Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
compression in home "mastering"
I am having problems with home mastering.
Now, if I care about something I mixed I'll take it to a real mastering guy to have it mastered. (Actually, if I care about something I mixed, I'll have somebody else mix it, and *then* I'll take it to a real mastering guy, because I'm basically an SR guy and I know my limits.) But I record some casual projects at home, like demos of new songs by my band; it's more important that these be cheap and fast than that they be pro quality. Nonetheless, I want them to be somewhat comparable in overall loudness to commercial recordings, so that I can put them on my iPod or burn them to a CD and listen to them side by side. By "commercial recordings" I do not mean the latest Metallica, but at least I'd like to get my average power up to -16dB or so, which is 3 to 4dB hotter than it comes off the board (normalized to 0dB). I mix in analog. I've been sending the stereo mix through a Presonus Firebox, to a laptop running Audacity on Windows XP. I also have a copy of SoundForge 6.0, which is 5 or 6 years old I guess. I'm happy with the sound of my mixes, I just want them closer in loudness to commercial stuff. But when I try to boost volume using the "WaveHammer" maximizer on SoundForge, I'm getting clicks in the audio, that I don't hear in the original. So that solution isn't working. Can anyone suggest a good solution? Some possibilities I've thought of: - change settings on WaveHammer; but so far I haven't found anything that works and sounds good - use the old hardware TC Finalizer that I have lying around; but doing this in hardware will be a pain - upgrade SoundForge; but before I spend that kind of money I'd like to know that it will actually work - use something else entirely; but what? - learn to get my mixes good enough that they don't need any compression; hah - give up and settle for relatively low volume, but dynamic, recordings I'd welcome any helpful suggestions, either for new approaches or for debugging the current approach. Thanks! |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
compression in home "mastering"
Walter Harley wrote:
I am having problems with home mastering. That's because you're trying to do your mastering at home. While not exactly the same, think about taking out your own appendix. I record some casual projects at home, like demos of new songs by my band; it's more important that these be cheap and fast than that they be pro quality. Nonetheless, I want them to be somewhat comparable in overall loudness to commercial recordings, so that I can put them on my iPod or burn them to a CD and listen to them side by side. Doesn't your iPod or CD player have a volume control? By "side-by-side" do you mean listening to your recordings next to the latest Metallica recording, or next to each other? I'm happy with the sound of my mixes, I just want them closer in loudness to commercial stuff. But when I try to boost volume using the "WaveHammer" maximizer on SoundForge, I'm getting clicks in the audio, that I don't hear in the original. So that solution isn't working. What's the peak level before you apply WaveHammer? If you have full scale peaks in your mix, they could be clipping when you "hammer" them. Try reducing the level of the track, then apply WaveHammer until it starts sounding crappy, then increase the level so that peaks are closer to full scale. There are a few settings in WaveHammer that you can experiment with. Take a day to play with one song and see what the settings actually do. - use the old hardware TC Finalizer that I have lying around; but doing this in hardware will be a pain Surely not too large a pain. Give it a try. The Finalizer is pretty good. Do you have Bob Katz' article (I think it was on the t.c. web site) on using the Finalizer effectively? The latest version of Sound Forge includes some Izotope Mastering plug-ins but I haven't played with them yet because I don't usually care about that stuff. But there's no program that will replace a human analysis of the dynamics, what needs to be preserved, and what can be squashed. - give up and settle for relatively low volume, but dynamic, recordings If you like the mix and the sound, leave it alone. As long as it doesn't have to compete for a program director's attention, it'll serve its purpose. -- If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers ) |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
compression in home "mastering"
On Dec 22, 1:52*am, "Walter Harley"
wrote: I am having problems with home mastering. Now, if I care about something I mixed I'll take it to a real mastering guy to have it mastered. *(Actually, if I care about something I mixed, I'll have somebody else mix it, and *then* I'll take it to a real mastering guy, because I'm basically an SR guy and I know my limits.) But I record some casual projects at home, like demos of new songs by my band; it's more important that these be cheap and fast than that they be pro quality. *Nonetheless, I want them to be somewhat comparable in overall loudness to commercial recordings, so that I can put them on my iPod or burn them to a CD and listen to them side by side. *By "commercial recordings" I do not mean the latest Metallica, but at least I'd like to get my average power up to -16dB or so, which is 3 to 4dB hotter than it comes off the board (normalized to 0dB). I mix in analog. *I've been sending the stereo mix through a Presonus Firebox, to a laptop running Audacity on Windows XP. *I also have a copy of SoundForge 