Re: Dammit, Screw MS, Onward With TCM!

[Gary Eickmeier]

Well, two things. I just remastered my MS mixes for this concert and got a
good improvement. I made the M and S as similar as possible, which ended up
mixing in more M than before by about 6 or 8 dB. This solidified the
centerfill and used the S a lot better in forming the two channels. Much
better.

Secondly, I learned compression. I have always noted that my recordings are
a lot lower in volume than most commercial recordings, so I tried some
gentle compression in Audition 2. All I did was create a knee near the upper
range and bend it down by about 10 dB. So I am bending the loudest part of
the recording down by about 10 dB, then smoothing the curve out, then
raising the entire curve up by 8 or 10 dB and bending the bottom portion
back down to zero so that I am not raising the noise floor.

It sounds just fine, and in fact one would be hard put not do do it. I was
going to give a couple of th band members the two versions to vote for the
better one, but that would actually be pointless. They will prefer the
louder one hands down.

Do you compress?

Thanks,
Gary Eickmeier

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

> Well, two things. I just remastered my MS mixes for this concert and
> got a good improvement. I made the M and S as similar as possible,
> which ended up mixing in more M than before by about 6 or 8 dB. This
> solidified the centerfill and used the S a lot better in forming the
> two channels. Much better.

Again: the probable range is S equal to M to 6 dB below, S stronger than M
leads with certainty to a hole in the middle.

> Secondly, I learned compression. I have always noted that my
> recordings are a lot lower in volume than most commercial recordings,
> so I tried some gentle compression in Audition 2. All I did was
> create a knee near the upper range and bend it down by about 10 dB.
> So I am bending the loudest part of the recording down by about 10
> dB, then smoothing the curve out, then raising the entire curve up by
> 8 or 10 dB and bending the bottom portion back down to zero so that I
> am not raising the noise floor.

That is one of the useful presets to have.

> It sounds just fine, and in fact one would be hard put not do do it.
> I was going to give a couple of th band members the two versions to
> vote for the better one, but that would actually be pointless. They
> will prefer the louder one hands down.

> Do you compress?

I have criteria for target crest factor to ensure listenability and yes,
simple compression is one of the tools to meet them, but not likely to be
the first nor the only choice.

The problem you will encounter is that listeners are used to stuff being
somehow compressed, such as by sequential multiband compression on the mix
bus + at mastering + the radio station, and they will think it sounds
"wrong" or "thin" if it isn't.

A similar problem is that the best reverb to use on an oratorio soloist may
well be some kind of "fake emt plate", it may sound more "right" than
mimicking the reverb in the recorded room.

Notice also how mixes are getting brighter and brighter so that they look
right on incorrectly designed spectrum analyzers.

> Gary Eickmeier

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
...


> The problem you will encounter is that listeners are used to stuff being
> somehow compressed, such as by sequential multiband compression on the mix
> bus + at mastering + the radio station, and they will think it sounds
> "wrong" or "thin" if it isn't.

Yes, that is some of why I did it. Very few of them will have a powerful
home audio system, and so they will not hear the full dynamic range of an
uncompressed recording. So we go for the target market, right? What sounds
best in their cars or on their consoles or TVs.
>
> A similar problem is that the best reverb to use on an oratorio soloist
> may well be some kind of "fake emt plate", it may sound more "right" than
> mimicking the reverb in the recorded room.

Funny you should bring up reverb, but in fact the compression does also
bring the reverb up and more audible.
>
> Notice also how mixes are getting brighter and brighter so that they look
> right on incorrectly designed spectrum analyzers.

I wouldn't know about that, but I am amazed at the waveforms of commercial
discs when I am copying tracks from a CD. Total full excursion. You play it
and it sounds just like all other total full excursion recordings, so you
begin to expect that. Mine still look like the original waveform, just
louder overall and compressed near the top (loudest) part of the recording.

> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen
>
Gary Eickmeier

[Scott Dorsey]

Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>
>Funny you should bring up reverb, but in fact the compression does also
>bring the reverb up and more audible.

Compression makes soft things louder and loud things softer. This means
the room reverb becomes more obvious, the noise from the audience becomes
more obvious, and it will change the balance between strings and brass.

This is a tool that can help you, and it's very easy to shoot yourself in
the foot with it as well.

