Master volume of DAW rises with adding more layers to the track

[Master Mi]

I just want to know if you have the same problem with your DAWs.

The master volume of my DAW rises with adding more layers to the track (even if they're at the at the same volume level in the mixer the master volume goes up) and goes faster close to the clipping point without being loud (loud = good volume level).

So I'm obviously some kind of limited with a certain number of layers (and settings) per soundtrack if I want to have a good/high volume without clipping in the exported version - although my DAW is designed to have an unlimited amout of layers.

What's the background behind this phenomenon?

Is this some kind of a limitation to prevent the normal users with the standard versions of DAWs from creating professionell soundtracks with more layers or is this quite normal?

----------------------

PS: I could solve the problem via "Normalizing" in the export options.

Edited July 6, 2014 by Master Mi

[Skrypnyk]

This is normal. This is where you learn about EQing, compression, limiters, and mixing techniques to get high volume with no muddy sounds or clipping.

Think of it like pour cups of water down a drain. One cup, one drain, everything pours smoothly with no mess.

Now you have seven cups, one drain. Pour everything all at once and you'll have a flood of water and a huge mess. If you limit how much is being poured and compress the water, you'll have no problems.

I don't know how eqing water works as an analogy but you get the idea.

[MindWanderer]

This is actually an aspect of physics. Without getting too much into the math, basically, when you add two sounds together, you get a sound that's twice as loud. In actuality, it won't be fully twice as loud unless it's the exact same instrument at the same note or a full number of octaves higher or lower, but there will be transients that are twice as loud--and those will cause clipping.

So yeah, when you add lots of instruments, you'll need to lower the volume of each. If you don't, and just rely on the compressor, you'll end up overcompressing (with its characteristic "pumping" sound).

[Nabeel Ansari]

Remember when I explained to you that waves could be represented by a string of numbers?

Think of layering two waves like adding every one of those numbers of each wave together one by one.

I just want to know if you have the same problem with your DAWs.

The master volume of my DAW rises with adding more layers to the track (even if they're at the at the same volume level in the mixer the master volume goes up) and goes faster close to the clipping point without being loud (loud = good volume level).

So I'm obviously some kind of limited with a certain number of layers (and settings) per soundtrack if I want to have a good/high volume without clipping in the exported version - although my DAW is designed to have an unlimited amout of layers.

What's the background behind this phenomenon?

Is this some kind of a limitation to prevent the normal users with the standard versions of DAWs from creating professionell soundtracks with more layers or is this quite normal?

You need to do a couple things:

-You need to stop thinking about sound in terms of "how loud it sounds". Amplitude has little to do with how something sounds. Amplitude has to do with intensity, power, energy. Loudness is just how we perceive amplitude. I can raise the master volume to the maximum yet turn my speakers down. Sounds super quiet, but it doesn't change the mathematical strength of the signals being processed. There is a mathematical relationship that creates a connection between signal strength and our "loudness perception". This is called the decibel. However, it doesn't make sense to turn off your speakers and say "my mix is too quiet", does it? You need to establish reference points. If something reaches the maximum volume in your computer and it doesn't sound loud enough for you, that means your speakers are too low. Listen to any other music and realize that nothing will sound loud if your speakers are turned down.

-"Is this some kind of a limitation to prevent the normal users with the standard versions of DAWs from creating professionell soundtracks with more layers or is this quite normal?" This is not a limitation, it's just a cue for you to learn some physics and practice mixing. When things have too much power, you must turn them down. I can layer 1,000,000 different instrument notes together and have it be within the maximum volume, so long as I were to make sure none of them exceeded the max volume divided by 1,000,000.

Edited July 5, 2014 by Neblix

[MindWanderer]

There is a mathematical relationship that creates a connection between signal strength and our "loudness perception". This is called the decibel. However, it doesn't make sense to turn off your speakers and say "my mix is too quiet", does it? You need to establish reference points. If something reaches the maximum volume in your computer and it doesn't sound loud enough for you, that means your speakers are too low. Listen to any other music and realize that nothing will sound loud if your speakers are turned down.

