Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[chrisj]

andy_simpson wrote on Sun, 12 June 2005 18:21

I guess those tracks get low rms from the large sections of basically quiet music....I got my -17.4 with a non-stop pumping rock tune, with very small intro/outro quiet bits.....

Now wait a moment- Unless that's a real sparse arrangement or has funny instrument selection, you might not even WANT lower RMS than that. If there isn't some RMS loudness swinging behind the 'pumping rock' it'll sound wiry, kinda spastic, uncomfortable, just too lean. Not everybody LIKES the mixes of 'Rumours', and The Wall is all bass drum- there's disco mixes with less bass/BD. It's kind of wasteful to put in THAT much peak energy in a modern recording, unless you specifically want that faux-70s, dry, drums-of-cardboard-boxes vibe. It's legitimate to want things more solid than that.

I hate to join the 'use your ears' crowd at this point, but use your ears if you have something utterly over-the-top like 'Everybody's Got Something To Hide But Me And My Monkey" by the Beatles, you're not going to want the RMS to be superlow. If you have a ballad, you might want some things- backing vox, guitars, keyboards- to be superlow RMS, but do you want a softly-sung vocal to be superlow, or the bloom on a bass note? No, those need to have serious body behind them.

Do what's right for the music, not following formulas. The only reason you're going for extreme low RMS is that so many people have gone for extreme high RMS as a formula, and it sounded awful. You won't naturally get a P-bass to have low RMS and still sound great, and what if the track is centered around the bass?

[Tomás Mulcahy]

davebythelake wrote on Tue, 14 June 2005 18:02

Peter Gabriel's "Security". An early all-digital recording, they seemed to be experimenting to see just how extreme they could get with the dynamic range. Great album.

Yes, it is great, particularly "Lay your hands on me". Then they go a remove all that dynamic range with the remaster

It's wierd, because the "So" remaster is stunning.

[Andy Simpson]

Chris, I know rms is not a great measurement tool, and I'm not actually looking at any numbers when mixing.....it's just an interesting reference number when I've finished the mix....

And yeah, the rock mix at -17.4 is sort of stabby and sparse for half the track and quite dry....it's actually a pretty tubby ('warm') recording.....and a huge bass sound too.

I only looked at the rms's (&crest) because it's a simple way of comparing my mixes to the classics 'on paper'.....

Anyway, yes as always, ears first....numbers for curiosity.

Andy

[rankus]

Was talking to an ME buddy the other day on this topic, and he mentioned that one of the major labels had sent out a document requesting that he master at no louder than -6 rms !!  (They feel that overcompresion is to avoided) (LOL)....    

I'm pretty happy with my up tempo rock tunes at -12 ballpark lately.

[J.J. Blair]

Robert Philbeck wrote on Sun, 12 June 2005 18:02

That's really great!  I am not sure how artist became so infatuated with overly compressed mixes, but if you sit anyone down and play them "By Your Side" by the Black Crowes, and then "Southern Harmony and Musical Companion", and ask them which they think sounds better, they'll pick "Southern...." every time.  You can use "Facelift" by Alice in Chains for the heavy guys too.  Great sounding records! -Robert

Oddly enough, my friend who mastered Facelift is the current culprit who insists on using recursive processing, even when I ask him not to.  Needless to say, Facelift was made before a lot of these new fangled pieces of crap which were allegedly supposed to make things sound better.

[bobkatz]

andy_simpson wrote on Fri, 10 June 2005 15:26

Anyway, ain't that a refreshing change? Andy

Very nice (Amen). Actually, I'm finding most of the Indie A&R/Producers I work with to be much more amenable to masters that are dynamic and at a sensible level. As long as you're not doing "top of the pops" that is.

BK

[finster]

Agreed.
In my town im opening the eyes and ears of my clients to the bummer that is recursive processing.

Every little bit helps.

-Finster