What levels are YOU mixing down to for mastering???

[dpaterson]

Just chime in to add my 2 cents.

Yours and others that have used the above rest assured: ALL posts around here on this topic are worth WAY more than 2 cents!!! LOL!!!

Keep the ideas and posts coming. Dunno about you all but I'm finding this real fascinating how.

Regards,

Dale.

[dpaterson]

Well what do you know. It's free!!!

https://www.meldaproduction.com/MRecorder

Right. Now that we have the sample rate issue partly resolved ... LOL!!!

Regards,

Dale.

[Ian Craig]

Well what do you know. It's free!!!

https://www.meldaproduction.com/MRecorder

Right. Now that we have the sample rate issue partly resolved ... LOL!!!

Regards,

Dale.

I've used it when necessary for years on the master track.
As regards sample rates I work at 44khz unless software overrides things which I think ASIO has forced me into during the last several months, which explain how I've used hundreds of Gigabytes in that short time. Disc Space is still a problem, it always has been with audio, working only in midi was much cheaper (over 20 years ago).

[Mark Bliss]

Interpreting the question as "What levels are you mastering to?"
"What levels are you mixing down to for mastering" infers that one is mixing down and re-importing for mastering I think? Since we now exist in a largely "single release" environment, this isn't always the case. At least for me.

Currently/generally:
For streaming- 44.1/16 wav at (up to) -14 or -13Lufs or so with 1 to 1.5dB of headroom allowed for MP3 encoding or streaming file compression. I am told if good modern encoders are used 1 dB is enough, but there's nothing wrong with playing it a little safe, and what's .5dB.
And for some styles, even that density isn't really necessary IMO. (You don't HAVE to master that "loud" if its a soft, dynamic style song that should come across a little quieter IOW)

For something like a CD or release/review mix where -14Lufs is simply not going to be competitive, anything goes. But as I have said before, I personally am not into the "modern" sound or modern metal and stuff too much so.....
Personally, I have found somewhere around -12 or -10 all music begins to get very annoying for me to listen to, even when someone gifted at mixing to those levels (and beyond) engineers it. (I am not)
Get into some of this stuff that measures at -8 or -7 and I cant last 15 seconds. Stop!
But to each their own.

[dpaterson]

Hello all (again).

GREAT morning this side!!! LOL!!!

I've used it when necessary for years on the master track.

NOW you tell me!!! LOL!!! Yip. Works great. Matter of fact: I'm now thinking of using it without even bothering to mix down using Mixcraft. As I've just mentioned on the OTHER thread: Mixcraft is sometimes doing some funny things when mixing down of late (certainly doesn't seem to like my side chain compressors being overly used I can tell you that). And yet: it will play a project back NO problem at all. And, as a matter, of fact, and as a result of a test / esperiment last night: somehow or another even if Mixcraft begins to stutter on playback MRecorder still records the audio as perfectly clean. No idea how or why but it does. (Was just mucking about and pushing the limits with sample rates and buffers and latency last night) (you know: just to see when it's going to "blow up").

As regards sample rates I work at 44khz unless software overrides things which I think ASIO has forced me into during the last several months, which explain how I've used hundreds of Gigabytes in that short time. Disc Space is still a problem, it always has been with audio, working only in midi was much cheaper (over 20 years ago).

Try video!!! LOL!!!

Regards,

Dale.

[Ian Craig]

somehow or another even if Mixcraft begins to stutter on playback MRecorder still records the audio as perfectly clean. No idea how or why but it does.

That will be because it's digitally capturing the data, not recording the sound, so if it glitches, it presumably just waits till the far side of the glitch to carry on collecting the data

(Was just mucking about and pushing the limits with sample rates and buffers and latency last night) (you know: just to see when it's going to "blow up").

Try video!!! LOL!!!

Try this video !!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtW8p756118&t=30s

[dpaterson]

Very funny.

My ears were ringing before I watched that video. Now my eyes have gone funny too. Thanks for that!!! LOL!!!

Regards,

Dale.

[dpaterson]

Hello.

