Why does it have to be loud?

[Ermz]

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.

That about says it all for me.

Mastering 'hot' in the digital realm is a form of transient control, and as such there is a sweet spot for any mix. One of my earlier works I still regret when listening back due to the mastering level being slightly lower and my own transient control having been subpar in prior years. As a result the drums just sound way too spiky and harsh, with not enough actual body.

This is in fact a reflection on a massive problem that can be had with the widespread Slate samples. They are already so compressed, transient designed, and the attacks are so in your face that the additional slow attack compression people do just make their mixes sound like "dundun POP dudndun POP dundun POPOPOPOP" without incorporating some intense limiting, clipping, saturation or other forms of transient control. I know because I fell down that hole some years ago, and it took a little while to come back from it and start getting normal drums again.

One of the best ways I've found to get natural transient control back is to use the Alex B SSL programs for Nebula. The harshness and prominence of transients instantly diminishes, which is doubly helpful in the digital realm since ITB compressors commonly have very clean and harsh attacks. Staging these plug-ins on channels, busses and the master bus gives you an incremental softening and saturating effect which both increases perceptible volume and gives you more headroom to work with. Tools like this I've come to find indispensable when working ITB due to the 'clear glass pane ' nature of the medium.

 

[John_C]

This thread is proving very interesting. Keep it up people

 

[AerialThesis]

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:

If I understood correctly, you are pretty darn right, but even tought the tape itself compresses the signal, digital mixes of these bands have sometimes over 15 dbs of macrodynamics troughout single songs and peaks that bounce alot by about 10 dbs with still alot of headroom most of the time. Recording on tape to get that natural fatness is great! mixing the whole thing in digital with no limitations on dynamics is absolutely awesome!

 

[waltz mastering]

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...

Most of the stuff from that era had a crest factor (difference between peak and rms) of 15 to 12 dB.
Are you saying it is 8 and 9 dB?

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.

?

 

[Nuno Filipe]

Why does it have to be loud?

Because Rick Rubin said so.

 

[GarethSE]

....and it sounds fantastic when cranked up!

This is where it's at.

GLOVES OF ETERNAL QUIET MASTERING
+5 LISTENING PLEASURE
+10 PUNCH
-7 HARSHNESS
+1 RESPECT

Req. Level 80 Ears

 

[GarethSE]

Because Rick Rubin said so.

Wouldn't you just love to kick him in his smug little bearded face?
I would.

 

[GarethSE]

And apolagies for triple post (M-M-M-MONSTER KILL!) but I have one more thing to add.

I suggest everyone check out Demilich - Nespithe and crank it up really really loud. It sounds SO damn good.

 

[freakkguitarist]

i honestly think its beause of ipods.... people want to shuffle through songs and have "their" song sound as "HEAVY" as *insert any band here* and when you shuffle around songs alot, volume differences sound like intensity differences to the untrained ear....... i love my volume knob......i can make any cd loud!

 

[Full_Tilt]

That's the fucked up thing. It absolutely does not have to be loud, but because of the "loudness wars" most artists expect their music's RMS level to be higher than ever before, to be "competitive" and consistent with other commercial releases. The truly stupid thing is, most television stations and radio stations these days are heavily limiting their signal, so everything is broadcast at the same basic level anyway.

And this is where the loudest mixes will suck the most .

 

[John_C]

To me, metallica sounds quiet, could be louder and it wouldn't hurt it. RATM sounds great, SYL is a bit squished, you lose a lot of punch in the higher speed sections, Borgir is clipped to shit and hurts my ears, pity

 

[Plec]

Most of the stuff from that era had a crest factor (difference between peak and rms) of 15 to 12 dB.
Are you saying it is 8 and 9 dB?

If you look at average on 0VU recordings from back then like Ride The Lightning, you have very few peaks going over -6dbFS. There are of course, but they have little musical impact. Stray shooters that could easily be limited down to -6bFS straight while keeping the musicality. Now if you were to just raise the level those 6db's you would have an average of -10 > -8dBFS RMS.

So, the point being that taking into the consideration the saturation and distortion of the time that enable you to take one of those recordings today and push them up to -10 or -8dbFS RMS with extremely little loss in musical impact, then that's what you might like to shoot for in todays production scenarios since the transient control you would impart on the material would make it sound a lot more like those early recordings than to just take your modern digital mix and put it around -14dbFS RMS and then wonder why if this is so dynamic and great, why does my mixes sound so thin.

 

[shred101]

Thats pretty interesting. Ill have to admit that Killing In The Name would probably have to be my favourite mix out of the above choices as well but the mental picture of that song that I have doesnt "sound" like it should be anywhere near 0db.
I didnt expect Dimmu Borgir to clock in as most clipped either tbh which is somehow ironic considering how "dynamic" some of the stuff on that album is... I would have assumed SYL to be the most squashed of the four.
Ironic thing is that I own all of those tracks.

 

[waltz mastering]

If you look at average on 0VU recordings from back then like Ride The Lightning, you have very few peaks going over -6dbFS. There are of course, but they have little musical impact. Stray shooters that could easily be limited down to -6bFS straight while keeping the musicality. Now if you were to just raise the level those 6db's you would have an average of -10 > -8dBFS RMS.

So, the point being that taking into the consideration the saturation and distortion of the time that enable you to take one of those recordings today and push them up to -10 or -8dbFS RMS with extremely little loss in musical impact, then that's what you might like to shoot for in todays production scenarios since the transient control you would impart on the material would make it sound a lot more like those early recordings than to just take your modern digital mix and put it around -14dbFS RMS and then wonder why if this is so dynamic and great, why does my mixes sound so thin.

Thanks. I guess it's album specific. Some of the stuff like older Pantera, Aerosmith, and Rage stuff sounds pretty open to me. Once you start getting past a 10 dB crest, it can be be sort of a crap shoot. I definitely agree on the tape compression thing depending on how hard it's hit and how it's biased, coming into play.

I don't shoot for numbers and I know sometimes they are only used for reference, but I wouldn't advise for anyone trying at home to think that getting anything sitting around -8 or -9 dB dB based on a square wave calibration is going to end up sounding to good.

I only mention the square wave because that's what most daws meters use. Something like the TT Dynamic range meter that is used above is based on a sine wave calibration, so something at -8 is actually -11 to me... a bit confusing when it comes to numbers.

 

[Deltones]

I hate buying albums that are mastered so loud that they clip all the time. I don't really see any excuses for an album to be crushed so much that it clips so often. Does anyone actually enjoy the sound of clicks and pops?

I certainly don't. I don't know if people remember Marty Friedman's old band, Hawaii. One Nation Underground was a kickass record, even though the production was really, really cheap. However, I have a remastered CD with ONU as well as their other stuff, and it's unlistenable. Clipping all around.