I'm currently working on finishing a project I played on but I will
not be doing the final mixing. I'm trying to convince the mixer to
make it so the final .aiff files are not clipped in the type of way
most all gain addict current releases are. I learned that doing so
brings about a type of distortion from the good folks here at RAP.
The mixer says that all the stuff nowadays is clipped, that it's the
popular sound out there. And you know, now that I think of it, I
really can't notice this type of distortion much myself. It doesn't
bring about any artifacts or strange frequencies. Sure the dynamics
are non existant, but the *sound* of the tracks don't really suffer,
at least I can't tell they do. This guy has all types of gear
dedicated to getting every last dB out of his recordings. How do I
explain this to him in such a way that he will see the point? Help!

Ryan wrote:

How do I
explain this to him in such a way that he will see the point? Help!

Try this one: "Mr. Mixer? I have decided that if you squash the hell out
of my songs, I will not pay you."

That might work.

--
Eric

Practice Your Mixing Skills
Multi-Track Masters on CD-ROM
www.Raw-Tracks.com

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 23:41:28 -0400, Ryan wrote
(in article ):

I'm currently working on finishing a project I played on but I will
not be doing the final mixing. I'm trying to convince the mixer to
make it so the final .aiff files are not clipped in the type of way
most all gain addict current releases are. I learned that doing so
brings about a type of distortion from the good folks here at RAP.
The mixer says that all the stuff nowadays is clipped, that it's the
popular sound out there. And you know, now that I think of it, I
really can't notice this type of distortion much myself. It doesn't
bring about any artifacts or strange frequencies. Sure the dynamics
are non existant, but the *sound* of the tracks don't really suffer,
at least I can't tell they do. This guy has all types of gear
dedicated to getting every last dB out of his recordings. How do I
explain this to him in such a way that he will see the point? Help!

The quick answer is you can't, find someone else who gets it.

It takes quite a lot to change the aural preferences of someone who has been
squashing the crap out of all of their audio for a while.

I say this because, after 17 years in broadcast, I was pretty invested in
gain reduction. Anything NOT squished just didn't sound right to me. It took
me a number of YEARS to allow the preference for squished audio to empty out
of my ear.

I still have rebound bouts and need to be vigilant about it.

The fact that you can't hear the artifacts may mean you are just too far down
the path yourself.

Be careful. The final mix will be around for a long time.

Regards,

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at http://home.comcast.net/~tyreeford

Lines: 50
Message-ID:
X-Complaints-To:
X-Abuse-Info: Please forward a copy of all headers for proper handling
X-Trace: bhmkggakljkaanefdbdpiflmbcekedmfhojhikkbagflhcbodj ijcgjjjgekpdgfecjobkgamippnjnhcenmammaandhhhmnalpn flbapfokdkpedmglnlejilnhkbhmmnjjfbfljncflpgfhdfoed almmbdgipb
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 13:49:08 EDT
Organization: BellSouth Internet Group
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 17:49:08 GMT
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com rec.audio.pro:1084814


On 2004-07-01 said:
every last dB out of his recordings. How do I explain this to
him in such a way that he will see the point? Help! The quick
answer is you can't, find someone else who gets it. It takes quite
a lot to change the aural preferences of someone who has been
squashing the crap out of all of their audio for a while. I say
this because, after 17 years in broadcast, I was pretty invested in
gain reduction. Anything NOT squished just didn't sound right to me.
It took me a number of YEARS to allow the preference for squished
audio to empty out of my ear. I still have rebound bouts and need
to be vigilant about it. The fact that you can't hear the artifacts
may mean you are just too far down the path yourself.
Be careful. The final mix will be around for a long time.
tHIs isn't like you've been hauled into an emergency room and need
lifesaving procedures and must submit yourself to the process even if
you don't normally care for this physician and his methods. You have
the control here, you're cutting the checks.

Choose someone who gets your idea.

I did some low budget mastering at a friend's place back in Iowa.
THis guy has an excellent facility with many different types of
nearfields and a good pair of Yuri boxes soffit mounted. I enjoy
using his room but am always reminding him that we're not going to
noramlize and we're not going to run it through his compressor plug-in
chances are. WE"ll listen as we transfer from dat and see what we
think, and usually we're going to err on the side of caution. tHese
clients of mine may have been low budget but I tried to record their
music with its dynamics intact, I endeavor to mix so that the softer
mellower piece is still at a comfortable listening level but the
differnce is apparent between it and the next tune which is supposed
to be a bit louder and more in your face. My objective is that you
don't have to keep fiddling with the volume control on your playback
system while experiencing the music as it was meant to be experienced.