Well... yes and no. Traditionally, the decibel is calibrated to human hearing (1dB = minimum a human can hear). Computers are calibrated differently (0db = maximum the computer can output). Either way, the decibel is a measure of energy, not sensation. Something can reach the maximum output of your computer--which is when it clips--and still sound quiet. The actual peak energy is high, but the sensation of loudness is low. For something to sound loud, the sustained energy needs to be high, which is where things like RMS and crest factor come in. Also, pitch matters: a really high-energy sub-bass will output a lot of dB's but still sound quiet, because our ears are bad at detecting those frequencies. This is why high-pass filters can give you more mastering headroom without changing the sensation of loudness.

(Incidentally, I just learned the hard way: RMS and crest are useless in and of themselves. They can be useful as an objective measure of comparison, but my last compo entry should have been moderately loud "by the numbers," but it was actually really quiet. Again, energy != sensation. There's no substitute for using your ears and understanding the theory.)

[Nabeel Ansari]

Well... yes and no. Traditionally, the decibel is calibrated to human hearing (1dB = minimum a human can hear). Computers are calibrated differently (0db = maximum the computer can output). Either way, the decibel is a measure of energy, not sensation. Something can reach the maximum output of your computer--which is when it clips--and still sound quiet. The actual peak energy is high, but the sensation of loudness is low. For something to sound loud, the sustained energy needs to be high, which is where things like RMS and crest factor come in. Also, pitch matters: a really high-energy sub-bass will output a lot of dB's but still sound quiet, because our ears are bad at detecting those frequencies. This is why high-pass filters can give you more mastering headroom without changing the sensation of loudness.

(Incidentally, I just learned the hard way: RMS and crest are useless in and of themselves. They can be useful as an objective measure of comparison, but my last compo entry should have been moderately loud "by the numbers," but it was actually really quiet. Again, energy != sensation. There's no substitute for using your ears and understanding the theory.)

This is incorrect. dBSPL has a direct correlation to sensation of loudness, it's ~5dB I believe to be a doubling in loudness perception. dBFS is merely dBSPL with a different reference point. However, pure amplitude does not correlate linearly. Our loudness perception is logarithmic, and decibels bring linearity to that perception.

You're also irresponsibly making comparisons here:

"Something can reach the maximum output of your computer--which is when it clips--and still sound quiet. The actual peak energy is high, but the sensation of loudness is low. For something to sound loud, the sustained energy needs to be high, which is where things like RMS and crest factor come in."

You're saying a technically correct thing with a very unrelated example to back it up. The sensation of loudness from computer audio has nothing to do with whether something has a large or small dynamic range. It first comes from how turned up our speakers are. You can have a very high RMS yet turn your speakers off. Do you say your mix is then silent? Yes, RMS contributes to loudness. That's not what we're talking about here.

We're talking about the error of thinking that something can be quiet when it reaches the maximum volume of your DAW. The SPEAKER output is quiet here; the energy of the signals is not. Yes, technically the average can be low, but 99% of the time, this kind of dynamic range never happens without explicit use of an expander.

Edited July 5, 2014 by Neblix

[timaeus222]

dBSPL has a direct correlation to sensation of loudness, it's ~5dB I believe to be a doubling in loudness perception.

Yep.

Something can reach the maximum output of your computer--which is when it clips--and still sound quiet. The actual peak energy is high, but the sensation of loudness is low. For something to sound loud, the sustained energy needs to be high, which is where things like RMS and crest factor come in. Also, pitch matters: a really high-energy sub-bass will output a lot of dB's but still sound quiet, because our ears are bad at detecting those frequencies. This is why high-pass filters can give you more mastering headroom without changing the sensation of loudness.

Well... that's partially true, but you're thinking of it in a way that can be described like this:

Let's say you do a volume measurement of something and there's a single random spike. Everything is at -10dB except for one spike that's at 0dB. You're saying that that is not loud overall, but it sounds like what you're really saying is that the stuff is not loud on average. While that's true, you'd be putting the 0dB spike to the side. If you zoom into the 0dB spike, select that portion, and loop it, it IS going to be loud; it's just sustained over a very short period of time. Hence, it doesn't sound quiet---it sounds loud relative to the quiet -10dB audio, and if you try to normalize it, nothing happens. If you don't look at your waveform for your audio, you may not notice that, and perhaps get confused on how to get it louder without clipping.

