Loud or Accurate???

[MorePunkThanFunk]

want some opinions on this please.

been having problems with the latest release because to have the tracks sounding on vinyl as the producer intended them would mean taking a 4-5db cut on the record volume,

would you rather your record was 5db louder or had a more accurate sound and was quieter???

[dan the acid man]

i'd say accurate, youc an always turn the fader up on the mixer

[theledge]

Yeah i'd say accurate if there was going to be a significant drop in quality

As dan says you shouldn't be playing your rekkids so loud you can't edge the levels up a little

[MARKEG]

i really hate quiet pressings and in the end it can mean i can't play it. it doesn't have to be super loud but i reckon you've gotta make a comprommise somewhere ;)

[crime]

you can really wreck a good track by compressing the fu ck out of it.....

[crime]

you can get more volume by compromising on track length though.. if you want really super loud trax without having to edit the track length down just go for one track a side at 45 rpm...

[module]

mmmm... pushing gain up can highlight needle rumble... and given the quality of the average pa..

personally, i would go for loudness, but thats jus a preference.

[crime]

mmmm... pushing gain up can highlight needle rumble... and given the quality of the average pa..

personally, i would go for loudness, but thats jus a preference.

yes, but the initial question indicates that the trax are quite dynamic, and the intended way of making the cut louder would be to compress quite a bit...

I think MPTF needs to be more specific with the question, what's the problem with the mastering? are you trying to squeeze 4 7 minute trax on to an e.p.? are they tracks with heavy bass that comes in and out?

I suggest reading through this thoroughly, and bearing it in mind before your trax are taken to the cutting room: http://www.recordtech.com/prodsounds.htm

and another point which has bothered me for some time is covered in this sound on sound article: http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/aug04/articles/computermastering.htm

the point being:
Mastering For Vinyl.......In the old days, recording engineers were well aware of the limitations of vinyl, and took them into account during the recording process. Many of today's engineers were brought up in an essentially vinyl-less world, and don't consider the problems discussed above. This makes it more important than ever to use a mastering engineer who is an expert in the art. When it comes to mastering for vinyl, the advice is simple: don't try this at home!

[holotropik]

The main reason I never liked vinyl....I wont compromise dynamics.

[module]

my point is the average pa WONT let those dynamivs thru.. sure, on your studio monitors, the full range will be there to hear in its glory, but most club pa's arent THAT sweet.

either way, i have no experience, so i would def go with Crime or EG.. maybe even send the file to a few of these guys to see what they think ?

[Fusion]

louder is better

[crime]

louder is better

Always?
Why?

generally pays to know what you're talking about before offering advice
;)
*queue pointless forum argument* :cheese:

[Fusion]

louder is better

Always?
Why?

generally pays to know what you're talking about before offering advice
;)
*queue pointless forum argument* :cheese:

from strictly a dj point of view - i'd rather have the pressing louder than dynamic. especially when it comes to a MPTF release. anywhere people would drop a MPTF record the audience would be thumping about anyway ... it wouldn't matter

now - if you were talking about a label doing minimal or atmospheric type stuff ... then i would say go for the dynamic

is that a better explaination for you?

[TechMouse]

*queue pointless forum argument* :cheese:
Cue, Mark... (call yourself a DJ ;))

[module]

tbh, i always did prefer louder. i remember gettin old Soma compilations that were so low, it was next to impossible to play them out they sounded so bad at high volume.

but again, thats jus a personal preference.

[crime]

louder is better

Always?
Why?

generally pays to know what you're talking about before offering advice
;)
*queue pointless forum argument* :cheese:

from strictly a dj point of view - i'd rather have the pressing louder than dynamic. especially when it comes to a MPTF release. anywhere people would drop a MPTF record the audience would be thumping about anyway ... it wouldn't matter

now - if you were talking about a label doing minimal or atmospheric type stuff ... then i would say go for the dynamic

is that a better explaination for you?