If you are mixing spot mikes with room mikes, you may find the spot mikes
have exaggerated dynamics and that compression specifically on the spots
can make them blend better. On the other hand, you may not... it depends
on the room and the band.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

Depends
When i make CDs intended for folks accustomed to listening to live music...no
I add this note.
This cd contains the full range of loudness and emotions in the original performance. The average loudness may be lower compared to many commercial cds.
To enjoy the full range, simply , y TURN ME UP. And i add a little logo and link to turnmeup.org
If you want to get the loudness up a little without compressing, don,t be afraid to let short transients like hand claps etc go into clipping.

Mark

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>>
>>Funny you should bring up reverb, but in fact the compression does also
>>bring the reverb up and more audible.
>
> Compression makes soft things louder and loud things softer. This means
> the room reverb becomes more obvious, the noise from the audience becomes
> more obvious, and it will change the balance between strings and brass.
>
> This is a tool that can help you, and it's very easy to shoot yourself in
> the foot with it as well.
>
> If you are mixing spot mikes with room mikes, you may find the spot mikes
> have exaggerated dynamics and that compression specifically on the spots
> can make them blend better. On the other hand, you may not... it depends
> on the room and the band.
> --scott

Yes, I can see that. I just feel like I am in a box with no escape except
compression. I know that these musicians that I am making the recordings for
will not have a 3000 watt home theater system to play them on, and I know
that if I keep the peaks from clipping the recordings are just not loud
enough for most plaback devices. So I am experimenting with mild compression
to bring it up a little without much subjective penalty.

I know that some mild compression applied in stages might be less audible.
Like if you compress during recording, then again during mastering for
various tracks, then it wouldn't be as noticeable. I wonder about multiband
compressors such as in Audition 2.0. Are they a lot better? Haven't learned
the program yet.

[[email protected]]

>
>
> Yes, I can see that. I just feel like I am in a box with no escape except
>
> compression. I know that these musicians that I am making the recordings for
>
> will not have a 3000 watt home theater system to play them on, and I know
>
> that if I keep the peaks from clipping the recordings are just not loud
>
> enough for most playback devices.


What does this mean exactly?
The volume knobs are all the way up to 10 and they want more?
Did anyone that you make the recordings for complain that they are too low?

You know, I feel the pain for the guys here that do this for a living and the boss or producer says squash it to the max and they have to do the job they are getting paid to do, even though they hate it. But I (and I suspect you) are not in that position. No one is twisting your arm.

Consider some alternatives, use manual gain riding or gain automation in the DAW if you want to learn some new stuff. Use TURNMEUP.org to educate your audience.


Mark

[Gary Eickmeier]

wrote:
>> Yes, I can see that. I just feel like I am in a box with no escape
>> except
>>
>> compression. I know that these musicians that I am making the
>> recordings for
>>
>> will not have a 3000 watt home theater system to play them on, and I
>> know
>>
>> that if I keep the peaks from clipping the recordings are just not
>> loud
>>
>> enough for most playback devices.
>
>
> What does this mean exactly?
> The volume knobs are all the way up to 10 and they want more?
> Did anyone that you make the recordings for complain that they are
> too low?
>
> You know, I feel the pain for the guys here that do this for a living
> and the boss or producer says squash it to the max and they have to
> do the job they are getting paid to do, even though they hate it.
> But I (and I suspect you) are not in that position. No one is
> twisting your arm.
>
> Consider some alternatives, use manual gain riding or gain automation
> in the DAW if you want to learn some new stuff. Use TURNMEUP.org to
> educate your audience.

No, I haven't had any complaints - they like my recordings a lot, but...

When I am all done I play them in the car to check how they might sound to a
normal person, and I have to turn it way higher than the rest of my
programming to hear it at the same subjective loudness. This bothers me.
Loudness is about the only audio term regular folks know, and mine are
lacking compared to the competition.

This is a well-know problem and I am just wondering what the group does to
handle it. I sure don't like gain riding but will try some of the other
suggestions.

Gary Eickmeier

[Tom McCreadie]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

>I know that some mild compression applied in stages might be less audible.
>Like if you compress during recording, then again during mastering for
>various tracks, then it wouldn't be as noticeable.