Well for the sake of completeness:

Those who stuck to their guns in saying that the final mix down in preparation for mastering (software) should be at our "usual" headroom level of -6dB were all quite right and "on the button" (based on my extensive tests that is). The absolute best results I've had: mix down level at -6dB / -10LU and you can then either let the mastering software do it's thing or push the mix further if you want. And these people on the Internet that say that watching headroom levels is a myth??? Well. Dunno what their stuff sounds like. All I know is that for 'lil 'ol me: leaving headroom at the mix down stage definitely results in clarity and space (or should I say: it doesn't result in the mastering software robbing you of clarity and space). The fact that in digital you can get away with NOT leaving headroom because it's not as "iffy" as analogue is beside the point in my opinion i.e. just because something doesn't clip doesn't mean it's going to sound good. Furthermore (and I know somebody commented on this in this thread): the mastering software as a rule pushes the peaks to 0dB (MAYBE slightly less) anyway. And one very interesting thing that I've noticed: if you examine a waveform of a master that actually sounds real good I note that the "body" of the wave fills the -6dB/Inf./-6dB range. Once that "body" is consistently over -6dB then things start to sound artificially pushed (things become mushy i.e. clarity is lost and it's particularly evident when it comes to stuff like reverb for some odd reason). What's more: most of the mastering software (that I have anyway) seems to obey this "rule" (using presets anyway and there must be a reason for this) i.e. the main body of the sound is pushed to fill this region and the peaks are pushed to 0dB (MAYBE slightly less as previously stated).

Sooo... There ya go.

Regards,

Dale.

[starise]

If I went strictly by my hearing my mixes would undoubtedly always be far too hot. It's easy to get into a competition in trying to make our mixes as loud as so and so.

I dare say, when my masters look ok in db and LUFS they sound a bit too low to my ears. This is likely because I grew up listening to loud music. If one looks beyond the hype and excitement of those really loud mastered mixes you soon discover there isn't much quality there because the tune was compressed and limited into a brick.

One plugin I use as a last stop before recent recordings leave my studio is EXPOSE. One thing some don't realize is you need to shave a few db off of anything that will be an Mp3. EXPOSE has settings for most online music sites and looks at stereo image, overall level,total level, occasional peaks. It then shows you where the problems are.

Just know your mix probably will sound too low when it is correct. Similar to when you hear of airplane pilots who attempt to trust their senses instead of their instruments.

Here's a link to EXPOSE https://www.masteringthemix.com/products/expose

[dpaterson]

Hello.

Thanks for the post (I think) (I say "I think" because I was just saying to somebody earlier today that I'm DONE with more plugins!!! LOL!!!) (but those sure do look interesting).

If I went strictly by my hearing my mixes would undoubtedly always be far too hot.

Same problem here but had to do all of this to prove it. You can definitely hear many nuances that are wiped out by a mix that's pushed too far. I think the only thing that I grapple with on this score: is the target audience going to notice or even care??? In my genre of music (rock and metal) there's not to many people that I know that can tell the difference or care really i.e. as long as it's loud (loud being misconstrued as quality). I guess this is where "executive decisions" are made by "the masters".

If one looks beyond the hype and excitement of those really loud mastered mixes you soon discover there isn't much quality there because the tune was compressed and limited into a brick.

and

Just know your mix probably will sound too low when it is correct.

Yip. So far as I can tell from my tests this is indeed the case.

Regards,

Dale.

[Mark Bliss]

Mysteriously, all the music I would describe as my favorite pales (loudness wise) to modern mixes.
Further oddity, all the music described as a ruination of the music industry is flat, lacks dynamics and overly "loud."

And yet we have a bunch of folks trying to learn how to match the modern sound......

Go figure...…..

[starise]

Good points all.

dpatterson, Metal music, yeah that can be a tough one because one of the elements in a live metal concert is loud volume. Engineers attempt to transfer this to recordings and other unusual things like using 20 tracks at the same time for guitar parts.Metal music is usually seen as aggressive, in your face. Loud plays right along with that. Metallica had an album awhile back that was a brick in every way. I'm not sure if someone warned them before the album came out...or maybe what they say goes? In any case, from a mixing perspective the album was a disaster.

You could probably do a lot more in the mixing stage than the mastering stage.

[Ian Craig]

Well I always find ... sorry, I've lost it again, but it'll probably turn up in a minute

[dpaterson]

Hello.

Nice posts everyone.

I've spent a little time taking a look at some commercial tracks that I consider "amazing to the (my) ear" (at least when played on my PA, car stereo, or on headphones). I have to SADLY say: within reason those that are "pushed" sound a lot better (to me). I say "SADLY" because it's detracting from my findings on this thread and from where I thought I was going i.e. a more "purist" route (of mixing down to lower levels for mastering and not "pushing" masters to the limit). You'll also note that I'm now using the word "pushed" in inverted commas because I'm actually not even sure this is the right word to be using OR if this is indeed what is being done in the mastering process (but for now let's use the word "pushed" as I don't have a suitable alternative). One thing I may have found that's interesting is the fact that all of these so-called "pushed" tracks have an RMS level almost always around the -6dB mark (goes without saying that they all peak out at 0dB). And I must say that I was fooled by my software (Sound Forge Pro 12 which is my final "go to" after creating any "masterpiece") and my eyes too i.e. it would seem I've been basing my findings and experiments on something irrelevant that being the appearance of the waveforms. Take a look at the graphics below.