Also, what you seem to be talking about with sub bass is "perceived" loudness. That's different for everyone, because if you have a different audio system, you're not going to hear the same loudness... at least, with this definition. Yeah, you can't hear sub bass, but it doesn't mean it's not making a sound and flooding your limiter.

This "perceived" loudness is not exactly just the plain amplitude of the final result; it's more like how the amplitude changes relative to the rest of the audio. Jumping from -10dB to -2dB isn't quite as loud a perception as -30dB to -4dB, even though -4dB is quieter than -2dB. Additionally, it's based on how well the frequency spectrum is occupied. You can have flooded mixing and it'll sound loud. You can have pumped, compressed dance music and it'll sound loud. But the "real" way to sound loud (in a controlled way) is to layer carefully, making sure most things are distinguishable, levels are balanced, and the rise and fall of the audio is done tastefully. The frequency spectrum should be quite fully occupied in loud parts, otherwise a few instruments are just boosted too loudly.

EX:

This is louder than this, despite the fact that they both hit a 0dB limiter in the end. Yes, there is the consideration of "what if there was no limiter", but the point is, the layering in "Darkness" is more detailed and carefully done than in "Fiberoptics", and thus "Darkness" is substantially louder.

----------------

I just want to know if you have the same problem with your DAWs.

The master volume of my DAW rises with adding more layers to the track (even if they're at the at the same volume level in the mixer the master volume goes up) and goes faster close to the clipping point without being loud (loud = good volume level).

So I'm obviously some kind of limited with a certain number of layers (and settings) per soundtrack if I want to have a good/high volume without clipping in the exported version - although my DAW is designed to have an unlimited amout of layers.

What's the background behind this phenomenon?

Is this some kind of a limitation to prevent the normal users with the standard versions of DAWs from creating professionell soundtracks with more layers or is this quite normal?

Yes, layering IS supposed to make things sound louder. Constructive interference. It's normal. Semi-basic physics. Add two waves, and crests that line up get taller after they add. Simple as that. Crests that line up with troughs cancel out and the taller of the two dominates the final result---if the crest is taller, then the result is a crest with an amplitude equal to the difference in their original amplitude magnitudes, and vice versa.

No one makes DAWs that work towards making it harder for you to accomplish what you want. That's why there are beta testers and bug fixes.

Edited July 5, 2014 by timaeus222

[Frederic Petitpas]

1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apple

1 sound + 1 sound = louder sound

I think you confused master with limiter.

[MindWanderer]

This is incorrect. dBSPL has a direct correlation to sensation of loudness, it's ~5dB I believe to be a doubling in loudness perception. dBFS is merely dBSPL with a different reference point. However, pure amplitude does not correlate linearly. Our loudness perception is logarithmic, and decibels bring linearity to that perception.

It's not a 1:1 correlation. They're closely related, sure, but it's not a direct relationship. Again, to take an extreme example, a 25kHz sound wave at 150 dBSPL is barely audible to some and inaudible to others, whereas a 2kHz soundwave at 150 dBSPL will be painful in the extreme.

Oh, and sound volume is a log base 10 system. 10 dBA SPL is a doubling. I believe you may be correct that the actual energy level (dB SPL), which uses a different scale, doubles at between 5 and 5 dB.

A few articles that do a decent breakdown of why dB of energy is not dB of perception:

http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-dba-spl.htm

http://www.acousticsbydesign.com/acoustics-blog/perception-vs-reality.htm

http://trace.wisc.edu/docs/2004-About-dB/

The sensation of loudness from computer audio has nothing to do with whether something has a large or small dynamic range. It first comes from how turned up our speakers are. You can have a very high RMS yet turn your speakers off. Do you say your mix is then silent? Yes, RMS contributes to loudness. That's not what we're talking about here.

Download the rRPC Villains round 1. Listen to my mix and Jason Covenant's. Mine is way quieter, right? Even without changing your speaker volume? Mine has a peak RMS of about -11. Jason's has a peak RMS of of about -12, and even in parts where it's over -16, it sounds much, much louder. And obviously, both are hitting 0dB (although, again, Jason's sounds louder even when it isn't).

Yes, obviously the most important thing in loudness is how you have your hardware volume set. But no one's going to say a mix is "too loud" or "too quiet" in isolation; they mean it in comparison to other music.