Really! Got a physical explanation for that?
I think you are confusing the compression story with that of noise reduction,
where benefits can be had by judicious use of multi-pass.

But I feel that you may now be opening up a whole new compression 'can of
worms', before you had properly signed off on more basic, bread 'n butter things
that might make a bigger sonic contribution:

Equalization, for instance. Had you looked into:
1. a mild EQ tweaking of the cardioid M low end (and a slightly more for the S
low end), in order to give your band a bit more body and woomph?

2. or perhaps even a tad extra S boost in the 300 - 650 Hz region, to help widen
the image location of bass sounds, so that they snap into better lateral
register with higher frequency sounds from the same location (maybe look into
'spatial equalization' or 'shuffling')

Again, if your admirable goal is to satisfy those unfortunate wretches who don't
have a multi-KW Home Theater rig, it seems logical to assume it likely they will
at least have a reasonable 2-speaker domestic system. Thus, just focus first of
all on delivering a rock solid, believable 2-channel recording?

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

> "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message

>> If you are mixing spot mikes with room mikes, you may find the spot
>> mikes have exaggerated dynamics and that compression specifically on
>> the spots can make them blend better. On the other hand, you may
>> not... it depends on the room and the band.

> Yes, I can see that.

+1

> I just feel like I am in a box with no escape except compression.

It is just a tool in the toolbox.

> I know that these musicians that I am making the
> recordings for will not have a 3000 watt home theater system to play
> them on, and I know that if I keep the peaks from clipping the
> recordings are just not loud enough for most plaback devices. So I am
> experimenting with mild compression to bring it up a little without
> much subjective penalty.

What crest factor are you aiming for?

> I know that some mild compression applied in stages might be less
> audible.

Not always correct, we haven't talked attack and release time yet. Way back,
probably a paper published in Studio Sound by Audio and Design Recording, I
read that the shortest attack-time has to be on the first of several
compression stages if distortion is to be minimized.

> Like if you compress during recording,

In this context just NO! - in pop production context it is a different
discussion, getting it done as you want it from the outset is a good
productivity strategy, "commit" as Kramer said when giving a lecture in
Copenhagen a couple of years ago.

> then again during mastering for various tracks,

When we record today the general situation is recording more than two tracks
so your choice of wording is ambiguous. What Scott says, and what I agree
in, is that track compression is a potential useful tool in the mix because
the crest factor gets plain wrong for a closemiked soloist, usually a
vocalist. A probable range for a classical recording is 1.6 to 1 to perhaps
2.5 to 1. The pop noiseboys like 5:1 to 10:1 ... but that is another genre
and other vocalists.

> then it wouldn't be as noticeable. I
> wonder about multiband compressors such as in Audition 2.0.

It is from Izotope and very good. It can create the most wonderful disasters
if you do not use loudspeakers with sufficient bass range. It is required to
understand the concept of time constants being expressed in a number of
wavelengths and also what a probable frequency range energy distribution is
likely to be.

> Are they a lot better?

They are as good as the operator.

> Haven't learned the program yet.

There is a site on the world wide web that calls itself rawtracks.com. Go
there and buy some tracks and start practicing. Only permitted distribution
is via the raw tracks site. There are many commented example mixes available
showing the very wide range of possible production results. Strongly
recommended. 5 of the mixes in the download top 10 are mine.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[hank alrich]

Gary Eickmeier > wrote:

> I know that some mild compression applied in stages might be less audible.

Peak limiting alone may be more effective than compression for your
situation. It can often be managed more transparently.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Tobiah]

> It sounds just fine, and in fact one would be hard put not do do it. I was
> going to give a couple of th band members the two versions to vote for the
> better one, but that would actually be pointless. They will prefer the
> louder one hands down.

Suppose you A/B the two versions to the band, adjusted for the same
overall volume? I don't have the burden of producing commercial
recordings, so I just omit compression and turn the volume up a bit
on playback.

Tobiah

[Frank Stearns]

Tobiah > writes:

>> It sounds just fine, and in fact one would be hard put not do do it. I was
>> going to give a couple of th band members the two versions to vote for the
>> better one, but that would actually be pointless. They will prefer the
>> louder one hands down.

>Suppose you A/B the two versions to the band, adjusted for the same
>overall volume? I don't have the burden of producing commercial
>recordings, so I just omit compression and turn the volume up a bit
>on playback.

