subsekt

I hope you were referencing against the original recording and not youtube

Lost to the Void wrote:I hope you were referencing against the original recording and not youtube

Haha.. yes... actually I've just downloaded Wavosaur and checked the file - it's actually -13db ish...

So looks like there's something wrong with the way I was using FreeG...

Well with meters you want to check the response and ballistics.

Generally I think it is best to go with C weighting, which is closest to how the ear responds.

So either set your meter to filter C, if you are using something like the BxMeter

Or use something that emulates VU ballistics like the psp meters

Bobby Vosene wrote:

Lost to the Void wrote:I hope you were referencing against the original recording and not youtube

Haha.. yes... actually I've just downloaded Wavosaur and checked the file - it's actually -13db ish...

So looks like there's something wrong with the way I was using FreeG...

I can see what the problem is now, looking at the waveforms... I have a small number of spikes poking through, lowering the overall level. (The RMS is actually only about 0.5db lower than the reference track). I had quite a slow attack on the limiter - does this need to be faster? Or should I add another limiter with a higher threshold just to cut off those peaks?

Here are the waveforms:

My track:


Reference track:

I don't understand why you are trying to match the loudness so closely.
This is not what mastering is about.
Did I not make any of this clear in the initial post already?

Even though the rms levels are close it sounds like there is still quite a big difference in the perceived volume. I just thought it might be because there are a small number of very transient peaks that are significantly higher than the average peak level, and that I could afford to tame these peaks without adversely affecting the sound of the track...

But I am happy with the track as it is, so maybe I was getting carried away... Your first post was clear and thanks for taking the time to write it!

Like we stated already: dont look on waveforms and dont look at RMS, it's not a measurement of loudness

Let a pro handle the mastering if you want to go beyond what you can achieve on your own.

Bobby Vosene wrote:Even though the rms levels are close it sounds like there is still quite a big difference in the perceived volume. I just thought it might be because there are a small number of very transient peaks that are significantly higher than the average peak level, and that I could afford to tame these peaks without adversely affecting the sound of the track...

But I am happy with the track as it is, so maybe I was getting carried away... Your first post was clear and thanks for taking the time to write it!

The difference will be intrinsic to the mix itself and not mastering process.
Better control of levels and "sound size" at the mixing stage leads to a fuller "louder" master.

Final apparent loudness is as much to do with the mixing stage as it is the master.

Transients will not make a huge difference to apparent loudness as they will to the liveliness and presence of the mix. Less transients = flat lifeless mix.

At the master stage the total amount of gain reduction I do on average when dealing with the better of the mixes I get sent ranges from 2db up to 4db max. And this is generally "soft" gain reduction rather than hard peak chopping such as limiting.

If you are doing it yourself based on my guidelines then I would look at keeping your gain reduction down to no more than 1db on a limiter and maybe another 2 by other means.
If you can't achieve this and get a reasonably competitive final level without killing the mix, then the problem IS the mix. Go back and clean up, pay attention to all the low end on your channels.

This is all about making a final work that you can use yourself to play out, not a release ready master.

Thanks for the advice mate.

@Mattias
@Void

so do either of you still (despite your own professional mastering abilities) have someone else master your tracks?.. aside from perhaps the club-ready rough master?

I think both me and Steve prefer to have someone else to master our own work. It always feel better to leave it to someone else who can listen to the music with another pair of ears and someone who doesn't have an attachment to the music-

penumbra wrote:@Mattias
@Void

so do either of you still (despite your own professional mastering abilities) have someone else master your tracks?.. aside from perhaps the club-ready rough master?

I much prefer to have my music mastered by someone else, I have had to cut my own vinyl masters recently, which I didn`t like doing, but the music was almost a year old, so by that point I have pretty much lost all attachment to it, and could be a lot more objective.

The idea of handing over mastering to a third party is that the third party can be objective about problems you might be subjectively attached too.

So if you are going to master your own stuff, professionally, I think it is best to have a good bit of time (months) between making the music and mastering it.

When we move this year to a new place, my personal plan is to have the mastering studio completely separated from the production studio, which will be helpful to me, working on separate speaker systems. (I plan on switching to B&W Nautilus for mastering, with a portable wheeled rack of minimal, selected gear, possibly all Weiss for EQ and Dynamics, with one or 2 character comps), and nothing between me and the speakers (no desk etc to ruin the soundspace).

that's kinda what I had figured...

I'd just like to send out my thanks as well for this guide , I mean, I'm still a little ways off from having to worry about any of this yet; however, it is great to understand more of what is going on with this process.


Another question... wasn't sure if it was a type-o... in the "Limiter" section, you listed an attack time of 1100ms.. is that right?..

penumbra wrote:that's kinda what I had figured...

I'd just like to send out my thanks as well for this guide , I mean, I'm still a little ways off from having to worry about any of this yet; however, it is great to understand more of what is going on with this process.


Another question... wasn't sure if it was a type-o... in the "Limiter" section, you listed an attack time of 1100ms.. is that right?..

No typo, but if you read the context of the whole thread, it is not a fixed setting. 1100ms on one limiter won`t be the same as 1100ms on another, believe it or not. Attack times, like all the settings I have talked about in the initial post, are entirely dependant on what you hear, and the numbers I quote are vague guides.

Going to have a read through this later, thanks for posting!

Nice post, Steve. I'll to also have to give this guide a try on my next tune.

Thanks you very much Steve

How much would you pay for somebody to master a track for you, Steve?
I know a guy who would master a track for me for 10 euro, which is nearly not as much as i've seen other people charge. Probably not the best, but I get him to do it if I want to play one of my tracks in a club or something like that

10 € sounds like a close friend price, not a relevant business price

Mattias wrote:10 € sounds like a close friend price, not a relevant business price

I know him from nights out and through friends but we've barely said more than 2 words to each other in person haha,
I haven't a clue what he does to be charging €10 but it's handy if I wanted to play a track out. Id usually have the mastered version off him within 2-3 days.
How much would you pay for a 1-3 track(s) to be mastered? Business price