FUnny thing, this guy could switch gears fine for me, but I was
present during the sessions. IF you can't communicate this to your
mastering guy look around and don't submit your material to the
process until you're comfortable with whomever you choose.



Richard Webb,
Electric SPider Productions, New Orleans, La.
REplace anything before the @ symbol with elspider for real email

--

In article ,
Ryan wrote:
I'm currently working on finishing a project I played on but I will
not be doing the final mixing. I'm trying to convince the mixer to
make it so the final .aiff files are not clipped in the type of way
most all gain addict current releases are. I learned that doing so
brings about a type of distortion from the good folks here at RAP.
The mixer says that all the stuff nowadays is clipped, that it's the
popular sound out there. And you know, now that I think of it, I
really can't notice this type of distortion much myself. It doesn't
bring about any artifacts or strange frequencies. Sure the dynamics
are non existant, but the *sound* of the tracks don't really suffer,
at least I can't tell they do. This guy has all types of gear
dedicated to getting every last dB out of his recordings. How do I
explain this to him in such a way that he will see the point? Help!

You don't. You go somewhere else.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Ryan at wrote on 6/30/04 11:41 PM:
This guy has all types of gear
dedicated to getting every last dB out of his recordings. How do I
explain this to him in such a way that he will see the point? Help!


ummmm... who's writing the checks for the session...?


--
John I-22
(that's 'I' for Initial...)
Recognising what's NOT worth your time, THAT'S the key.
--

"Ryan" wrote in message
m...
This guy has all types of gear
dedicated to getting every last dB out of his recordings. How do I
explain this to him in such a way that he will see the point? Help!

Just to throw in my $.02, take your tracks and find another mixer that
understands what you want and is willing to work with you rather than trying
to tell you what you should do. Anyone that thinks louder is better is
fooling themselves and you'd be buying into it. If he were to have said,
well, to be noticed on radio most A&R and marketing dweebs simply push for
as much volume as possible, then at least you'd know he knew what he was
talking about. But if his only idea is to get it as loud as possible,
regardless of the equipment he owns, any of us could do that, including you.
The difference is that most of us wouldn't.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

I'm currently working on finishing a project I played on but I will
not be doing the final mixing. I'm trying to convince the mixer to
make it so the final .aiff files are not clipped in the type of way
most all gain addict current releases are. I learned that doing so
brings about a type of distortion from the good folks here at RAP.
The mixer says that all the stuff nowadays is clipped, that it's the
popular sound out there. And you know, now that I think of it, I
really can't notice this type of distortion much myself. It doesn't
bring about any artifacts or strange frequencies. Sure the dynamics
are non existant, but the *sound* of the tracks don't really suffer,
at least I can't tell they do.

Rule number one of any kind of free-lance work:

If the client likes it, it rocks. If the client doesn't like it, it
sucks.

I agree with another poster who said that you ought to take your
business elsewhere. Your sound is your sound and no one should mess
with it. It's one thing to advise you so as to get the most from your
recording. Its another for someone to try to impose their will on your
work, whether it's appropriate or not.

I've used comp/limiting on certain projects of my own, but usually as
little as I could get by with (well, most of the time anyway). Most of
those projects were for broadcast, where consistent levels and
modulating for maximum coverage in fringe reception areas are
important. I've found that quite a bit of commercial music is
compressed/maximized to the hilt, which is presumably so that it'll
sound punchy even over a cheap system.

I don't know where this engineer got the idea that clipping improves
the sound of recorded music. Unless the artist WANTS to distort the
music (e.g. with a guitar distortion box), it simply doesn't belong.
(And digital clippage is much nastier than the analog variety IMHO).




(Ryan) wrote in message om...
I'm currently working on finishing a project I played on but I will
not be doing the final mixing. I'm trying to convince the mixer to
make it so the final .aiff files are not clipped in the type of way
most all gain addict current releases are. I learned that doing so
brings about a type of distortion from the good folks here at RAP.
The mixer says that all the stuff nowadays is clipped, that it's the
popular sound out there. And you know, now that I think of it, I
really can't notice this type of distortion much myself. It doesn't
bring about any artifacts or strange frequencies. Sure the dynamics
are non existant, but the *sound* of the tracks don't really suffer,
at least I can't tell they do. This guy has all types of gear
dedicated to getting every last dB out of his recordings. How do I
explain this to him in such a way that he will see the point? Help!