6.0, which is 5 or 6 years old I guess. I'm happy with the sound of my mixes, I just want them closer in loudness to commercial stuff. *But when I try to boost volume using the "WaveHammer" maximizer on SoundForge, I'm getting clicks in the audio, that I don't hear in the original. *So that solution isn't working. Can anyone suggest a good solution? *Some possibilities I've thought of: *- change settings on WaveHammer; but so far I haven't found anything that works and sounds good *- use the old hardware TC Finalizer that I have lying around; but doing this in hardware will be a pain *- upgrade SoundForge; but before I spend that kind of money I'd like to know that it will actually work *- use something else entirely; but what? *- learn to get my mixes good enough that they don't need any compression; hah *- give up and settle for relatively low volume, but dynamic, recordings I'd welcome any helpful suggestions, either for new approaches or for debugging the current approach. *Thanks! you shouldn't need a lot of compression to get to -16 dBFS average... if you are having trouble getting to -16dBFS then something might be wrong with your set-up.. some material can achieve -16 dB averge without any compression. Are you compressing the final mix or the individual tracks? Snare may need a bit more comp. Mark |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
compression in home "mastering"
On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 22:52:46 -0800, "Walter Harley"
wrote: I'm happy with the sound of my mixes, I just want them closer in loudness to commercial stuff. But when I try to boost volume using the "WaveHammer" maximizer on SoundForge, I'm getting clicks in the audio, that I don't hear in the original. So that solution isn't working. I've just looked at the page on WaveHammer in the SF manual. There seem to be some of potential pitfalls. Are you setting Output Gain manually as well as turning on Auto Gain Compensation? This seems a recipe for clipping. Have you chosen RMS or Peak mode? RMS seems rather risky. When making a Preview run through the song (you ARE doing a preview I hope?) are the meters switched to Input or Output? The default setting is Input, which doesn't seem very useful. Perhaps you'll be surprised how hard the output's hitting the buffers if you switch to it. |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
compression in home "mastering"
In article ,
"Walter Harley" wrote: I am having problems with home mastering. Now, if I care about something I mixed I'll take it to a real mastering guy to have it mastered. (Actually, if I care about something I mixed, I'll have somebody else mix it, and *then* I'll take it to a real mastering guy, because I'm basically an SR guy and I know my limits.) But I record some casual projects at home, like demos of new songs by my band; it's more important that these be cheap and fast than that they be pro quality. Nonetheless, I want them to be somewhat comparable in overall loudness to commercial recordings, so that I can put them on my iPod or burn them to a CD and listen to them side by side. By "commercial recordings" I do not mean the latest Metallica, but at least I'd like to get my average power up to -16dB or so, which is 3 to 4dB hotter than it comes off the board (normalized to 0dB). I mix in analog. I've been sending the stereo mix through a Presonus Firebox, to a laptop running Audacity on Windows XP. I also have a copy of SoundForge 6.0, which is 5 or 6 years old I guess. I'm happy with the sound of my mixes, I just want them closer in loudness to commercial stuff. But when I try to boost volume using the "WaveHammer" maximizer on SoundForge, I'm getting clicks in the audio, that I don't hear in the original. So that solution isn't working. Can anyone suggest a good solution? Some possibilities I've thought of: - change settings on WaveHammer; but so far I haven't found anything that works and sounds good - use the old hardware TC Finalizer that I have lying around; but doing this in hardware will be a pain - upgrade SoundForge; but before I spend that kind of money I'd like to know that it will actually work - use something else entirely; but what? - learn to get my mixes good enough that they don't need any compression; hah - give up and settle for relatively low volume, but dynamic, recordings I'd welcome any helpful suggestions, either for new approaches or for debugging the current approach. Thanks! If you just want level, most pro mastering guys use a compressor fed into a brick wall limiter. The compressor is used to increase the level. Set it to 2;1 or so with a little compression (a db or two), but goose the make-up gain. Set your brick wall limiter to a max ceiling of -.1 or -.2 FS with limiting only on the peaks. Instant level! This does get dangerous in that too much compression and/or limiting will give you a lifeless square wave of a song (aka hypercompression), but if you want level, this is the way to do it. -- Bobby Owsinski bobbyowsinski.com - surroundassociates.com Visit my blog at bobbyowsinski.blogspot.com |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
compression in home "mastering"
Walter Harley wrote:
I mix in analog. I've been sending the stereo mix through a Presonus Firebox, to a laptop running Audacity on Windows XP. I also have a copy of SoundForge 6.0, which is 5 or 6 years old I guess. Are your clicks when you are attempting the WaveHammer 'mastering', or are they when you record into Sound Forge ? I vaguely remember that WaveHammer once needed to be registered separately (years ago) and would click if unregistered. But I might be having a false flashback. geoff |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