yes, it is a better explanation, but the point is, you cannot change the laws of physics.. I would love to have 2 7 minute trax on one side of vinyl deep cut really loud, but that is physically not possible on vinyl... something has to give somewhere, and it's either going to mean a drop in volume, edit a few minutes out of the track, or compress the fu ck out of it which will mean that the volume of any breaks will be raised significantly, and if you have sub bass in there it's going to drop the level of the whole thing, and make it sound shitty... just saying "Louder is better" doesn't help someone who is asking this kind of question, obviously as a dj you want nice loud pressings to play out, but as a producer/label owner, do you really want to sacrifice the clarity of something just to make it louder for loudness sake? on top of that, once a record is played on a loud PA I personally don't think you will notice vinyl noise so much as you would on studio monitors or a hi-fi at home...
I mean, I personally don't know what this label is like, if it's just pounding loops, then maybe you can just compress the hell out of it.... :roll:
and yeah, I was thinking of the Queue/Cue mistake earlier, I think my brain is a jumble of 3 different languages right now :)

[fils_here]

i really hate quiet pressings and in the end it can mean i can't play it. it doesn't have to be super loud but i reckon you've gotta make a comprommise somewhere ;)

me too.

[Mindful]

you cannot change the laws of physics..

http://www.muenchen-surf.de/lex/blogbilder/0507/Scotty.jpg


Anyways
Yeah I would prefere somthing a little more dynamic myself but it depends on the songs in question I guess.
Off kinda knowing what kind of sound MPTF has been so far and having not heard the tracks in question, I would say Loud.

Is it the artist himself who is not happy with how the master has turned out? If this is the case then you must reach a comprimise I would say.
Personaly myself, I hate having to loose dynamics for loudness but it has to be done somtimes to keep up with most other techno records.

Thanks for the links by the way Crime: )

[dirty_bass]

I hate that the crushed, overcompressed wall of sound from techno of the 99-2001 era has become the norm.
Don`t care what it is as long as it is loud.

Long live music.

[MARKEG]

this is turning into a real interesting discussion...

crushed in my book is a no go these days. it was fine whilst it lasted, but tbh it's easy to slap on a L2 maximiser, square the waveform and i wannna hear the dynamics in my music right now. i think most ppl who appreciate good music do too.

there is a real artform in mastering. i have spent the last 10 years studying it and i still don't know what the hell i'm talking about :lol:

when you tell me there needs to be a 4-5 db cut in volume to make it like the producer intended it, i have to question that.

that means the peaks in the track are 4-5db louder than the lowest volume. i mean let's be honest - isn't that just going to sound SHIT? think about it, you're gonna mix it into the track on a sound system to match the track that's playing. sure there's gonna be limiters on the sound system, compressors, but when that sound starts to peak - everything is going to be crushed horrible. 4-5 db is a hell of alot.

you simple HAVE to try to level shit out - especiallly with club/sound system music. ii personally think 2 db is good - cause you keep the dynamic without having to resort to rocket science hehehe but i have heard some amazing mastering from some really talented ppl that will get it alot less than that.

i thiink here mate, if you're really not understanding the art fully, you need to give the track to someone who does. i think chris mccormack is doing a mastering service right now, can't rememeber the web addy (anyone????), but it's worth a go surely???????????????????????

otherwise, pm me and i'll have a go for ya. i might not be the best eh, but i might get it a little better for ya :)

[crime]

i thiink here mate, if you're really not understanding the art fully, you need to give the track to someone who does. i think chris mccormack is doing a mastering service right now, can't rememeber the web addy (anyone????), but it's worth a go surely???????????????????????

otherwise, pm me and i'll have a go for ya. i might not be the best eh, but i might get it a little better for ya :)

see my point above as regard to pre-mastering before going to the cutting room if you are cutting vinyl...
It really is better to give a cutting engineer your final mixes as uncompressed, unmastered as possible, by pre-mastering you are only going to make their job harder.. been told this time and time again by cutting engineers, and the same was said in the SOS article I linked to in the above post...

[MARKEG]

yeah you're exactly right. numerous cutting places have told me to just leave stuff completely unmastered. but i did this for a while and then realised that stuff was coming back 75% of the time OK (but sounding slightly wierd), 20% of the time BRILLIANT and 5% of the time bloody awful. so it really got me thinking. if you can get it where you understand the art and science 1/2 as well as a 20 year experienced (or blatently unexperienced) cutting enginner, then you can just tell them to make minimal changes rather than rely on other key human descisions to form a part of your music.....

but actuallly whilst i wrote that i just thought. look at the way the music is going - heavy internet distribution, unreliance on vinyl. you need that track to sound good from the get go, cause you can bet when you post that link to your mp3, it's gonna be the original in most cases.....