Okay guys, first, thanks for all the reponses, second, I guess I
should have gave a little more detail. I'm not paying this guy.
We're both doing this pro-bono as a side project. However, we do plan
on "releasing" it. If it sells, than we get paid. I'm friends with
this guy, it's not really a strictly professional relationship. He
isn't even a mastering engineer either. We probably won't even have
it mastered (again pro-bono). He's just the guy that will be laying
down bass and mixing it.

Could anybody tell me why clipped to hell is bad? I know that it is
but I have problems trying to figure out how I can explain this to
him. Are there really artifacts that happen from this? Someone
suggested I'm too far down the path, but I would say I'm not far
enough down it. I'd really like to learn what this stuff sounds like
and how to identify it. If it really ruins audio, it seems to me the
problems should be rather easy to point out. If someone can't
identify an exact problem, than it must be hypochondria, right?

Ryan wrote:
..

Could anybody tell me why clipped to hell is bad? I know that it is
but I have problems trying to figure out how I can explain this to
him. Are there really artifacts that happen from this? Someone
suggested I'm too far down the path, but I would say I'm not far
enough down it. I'd really like to learn what this stuff sounds like
and how to identify it. If it really ruins audio, it seems to me the
problems should be rather easy to point out. If someone can't
identify an exact problem, than it must be hypochondria, right?


Squished is different to clipped. Clipped is a total no-no in any digital
system, as the artifacts are unpleasant and unrelated to the musical content
of the clipped signal (unlike some analogue clipping). Squished is a
different story, and is 'in the eyes' (ears) of the producer and/or
mastering engineer (or mixing engineer if that's where it is happening to
excess).

Hyper-compression or over-squishing is a bit like McDonalds - easy to get
addicted to, but the anathema of good music in most cases. Also the exact
opposite of teh wider dynamic range that all these extra bits and Hertz we
are sold are supposedly allowing us.

You have to decide who is calling the musical shots as 'producer'.

geoff

Ryan wrote:

Could anybody tell me why clipped to hell is bad? I know that it is
but I have problems trying to figure out how I can explain this to
him. Are there really artifacts that happen from this? Someone
suggested I'm too far down the path, but I would say I'm not far
enough down it. I'd really like to learn what this stuff sounds like
and how to identify it. If it really ruins audio, it seems to me the
problems should be rather easy to point out. If someone can't
identify an exact problem, than it must be hypochondria, right?

Because it sounds bad.

If he can't tell it sounds bad on his monitors, you got a big problem.

You could give him that nifty paper from Bob Orban, explaining why
clipped signals cause major problems in broadcast chains. But the
basic reason is that clipping sounds bad.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 00:08:05 -0400, Ryan wrote
(in article ) :

Okay guys, first, thanks for all the reponses, second, I guess I
should have gave a little more detail. I'm not paying this guy.
We're both doing this pro-bono as a side project. However, we do plan
on "releasing" it. If it sells, than we get paid. I'm friends with
this guy, it's not really a strictly professional relationship. He
isn't even a mastering engineer either. We probably won't even have
it mastered (again pro-bono). He's just the guy that will be laying
down bass and mixing it.

Could anybody tell me why clipped to hell is bad? I know that it is
but I have problems trying to figure out how I can explain this to
him. Are there really artifacts that happen from this? Someone
suggested I'm too far down the path, but I would say I'm not far
enough down it. I'd really like to learn what this stuff sounds like
and how to identify it. If it really ruins audio, it seems to me the
problems should be rather easy to point out. If someone can't
identify an exact problem, than it must be hypochondria, right?

If you can't hear why clipped is bad it doesn't really make any difference.
That's not hypochondria, it's deafness.

Regards,

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at http://home.comcast.net/~tyreeford

"Ryan" wrote in message
om

Could anybody tell me why clipped to hell is bad?

It's obviously a matter of taste. Think of it as an effect, like reverb.

I know that it is but I have problems trying to figure out how I can
explain this to
him.

Depending on what your musical goals are for this recording, clipping the
$#@!! out of it might not be a bad idea.

Are there really artifacts that happen from this?

Of course. If someone takes a fairly dynamic recording and clips it
moderately, the recording takes on a characteristic that I perceive as being
"hot" or "burning my ears". As a recording is progressively clipped more,
there is more intermodulation of the sounds, and the timbre gets changed.

OTOH, if you have a 3 minute piece of music that is clipped for 5
milliseconds total in 3 different places, you probably won't notice it.

