Sound level is too low after bouncing in Pro-tools

[kalle74]

yes, but my point is...

if people are using iPods and other sub-par listening media, should we start doing multiple mixes (and mastering) for different kinds of media? and if so, are the record companies and such willing to pay for it? and if we´re going to concentrate on one media, which one would it be?


I think this situation calls for better listening media, and I´m not afraid to point it out. more money buys better quality. IMO, mixes should be of the best possible quality, ignoring the end-media, and as so they would succeed better with quality "players"...

actually, very few people seem to be concerned about sound-quality. this point is proven by the amount of iPods (and other comparable units) sold, and the acceptance of mp3 as valuable format.

 

[ric1312]

I have protools with Mbox2. I thought that was an industry standard.

Should I then make a good mix and hope it will sound just ok in all hardware?

Or make different versions for all of these:
- good mix with my monitors
- a laptop
- car radio
- ipod

If so, then I need to buy monitors for all of these and start hooking them up to my box? This seems like a pain.

Just get yourself a pair of flat response monitors. Not computer speakers.

While, yes, if you want to get really picky you should listen on bunch of different system...........the point of flat response monitors is that on other systems, the sound will generally be about as good as you heard on the monitors.

Making a seperate mix for every system you can think of is pointless. Someone will always have a different pair of speakers that will make it sound different, sometimes better sometimes worse. Just get decent pair of flat response monitors. You can't account for all speakers, impossible. I have two different computers sitting next to me with computer speakers about the same size, but a different company. I put a song on this one it sounds good but a little muddy. I put it on the other one it's much clearer but a little on the thin side.

When I got into home recording I bought the cheapest pair of monitors they had. I think each one was like $140. My mixes sound good on the stereo or the car without me running back and forth.

Getting sounding good on that. If you want it to sound top notch send it off to be mastered by a pro. Mastering professionally is a whole nother level and more than just compressing it and upping the volume. Professional mastering also involves a lot of equipment..

Like others have said you have to start at the tracking level and make sure each track sounds good solo, then mix. Here is a workflow I go through.

1. whole band plays so drummer gets his drum tracks down.
2. Track bass
3. Track guitars
4. Track lead vocal
5. Track backup vocal

Negative EQ/effects ( I do this before mixing for volume levels as it makes the tracks easier to put next to each other and still be heard)

1. kick gets some bass taken off and high end added. This gives it that metal kick sound of lots of attack. compression on the kicks to tighten them and a reverb on the snare and other drums. I double the kick and pan the tracks 11 & 1, this gives the illusion of a wider kick.

2. depending on the song the bass may get some high mids added. My bass usually doesn't need much eqing. Bass compression added to tighted it up. pan center

3. Low end out of electric guitar rythms. (too much bass frequency in the mix muddies up the track) EQ if needed. Compression to tighten. pan 10 & 2

4. Leads/colors I might add some reverb to for space. Pan to the sides or middle if no vocal.

5. choose vocal effect. Compression was already on, on the way in.

Now after that start on individual track level. Put them as you want them. For me I've found the mix sounds best when all the levels visually peak at close to the same place.

From there make a copy and listen on stereo for weird things like phase cancellation. If it sounds decent and you want it to sound pro, send it off to a pro to master it.

 

[51m0n]

I actually disagree that a properly mastered mix would behave differently for different media.

In so far as if you master a good mix well then the result will sound good.

If that mix is then further changed by another process (ie mp3) then that mix will sound as good as that process can make it sound given the bitrate etc.

If you are talking about little tiny speakers versus big hi-fis etc then in my experience good mastering is all about getting the best from your mix across these kind of different media.

The one is in fact an extension of the other. So IMO & IME a good mix well mastered _WORKS_ on any and all media. It isn't specialised toward any one end system, thats the whole point. It always sounds as good as the media used to play it will allow it to.

It will also always sound better on a better system and better media, you cannot cheat that whatever you try. You can only minimise the damage done by converting your great mix to some appallingly lossly format, or playing it in mono on a 1" transducer in a plastic enclosure (better known as a protable fm radio of yesteryear)

Otherwise we'd all make do with a rubbish hifi, in fact there would be no suchthing as hi fi. In reality well produced mp3s sound infinitely better than badly looked after vinyl. Especially with decent earbuds on your iPod.

 

[ric1312]

yes, but my point is...

if people are using iPods and other sub-par listening media, should we start doing multiple mixes (and mastering) for different kinds of media? and if so, are the record companies and such willing to pay for it? and if we´re going to concentrate on one media, which one would it be?