compression in home "mastering"
"Walter Harley" wrote in message
news I am having problems with home mastering. Thanks to everyone who responded. I'll respond to my own message rather than arbitrarily pick another or start lots of mini-threads. Yes, home mastering is like home dentistry. But you wouldn't go to the doctor if you skinned your knee, right? Everyone should know some basic first aid. I'm just trying to make demos for the band to get a sense of the songs, before going into a real studio. By "side by side" I meant I want to flip back and forth between my recording and a commercial one (more like George Jones than Metallica, though), to get a sense of how our music compares. Also, I need to give the demos to the bandleader, who'll probably give them to his friends to listen to. It needs to be in the same ballpark as the other stuff they're playing. Re WaveHammer - I accept and assume that it is a POS. It's the only purpose-made volume optimizer I seem to have right now. I'd love to find something better, priced appropriately for my purpose. No point spending big money on a tool that I don't have the skills, ears, or listening environment to use, though. I don't need a hit record, I just don't want audible pops. Anyway, on some closer listening this evening I might have gotten some clues. Here are some 3-second snippets. Here's the original: http://www.cafewalter.com/sound/uncomp.wav And here's what it sounds like after running it through WaveHammer set to "limit at 6dB and maximize" (there are very few spikes over -6dB in the original): http://www.cafewalter.com/sound/comp.wav I hear a prominent 'click' in the right channel at 1.78s. In the original I hear a little something but it's subtle, like maybe a guitar pick noise. But, here's the same compressed track, with volume reduced 6dB to match the original: http://www.cafewalter.com/sound/comp-6.wav And I don't really hear it on that one. Even if I turn up the volume. So now I'm wondering if it's an artifact of the digital part of my playback chain, e.g., the sound card on the machine I'm running SoundForge on. Does anyone else hear the click, on any of these recordings? (Please tolerate the playing - on this particular track the bandleader played all the parts himself, to teach them to the rest of the band. It was just a recording I had handy.) Thanks much! |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
compression in home "mastering"
Walter Harley wrote:
Yes, home mastering is like home dentistry. But you wouldn't go to the doctor if you skinned your knee, right? Everyone should know some basic first aid. I'm just trying to make demos for the band to get a sense of the songs, before going into a real studio. You can (and should) do this by listening to your own songs, not comparing them side-by-side with songs that you like. But that's more about playing and songwriting. Since you'll be going into a "real" studio for recording, it's someone else's job to make the "surface quality" match up with the competition. You just need a good song to start with. By "side by side" I meant I want to flip back and forth between my recording and a commercial one (more like George Jones than Metallica, though), to get a sense of how our music compares. Consider lowering the volume of your George Jones records to match that of your home recordings. That will make side-by-side comparison, if you insist, less jarring. Everyone knows that we always think the louder one sounds better. Also, I need to give the demos to the bandleader, who'll probably give them to his friends to listen to. It needs to be in the same ballpark as the other stuff they're playing. Needs? Why? The band only needs to listen to one song to learn it. If the leader has some ideas about how to arrange it differently, he'll have to expreess those in his own terms to the band. Or do you want him to say to the band "Listen to this George Jones record and play it like George rather than Walter."? Re WaveHammer - I accept and assume that it is a POS. Actually, it's pretty effective if you don't overdo it, and avoid the RMS mode. It seems like a good idea in principle, but they must not have figured out what it should really do in that mode. I've never found any settings that didn't sound awful in the RMS mode, but the Peak mode can be a decent first step, which may be all you need for your purposes. There are a lot of things about Sound Forge that suggest to me that it was developed by people who either never worked in a recording studio or decided to throw away much of what they learned and apply their own methods and ideas. But I think that about most DAW programs, so don't mind me. So now I'm wondering if it's an artifact of the digital part of my playback chain, e.g., the sound card on the machine I'm running SoundForge on. I didn't listen to your examples, but this could indeed be a problem. Burn a CD of the song and listen to it in your car while driving 60 MPH or navigating in traffic. -- If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers ) |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
compression in home "mastering"
On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 23:22:58 -0800, "Walter Harley"