Here's what I've found with classical/acoustic music... In an entire concert
program there might be one, perhaps two transients that hit close to 0 dBFS.
Otherwise, everything else is 6-10 dB down from that -- for the entire
concert! And in 99.9% of the cases, end listeners aren't going to notice if
one or two of those sorts of peaks are missing. For one thing, often their
room/playback system won't let them hear it.

So, as a start, a good, basic mastering compressor/limiter (and there are lot
of them out there) can be set just to catch those one or two peaks, and you've
picked up 6-10 dB of loudness.

If you want to up the crest factor a bit, you can clip a few more dB but do it
TASTEFULLY, such using a slightly slower attack/release and lower ratio than
typical limiting (say 10 mS attack, 90 mS release, 4:1). Some amount of
transient still gets through, there's a slight "breath" after, and the amount
of dynamics removed is not draconian. This will limit (no pun) how much crest
factor boost you can get, but that's likely a GOOD thing.

But you really have to listen, understand the music, and have a reasonably
good compression tool.

Now, if you're doing cinder-block waveform pop music, where head-banging loud
is considered "art", go ahead and slam the crap out of it (not recommended,
just sayin').

The moral is yes, you can get a "louder" CD with doing much damage.

BTW, don't normalize with classical/acoustic music unless you know damn well
what you're doing. A few weeks back a world-famous ballet company brought in
pre-recorded orchestra tracks for their Nutcracker presentation at our local
theater. We tuned the room, got it and the stage monitors sounding pretty good
(after I persuaded their guy we really didn't want orchestral tracks at 107+
dB in the house -- the Nutcracker was not written by Wagner or Mahler).

But what made me crazy was that they'd been normalized! So, the double
pianissimo movements were right up there with the triple fortes, even though
the relative dynamics within each moment were okay. I started riding the
fader, but got a dirty look. Given that barely any English was spoken, and
that this very nice guy was in his early 20s and was mostly into Punk and
HipHop, it was a hard sell. Did not do as much corrective dynamic restoration
as I wanted to. Sigh.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[None]

"Tobiah" > wrote in message
...
> I've heard some express the idea that one should
> back off from 0dB (or whatever you call the max your sample can
> hold)
> because there could be some inter-sample weirdness that conceptually
> puts you over the top and clip the D to A converter or some such
> nonsense.

It's not conceptual, it's not weirdness, and it's not nonsense.
It's completely normal, and an ordinary part of the D/A process.

[Scott Dorsey]

None > wrote:
>"Tobiah" > wrote in message
...
>> I've heard some express the idea that one should
>> back off from 0dB (or whatever you call the max your sample can
>> hold)
>> because there could be some inter-sample weirdness that conceptually
>> puts you over the top and clip the D to A converter or some such
>> nonsense.
>
>It's not conceptual, it's not weirdness, and it's not nonsense.
>It's completely normal, and an ordinary part of the D/A process.

And, with a well-designed modern converter it's not an issue. The
problem is that you can never be sure the listener is using one, so
just back off a touch.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Trevor]

"Tobiah" > wrote in message
...
>> BTW, don't normalize with classical/acoustic music unless you know damn
>> well
>> what you're doing.
>
>> But what made me crazy was that they'd been normalized! So, the double
>> pianissimo movements were right up there with the triple fortes, even
>> though
>> the relative dynamics within each moment were okay.
>
> So are you saying that the original performance was split into movements
> and the each of those were normalized to 0dB? Yeah, that would be
> wrong.

Right, but thankfully I've never seen it myself.


>Still I don't see anything wrong with normalizing the entire
> performance,

Me either. Not sure why you wouldn't!


>although I've heard some express the idea that one should
> back off from 0dB (or whatever you call the max your sample can hold)
> because there could be some inter-sample weirdness that conceptually
> puts you over the top and clip the D to A converter or some such
> nonsense.

You still normalise, but to -1dB rather than 0dBFS.

Trevor.