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure how the physics of this works--I just know I've made mixes that are balls-to-the-limiter in sections, not just the transients but clearly flatlined, and they don't sound as loud as a well-mastered mix with much more of a dynamic range.

@timaeus: Actually, Darkness and Fiberoptics sound almost exactly equal in loudness to me. Maybe not the best example.

[Nabeel Ansari]

It's not a 1:1 correlation. They're closely related, sure, but it's not a direct relationship. Again, to take an extreme example, a 25kHz sound wave at 150 dBSPL is barely audible to some and inaudible to others, whereas a 2kHz soundwave at 150 dBSPL will be painful in the extreme.

Your comparison is too exaggerated and as a result doesn't hold water. Of course 150 dBSPL at 25 kHz is barely audible; I can't physically hear anything above 17.8 KHz. It's a null statement that is invalidated by the fact that you misunderstand what sound is. Sound isn't vibration; it's perception of the vibrations. You can't say dB means nothing for sound loudness if you're going to use it in the context of something that isn't sound. Instead of comparing 2 KHz to 25 KHz, try comparing 2 KHz to 200 Hz. They're different perceived intensities, yes; but they're both really strong and really similar.

Additionally, you're placing way too much emphasis on the Fletcher-Munson curves of response to different frequencies. It's not nearly as potent as you make it seem. It doesn't dismantle the metric of the decibel, it just shifts it a little here and there.

Oh, and sound volume is a log base 10 system. 10 dBA SPL is a doubling. I believe you may be correct that the actual energy level (dB SPL), which uses a different scale, doubles at between 5 and 5 dB.

Incorrect. Physical energy doubles at intervals of 3 dBSPL, not 5. Loudness perception doubles at 10 dBSPL, not 5, you're correct on that one. It depends where you are and how fast you're hearing the changes.

Though it is a direct correlation. It may not be 1 to 1, but it certainly is direct. It is linear and relatively consistent with some room for error because it's perception.

Download the rRPC Villains round 1. Listen to my mix and Jason Covenant's. Mine is way quieter, right? Even without changing your speaker volume? Mine has a peak RMS of about -11. Jason's has a peak RMS of of about -12, and even in parts where it's over -16, it sounds much, much louder. And obviously, both are hitting 0dB (although, again, Jason's sounds louder even when it isn't).

https://www.dropbox.com/s/lfilb4b2q4sxbn3/mixes.png

Observe the waveforms. Your mix is mastered quieter than Jason's. It is also overcompressed and saturated, and doesn't fill the sonic spectrum as much as his. Your RMS also has a major difference and you rarely hit 0 dB while he consistently caps at it. If you simply raised the volume knob of your mix and did a better job with balancing to not overkill your limiter, you would certainly be as loud as him. (I apologize if that was a harsh criticism, but using your own music as part of a debate is fishy territory).

Yes, obviously the most important thing in loudness is how you have your hardware volume set. But no one's going to say a mix is "too loud" or "too quiet" in isolation; they mean it in comparison to other music.

This is true in certain cases, though in this specific one, he has trouble distinguishing between "loudness" and "numbers". The stuff about RMS and fletcher munson response is above where he is in technical prowess; his problem lies further back in the essential understanding of how computer audio works, which is that the sound output from your computer is independent of what you hear because of the gateway of your audio listening set up, and also that you can have more layers of sound at the same final volume by simply making them quieter.

@timaeus: Actually, Darkness and Fiberoptics sound almost exactly equal in loudness to me. Maybe not the best example.

Check your ears (and maybe your listening set up), it is most certainly louder.

Edited July 5, 2014 by Neblix

[timaeus222]

@timaeus: Actually, Darkness and Fiberoptics sound almost exactly equal in loudness to me. Maybe not the best example.

Alright then. Not everyone hears things the same way I do. I mean, I thought those seemed quite different in loudness, but ah well. I'll try choosing more drastic examples. How about these pairs? Try imprinting the loudness that you perceive, and holding onto that, replaying a little of it before hearing the other piece. Perhaps hearing the quieter piece will make it seem more drastic. I used to find volume increases to be more noticeable than volume decreases (now they're similar for me, so either direction is pretty much an equal change perception).

https://soundcloud.com/zircon-1/level-bounce @ 0:49 being louder than

https://soundcloud.com/chimpazilla/cloudhopping-yoshi-touch-go-by @ 0:29

This is a loudness difference from compression on the master track.

