A pro loudness technique

DarkRed

New member
As you know loudness is important these days. It is not the loudness that is important in pro mixing and mastering, but it is what that loudness is perceived like that matters.

Many of you might have figured out that getting mixes to sound great at loud volume is a lot about using the right compressor types in the right way on the content. But that is possible to dial in only when you are aware of what the current compression quality is like.

Key here is that you are aware of roughly at what fundamental frequency the chorus is when you have dialed in your target integrated LUFS and RMS values. But, there is more that you can do. A pro technique for loudness, is to playback gain the mix at max in the chorus. It might sound silly, but trust me, when you have great compression in there it is mostly just some words on the vocals that are going to hurt/bite your ears a bit in the center. That is why the mix sounds so great at normal volumes, it becomes so soft yet big, present and full. It is at this volume that you notice you have all kinds of issues in the mix, because now you have the right reference so that you can locate the issues and fix them.
 
Last edited:
Wouldn't it be better to volume-match against a pre-designated pro track, considering that confirmation bias/the placebo effect is strongly linked with volume in audio; i.e., we always think that "louder sounds better?" Playing parts of your own track louder will just _sound_ better to you-- _in those parts_.

GJ
 
Wouldn't it be better to volume-match against a pre-designated pro track, considering that confirmation bias/the placebo effect is strongly linked with volume in audio; i.e., we always think that "louder sounds better?" Playing parts of your own track louder will just _sound_ better to you-- _in those parts_.

GJ

There is a difference. The difference is that the amount of power you amplify by is also of importance for the evaluation. The reference point gives you a combination of a certain power on the amp and a certain sound at that voltage. So that means that you now have a number of important qualities locked into a reference point that you can do 1-1 comparisons on. Key here is that you analyze how harsh the sound is at max voltage basically (because the voltage curvature is cumulative). The sooner you do the first check, the better. So already at recording it makes sense to check what kind of frequencies are going into the recording.
 
Last edited:
What exactly is "voltage curvature"?

It is the kind of the linearity of the voltage level relative to the dBu increase. So with each step the dBu increases in level, the voltage increases in level more and more, so that the linearity is an accelerated curvature.
 
So, just to clarify, your pro technique for making a mix work loud is to listen to it loud (with lots of waffle-padded word-salad)?
 
So, just to clarify, your pro technique for making a mix work loud is to listen to it loud (with lots of waffle-padded word-salad)?

Kind of, how to make a mix work at any loudness, but also about how to make it work at the commercial loudness level.
 
I hope this short video can explain what DarkRed means by "voltage curvature". It's a transfer function for a mathematician.



The special pro technique remains to be explained.
 
Last edited:
I've noticed that you have a link to your work there Laurend... interesting. As if it's in your professional interests for people to be able to reach your business...I feel there is a pro-tip their somewhere.
 
I want to cry. I just want to curl up in a ball and freakin' cry.....

Don't. Both you and I know that to get mixes to sound great you need the right monitoring. When you crank it using the wrong monitoring, commercial mixes break down. But when you crank it with great monitoring, they bloom. And that is why you need to be aware of what it sounds like when your mix/master is supposed to bloom. When cranked, a mix that blooms is not full of harsh high frequencies on the sides, the vocals have some rather loud high frequencies focused in the center, but that is almost about it, the rest of the frequencies are just nice.
 
Last edited:
And yet, suggested standard mix volume is 85 dB, the pro engineers I know are not mixing at super high volumes (where everything naturally sounds better to most of us, but also kills cilia in your cochlea), and all of the ME's I know or others that have made their opinions known on the subject are asking for less compressed mixes of much lower volume. I'm trying to understand the disconnect here. From my understanding-- "If it sounds good at a quiet level, it will sound good when it's louder..."

>>>> I want to cry.<<<<

I hear you, babe...