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Frank Stearns" > wrote in message
acquisition...
> Tobiah > writes:
>
>>> It sounds just fine, and in fact one would be hard put not do do it. I
>>> was
>>> going to give a couple of th band members the two versions to vote for
>>> the
>>> better one, but that would actually be pointless. They will prefer the
>>> louder one hands down.
>
>>Suppose you A/B the two versions to the band, adjusted for the same
>>overall volume? I don't have the burden of producing commercial
>>recordings, so I just omit compression and turn the volume up a bit
>>on playback.
>
> Here's what I've found with classical/acoustic music... In an entire
> concert
> program there might be one, perhaps two transients that hit close to 0
> dBFS.
> Otherwise, everything else is 6-10 dB down from that -- for the entire
> concert! And in 99.9% of the cases, end listeners aren't going to notice
> if
> one or two of those sorts of peaks are missing. For one thing, often their
> room/playback system won't let them hear it.
>
> So, as a start, a good, basic mastering compressor/limiter (and there are
> lot
> of them out there) can be set just to catch those one or two peaks, and
> you've
> picked up 6-10 dB of loudness.
>
> If you want to up the crest factor a bit, you can clip a few more dB but
> do it
> TASTEFULLY, such using a slightly slower attack/release and lower ratio
> than
> typical limiting (say 10 mS attack, 90 mS release, 4:1). Some amount of
> transient still gets through, there's a slight "breath" after, and the
> amount
> of dynamics removed is not draconian. This will limit (no pun) how much
> crest
> factor boost you can get, but that's likely a GOOD thing.
>
> But you really have to listen, understand the music, and have a reasonably
> good compression tool.
>
> Now, if you're doing cinder-block waveform pop music, where head-banging
> loud
> is considered "art", go ahead and slam the crap out of it (not
> recommended,
> just sayin').
>
> The moral is yes, you can get a "louder" CD with doing much damage.
>
> BTW, don't normalize with classical/acoustic music unless you know damn
> well
> what you're doing. A few weeks back a world-famous ballet company brought
> in
> pre-recorded orchestra tracks for their Nutcracker presentation at our
> local
> theater. We tuned the room, got it and the stage monitors sounding pretty
> good
> (after I persuaded their guy we really didn't want orchestral tracks at
> 107+
> dB in the house -- the Nutcracker was not written by Wagner or Mahler).
>
> But what made me crazy was that they'd been normalized! So, the double
> pianissimo movements were right up there with the triple fortes, even
> though
> the relative dynamics within each moment were okay. I started riding the
> fader, but got a dirty look. Given that barely any English was spoken, and
> that this very nice guy was in his early 20s and was mostly into Punk and
> HipHop, it was a hard sell. Did not do as much corrective dynamic
> restoration
> as I wanted to. Sigh.
>
> Frank
> Mobile Audio
> --

They thught it was a rock concert! In general I like to find the level
setting tht will do the job on the peaks, then monitor so htat it looks like
I am right. But I want to keep the gain at just one setting for the whole
event so that it doesn't ride up and down. Later in the editing, I can fiind
the level setting that keeps the peaks just below clipping, then just cut
and fade and done.

Then, if there is a need for compression, I have a standard setting that
does the job fairly innocuously, but I don't recall an attack and release
adjustment. Playing the compressed version is intriguing. The acoustic and
the bass response are elevated and the whole thing is louder (because after
compression I can boost the level by 8 or 9 dB) and the cymbal crashes still
sound dramatic enough. So I guess I should do that for my commercial setting
and leave it uncompressed for my own use. I am still a little afraid to mess
with the recorded signal.

Gary Eickmeier

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Trevor wrote:

> You still normalise, but to -1dB rather than 0dBFS.

-2.5 if for mp3 if you don't want overshoots on decoding, experimentally
determined.

> Trevor.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Trevor]

"Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
...
>> You still normalise, but to -1dB rather than 0dBFS.
>
> -2.5 if for mp3 if you don't want overshoots on decoding, experimentally
> determined.

Not found that a big problem myself, (MP3's from commercial CD's that are
flat topped at 0dB FS sure) But then I'm not particulary worried about MP3,
it's not for serious listening anyway.

Trevor.

[Frank Stearns]

Tobiah > writes:


>> BTW, don't normalize with classical/acoustic music unless you know damn well
>> what you're doing.

>> But what made me crazy was that they'd been normalized! So, the double
>> pianissimo movements were right up there with the triple fortes, even though
>> the relative dynamics within each moment were okay.

