Getting the perfect waveform

Posted on

one-man recording to insanity
Member Since: Mar 16, 2009

Hippie already introduced this topic here www.homerecordingconnecti...18083&frm=1

I'm not sure if my situation is different enough to warrant a new thread, but I guess we'll see. It's always some new problem with me, isn't it? :(

When I first started doing this, and mixing down sessions into MP3 files, I was always ending up with "quiet" MP3s. They sounded fine if you turned your speakers up, but they were way quieter than other MP3s. I experimented with turning up the "capture" volume on my PC, and it seemed to help.

I still end up with "narrow" waveforms much of the time, though, like Hippie said in his thread.

What's the right balance between volume on my USB M-Audio dials and the "capture" volume on my PC's software?

It seems like I get distortion easily from having the M-Audio's volume too high, even though the waveforms are narrow on the PC, and then when I try to turn the volume of the tracks up, obviously the distortion sounds awful.

On the other end, if I have the "capture" up too high, the M-Audio knobs are so low that it barely registers a signal on the lights on the unit. It seems like there's very little wiggle room.

In the end, it's mostly the finished MP3s I'm thinking about. I want them to be at the right volume.

Sorry, I know I didn't explain my problem very well. I'm not thinking too clearly because I just recorded a track that I now see I'm gonna have to toss; not only is it extremely narrow, but it also has distortion! The worst of both sets of difficulties due to my "capture" being too low and the M-Audio levels being apparently too high (even tho the lights never blinked red).

Eventually I'll have made enough mistakes that I'll be able to get something decent, though!

[ Back to Top ]


Rockstar Vatican Assassin
Member
Since: Mar 20, 2009


Mar 24, 2009 08:44 am

And so the plot thickens! Wish I had advice, but.. .well... it seems we're in this together!!!

giv me gear
Member
Since: Jan 29, 2009


Mar 24, 2009 08:55 am

yep!thats my problem too.loudness!

I am not a crook's head
Member
Since: Mar 14, 2003


Mar 24, 2009 10:50 am

I'm sure that MassiveMaster will chime in with advice, but at very least I can share what I myself do, as well as what a lot of home recordists do as well since we don't quite have the resources to outsource our post-production or mastering.

By the way, MassiveMaster, I'm having trouble tracking down the articles you've linked to about mixing levels and leaving ample headroom. I like to link to those articles but I always have a devil of a time tracking them down on your website. Could you give us a link for purposes of this thread? It'll be good reading for these fellows.

Anyhoo...

Get your mix where it sounds good in your project. There is a lot of advice here in these forums about using EQ, panning, compression, and reverb to establish the 3 dimensions of the listener's field: the stereo field (left to right), the frequency spectrum (think of it as low to high) and using reverb for establishing distance (more reverb = farther away, less reverb = closer to the listener).

Get the levels of each track set so they have plenty of headroom. Don't push them to where they're all peaking at -3 dB or anything. Try more along the lines of -12 dB or even less. Don't worry about overall loudness at this stage. Just get a good mix where everything is distinct and nothing is conflicting or competing for the same frequencies (vocals and guitars, for example, tend to share a lot of the same frequencies and without EQ, the vocals will be difficult to understand).

Then take a look at your master bus. Adjust its level so that its not peaking anywhere near 0 dB. Again, I can't remember the suggested peaks from MassiveMaster but -12 dB or less would be a good starting point. And yet again, don't worry about overall volume at this stage. I don't even apply effects to the master bus any more. Not only does it mess with the next phase of the project but it tends to sap system resources. I notice a lot more dropouts, pops and clicks if I apply any effects to the master bus.

Now that you're happy with your mix and it sounds good in your monitors or headphones or whatever you're using, export a mixdown. Export to a stereo .WAV file at whatever resolution you've been using (24-bit, 96Khz for example). Don't dither it down to a lower resolution just yet.

This stereo .WAV file would probably be what you'd send to a mastering house if you were to outsource it. When you're ready to distribute your album to someone other than friends or family, definitely get a pro involved at this stage. But since we're all just starting out in this home recording business, and we're all poor and in a bad economy, let's do it ourselves.

Close your project and start a new blank project. As the only track in your new project, load up the stereo .WAV file you just mixed down. This project will be your poor-man's mastering project.

Now is your chance to fool with a few different effects to bring the volume up. Don't kid yourself that you're going to get the same kind of volume that a commercial CD has. You don't want your final .WAV file mixdown to look like 2 logs, one on top of the other. Leave some dynamics in your final mixdown. The ability to have some headroom in reserve for that dramatic KAPOW at the climax of your song is a good thing!

Now everybody has an opinion on what to do here, and this is just my own opinion and what I do myself. Experiment and find your own way that suits your material. But here goes...

Load up a compressor either on the stereo track or on the master bus. You want a gentle compression here, you're just taming peaks right now. Set the threshold so that it's only occasionally triggering the compressor. Set the ratio to a gentle setting, no more than 3:1 with a soft knee. Set the attack somewhat quick and the release somewhat slow. If you want, you can add some makeup gain as well, but keep it small for now.

Sometimes I'll add a second compressor here, with the aim to be a little more aggressive on squeezing the dynamic range of the song. Maybe a little higher ratio (5:1 would probably be too much), a little harder knee, a little lower threshold (still only set the threshold where it occasionally triggers the compressor), a little slower attack, and a little faster release. Then the makeup gain knob can buy you some volume.

