Loudness war thoughts

[CorkyTart]

I found this to be an interesting yet retarted scenario. I mixed a song for a band and I knew off the bat that they were interested in competing in and winning the loudness war. So without telling them (THATS THE KEY), I did a mix and master that competed in the war and one that did not compete in the war. I played the two mixes at the same volume so the mix wouldnt be judged on volume.

They basically said that the mix that competed in the war sucked balls which I of course agreed with. They then went on to express their satisfaction with the quality and clarity of the mix that didnt fight the war. After the assesment, I explained to them what I did and how the volume on the better mix would not be as loud etc. They then started to change their tune and disregarded the quality of the mix and ultimately went with the mix that was louder KNOWING it didnt sound as good.

This kind of pisses me off because it can make any engineer (mixing or mastering) look like a jerk off. Your basically taking something that you worked hard on and got to sound as good as you can and taking a hacksaw/limiter to it and ultimately that represents your work. However, if you dont give the client what they want, they dont use you. So there is the artistic side and the business side.

Hmmm....................

[RainbowStorm]

Originally Posted by CorkyTart

I found this to be an interesting yet retarted scenario. I mixed a song for a band and I knew off the bat that they were interested in competing in and winning the loudness war. So without telling them (THATS THE KEY), I did a mix and master that competed in the war and one that did not compete in the war. I played the two mixes at the same volume so the mix wouldnt be judged on volume.

They basically said that the mix that competed in the war sucked balls which I of course agreed with. They then went on to express their satisfaction with the quality and clarity of the mix that didnt fight the war. After the assesment, I explained to them what I did and how the volume on the better mix would not be as loud etc. They then started to change their tune and disregarded the quality of the mix and ultimately went with the mix that was louder KNOWING it didnt sound as good.

This kind of pisses me off because it can make any engineer (mixing or mastering) look like a jerk off. Your basically taking something that you worked hard on and got to sound as good as you can and taking a hacksaw/limiter to it and ultimately that represents your work. However, if you dont give the client what they want, they dont use you. So there is the artistic side and the business side.

Hmmm....................

Hmm, I can understand your frustration. I just ask myself if it is valid to compare the mixes like this. Let's say the louder version would include more harmonic bloom than artifacts, wouldn't the louder version then start sounding better on lower volume levels when the "bad artifacts" aren't audible enough compared to the harmonic bloom? I just ask myself if any psychoacoustic effects like this can mess up their loudness/clearity perception and ultimately make them want the louder version... I just thought that maybe you should have them compare the two mixes on the same level but then on different volume levels, maybe they choose the limited version then? Try that, if they always choose the quiter version, then I agree it sucks...

[tINY]

In some ways, it's easier when they want it loud. You don't have to work as hard mixing, tracks with marginal tonal qualities can be saved, and you never have to worry about ruining the dynamics of a song.

I'd still charge them as much, though.

The other tack you could take is mix it to sound good and punt it to the mastering house to squash. I've had things ruined in mastering before.




-tINY

[TheNoize]

Interesting that what you mentioned reminded me of some points I made in this article:

“The Loudness War”: Oh Please… | Moozek

[steelyfan]

I ALWAYS give clients ONE mix, and it's the right one, the one I know sounds best. Fortunatelly, everyone knows I'm a know-it-all -asshole,
so i have fewer clients, henceforth less studio income, less nonsense, less dumb song mixing
and more time for my own un-popular song crafting and creations!
I have a day job and don't need dumb people's presence or money.

[Mr.HOLMES]

I think I am the only one who is in 90% of the cases frustrated when a mix is coming back from mastering. Mostly my fader levels are destroyed by a stupid limiting.

What was in the back is coming up front....
I wish I could find a mastering house which is just handling a limiter like rear eggs.

[MR5D]

Originally Posted by Mr.HOLMES

I think I am the only one who is in 90% of the cases frustrated when a mix is coming back from mastering. Mostly my fader levels are destroyed by a stupid limiting.

What was in the back is coming up front....
I wish I could find a mastering house which is just handling a limiter like rear eggs.

+1 here...

[Mayor999]

Originally Posted by MR5D

+1 here...