>So are you saying that the original performance was split into movements
>and the each of those were normalized to 0dB? Yeah, that would be
>wrong. Still I don't see anything wrong with normalizing the entire
>performance, although I've heard some express the idea that one should
>back off from 0dB (or whatever you call the max your sample can hold)
>because there could be some inter-sample weirdness that conceptually
>puts you over the top and clip the D to A converter or some such
>nonsense.

Agreed - entire performances can be normalized, IF you know how each track should
"sit" in the dynamic envelope of the entire piece. Problem here was as you noted -
movements were on separate tracks, then normalized, so the quiet ones got bumped way
up. Shudder.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Nate Najar]

On Friday, January 3, 2014 12:53:21 PM UTC-5, Frank Stearns wrote:


>
>
> Agreed - entire performances can be normalized, IF you know how each track should
>
> "sit" in the dynamic envelope of the entire piece. Problem here was as you noted -
>
> movements were on separate tracks, then normalized, so the quiet ones got bumped way
>
> up. Shudder.
>
>
>
> Frank
>
> Mobile Audio
>
> --
>
> .


that's how I master jazz records. I assemble everything and adjust the gain of the individual songs relative to the loudest track and then apply the limiter across the board to raise the overall level of the record (any other processing goes before the limiter of course). This means some tracks don't even get any gain reduction from the limiter and those that do are usually just getting transients clipped off. I've found it to be a very transparent way to work and the records come out quite clean and dynamic. They may be lower in overall level than other commercial releases, but they're really not THAT much lower than most and so far no one has complained.

N

[Gary Eickmeier]

Nate Najar wrote:
> .
>
>
> that's how I master jazz records. I assemble everything and adjust
> the gain of the individual songs relative to the loudest track and
> then apply the limiter across the board to raise the overall level of
> the record (any other processing goes before the limiter of course).
> This means some tracks don't even get any gain reduction from the
> limiter and those that do are usually just getting transients clipped
> off. I've found it to be a very transparent way to work and the
> records come out quite clean and dynamic. They may be lower in
> overall level than other commercial releases, but they're really not
> THAT much lower than most and so far no one has complained.
>
> N

Nate, is there one (or more) that I could purchase of these that you are
particularly proud of?

Gary

[hank alrich]

Gary Eickmeier > wrote:

> Nate Najar wrote:
> > .
> >
> >
> > that's how I master jazz records. I assemble everything and adjust
> > the gain of the individual songs relative to the loudest track and
> > then apply the limiter across the board to raise the overall level of
> > the record (any other processing goes before the limiter of course).
> > This means some tracks don't even get any gain reduction from the
> > limiter and those that do are usually just getting transients clipped
> > off. I've found it to be a very transparent way to work and the
> > records come out quite clean and dynamic. They may be lower in
> > overall level than other commercial releases, but they're really not
> > THAT much lower than most and so far no one has complained.
> >
> > N
>
> Nate, is there one (or more) that I could purchase of these that you are
> particularly proud of?
>
> Gary

I doubt you'd go wrong with any of Nate's work.

http://www.natenajar.com/store/

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Nate Najar]

Thanks Gary, and thanks hank!

I'd suggest "blues for night people"

Thanks for asking.

N

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Nate Najar" > wrote in message
...
> Thanks Gary, and thanks hank!
>
> I'd suggest "blues for night people"
>
> Thanks for asking.
>
> N

OK, got it. Thanks to you both for cluing me in.

Gary

[Scott Dorsey]

> wrote:
> If you want to get the loudness up a little without compressing, don,t be afraid to let short transients like hand claps etc go into clipping.

The limiter is a very powerful tool... the limiter will let you deal with
those short transients in a pretty transparent way without affecting the
music.

In a typical concert recording you'll have a dozen or so really large peaks.
Limit those down and you can bring the levels up a good bit with no loss.

Mind you, I would sooner use limiting than actually clip them... but sometimes
for a hand clap or some kinds of drums you can get away with clipping.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>
>No, I haven't had any complaints - they like my recordings a lot, but...
>
>When I am all done I play them in the car to check how they might sound to a
>normal person, and I have to turn it way higher than the rest of my
>programming to hear it at the same subjective loudness. This bothers me.
>Loudness is about the only audio term regular folks know, and mine are
>lacking compared to the competition.
>
>This is a well-know problem and I am just wondering what the group does to
>handle it. I sure don't like gain riding but will try some of the other
>suggestions.