totally agree with you crime, i really do. in an ideal world, i'd keep vinyl and let someone else do the dirty work with serious outboard compressors/limiters etc. vinyl really has had a lovely system in place for years now. but it seems that things are changing too and we all must bear this in mind i reckon. just a thought eh ;)

[MorePunkThanFunk]

basically the volume cut has nothing to do with dynamics or length its to do with the frequencies, its also being cut by a very experienced engineer... no prizes for guessing who. basically to get the record to the usual loudness for vinyl (+5db) a lot of the top end has to be taken out, thus resulting in the track sounding bass heavy and crap. the track sounded really good before mastering and the tp came back and it sounded terrible. also thisisn't a peak time track or a hard track.

[danielmarshall]

From what I can gather louder = more record sales... Distributers thus get to dictate the sound of a record, which is why stuff is being compressed to such a rediculous degree nowdays.

[MorePunkThanFunk]

i sample the original copy and the mastered version and post them up so you can see what i'm on about.

[davethedrummer]

basically the volume cut has nothing to do with dynamics or length its to do with the frequencies, its also being cut by a very experienced engineer... no prizes for guessing who. basically to get the record to the usual loudness for vinyl (+5db) a lot of the top end has to be taken out, thus resulting in the track sounding bass heavy and crap. the track sounded really good before mastering and the tp came back and it sounded terrible. also thisisn't a peak time track or a hard track.

that old chestnuet eh?


don't use so many rides or crashes / shakers in future
that stuff just eats cutting heads , and don't maxmise your mix too much in the computer that can cause some unpleasant harmonics which you can't even hear in the studio

for the time being ...go for a quieter cut , it'll sound fine , trust me..don't go for a loud dull cut , it will just sound shit only louder.

[The Overfiend]

Where's Nils from the Exchange when you need a question answered!

[davethedrummer]

Where's Nils from the Exchange when you need a question answered!


erm....working.....at the exchange maybe ?? :cry:

[module]

Where's Nils from the Exchange when you need a question answered!

ha ha.. i used to check vinyl to see if it was cut by this man before buying it way back.. all the Missile stuff was killer pressing..

never had a bad Advent vinyl either.. they always seemed to need less gain than any record in the box.. how ? witchcraft imo ;)

[davethedrummer]

Where's Nils from the Exchange when you need a question answered!

ha ha.. i used to check vinyl to see if it was cut by this man before buying it way back.. all the Missile stuff was killer pressing..

never had a bad Advent vinyl either.. they always seemed to need less gain than any record in the box.. how ? witchcraft imo ;)

yeah nils and simon at the exchange are great cutting engineers
i've actually cut a few things with both of them ( halo , noom eukatech stuff) and they actually don't do much at all , if nothing needs doing then leave it , a good attitude i think.

to be honest since we changed our pressing plant i've begun to realise how good lawrie is too

one thing we are all forgetting here is the post mastering process
the galvanisaton of the acetates into the stamper and even then pressing of the vinyl itself
it can all go horribly wrong at these stages too.
bad metalwork can ruin a release , especially in the higher frequencies which seem to suffer most.
and a bad pressing will just make it unplayable , jumps , pops , scratches , warping etc etc

record industries in holland have been doing all the ex curve pusher work and i have to say it
( sorry lawrie and ex-curve pusher staff , who by the way still do an excellent job at the mastering end of things )

the quality has gone right up 110%
this is because their place is apparently ( according to lawrie himself ) spotlessly clean with everyone in protective white clothing making sure there is no dust or dirt anywhere in the system.
the galvanics is totally computer controlled in a pretty much sterile enviroment , and the presses too.

and that is what it needs , attention to detail.

one thing though

shit in = shit out

turd poilshers beware!!!!!

[MorePunkThanFunk]

basically the volume cut has nothing to do with dynamics or length its to do with the frequencies, its also being cut by a very experienced engineer... no prizes for guessing who. basically to get the record to the usual loudness for vinyl (+5db) a lot of the top end has to be taken out, thus resulting in the track sounding bass heavy and crap. the track sounded really good before mastering and the tp came back and it sounded terrible. also thisisn't a peak time track or a hard track.

that old chestnuet eh?


don't use so many rides or crashes / shakers in future
that stuff just eats cutting heads , and don't maxmise your mix too much in the computer that can cause some unpleasant harmonics which you can't even hear in the studio

for the time being ...go for a quieter cut , it'll sound fine , trust me..don't go for a loud dull cut , it will just sound shit only louder.