Just keep trying new dudes. I finally found a guy who does what i like to my mixes, knows what I am picky about, tells me things to make his life easier, and takes the initiative and does something I didn't intend when he knows it will make the song better.

[princeplanet]

I do the same, but the loud version isn't too different sounding (once adjusted for fair comparison) that everyone always prefers the softer one. Learning how to do "loud" without noticeable artifacts is the whole ball game it seems. This is of course, lamentable, chiefly because all the care that goes into walking that fine line should be put into TONE, not VOLUME. This is why I do my own mastering now, I figured out how to get it as loud and clean as Sterling, but I put more care and effort into the sonics. After 20 or so disappointing results from the big mastering houses over the years I decided to make the tonal shaping as well as the volume shaping part of a 2 step mixing process.
Of course you need a lot of experience, a killer room/monitor and reliable references for many genres, plus a way to cross check mixes in several domestic environments, and frankly most mixers shouldn't mess with this stuff until they have it nailed. But if you trust yourself to do a better job than the the big guys, why wouldn't you? After all, modern mastering is not as difficult or mysterious as modern mixing. Don't believe me? Consider this, a great mixer can learn to master well WAY quicker than a great masterer can learn great mixing. Yeah, yeah, I've heard all the arguments here but stop! The mixing skill set is infinitely larger than the mastering chops, kinda like comparing Charlie Parker to BB King.
Only someone who who doesn't understand both skills would disagree, ahem, IMHO...

[chris carter]

Not to defend insanely loud, but.... Regular folks don't listen in studios. Take a mix that is quiter and see how much fun you have cranking the volume up on a cheap boombox or computer speakers. Either you have the volume knob all the way up and you still want more volume, or you get the volume knob 3/4 of the way up and the poor little amp in the thing is sucking all the life out of the music trying to keep up. I know engineers like to say, "just turn it up stupid!", but it's not quite that simple in regular-people land.

That said, part of mixing most commercial genres is knowing how to a) make a mix SOUND big and loud and b) make a mix that will withstand the limiting in mastering without falling to pieces. I used to bitch and moan about what the limiter did to my mixes... that was back when I sucked LOL. Now, no worries. So either I'm really good at mixing now, or I'm really deaf....

[Mr.HOLMES]

Originally Posted by chris carter

Not to defend insanely loud, but.... Regular folks don't listen in studios. Take a mix that is quiter and see how much fun you have cranking the volume up on a cheap boombox or computer speakers. Either you have the volume knob all the way up and you still want more volume, or you get the volume knob 3/4 of the way up and the poor little amp in the thing is sucking all the life out of the music trying to keep up. I know engineers like to say, "just turn it up stupid!", but it's not quite that simple in regular-people land.

That said, part of mixing most commercial genres is knowing how to a) make a mix SOUND big and loud and b) make a mix that will withstand the limiting in mastering without falling to pieces. I used to bitch and moan about what the limiter did to my mixes... that was back when I sucked LOL. Now, no worries. So either I'm really good at mixing now, or I'm really deaf....

I do not think that I am bad at mixing.
I make fair mixes and I mix for the song....and not for the level on the 2 bus.
So it is up to the ME not do destroy my intension of the mixing job.

And by the way I deeply believe that Mr. Stavrou is right.
He wrote:

"In my opinion likable is always better as to have the loudest song."

In other words if the song sucks the limiter wont help you either.
But if the Song is great listeners will crank up the volume knob and I do agree to this.

[tazman]

So how did we do it 10-15 years ago? Has everyone gone deaf or something?

Originally Posted by chris carter

Not to defend insanely loud, but.... Regular folks don't listen in studios. Take a mix that is quiter and see how much fun you have cranking the volume up on a cheap boombox or computer speakers. Either you have the volume knob all the way up and you still want more volume, or you get the volume knob 3/4 of the way up and the poor little amp in the thing is sucking all the life out of the music trying to keep up. I know engineers like to say, "just turn it up stupid!", but it's not quite that simple in regular-people land.

That said, part of mixing most commercial genres is knowing how to a) make a mix SOUND big and loud and b) make a mix that will withstand the limiting in mastering without falling to pieces. I used to bitch and moan about what the limiter did to my mixes... that was back when I sucked LOL. Now, no worries. So either I'm really good at mixing now, or I'm really deaf....