You're describing two different things. First of all, you have
to turn the levels up, and secondly you have to ride the levels when you
are listening in the car.

The first problem is really not a problem at all, you only perceive it
as one. Good labelling will keep others from doing so.

The second problem really is a problem, and it's one everyone faces who
deals with music that relies on dynamics for any sort of musical effect.
The problem is the car environment, and you can do three things: ride the
gain, make a special dub specifically designed for driving and other low
dynamic range environments, or get a car radio with a compression button
designed for listening to classical music. The third option is less popular
than it was a decade ago but it's still out there.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Trevor]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> > wrote:
>> If you want to get the loudness up a little without compressing, don,t be
>> afraid to let short transients like hand claps etc go into clipping.
>
> The limiter is a very powerful tool... the limiter will let you deal with
> those short transients in a pretty transparent way without affecting the
> music.
>
> In a typical concert recording you'll have a dozen or so really large
> peaks.
> Limit those down and you can bring the levels up a good bit with no loss.
>
> Mind you, I would sooner use limiting than actually clip them...

Me too! Of course hard limiting is the same as clipping of course, so I
assume you mean soft limiting.


>but sometimes
> for a hand clap or some kinds of drums you can get away with clipping.

Can't see why you'd want to though with such a great array of compression
options available these days. Anybody who uses clipping simply doesn't know
how to set their compression/limiting curves and thresholds properly IMO.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> The second problem really is a problem, and it's one everyone faces who
> deals with music that relies on dynamics for any sort of musical effect.
> The problem is the car environment, and you can do three things: ride the
> gain, make a special dub specifically designed for driving and other low
> dynamic range environments.....

I've been doing that for a couple of decades now. Frankly I don't know why
anyone who can use a DAW doesn't.

Trevor.

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Trevor" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
> ...
>> The second problem really is a problem, and it's one everyone faces who
>> deals with music that relies on dynamics for any sort of musical effect.
>> The problem is the car environment, and you can do three things: ride the
>> gain, make a special dub specifically designed for driving and other low
>> dynamic range environments.....
>
> I've been doing that for a couple of decades now. Frankly I don't know why
> anyone who can use a DAW doesn't.
>
> Trevor.

So you have a double inventory of your discs, or you make them all with
compression for cars?

Gary

[Trevor]

"Gary Eickmeier" > wrote in message
...
>>> The second problem really is a problem, and it's one everyone faces who
>>> deals with music that relies on dynamics for any sort of musical effect.
>>> The problem is the car environment, and you can do three things: ride
>>> the
>>> gain, make a special dub specifically designed for driving and other low
>>> dynamic range environments.....
>>
>> I've been doing that for a couple of decades now. Frankly I don't know
>> why anyone who can use a DAW doesn't.
>
> So you have a double inventory of your discs, or you make them all with
> compression for cars?

I wouldn't use the original disks in the car anyway, so when copying them or
making MP3's for the car, I simply compress any tracks that need it. Of
course I don't bother copying everything for the car. I make mostly greatest
hits type compilations of my own, which are at least level matched anyway.
The last thing I want to be doing while driving is continually fiddling with
the volume control.

Trevor.

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Nate Najar" > wrote in message
...
> Thanks Gary, and thanks hank!
>
> I'd suggest "blues for night people"
>
> Thanks for asking.

Got it! Fantastic! Do you have any pix of the session?

Gary

[Nate Najar]

Thanks Gary! Here's the only photos I have....

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.275293405865859.63921.170318379696696&type=1&l=2735a5cb6c

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Nate Najar" > wrote in message
...
> Thanks Gary! Here's the only photos I have....
>
> https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.275293405865859.63921.170318379696696&type=1&l=2735a5cb6c
>

Thanks - most illuminating. Maybe you could tell a little more about it. I
could tell it was multi tracked, and it sounds great, but was it overdubbed
or were you all playing together? How mixed - any reverb or other
processing?

Gary Eickmeier

[Nate Najar]

Thanks Gary. We recorded at my favorite studio, Nola Recording on W57th street in manhattan.