@ 2:28 being louder than

@ 3:19

This is a loudness difference also from compression on the master track, but additionally from drum sample choice.

https://soundcloud.com/isworks/celestia-terrarium-naked-by @ 0:21 being louder than

http://omnipsyence.bandcamp.com/track/fall-in-free-fall-mix-ft-tera-catallo @ 0:03

This is a loudness difference from layering, and it's meant to show that even though "Terrarium" doesn't have explicit drums, it is fuller (and thus louder) than the "Fall In" ReMix, which does have drums.

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure how the physics of this works--I just know I've made mixes that are balls-to-the-limiter in sections, not just the transients but clearly flatlined, and they don't sound as loud as a well-mastered mix with much more of a dynamic range.

There's not much physics that needs to be incorporated here. It can be explained like so:

Think of a "what if" situation, where there are no limiters on any two songs or pieces you compare. The one that would clip more is louder. That's pretty much it. How capable your limiter is to brickwall is what helps you to get to a higher loudness (but at the same time, boosting too loudly will "squash" the mix and automatically attenuate the highest treble frequencies very slightly... until the limiter's tolerance is reached. Then it'll just clip).

Also, when you say hearing something by itself with no comparison gives little indication of loudness, it's technically true, but the length of time between comparisons doesn't have to be quite as recently as, say, a day or an hour. I hear differences in loudness based on comparing everything I've heard to the loudest song or piece I have ever heard, ever. To be specific, I find zircon's Level Bounce to be the loudest piece I will ever comfortably listen to, and when I hear other pieces, my ears will naturally tell me that it's louder or quieter. Maybe it's just something with my photographic memory that helps, but that's how it works with me.

Edited July 5, 2014 by timaeus222

[MindWanderer]

Alright then. Not everyone hears things the same way I do. I mean, I thought those seemed quite different in loudness, but ah well. I'll try choosing more drastic examples. How about these pairs?

https://soundcloud.com/zircon-1/level-bounce @ 0:49 being louder than

https://soundcloud.com/chimpazilla/cloudhopping-yoshi-touch-go-by @ 0:29

@ 2:28 being louder than

@ 3:19

https://soundcloud.com/isworks/celestia-terrarium-naked-by @ 0:21 being louder than

http://omnipsyence.bandcamp.com/track/fall-in-free-fall-mix-ft-tera-catallo @ 0:03

At those specific points, I certainly agree (and the last is really striking, if the dB levels are really the same).

Instead of comparing 2 KHz to 25 KHz, try comparing 2 KHz to 200 Hz. They're different perceived intensities, yes; but they're both really strong and really similar.

That's almost as bad an example as mine. Human perception is best between 1kHz and 5kHz; at equal energy levels, the 200Hz sound will seem much quieter than the 2kHz one.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/lfilb4b2q4sxbn3/mixes.png

Observe the waveforms. Your mix is mastered quieter than Jason's. It is also overcompressed and saturated, and doesn't fill the sonic spectrum as much as his. Your RMS also has a major difference and you rarely hit 0 dB while he consistently caps at it. If you simply raised the volume knob of your mix and did a better job with balancing to not overkill your limiter, you would certainly be as loud as him. (I apologize if that was a harsh criticism, but using your own music as part of a debate is fishy territory).

No, that's good, I need to hear more of this! Besides, what better example of a mix done badly (which was my point) than my own? Granted, mine definitely appears to be mastered quieter, but if your spectrum analyzer got different RMS than mine did, then SPAN (which I use) may not be as great as everyone thinks it is. Using that number alone, mine by rights should be louder. His use of the sonic spectrum makes a huge difference, as I'm sure appropriate compression does. The "better job with balancing" is pretty darn important.

I'm not sure how you can overkill a brickwall 0 dB limiter when you aren't hitting 0 dB. I believe you, I just don't get it.

Edited July 5, 2014 by MindWanderer

[timaeus222]

His use of the sonic spectrum makes a huge difference, as I'm sure appropriate compression does. The "better job with balancing" is pretty darn important.

