Why does it have to be loud?

Its not just drummers in my experience either. I used to have to track all the guitar parts for my old band before they split because the other guy couldn't play if he was hooked up to a desk. At least two vocalists ive worked with bitched about me making them do the entire track rather than doing it piece-by-piece.

I see no problem with working like this.

For the Slice The Cake EP I was going line by line as a creative choice, opting for the lars ulrich approach to recording. Go as hard as you can for as long as you can, stop, take a breather, rinse, repeat.

I know that's sorta a different point, but I figured I'd play devil's advocate!
 
I guess I'm lucky enough that our drummer is pretty fucking tight, and he knows when something isn't suitable. There aren't really any parts on our album that I think the drums could've been tighter. The drums are great.

For me it falls down on the guitar production, and I blame that on amp sims :p
 
I'm probably in the minority here, but I personally like tracks mastered in a certain 'sweet spot'. For metal and rock this gives the material added excitement and saturation. I almost always find I mix subconsciously with the drums up, to compensate for later slamming, and whenever I put the faux limiter chain on to approximate the end sound, it almost immediately makes the mix sound better.

I think ~-10dBRMS or so would be cool. Just back things off so you don't have to deal with audible clipping, but still loud enough for that saturation and excitement effect. Around there you still have enough headroom for the drums to punch, and if you don't, chances are the mix is out of whack.
If there was a standard though of say -15dB RMS there is absolutely no reason why you couldn't master for the same sound you like and just not use the additional 5dB of headroom. What I like about an RMS limit is it takes the contest element out of mastering.
IIRC this was actually a standard in discussion for DVD-A (though I think it was -20dB RMS) before that format died.
 
I see no problem with working like this.

For the Slice The Cake EP I was going line by line as a creative choice, opting for the lars ulrich approach to recording. Go as hard as you can for as long as you can, stop, take a breather, rinse, repeat.

I know that's sorta a different point, but I figured I'd play devil's advocate!

+1, most of the vox on my EP were line-by-line too, and I'm happy with how they turned out :D
 
If there was a standard though of say -15dB RMS there is absolutely no reason why you couldn't master for the same sound you like and just not use the additional 5dB of headroom. What I like about an RMS limit is it takes the contest element out of mastering.
IIRC this was actually a standard in discussion for DVD-A (though I think it was -20dB RMS) before that format died.

I could chill with an RMS limit \o/
 
When you say something like "-8db" or "-10db" does that mean that the volume doesn't go any higher than that? Its a n00b style question but I just want to make sure I understand :D
 
It has to be loud because IT SUCKS to keep reaching the volume knob and adjusting to each song.
It´s so annoying when you´re making a BBQ with your friends with some metal on shuffle and an old Black Sabbath, Motorhead or Led Zeppelin song starts to play and you can´t hear shit. Then you have to wash your hands to adjust the ipod just to have your ear blown away because the next song is something from Death Magnetic. It was somewhat acceptable when you listened to a whole album in one go, but it sucks nowadays, where you just want to grab your MP3 player and listen to random stuff.

...although it would be better if the standard was something like -13 RMS.

mp3 now mostly have a volume equalizer function that regulates the volume of every song to almost the same rms level (generally to the level of the quiestest song on your mp3)

Stereo systems had buttons called "loudness" wich induced compression on the signal to make everything louder when needed.
 
I'm probably in the minority here, but I personally like tracks mastered in a certain 'sweet spot'. For metal and rock this gives the material added excitement and saturation. I almost always find I mix subconsciously with the drums up, to compensate for later slamming, and whenever I put the faux limiter chain on to approximate the end sound, it almost immediately makes the mix sound better.

I think ~-10dBRMS or so would be cool. Just back things off so you don't have to deal with audible clipping, but still loud enough for that saturation and excitement effect. Around there you still have enough headroom for the drums to punch, and if you don't, chances are the mix is out of whack.

One thing I really really love about absolutely annihilating a mix during the mixing process is that it teaches you to mix in a spectrally and dynamically balanced way. If your mix is out of whack you will get clipping, smashing, all kinds of crap. But if you've actually controlled the mix it will cruise along fine. This ultimately makes the ME's job easier, and provides you with a better mix to boot. I used to feel bad about my habit of doing this, being told consistently by certain people that it was 'incorrect' but now I realize it's truly one of my strongest assets, and unless I find a better method of getting the same effect, I won't drop it.

I wouldn't suggest this for genres like Jazz, Blues, Classical etc. of course. But for pop/rock/metal music, where the compression and saturation is a requirement of the production to convey the energy of the music, why not? It's like getting a preview glimpse of the record as it's done, which ultimately means you leave less tweaking to mastering and have more control over your product (unless the ME is over-zealous, which unfortunately is the case a lot of the time).

Anyway the way this relates back is that I think dynamics are over-rated, for popular music genres anyway. I listen to a ton of soundtracks and classical, and I fucking HATE having to ride a volume knob the whole time. What if I'm on the couch, or don't want to bother the neighbours? So the quietest parts I turn up to hear well, and then the dynamics shoot up and start annihilating my walls. When I'm sitting there watching the orchestra perform in a hall? Hell yes, dynamic away until I can hear the next dude's stomach gurgling louder than the strings, but at home or in the car? There is a fairly high noise floor almost wherever we are. At home there are usually noises to contend with. In the car, especially. A good mix, to me, should be creating those dynamic movements more with wide swings of density rather than SPL. If you can approximate changes in loudness with layers, or lack thereof, rather than actually swinging all over the place, you have something that can be appreciated in more environments in a less obtrusive manner.