GJ
 
Last edited:
And yet, suggested standard mix volume is 85 dB, the pro engineers I know are not mixing at super high volumes (where everything naturally sounds better to most of us, but also kills cilia in your cochlea), and all of the ME's I know or others that have made their opinions known on the subject are asking for less compressed mixes of much lower volume. I'm trying to understand the disconnect here. From my understanding-- "If it sounds good at a quiet level, it will sound good when it's louder..."

>>>> I want to cry.<<<<

I hear you, babe...

GJ

The quiet monitoring has to do with getting enough signal within the mix above the perception threshold, it is basically just a way of keeping the RMS levels above a minimum level. In order to really get a great sound you need to crank it to see what it sounds like at that power level. If it sounds sweet on that power level when you are using the right monitoring, then when you lower the volume it just turns pleasant/sweet but loud enough. That is at least my experience. It is at the loud volume that you can perceive the sound stage in its full form and then you know what the mix really sounds like. I crank it against a certain loudness dialed into the mix/master and then I know what I have in the mix, especially if I do proper A/B too.

The art is in my view to a great extent getting a really flat hi end across the stereo spectrum and at the same time having the bulk of the hi frequencies concentrated at the center and the high end loudness just slightly a bit too loud in the center when cranked. Then you just need to ensure you don't have too much attack on the other frequencies. The bass should become full but not dense when cranked, the snare can become a little edgy but just a little, at least in pop and country music. When you have that and turn down the volume it just sounds very nice on all monitors... But when the hi end is not balanced and great when cranked, the rest is pretty much a mess. This is in my understanding the art, getting a bright mix that is bright and sounds great at that brightness. The emotion gets lost when you do not have enough "sensitive"/"gentle" frequencies present in the mix. To get there you need to have it sounding right when cranked.

This only means you need to be aware of what it sounds like cranked, early enough and then keep improving that throughout the course of the music creation process. So it does not mean you should treat your ears badly, you will instantly notice when the mix does not have the right frequencies, when you crank it. After some time you will learn how to mix so that even when cranked the ears love it. So mix at normal volumes and check regularly what it sounds like when cranked, and know what is should sound like when cranked - that is the most important thing.
 
Last edited:
That was a very detailed answer; thank you! Many (including myself) would disagree with your thesis, but at least I have a better understanding of what you're advocating.

A/Bing within genre is very important. But tell me, do you sum to mono at any point in your mix process? I like to pan based on what I like to hear, not preconceived ideas about frequency placement in a stereo image. I'm just wondering what effect your process might have in a mono summed version of your mix...

GJ
 
That was a very detailed answer; thank you! Many (including myself) would disagree with your thesis, but at least I have a better understanding of what you're advocating.

A/Bing within genre is very important. But tell me, do you sum to mono at any point in your mix process? I like to pan based on what I like to hear, not preconceived ideas about frequency placement in a stereo image. I'm just wondering what effect your process might have in a mono summed version of your mix...

GJ

Mono is only important during the recording process in order to better understand the information density of the recording, meaning how much of the original was captured (in terms of perception). When you have a recording that does not sum to mono well, what happens is that you are not able to pull together the frequencies of each sound source from the context in a good way and hence the individual sound sources won't sound so good in the context of the mix. So once you have mono validated your recording and you understand it has the amount of information necessary, then you start focusing on making the recording sound good in stereo.
 
Last edited:
Sooooooo-- What happens when you sum these mixes to mono?

GJ

If I understand you correctly you refer to the fact that when you stop mono checking once the recording is at the mixing stage and beyond, what is then the result of the mix in mono later on since it potentially could have become very bad sounding in mono? It sounds good enough in mono, so it is not an issue. The A/B is in stereo and M/S and when those two are at their targets, it is good enough.
 
Last edited:
When you crank it using the wrong monitoring, commercial mixes break down. But when you crank it with great monitoring, they bloom.

Every creditable mix engineer (i.e. whose work I can listen to) I have heard talk about monitoring say that good monitoring makes mixes sound bad because it highlights problems.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top