Wes Dooley kindly loaned me a few mics and preamps. The studio has an mci board (and utilizes its pres) and a radar multitrack. The drums are in a partial iso booth. There is drum sound in the room but it is highly attenuated and visual communication is still very easy. I like it because, as an acoustic guitarist, I can actually play without the headphones if it want and hear my guitar properly and still feel and hear the drums and bass.

We used an aea ku4 on my Ramirez guitar and an aea r88 on the vibes. This r88 was a new prototype with active electronics- they have since told me there are no plans to put it in production. We also used one of the studio's RCA 44bx on the bass into an AEA RPQ preamp that was on loan.

The drums are as I said in a partial iso booth. Re20 on the bass drum, sm57 on the snare and old akg 451's on overhead. That mic setup "comes with the building" so to speak in this particular studio. They also usually use 421's on the toms but I decided to not use those.

There is a good amount of bleed into the guitar and bass mics but as I said it's highly attenuated so it just acts as room sound for the drums.

I did the mix myself, but I did it in a friend's room instead of my own, on his pro tools rig. There is very little EQ and compression, some low end management on the guitar and bass close mics, maybe some high lift on the guitar mic, I don't really remember more particular than that- anything was very slight. Some mild compression on the bass mic to even out some spots. That probably came from an LA3 or something similar. Reverb was "London plate" on a bricasti M7.

I mastered it myself too but that really was just level matching the tracks, using the limiter to bring it up to level, top and tail and assembly. It's a simple ensemble and the instruments themselves sound good so I did my best to just not muck it up

There were a few tracks that the ribbon mics had attracted a nasty intermittent hum and we didn't notice it until mix time, so I sent them to a very generous fellow R.A.P member who offered to izotope them for me. They came out pretty well too.

I think that's about everything, thanks for asking.

[Gary Eickmeier]

Very interesting Nate. I didn't see enough credit on the cover for all of
that engineering, it just credits you as producer.

Of course I am not familiar with all of those models of mikes and boards,
just very interested in the approach to recording. The audiophiles think
that everything is naturally recorded live to two track, all playing
together in a good room. Engineers of your status probably realize that it
takes a lot more effort than that to make it "sound" like that but to have
more control over every aspect. I will never be at that point but I often
wish for such descriptions and pictures of sessions that I enjoy very much.

And hey - one of the pictures does show you playing with the headphones on,
which is one reason that I asked. Thanks for the lowdown!

Gary


"Nate Najar" > wrote in message
...
Thanks Gary. We recorded at my favorite studio, Nola Recording on W57th
street in manhattan.

Wes Dooley kindly loaned me a few mics and preamps. The studio has an mci
board (and utilizes its pres) and a radar multitrack. The drums are in a
partial iso booth. There is drum sound in the room but it is highly
attenuated and visual communication is still very easy. I like it because,
as an acoustic guitarist, I can actually play without the headphones if it
want and hear my guitar properly and still feel and hear the drums and bass.

We used an aea ku4 on my Ramirez guitar and an aea r88 on the vibes. This
r88 was a new prototype with active electronics- they have since told me
there are no plans to put it in production. We also used one of the
studio's RCA 44bx on the bass into an AEA RPQ preamp that was on loan.

The drums are as I said in a partial iso booth. Re20 on the bass drum, sm57
on the snare and old akg 451's on overhead. That mic setup "comes with the
building" so to speak in this particular studio. They also usually use
421's on the toms but I decided to not use those.

There is a good amount of bleed into the guitar and bass mics but as I said
it's highly attenuated so it just acts as room sound for the drums.

I did the mix myself, but I did it in a friend's room instead of my own, on
his pro tools rig. There is very little EQ and compression, some low end
management on the guitar and bass close mics, maybe some high lift on the
guitar mic, I don't really remember more particular than that- anything was
very slight. Some mild compression on the bass mic to even out some spots.
That probably came from an LA3 or something similar. Reverb was "London
plate" on a bricasti M7.

I mastered it myself too but that really was just level matching the tracks,
using the limiter to bring it up to level, top and tail and assembly. It's
a simple ensemble and the instruments themselves sound good so I did my best
to just not muck it up

There were a few tracks that the ribbon mics had attracted a nasty
intermittent hum and we didn't notice it until mix time, so I sent them to a
very generous fellow R.A.P member who offered to izotope them for me. They
came out pretty well too.

I think that's about everything, thanks for asking.