wrote: Re WaveHammer - I accept and assume that it is a POS. It's the only purpose-made volume optimizer I seem to have right now. I'd love to find something better, priced appropriately for my purpose. No point spending big money on a tool that I don't have the skills, ears, or listening environment to use, though. I don't need a hit record, I just don't want audible pops. Anyway, on some closer listening this evening I might have gotten some clues. Here are some 3-second snippets. I'm not hearing any clicks and the waveform of all your samples looks clean. But, listening to your compressed snippets, I don't think either of them improve the sound. Words that sprang to mind were "harsh" and "tubby". I'd go back to the multitrack and compress at least the drums separately. I wouldn't say WaveHammer is a POS. It's a tool, and all tools can do damage. Your preferred setting doesn't actually use the compressor at all. Try playing with the manual settings, all the time keeping a very careful eye on the output metering. |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
compression in home "mastering"
"Bobby Owsinski" wrote I'd welcome any helpful suggestions, either for new approaches or for debugging the current approach. Thanks! If you just want level, most pro mastering guys use a compressor fed into a brick wall limiter. The compressor is used to increase the level. Set it to 2;1 or so with a little compression (a db or two), but goose the make-up gain. Set your brick wall limiter to a max ceiling of -.1 or -.2 FS with limiting only on the peaks. Instant level! This does get dangerous in that too much compression and/or limiting will give you a lifeless square wave of a song (aka hypercompression), but if you want level, this is the way to do it. I agree with your methodology. Your book The Mixing Engineer's Handbook has been one of my go-to reference books since 2006. Kudos. |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
compression in home "mastering"
On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 23:22:58 -0800, "Walter Harley"
wrote: ... So now I'm wondering if it's an artifact of the digital part of my playback chain, e.g., the sound card on the machine I'm running SoundForge on. Does anyone else hear the click, on any of these recordings? I don't hear hear any click, but even in the short clip I do hear where the compressed/limited version is a bit 'grittier'. Just to prove to yourself it's your playback system, burn a CD-R with all three versions, and check if you can hear the problem on various CD players/systems (a DVD player in a 'home theater', a cheap portable CD player with cheap headphones, in your car, etc.) What soundcard are you using? Is it a standard 'consumer' computer soundcard? It looks like this 'click' is definitely in your playback system. (Please tolerate the playing - on this particular track the bandleader played all the parts himself, to teach them to the rest of the band. It was just a recording I had handy.) Thanks much! |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
compression in home "mastering"
Walter Harley wrote:
Re WaveHammer - I accept and assume that it is a POS. It's the only purpose-made volume optimizer I seem to have right now. I'd love to find something better, priced appropriately for my purpose. No point spending big money on a tool that I don't have the skills, ears, or listening environment to use, though. I don't need a hit record, I just don't want audible pops. Why do you say that - WaveHammer is excellent. geoff |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
compression in home "mastering"
geoff wrote:
Walter Harley wrote: Re WaveHammer - I accept and assume that it is a POS. It's the only purpose-made volume optimizer I seem to have right now. I'd love to find something better, priced appropriately for my purpose. No point spending big money on a tool that I don't have the skills, ears, or listening environment to use, though. I don't need a hit record, I just don't want audible pops. Why do you say that - WaveHammer is excellent. geoff Oh yeah - did you check out my suggestion re 'registration' ? IIRC early versions of WaveHammer needed seaparate registration, and clicked if beyond DEMO period. geoff |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
compression in home "mastering"
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
... Also, I need to give the demos to the bandleader, who'll probably give them to his friends to listen to. It needs to be in the same ballpark as the other stuff they're playing. Needs? Why? The band only needs to listen to one song to learn it. If the leader has some ideas about how to arrange it differently, he'll have to expreess those in his own terms to the band. Or do you want him to say to the band "Listen to this George Jones record and play it like George rather than Walter."? There are multiple goals; sorry if I was unclear. For the band to learn songs, uncompressed is actually preferable, and comparison to other material is irrelevant. For the bandleader to show off works in progress to his friends, it's nice if we can boost the loudness some. I didn't listen to your examples, but this could indeed be a problem. Burn a CD of the song and listen to it in your car while driving 60 MPH or navigating in traffic. Ha! Right now my car's embedded in snow, not gonna move for at least a week. I suppose I could burn a CD and go listen there anyway. If nothing else, it would be safe. |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
compression in home "mastering"
"geoff" wrote in message