This is the waveform of Judas Priest's "You Got Another Thing Coming (Live)" (I chose this one because of all the tracks I looked at it's the one that would SEEM "pushed to hell" because other than the guitar solo there seems to be no "letting up" in the waveform i.e. in just looking and at first glance one could easily assume that it's been "pushed to hell" and it's "in your face" BUT I can tell you that it's a really clear, full, and punchy, recording). Fully zoomed out:

Judas Priest - You Got Another Thing Coming - Zoomed Out.JPG (234.48 KiB) Viewed 3968 times

Now take a look at this same track but zoomed in (zoomed in at the loudest point in the track):

Judas Priest - You Got Another Thing Coming - Zoomed In.JPG (457.5 KiB) Viewed 3968 times

Yeh. All of a sudden it doesn't look that "pushed" does it!!! (Oh and note that the software does NOT change its vertical scaling when zooming in i.e. it's "like for like"). And one can clearly see in the zoomed in graphic: the "body" of the track fills the -6dB range (which, when zoomed out, one would never say so would you).

Some others that I assumed were "pushed" candidates were Delain, Xandria, U.D.O., Evanescence. But apparently not so.

Now I don't know if I'm just an idiot or if others have made this mistake but there you go.

Now something else that struck me with these tracks (and the Judas Priest track is a good example): what I was perceiving as "pushed" was being mistaken for "much going on (musically)" in the track. In the following graphic it's interesting to note that at the point where we actually DO have SOME "let up" in the waveform it's where there is only the drums and the guitar solo (drums with guitar mostly left) (top being left in the waveform):

Judas Priest - You Got Another Thing Coming - Guitar Solo.jpg (352.09 KiB) Viewed 3968 times

Some other interesting comparisons:

Delain's "Suckerpunch". Looks "pushed". It ain't. And arguably one of the best sounding (on any system of mine). Very full, punchy, clear. And note the statistics:

Delain - Suckerpunch - Zoomed Out - With Stats.JPG (278.54 KiB) Viewed 3968 times

BUT NOW (the plot thickens as they say). Check these two out.

Motorhead's Ace Of Spades. Love the song but arguably not a good sounding track i.e. very thin and, actually, at high volume can become annoying to some (well that's nothing to go by i.e. my music has always been annoying to anybody in my household at any given point in time in the last few decades!!! LOL!!!). Note the stats. Interesting to me are the RMS readings (around -11dB) and Integrated Loudness (-7.52 LUFS).

Motorhead - Ace Of Spades - Zoomed Out - With Stats.JPG (363.04 KiB) Viewed 3968 times

and last but CERTAINLY not least:

Dio's Stand Up and Shout (my favorite song of all time, always has been, always will be). Also an '80's recording (at around the same time as the Motorhead track above). But note the stats. i.e. RMS around -15dB and Integrated Loudness around at around -11 LUFS. Both far less than Motorhead not to mention the peaks are far lower. And yet I can tell you that THIS track, although not as loud as the the Judas Priest or Delain candidates cuts through like a knife i.e. has all the punch and clarity one could wish for (and one does have to take into account the technology available back then too). This track you can play louder and louder and louder and it just keeps on giving:

Dio - Stand Up And Shout - Zoomed Out - With Stats.JPG (400.14 KiB) Viewed 3968 times

Sooo... I have NO idea what to make of all of this to be honest. I believe there's some "secret sauce" in the statistics but I think it goes way deeper than that.

I guess Ian has summed it up:

Well I always find ... sorry, I've lost it again, but it'll probably turn up in a minute

Anyways. I shall "master" this (no pun intended).

Metallica had an album awhile back that was a brick in every way.

Funny you should mention this i.e. even although Metallica is not my cup of tea I do actually have the album that you could be referencing somewhere around here. If I'm not mistaken it was the Black Album. I may be wrong. What I do remember about this album though is that it didn't matter what you played it on: turn it up and everything distorted.

So yeh. FOR NOW (again): there's (above) some useless / useful information???

Regards,

Dale.

[Mark Bliss]

Death Magnetic.

Guess who? Andrew Schepps.

A while back he said something along the line of "it was what the band wanted at the time." He seemed torn. Didn't really like it that way but it was an adventure and learning experience I think.
"Good news is I won the loudness war"

He got it to sound pretty amazing considering. But its extremely fatiguing IMO. Good for one listen for reference and done.

And btw, perhaps the word that works best for your intentions is "density"