Yep, that's precisely what the "secret" is. If you carefully select matching sounds that are balanced and EQ'd such that you can hear many of them, you essentially create a piece with good depth perception---in other words, when you listen closely, you can hear more detail if you focus on particular instruments. In two words, Layering and Fullness.

Also, while I was writing my ReMix for the Vampire Variations II album, I had found that, like you had, just boosting audio past 0dB a bit does not sound quite the same as mixing to 0dB and then applying well-executed compression to bring it past 0dB a bit (of course, presuming a brickwall limiter is already there).

Quoting myself:

How capable your limiter is to brickwall is what helps you to get to a higher loudness (but at the same time, boosting too loudly will "squash" the mix and automatically attenuate the highest treble frequencies very slightly... until the limiter's tolerance is reached. Then it'll just clip).

Just a sidenote, but I'm 100% sure that SnappleMan has mentioned the attenuation bit before, as I remember posting to tell him that it was an awesome post.

Edited July 5, 2014 by timaeus222

[Nabeel Ansari]

That's almost as bad an example as mine. Human perception is best between 1kHz and 5kHz; at equal energy levels, the 200Hz sound will seem much quieter than the 2kHz one.

I tested a low sine (~280) and a high sine (~2000) and they both sounded very loud at 0 dBFS. There was a noticeable difference, but not enough to say that the first was "much quieter". It was "a little" quieter. I am wearing decent flat response headphones, which is important, too.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/h280i8o8iuzmrxb/loudness.wav

You are correct in saying that you can manipulate the spectral balance to push some loudness in... but honestly, that is the wrong way to do mastering. You're supposed to (tastefully) equalize your spectrum, and will mean making your spectrum a tad unequal in volume at different frequency ranges in order to make everything a similar loudness. If you push volume into your high frequencies for the sake of loudness, makes your mix sound hot and bright and displeasurable.

The perception phenomena shouldn't be used as a mastering tool for getting loudness (boost 1-5 KHz, get louder, profit! ...no.); It should be used as a mixing tool for understand that your high frequency instruments can have lower levels and still be heard.

I'm not sure how you can overkill a brickwall 0 dB limiter when you aren't hitting 0 dB. I believe you, I just don't get it.

Peaks and ratios. If you have a high ratio and you whack 0 dB, your volume gets pushed down really quiet. So even a short peak smacking the limiter will make the mix quieter if you don't set up your attack and release parameters properly. It's also your responsibility to then turn up the gain to bring the resultant volume back to 0 dB. If you don't want to do this, use a Maximizer. That's what it does; it limits and then brings it up for you. You're also hitting peaks irresponsibly, those cymbal crashes are way oversaturated and end up masking your entire mix.

At any case, we're derailing this topic. It is not a discussion of mastering ideas and practices. It's a discussion of Master Mi having to understand both the difference between what he sees and what he hears and also that sound layering is the art of mixing itself and that avoiding the ceiling while adding layers is the backbone of what balancing is.

Edited July 5, 2014 by Neblix

[Master Mi]

If something reaches the maximum volume in your computer and it doesn't sound loud enough for you, that means your speakers are too low. Listen to any other music and realize that nothing will sound loud if your speakers are turned down.

Hahaha, don't troll me, dude. :DD

No, it was just this one remix I'm currently working at which is (at the highest possible master volume) far too silent (after exporting) compared to other remixes (my own as well as others).

I'm still not really sure what's the real reason for this phenomenon - but I 've got at least a solution for this.

In the export settings I used the option "Normalizing" - and I got a file which had the perfect loudness - no matter how high or low the master volume setting of the track was.

Even if it was at - 40 dB or - 3 dB - with Normalizing the whole track gets always the same optimal loudness - and after using the normalizing option the volume was quite perfect compared to the volume of other tracks.

And some people say that the normalizing doesn't effect the dynamics of the soundtrack - so it might be indeed perfect to get the best volume for a track. =))

[timaeus222]

Hahaha, don't troll me, dude. :DD

No, it was just this one remix I'm currently working at which is (at the highest possible master volume) far too silent (after exporting) compared to other remixes (my own as well as others).