Clipping often makes music sound louder than you might expect given its
actual level. IOW if you play unclipped music at 85 dB peak, it will sound
softer than clipped music played at the same peak level. That makes some
sense because tolerating clipping allows you to bring up the average
loudness of the music. However, clipping can also make music sound louder
even when the average level is the same.

In extreme cases, clipping gives you sonic mud. Heavily-clipped music will
lose some of its high end, if it had any. Clip a snare drum and it will
sound like a garbage can.

Someone suggested I'm too far down the path, but I would say I'm not far
enough down it.

As long as the unclipped mixdown tapes exist, you have options.

I'd really like to learn what this stuff sounds like
and how to identify it.

Different music reacts differently to clipping.

Not all clipping is the same - you get vastly different results if you try
to clip something by overloading an analog tape machine, as opposed to
clean, symmetrical clipping as often found in solid state studio equipment
with push-pull amplification (e.g. ICs). Tubed equipment that is also not
push-pull, is likely to clip asymmetrically, and that produces a different
kind of clipped sound.

If it really ruins audio, it seems to me the problems should be rather
easy to point out.

Get some equipment and figure out how to set levels so that some part of it
clips internally. Have a means for getting the speaker levels down so that
you can listen to it comfortably.

For example, take an equalizer with an input level control driving a power
amp that has an input level control. Turn up the input gain on the eq way up
but first turn the input level way down on the power amp. You should be able
to get the eq to clip internally. You should be able to get a range of
clipping and loudness that you can listen to.

If you have a DAW, there may be a function that simply clips. If not take a
file that is in a fixed point format (i.e., 16/44). Amplify it lots of dBs
to clip it and then attenuate it so it has a normal level. Listen to it.

If someone can't identify an exact problem, than it must be hypochondria,
right?

The audible effects of even modest clipping aren't imaginary. I haven't seen
any scientific papers about how much clipping it takes to be audible. That's
probably because the degree to which clipping is audible has so many
variables built into it. It depends on the music, and it depends on how the
clipping is administered.

I know what clipping sounds like during recording. It is pretty
obvious. I don't know what the technical term is, but I know when you
look at an audio file of almost any new hard rock CD in your DAW, the
waves looked clipped. The graphic looks to big for the space it's in,
and the tops and bottoms of the waves are no longer round, but flat.
I guess these are considered square waves. However, I usually can't
hear anything unmusical resulting from this occuring. It does not
sound anything liked trying to digitaly record a signal that's too
strong for your IO card. The only thing I notice about these
recordings is that there really aren't any quiet parts. Everything is
always super loud, even the parts which are supposed to be the quiet
building type parts that build up to a climax. But I don't hear
anything harsh or rackety about them.

Ryan wrote:
I know what clipping sounds like during recording. It is pretty
obvious. I don't know what the technical term is, but I know when you
look at an audio file of almost any new hard rock CD in your DAW, the
waves looked clipped. The graphic looks to big for the space it's in,
and the tops and bottoms of the waves are no longer round, but flat.
I guess these are considered square waves. However, I usually can't
hear anything unmusical resulting from this occuring. It does not
sound anything liked trying to digitaly record a signal that's too
strong for your IO card. The only thing I notice about these
recordings is that there really aren't any quiet parts. Everything is
always super loud, even the parts which are supposed to be the quiet
building type parts that build up to a climax. But I don't hear
anything harsh or rackety about them.

What you are describing is probably not the individual waveforms, but the
overall *envelope* of the music. This is the hypercompression I was
referring to earlier in teh thread..

geoff

In article writes:

I don't know what the technical term is, but I know when you
look at an audio file of almost any new hard rock CD in your DAW, the
waves looked clipped.

The technical term is "clipping." More often it's "soft clipping" or
"limiting" where the tops are rounded slightly rather than being flat,
but if there was any place to go further up, it would.

However, I usually can't
hear anything unmusical resulting from this occuring.

That's because you haven't heard it without processing.

Everything is
always super loud, even the parts which are supposed to be the quiet
building type parts that build up to a climax. But I don't hear
anything harsh or rackety about them.

And you don't consider that harsh or rackety? You're just the kind of
customer the overcompressors like.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Ryan wrote:
I know what clipping sounds like during recording. It is pretty
obvious. I don't know what the technical term is, but I know when you
look at an audio file of almost any new hard rock CD in your DAW, the
waves looked clipped.

Yes, that's clipping.