completely hit the nail on the head there, the problem is they want to be paid again for the mastering to get it re-cut quieter where as i maintain i shouldnt as they should have done it in the first place

[eyeswithoutaface]

well you gotta give more details really for outsiders to give a valid judgement. What was the problem EXACTLY etc etc? If they've had to cut freqs that were that harsh then its done for a reason, left in even though the volume would be loud you'd run into various other problems such as painful freqs and there's massive potential for ear damage certainly with freqs you think you cant even hear etc etc. Seems your gonna have to bite the bullet and either pay for another pressing but make sure you get whoever produced the track to sort the track out first, take out the offending freqs and produce the track further, i mean in the cutting engineers defence they've taken something out that, seemingly from whats described, shouldnt be there. Or certainly doesnt benefit the track in any way

tricky situation still. I know personally i couldnt give a crap about loudness, i mean i know no one is going to be on edge just waiting for that one particular track so they can all gauge the volume on their decibel meters, but you can gaurentee there will always be someone waiting to see how good or bad the actual track production is, if you get me :)

[davethedrummer]

basically the volume cut has nothing to do with dynamics or length its to do with the frequencies, its also being cut by a very experienced engineer... no prizes for guessing who. basically to get the record to the usual loudness for vinyl (+5db) a lot of the top end has to be taken out, thus resulting in the track sounding bass heavy and crap. the track sounded really good before mastering and the tp came back and it sounded terrible. also thisisn't a peak time track or a hard track.

that old chestnuet eh?


don't use so many rides or crashes / shakers in future
that stuff just eats cutting heads , and don't maxmise your mix too much in the computer that can cause some unpleasant harmonics which you can't even hear in the studio

for the time being ...go for a quieter cut , it'll sound fine , trust me..don't go for a loud dull cut , it will just sound shit only louder.


completely hit the nail on the head there, the problem is they want to be paid again for the mastering to get it re-cut quieter where as i maintain i shouldnt as they should have done it in the first place

its a no win situation really
but you could ask for a compromise , get them to a/b the orginal mix from dat with their production master from the mastering session ( assuming you have one ) and see what they think.
if the production master is noticabley duller than the original i think you have a bit of a case.
they should really contact you about major changes they might have to make to your music during the cut especiall something as drastic as
how this sounds
maybe you could just pay for the new acetate or something like that.

unfortunately it's not a black and white thing so you may well get a reponse equal to f***off !

but i think it's worth seeing these things through as you can learn for later on.
just try to keep it friendly....rudeness or pushyness will ultimately close all the doors in your face.

[MorePunkThanFunk]

well you gotta give more details really for outsiders to give a valid judgement. What was the problem EXACTLY etc etc? If they've had to cut freqs that were that harsh then its done for a reason, left in even though the volume would be loud you'd run into various other problems such as painful freqs and there's massive potential for ear damage certainly with freqs you think you cant even hear etc etc. Seems your gonna have to bite the bullet and either pay for another pressing but make sure you get whoever produced the track to sort the track out first, take out the offending freqs and produce the track further, i mean in the cutting engineers defence they've taken something out that, seemingly from whats described, shouldnt be there. Or certainly doesnt benefit the track in any way

tricky situation still. I know personally i couldnt give a crap about loudness, i mean i know no one is going to be on edge just waiting for that one particular track so they can all gauge the volume on their decibel meters, but you can gaurentee there will always be someone waiting to see how good or bad the actual track production is, if you get me :)


its got nothing to do with harsh frequencies, the track is extremely well produced, its just got a lot of top end. which suits the track

[MorePunkThanFunk]

basically the volume cut has nothing to do with dynamics or length its to do with the frequencies, its also being cut by a very experienced engineer... no prizes for guessing who. basically to get the record to the usual loudness for vinyl (+5db) a lot of the top end has to be taken out, thus resulting in the track sounding bass heavy and crap. the track sounded really good before mastering and the tp came back and it sounded terrible. also thisisn't a peak time track or a hard track.

that old chestnuet eh?


don't use so many rides or crashes / shakers in future
that stuff just eats cutting heads , and don't maxmise your mix too much in the computer that can cause some unpleasant harmonics which you can't even hear in the studio

for the time being ...go for a quieter cut , it'll sound fine , trust me..don't go for a loud dull cut , it will just sound shit only louder.