I'm still not really sure what's the real reason for this phenomenon - but I 've got at least a solution for this.

In the export settings I used the option "Normalizing" - and I got a file which had the perfect loudness - no matter how high or low the master volume setting of the track was.

Even if it was at - 40 dB or - 3 dB - with Normalizing the whole track gets always the same optimal loudness - and after using the normalizing option the volume was quite perfect compared to the volume of other tracks.

And some people say that the normalizing doesn't effect the dynamics of the soundtrack - so it might be indeed perfect to get the best volume for a track. =))

All normalizing does is boost the volume of the piece until the loudest peak is at 0dB. It's nothing complicated. What you happen to be doing now is one "solution" that you think is solving all your problems, but really, it's covering them up. Think of it this way: you're doing a math problem, and you did the wrong work to get the right answer, and you figure that the wrong work is then correct (which it isn't, as for example, one step was mathematically incorrect, and another mathematically incorrect step gave you the correct answer by accident). A similar, musical way to say it is that you're writing music louder than 0dB, then using a compressor on the master track and doing volume edits while the compressor is still on; therefore, your edits don't actually correspond to the results you are getting unless you consider what the compressor did.

So, I actually wouldn't normalize it at all. It essentially limits your flexibility. Besides, you can still have a spike in your song and it wouldn't normalize properly. Why don't you just use a limiter? That's what most producers use on their music anyways. If you want a "best" volume, as you call it, then it's more helpful to your learning if you use your ears to find a good volume. The "best" volume is definitely not always at 0dB.

Edited July 6, 2014 by timaeus222

[SnappleMan]

At first glance this topic is a little strange because of course the more sounds you add the louder a song will be, but it raises a good question that I frequently get asked and I will repeat my advice here for the 200th time on OCR.

When you're mixing always make sure that your master volume meter stays below 0dB. Never lower the master fader, instead lower all your tracks evenly so all together they do not cause the master level to go above 0db. This gives your a lot more headroom in the stereo bus and allows for your master limiters and compressors to work better and helps you get an overall cleaner and punchier mix.

[Master Mi]

Thanks for the info.

If I use the master fader then just the master fader - and in a decent way - so if one single instrument makes the overall loudness of the track a bit over the bar (clipping) I don't want to configure alle the instrument settings/volume again - I just put down the master volume some dB down - I guess this shouldn't be the problem.

Isn't it like turning just the normal volume up and down just by using the master fader - or is it more like a compression?

@timaeus222: I don't like to use a limiter 'cause it would change the dynamics of the song (especially the single notes which get too loud and the limiter modifies).

To keep about 10 dB below 0 during the whole track and do the normalizing stuff afterwards seems to much more efficient to me that prevents also clipping in a perfect way.

And you can work much faster - don't have to change every single setting all the time - and in the end you know, that every song has the same loudness (could be quite hard the fight for the last dB if you do this just by ear).

[Ivan Hakštok]

Thanks for the info.

If I use the master fader then just the master fader - and in a decent way - so if one single instrument makes the overall loudness of the track a bit over the bar (clipping) I don't want to configure alle the instrument settings/volume again - I just put down the master volume some dB down - I guess this shouldn't be the problem.

Isn't it like turning just the normal volume up and down just by using the master fader - or is it more like a compression?

@timaeus222: I don't like to use a limiter 'cause it would change the dynamics of the song (especially the single notes which get too loud and the limiter modifies).

To keep about 10 dB below 0 during the whole track and do the normalizing stuff afterwards seems to much more efficient to me that prevents also clipping in a perfect way.

And you can work much faster - don't have to change every single setting all the time - and in the end you know, that every song has the same loudness (could be quite hard the fight for the last dB if you do this just by ear).

Two of the first advice I ever got for making music were 1) always use a limiter and 2) never adjust the master fader.

From the quick read trough this thread, I think your problem lies in the mixing stage. The best practice is to mix individual tracks/instruments so that you have enough headroom left (I personally mix such that I get around 6db headroom on the master channel), then apply the finalizing steps on the entire mix (EQ-compression-limiting) to get the loudness up to the preferred level (in my case, -0.3dB and around -9 RMS).

Limiting will kill your dynamics on the master channel only if the track is going over or pretty close to 0db all the time, which again implies you should do changes in the mixing stage.