Most musicians that champion the fall of the loudness wars, I don't think they even know what they are hoping to gain. Do we really want rock and metal CDs that sound like the early 90s? I don't. Modern productions sound better. Part of the reason they do is because they have to be technically sculpted so well to deal with these intense mastering chains. I'm not saying 'master everything at -7dB, yeah fuck all dynamics!'. I'm just saying, keep it in perspective. Try to get the best of both worlds. Don't swing too far in one direction or the other, as there is almost always a happy medium.

By mixing spectrally as you do, your mix might lack of fullness and punch as old record did since your killing frequencies that could have felt great and had alot of room to breathe. These overlapping frequencies would feel great if they were not being stomped by any means of compression.
 
Do we really want rock and metal CDs that sound like the early 90s?

dear god, please yes

i listened to chaos a.d. and badmotorfinger in my car the other day, and both sounded fucking pristine

then i attempted listening to some newer releases, and had to just give up about 1 1/2 songs into the album
 
Some songs by Deep Purple or Supertramp sound punchier than anything done in the past 10 years. And no, production methods aren't better these days than in the 70's where you used to pay 275$ per hour in a professionnal studio and would get an absolutely incredible sound.
 
Would I be considered overly optimistic if I were to say we've sort of reached a limit (no pun intended) with the mastering wars and we might soon start seeing a gradual (even if slight) return to quieter, more punchy records?

I know my band opted to go for a less "extreme" master, much to the delight of our mastering engineer, and iirc, didn't Iced Earth do the same thing recently? I'm sure there are loads of other examples I've never heard of.

I mean c'mon, it's starting to be obvious that mixes are being annihilated in mastering. It's extremely annoying to hear a song start with say a single guitar playing a riff, and when the band kicks in it actually seems to get QUIETER because of the excessive compression/limiting. I mean c'mon, even the layperson who doesnt even know what compression is is going to start thinking something weird is going on there.
 
Would I be considered overly optimistic if I were to say we've sort of reached a limit (no pun intended) with the mastering wars and we might soon start seeing a gradual (even if slight) return to quieter, more punchy records?

i don't know that there's going to be some sudden and widespread uprising against loud masters...but come on, we have guys out there who are making albums that are hitting -8db RMS...things have gotten to the point where the masters literally can not possibly get any louder or strained sounding, so back down is the only way to go
 
+1, most of the vox on my EP were line-by-line too, and I'm happy with how they turned out :D

That might be where the criticisms about 'flow' originated.

I see the merits of doing vox this way as a matter of sustaining intensity, but you tend to lose a certain cohesiveness at the same time. My preferred way is to run through the entire track, or as much of it as the vocalist can handle, and then come back around to punch botched bits, or ones that need more of a run-up, huge gasp of air etc. Neither way is perfect really, but in a genre where we are punching riff by riff, cutting and pasting everything, I try to keep as much flow as humanly possible, so drums and vox are usually done in this way.
 
FWIW, the record I finished with Fredrik was mastered intentionally to have dynamics. We used the Black Album as a watermark... ....and it sounds fantastic when cranked up!
 
IMO, a lot of people getting in complaining about the loudness wars really has no real world experience in the how, what or why of the situation. Yes, it's pretty much always been around. It seems in fashion to complain about it since everyone with golden ears seemingly complain about it, and so also must I and thus I have golden ears. :rolleyes:

FACT:
When comparing two identical pieces of music where one version is just half a db louder than the other, it will I dare to say in 99% of cases be considered to sound better. From experience, I don't know HOW many times I've been in the mastering studio with a client and just felt the need to boost the monitoring volume a slight nudge and the client starts expressing extreme feelings of joy about the massive change in sound I just magically brought to the table.

When you are doing ANY kind of comparisons, whether it be EQ, compression, limiting... WHATEVER. It is said you must compare these at equal level to be able to make an informed decision. This is very true, but I'd be more inclined to state that when you are making comparisons... go overboard and listen to the change at a slightly lower playback level than the original. You can sit and match levels of before/after all day long if you want, but if you prefer the change i.e the mastered version listened back at a slightly softer level than the mix and still think the master sounds better... then you've accomplished something.

FACT 2:
A lot of good sounding stuff recorded in the early 90's and released on CD had a nice 0VU (-14dBFS RMS) going, but at the same time they feature very few peaks louder than -6dbFS. Analog tape dear people...

We're talking distortion and saturation to achieve that kind of result, which is a lot more musical than digital distortion. But in terms of loudness, just putting a limiter on such a recording you would be able to kick it up to -8dbFS RMS with very little trouble. It would basically sound the same, and that's how tightly packed it is overall. If you are looking to have the same density and fatness in the digital world... you're really looking at a -9 to -8 RMS and you will end up at roughly the same feel as early 90's stuff recorded on analog tape.

That is not entirely scientific and a lot of people would very much like to ridicule that argument since the "mission" is to bring back dynamics to where they were, in the good old days! Well... back then they HAD natural transient control, and what people are reacting to mostly is uncontrolled transients that make a recording seem spiky and thin. So basically, for the same amount of control that those old records had, you're looking at a -9 to -8 in the digital world. NOT a -14 without any kind of transient mangling.

Try it right now...
Open up a mix and have it sit at -14 RMS, use an accurate analyzer of some sort to confirm. You will probably have quite a few peaks going over -6dbFS. Now, just slap on a limiter adding 6db of gain and lower the output of the limiter to listen at the exact same playback level. Play a whole chorus or something, with and without the limiter and compare the feel. The latter will very much be more an accurate representation of what people mean with "the dynamics of old recordings" than just having a modern digital recording sit at -14.

Just some food for thought. :Smokin:
 
Wtf? Every song is LOUD if you turn it up enough. Its so vague.. even Adagio For Strings is loud if you crank it up enough.

Basically ERMZ said what I said in a lot more detail. I just think some shit sounds better when mastered loud.