... Re WaveHammer - I accept and assume that it is a POS. Why do you say that - WaveHammer is excellent. I assume it simply because it came for free with my audio software, it's six years old which is an eternity in DAW years, and I've never heard of anyone using it in a professional setting. I don't know it for a fact, it's just my assumption. Oh yeah - did you check out my suggestion re 'registration' ? IIRC early versions of WaveHammer needed seaparate registration, and clicked if beyond DEMO period. I did; thanks. There's no indication that is the case with this version; at least, there is nothing in the online help or the readme, and my copy of SoundForge is licensed (which is why it's so old). But from others' comments, it sounds like this is probably an issue with my playback system, not with the processing. No one else who listened to the files heard the click. Thanks for your response! |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
compression in home "mastering"
"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
... But, listening to your compressed snippets, I don't think either of them improve the sound. Words that sprang to mind were "harsh" and "tubby". I'd go back to the multitrack and compress at least the drums separately. The drum tracks are individually compressed, but perhaps they need to be more so. I wasn't happy with the sound I got when I squashed them harder or made the attack faster, but that is probably just my lack of skill. I agree that the effect of the overall compression in this sample is ugly. It was just to demonstrate the clicks! I did actually spend about an hour making adjustments and listening, but I was getting clicking with everything I tried so there was not much point in proceeding. Happily, judging from everyone's comments it seems to be a playback issue, so once I fix that, it will be worth spending some time to get good results out of WaveHammer. Thanks for your help! |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
compression in home "mastering"
"Ben Bradley" wrote in message
... What soundcard are you using? Is it a standard 'consumer' computer soundcard? It looks like this 'click' is definitely in your playback system. Thanks, I really appreciate you (& others) taking the time to check this out. Very helpful. Yes, it's just a consumer soundcard. I don't do much of this sort of post-processing work (as previously mentioned, I believe in hiring professionals if it matters), just got back into it for this band project. Come to think of it, I think last time I used this software it was on a different computer. Guess it's time to put a decent interface on this computer. |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
compression in home "mastering"
"Walter Harley" wrote in message
... Guess it's time to put a decent interface on this computer. Follow-up: salvaged the M-Audio 2496 card from my old audio box and installed it in this machine. No more clicks. Now I can focus on making the music actually sound good :-) Thanks again to all. |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
compression in home "mastering"
On Dec 22, 10:57*am, Bobby Owsinski wrote:
If you just want level, most pro mastering guys use a compressor fed into a brick wall limiter. *The compressor is used to increase the level. *Set it to 2;1 or so with a little compression (a db or two), but goose the make-up gain. *Set your brick wall limiter to a max ceiling of -.1 or -.2 FS with limiting only on the peaks. *Instant level! This does get dangerous in that too much compression and/or limiting will give you a lifeless square wave of a song (aka hypercompression), but if you want level, this is the way to do it. Yep. You'll have a hard time taking any single compressor/limiter and trying to get it to approximate a CD where assorted compressors are added at various stages. Any single track can be recorded with a touch of one, have one put on it during the mix, have itself sent to a stereo bus with another, and then be treated to, as Bobby says, a compressor and then a limiter on the master. Some people will squeal at the notion of tracking with compressors (and certain ones at that), but if you're going for a certain sound and level instead of bit peeping, that's how it's done. : ) I'm not saying it's the rule, but if you're trying to match a commercial CD in level without getting that flatlined sound, it's an important factor. |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
compression in home "mastering"
wrote:
Yep. You'll have a hard time taking any single compressor/limiter and trying to get it to approximate a CD where assorted compressors are added at various stages. Any single track can be recorded with a touch of one, have one put on it during the mix, have itself sent to a stereo bus with another, and then be treated to, as Bobby says, a compressor and then a limiter on the master. Some people will squeal at the notion of tracking with compressors (and certain ones at that), but if you're going for a certain sound and level instead of bit peeping, that's how it's done. : ) It's not just compression being added during the tracking stage, it's also the arrangement, of course. If you arrange things and equalize them so the individual parts aren't stepping on one another, the overall effect is a much louder sounding track. I'm not saying it's the rule, but if you're trying to match a commercial CD in level without getting that flatlined sound, it's an important factor. It is. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Ampex 406 2" Audio Mastering Tape 10" Metal Reel | Marketplace | |||
Mastering "Abbey Road side 2"- like song | Pro Audio | |||
Live in Miami? Check out "Sweet Home Hialeah" | Pro Audio | |||
"AKAI", "KURZWEIL", "ROLAND", DVDs and CDs | Audio Opinions |