I think this situation calls for better listening media, and I´m not afraid to point it out. more money buys better quality. IMO, mixes should be of the best possible quality, ignoring the end-media, and as so they would succeed better with quality "players"...

actually, very few people seem to be concerned about sound-quality. this point is proven by the amount of iPods (and other comparable units) sold, and the acceptance of mp3 as valuable format.

Actually .mp3 format really only cuts out frequencies people can't hear anyways. If you play an .mp3 disc next to a regular one very few people, if any, people will be able to tell any difference in sound quality.

My ipod sounds damn good to me. Maybe you should try new headphones. I can however tell the difference between something professionally mixed and masted and home studio recording on my ipod and on my stereo. The fault isn't in the player.

 

[kalle74]

Actually .mp3 format really only cuts out frequencies people can't hear anyways.

Not true. That´s what they claim it to be, but the difference in dynamics is actually very obvious. listen to decaying soft sounds and compare to a cd.

If you play an .mp3 disc next to a regular one very few people, if any, people will be able to tell any difference in sound quality.

again, I´ve seen opposite survey results. some people can, not just pros and audio-connoisseurs... majority of consumers won´t see the difference, though, nor do they care. after all, they´re seeing it as "music" as opposed to "sound"...

My ipod sounds damn good to me. Maybe you should try new headphones. I can however tell the difference between something professionally mixed and masted and home studio recording on my ipod and on my stereo. The fault isn't in the player.

I agree. and mine got a lot better after getting new headphones to replace the stock ones (I was shooting for noise-rejection, and fidelity).

there will always be a difference between the professionally made records and home recordings. after all, that´s what separates pros from hobbyists.

but my point persists... we shouldn´t mix and master with iPods and such in mind. our goal should be a good mix that works on all formats.

 

[Rickett Customs]

Why don't you try normalizing the wav?

As far as bass response, you'll need to experiment playing it on something other than what you're playing it on: ex: house stereo, car, etc, before bouncing.

 

[DocBop]

Actually .mp3 format really only cuts out frequencies people can't hear anyways.

That is true and false. True the human ear at best hears from about 20-20k, but the frequencies outside our hearing range affect what we do hear. Just like the same instrument sounds a bit different in different rooms. That is the first lesson you learn in recording. You take a great sounding guitar and amp mic it up to it and record it. The recording doesn't sound the same, because from the mic all the way to the speaker nothing handles all that extended range. So you learn different ways to fill out the sound with combinations of multiple mics, overdubs, other gear. So it's false in that frequencies you don't hear do have a lot of effect on what you do hear.

Digital recording in how it works deals a lot with the human ear and brain doing a lot of filling in the blanks. That's one of the reasons analogue recording sounds different.

 

[JaneBass1]

i was reading some article about mastering and it says that when you do this, it should sound good on any speaker. And that if you dont master, then thats why it sounds crappy on a laptop and good on the studio.

So I think I will be making 2 copies, 1 laptop copy and a studio copy, while I figure it out how to master.

Is it possible that I can master the songs myself?

Do I use protools or is there any other (affordable) software for mastering?

Do demos required mastering, or is this used only to make an album?

 

[kalle74]

i was reading some article about mastering and it says that when you do this, it should sound good on any speaker. And that if you dont master, then thats why it sounds crappy on a laptop and good on the studio.

So I think I will be making 2 copies, 1 laptop copy and a studio copy, while I figure it out how to master.

Is it possible that I can master the songs myself?

Do I use protools or is there any other (affordable) software for mastering?

Do demos required mastering, or is this used only to make an album?

do commercial records sound as good on your laptop speakers as on expensive studio monitors (or a quality stereo system)?

of course not. mastering won´t affect your laptop speakers, and magically make them better.

top-of-the-line mastering is not done on Protools, as there are vastly better systems available for the task.

it´s possible to master your own songs, but to achieve "commercial" results, expect to put in some serious learning time (most professional master engineers have perfected their art for 15+ yrs.), not to mention serious cash (mastering speaker systems can cost $400000 upwards).

demos do not require mastering, but can benefit from it.

 

[bocasfx]

Maybe you'll find this interesting:

Invalid Link Removed



Keep it low!

 

[JaneBass1]

thanks all.

bocasfx,
great article. for a moment there i thought i was the only one with the problem.

i learn a lot in these forums.

 

[bocasfx]

thanks all.

bocasfx,
great article. for a moment there i thought i was the only one with the problem.

i learn a lot in these forums.

I'm glad you found the article helpful. I am, personally, against abusing the use of compressors just to make the music louder. Lots of great recordings have been ruined by the excessive use of compression. (A couple of RHCP cds come to mind.)