Also, another piece of advice: don't take shortcuts. Moving the master fader IS NOT the same as adjusting every mixer fader. And normalizing is not a solution as it is the same as adjusting the master fader, and there is a lot more that influences the loudness other than the volume of the highest peak.

[SnappleMan]

Hakstok is right. Moving the master fader down to reduce clipping doesn't help you when it comes to using compression or limiting on that channel because your tracks are already going into that bus too hot and that'll eat up bandwidth on your compressors.

The master fader in most DAWs is a POST fader. If your tracks are clipping going in to it, they are still technically clipping even when you move that fader down. This means that your tracks are using too bandwidth and it gives your plugins on the master channel less resolution to do what they need to do properly, and this gives you a less than ideal mix.

To solve this you should get the tracks balanced how you want, and then group them together and move them down so that the master bus is not clipping. This will keep your mix identical but will clean up the signal going into the master bus and let your plugins work better.

[timaeus222]

@timaeus222: I don't like to use a limiter 'cause it would change the dynamics of the song (especially the single notes which get too loud and the limiter modifies).

To keep about 10 dB below 0 during the whole track and do the normalizing stuff afterwards seems to much more efficient to me that prevents also clipping in a perfect way.

And you can work much faster - don't have to change every single setting all the time - and in the end you know, that every song has the same loudness (could be quite hard the fight for the last dB if you do this just by ear).

Well, it's like I always say. If you mix well, you don't need much on the master track. Yes, a limiter does push the highest peaks down, but then if that's the problem, just lower the volume of those loud instruments. If other notes from those instruments are not too loud, then lower the velocities of those loud notes. For some reason the solution you propose sounds like the "hard way out". Not using a limiter just makes it harder on you. You're telling me that you *know* there are loud notes. Well, then, you know what you need to address.

Either way, if your limiter is supposedly killing your dynamics, then go on a hunt for a better limiter.

http://www.fabfilter.com/products/pro-l-brickwall-limiter-plug-in

http://hem.bredband.net/tbtaudio/archive/files/TLs-Pocket_Limiter_v1-2.zip

Edited July 6, 2014 by timaeus222

[Master Mi]

Yep, I guess my limiter is not the best - actually I haven't had the feeling that my limiter even tries to make slightly clipping layers at least a bit more smoothed. :DD

But if we shouldn't move the fader for remixing then what's the purpose of this tool?

[timaeus222]

But if we shouldn't move the fader for remixing then what's the purpose of this tool?

I guess you could automate it if you wanted to fade out a song tail that didn't want to fade out properly. You could also use it as a temporary "emergency" volume adjuster if you somehow forgot you had a loud mix and opened an old project that was loud. Other than that, I don't really move it.

Edited July 6, 2014 by timaeus222

[Ivan Hakštok]

I guess you could automate it if you wanted to fade out a song tail that didn't want to fade out properly. You could also use it as a temporary "emergency" volume adjuster if you somehow forgot you had a loud mix and opened an old project that was loud. Other than that, I don't really move it.

Song fade-in and fade-out, the only time I ever touch the master fader.

[Nabeel Ansari]

But if we shouldn't move the fader for remixing then what's the purpose of this tool?

You have to understand that DAW's were designed to mimic operations of a recording studio. They weren't built with "create music the best way possible" as an ideal, they were built with "digitize the recording studio mixing console" as an ideal.

As a feature of how the technology progressed, a lot of the things we have in DAW's are still a relic of old studio workflows. Busses, aux sends, insert/receives, these are fundamentally extraneous things if you were to eliminate the concept of physical signal flow from your system. They don't HAVE to be there, but they are there because they were there in real consoles and it was easier for people to transfer to digital when the tools looked the same.

To answer your question, we have a master fader because real consoles had a master fader. Why? Manufacturing is easier. Homogenizes the board. The "master fader" is just another fader where the sum of all the signal passes through. Also, being able to control the entire volume is just a common sense feature. In professional practice, you may not use it, but you may want to sometimes... it's preference. In the digital world, automating it is fun.

http://erikhawkins.berkleemusicblogs.com/2008/02/03/the-master-fader-is-not-for-monitor-control/

Edited July 7, 2014 by Neblix