The graphic looks to big for the space it's in,
and the tops and bottoms of the waves are no longer round, but flat.
I guess these are considered square waves. However, I usually can't
hear anything unmusical resulting from this occuring.

You need better monitors. The distortion that results from this is
really offensive with decent monitoring. The effect is very, very
unmusical.

It does not
sound anything liked trying to digitaly record a signal that's too
strong for your IO card. The only thing I notice about these
recordings is that there really aren't any quiet parts. Everything is
always super loud, even the parts which are supposed to be the quiet
building type parts that build up to a climax. But I don't hear
anything harsh or rackety about them.

The lack of quiet parts is mostly cause by overcompression. The overlimiting
that causes flattopping is a second problem (but really a second part of
the same fundamental issue). And yes, they really do sound harsh if you
listen carefully.. the thing is that they sound universally harsh throughout,
so it's not as if you are hearing an undistorted section compared with a
distorted section, like you do when you clip peaks on recording.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

(Scott Dorsey) wrote in message ...

You need better monitors. The distortion that results from this is
really offensive with decent monitoring. The effect is very, very
unmusical.

The lack of quiet parts is mostly cause by overcompression. The overlimiting
that causes flattopping is a second problem (but really a second part of
the same fundamental issue). And yes, they really do sound harsh if you
listen carefully.. the thing is that they sound universally harsh throughout,
so it's not as if you are hearing an undistorted section compared with a
distorted section, like you do when you clip peaks on recording.
--scott

He uses Mackie HR 824's. Should we be able to hear it with those?

In article writes:

I'm not paying this guy.
We're both doing this pro-bono as a side project. However, we do plan
on "releasing" it. If it sells, than we get paid.

If it sounds bad, it won't sell, and you won't get paid. At least
that's the traditional model. However today if you set up a tour based
on the CD, you'll make money by selling CDs at your gigs because
the people who buy them there won't know that it sounds bad (and they
won't return it for a refund).

I'm friends with
this guy, it's not really a strictly professional relationship. He
isn't even a mastering engineer either. We probably won't even have
it mastered (again pro-bono). He's just the guy that will be laying
down bass and mixing it.

So he's the bass player on the project and is willing to mix it. If
you don't like the way it's mixed but you think the tracks are good,
get someone else to mix it. Or sit with him and help him to make a mix
that you like better.

Not every project has to be "mastered." There's no reason why you
can't release a CD of the best mix you can make. It won't sound any
worse to the people who buy it than it does to you under whatever
circumstances you play it. I'm sure you know the drill of checking
your mix on several different playback systems and make adjustments to
give you the best compromise between hearing everything important on
the worst playback systems and not hearing anything objectionable on
the best playback systems.

Could anybody tell me why clipped to hell is bad?

Because it sounds audibly distorted, and most of us would rather
listen to music that isn't distorted. However a little clipping is an
acceptable compromise for some who are interested in competing for
loudness.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 21:08:05 -0700, Ryan wrote:

Okay guys, first, thanks for all the reponses, second, I guess I
should have gave a little more detail. I'm not paying this guy.
We're both doing this pro-bono as a side project. However, we do plan
on "releasing" it. If it sells, than we get paid. I'm friends with
this guy, it's not really a strictly professional relationship. He
isn't even a mastering engineer either. We probably won't even have
it mastered (again pro-bono). He's just the guy that will be laying
down bass and mixing it.

Could anybody tell me why clipped to hell is bad? I know that it is
but I have problems trying to figure out how I can explain this to
him. Are there really artifacts that happen from this? Someone
suggested I'm too far down the path, but I would say I'm not far
enough down it. I'd really like to learn what this stuff sounds like
and how to identify it. If it really ruins audio, it seems to me the
problems should be rather easy to point out. If someone can't
identify an exact problem, than it must be hypochondria, right?

It's bad because it makes the record sound cloudy and tiring to listen to.

Also, you have to consider why clipping is done.

If you want a really loud master like a lot of commercial CDs, you have to
do most of it in the mix.

I find I have to use a lot of automation to bring things forward when they
are required, and back when they are not, and really think about where all
the energy in the mix is. Then when it's mastered, the geezer doing the
mastering does not have to slam it to get it loud.

If you try and get all the gain by ultramaximising the master, it ends up
really clipped, tiring to listen to, and still won't sound that loud when
it's played on the radio for some reason.

This is probably all just plain old good mixing techniques, but it took me
ages to work out that you don't get loud mixes just though the mastering.

Thanks all!