completely hit the nail on the head there, the problem is they want to be paid again for the mastering to get it re-cut quieter where as i maintain i shouldnt as they should have done it in the first place

its a no win situation really
but you could ask for a compromise , get them to a/b the orginal mix from dat with their production master from the mastering session ( assuming you have one ) and see what they think.
if the production master is noticabley duller than the original i think you have a bit of a case.
they should really contact you about major changes they might have to make to your music during the cut especiall something as drastic as
how this sounds
maybe you could just pay for the new acetate or something like that.

unfortunately it's not a black and white thing so you may well get a reponse equal to f***off !

but i think it's worth seeing these things through as you can learn for later on.
just try to keep it friendly....rudeness or pushyness will ultimately close all the doors in your face.




cheers for the advice, i'll post the samples up on thursday so u can see the massive difference.

[eyeswithoutaface]

well if it suits it and you definately want it in there then maybe take the compromise and get them to cut it lower, i presume it means paying again though? sounds like a rock and a hard place jobby

[crime]

I think it's always advisable to attend a cut so you have the choice there and then before the cut is performed, and you can be a bit surer you will be happy with the end result...

[dirty_bass]

yeah, essentially, attend the cut if you are that worried, otherwise you are signing over some decision making to the engineer.
Anyone who regularly produces for vinyl should know about the difficulties with top end, so really you should have factored this in yourselves, or at least put some kind of notes to the cutting engineer, that you wanted the top end toppy as it was. Assuming you`ve used lawrie, he would have gone for his standard (and generally damned good) loud and pumpy cut, which you should have known anyway, so you were bound to lose any over crisp top unless you attended or told him otherwise.
However, I also thought the TP stage was the chance for you to say, oy, not appy with that, can you sort it.

So a bit of careful negotiation is obviously needed here.

[Lag]

i prefer louder too
i got a couple of silenced down tracks
and when i add enough gain to match the track im mixing with it gets distroted

[dirty_bass]

That`s just bad mastering, not necessarily anything to do with the "quietness" of the track.

[MorePunkThanFunk]

However, I also thought the TP stage was the chance for you to say, oy, not appy with that, can you sort it.

So a bit of careful negotiation is obviously needed here.


this is the stage we're at at the moment

[Lag]

That`s just bad mastering, not necessarily anything to do with the "quietness" of the track.
could be

[thetonewrecka]

I get a lot of demos where the tracks have obviously all been run through a "maximize waveform to look like a solid lego block" plug-in. There's only so much an engineer could even do with some of the stuff in that state...just throw their hands up in the air and wave them like they just don't care.

I've gone back to artists before and asked them for "unmastered" versions of their tracks. Some had back ups and some didn't and in some cases, I didn't put out the track because of that reason.

Dynamics is the sexy siren.

[MARKEG]

IDynamics is the sexy siren.

god how i'm feeling that siren :eyes:

[crime]

its got nothing to do with harsh frequencies, the track is extremely well produced, its just got a lot of top end. which suits the track

without wanting to sound narky, if the track was extremely well produced, it would need minimal eq at the mastering stage.. if something is well produced, it should sound good on any system and any format i.e on a club system or shitty transistor radio, on CD or Vinyl...

the fact that it has been attempted to be cut louder and it hasn't worked just proved the point of "make it louder, louder always sounds better" is flawed and is coming from people who have no experience of cutting records..

which leads me to another point which is covered in the following links, the "Loudness war" problem.. Because people's ears are becoming so used to hearing over-compressed music (especially in modern pop music), it comes to be expected that everything is that loud, and that louder is always better.. check these links on what a few others had to say on the subject:

http://georgegraham.com/compress.html
http://www.geocities.com/mjareviews/rant7.html
http://www.airwindows.com/analysis/Albums/BadCurrentExamples/index.html

[crime]

check these too: http://www.cdmasteringservices.com/dynamicrange.htm
http://www.cdmasteringservices.com/dynamicdeath.htm

[stjohn]

great thread people, very informative read with deadly links.....
hope you get it sorted MPTF

[Little_Fella!]

Great read all that lot Crime..

I'm just at the point where i'm getting my head into all of that side of things... V helpfull....! :)

[MorePunkThanFunk]

yeah , cheers for all the in-put guys all been very usefull.