite"....

The psychoacoustics of loudness perception have NO effect on absolute loudness and what 1770 (etc) are for. They are used to level a playing field of hyper distorted artefacts in the ever increasing loudness circle many have followed. Its about avoiding limiter distortion. Its about making measurement based on windowed averaging functions and not an absolute ceiling - the result being limited work gets turned down.

Now - as for qualifications.... I do this for a living at a level of AAA product (films and games). I own the UKs most prolific synch and post production house. Annoyingly Im also a double published PhD in the maths within acoustics and signals as well as formulating some of the earlier methods for metering and signal integrity in digital audio systems.

ITU 1770 and R128 have nothing to do with perceptual loudness - it's actual loudness and avoiding the "competition" in mixing... leaving headroom etc such that an UNlimited mix is actually louder.

As for working your way around 1770 or 128 - You can't because there's nothing to work around - it's not an automated procedure. It's an absolute windowed loudness measure. As long as you aren't employing hyper limiting (which will push your mix QUIETER) then everything else is fair game. Ones work either fits 1770 or it doesn't. All we're trying to avoid is listener fatigue through excessive limiting and distortion. All psychoacoustic loudness phenomena deal in a change of inches whereas the professional audio community has been looking to remove a problem measured in "yards" - adverts against more dynamic movie mixing, for example, and listener fatigue.


Now seeing as this is suppose to be a discussion of loudness - claiming " I can get round it and I know the shortcomings but I'm not going to tell you" is not useful or constructive. So. Give us a clue. What has 35 years of investigation into psychoacoustics (oh man - don't get me into Q sound - what a pile of shit that was...) told you about methods of circumventing time variant windowed averaging functions? Short peaks of slamming volume? Acceptable. Fletcher-Munson shenanigans? Acceptable. Doesn't break itu 1770. It's all and exclusively about removing hard limiting and fatiguing distortion. That is its only aim. Nothing - i repeat - NOTHING - you can suggest outside of hard limiting affect 1770. Makes your stuff louder? Awesome. As long as your not adding to the noted issue of hard limiting induced distortion and not raising levels within the window function....

[tpad]

Are you smoking something over there?