Now that the peaks are tamed, the song is louder than it was, and the song's dynamics are more consistent, try adding a limiter like the Classic Series Master Limiter. Now you can add some gain, get it louder than it was. Don't overdo it or else you'll end up with an exhausting sonic mess. This is where the freebie VSTs that most of us use show their weaknesses. You just can't push your free VST compressors and limiters like you can a world-class hardware compressor or limiter. That's mainly why you're not going to get a perceived loudness comparable to commercial CDs. Those engineers have world-class equipment at their disposal, not a bunch of public-domain free VST plugins. Plus those guys have the experience, expertise and finesse to use their world-class equipment to its fullest. But at very least your mix is now much louder than it was.

You'll probably want to add a parametric EQ as well. Maybe one before compression/limiting and one after. You can experiment with a narrow Q, boosting by several dB. Sweep around the frequency spectrum until you find a frequency that you don't like, and then attenuate it by a few dB. Nothing too dramatic, just a few dB to get rid of any characteristics that you don't like about your overall mix. Use your ears!

And finally you might want to add a VERY light reverb to the mix. Maybe. Try it and see. Be very subtle here. No big hall reverbs or anything like that. Use either a room reverb, or start with a reverb preset that's meant for a mixdown. As with all presets, use it as a starting point and tailor it to suit your needs.

Now it's time to export your final mixdown. At this point, go ahead and dither it down to 16-bit, 44.1 Khz. That's the standard resolution that a CD uses, so when you burn your song to CD its going to end up at that resolution anyways. Might as well do it yourself in a controlled manner since some CD burning software either won't burn anything but 16-bit/44.1 files, or will dither it before burning. You never know whether or not the burning software will do a good job at dithering or what artifacts might be introduced in the process.

Anyways, that's what I do. I'm sure that I do a hundred things wrong, but this is an art and not a science. Use your ears, use your ears, use your ears!!!!!! If it sounds good, it is good!

MASSIVE Mastering, LLC
Member
Since: Aug 05, 2008


Mar 24, 2009 11:04 am

The pages you're looking for are linked from www.massivemastering.com/blog

Going sideways -- "Volume" is dreadfully easy. A newborn puppy with a limiter can make any mix as loud as any other. It's how the mix will handle that abuse that's the issue.

Mixing levels are important - But nothing is as important as tracking levels... Blow it there and nothing will bring you back.

GRANTED (touch of reality): In many cases, it takes entire teams of professionals with aggregate decades of experience working with the best core sounds, in the best rooms, with the best gear imaginable to actually create these wonderful sounding recordings.

Not trying to discourage - Just mentioning that although great recordings can be made simply, it's very rarely that simple...

I am not a crook's head
Member
Since: Mar 14, 2003


Mar 24, 2009 11:11 am

Awesome, thanks! Jesse, Hippie, Tiny, definitely give those articles a read. They're save you a lifetime of fiddling and experimenting when tracking and mixing.

one-man recording to insanity
Member
Since: Mar 16, 2009


Mar 24, 2009 11:24 am

Thank you so much, everybody! I'm going to devour this and all the articles.

<i>GRANTED (touch of reality): In many cases, it takes entire teams of professionals with aggregate decades of experience working with the best core sounds, in the best rooms, with the best gear imaginable to actually create these wonderful sounding recordings.</i>

That's what annoys me--not that our recordings will never sound "that good," but the fact that what we're going up against is this kind of high-budget teamwork and the fact that people just simply expect music to sound "that good". To think something done by one guy in his basement could sound as good as something with a team of producers, engineers, etc... of course it can't. But that's what people expect, that shiny pop sound.

Ick.

The Beatles pioneered a lot of this stuff. I was listening back to them the other day. Of course, when thinking of The Beatles, "recording quality" is not what pops into my mind; what I think of is great music. But, truthfully, the recording quality is not that great, and people still love it. That gives me hope.

But then again, if The Beatles came out today, would we give them a fair shot? I'd like to say yes, of course we would, but maybe we'd just say, "Ew, this sounds awful" and turn it off! Taste is pretty... poor these days. :) Maybe I'm just a crotchety old fart before my time, though. And maybe you guys would listen to my music and some of the music I love and think the same--"Wow, this guy's taste sucks!"

:)

Anyway, semi-off-topic. Sorry about that.

But just the fact that we're able to do this, period, is really fantastic, and I'm so happy I have this great, friendly community to come to for advice and elbow-bumping. Thanks, you guys!

Czar of Turd Polish
Member
Since: Jun 20, 2006


Mar 24, 2009 01:20 pm

I have one completed song that I tracked much quieter after reading masters blog. I did limit it afterwards with just a couple peaks being squashed, it is far louder than other recordings I have done that are squashed to poop.

It all seems so clear now.

one-man recording to insanity
Member
Since: Mar 16, 2009


Mar 24, 2009 01:42 pm

Tripps, that's exactly what I need to learn to do.

What programs do you use? The only thing I'm using is Cool Edit Pro and occasionally WavePad Sound Editor. Obviously I need to look into compressors and limitors and the like. :s

It's actually pretty amazing, the quality and luck I have when I frankly am just bumbling around. :)

I am not a crook's head
Member
Since: Mar 14, 2003


Mar 24, 2009 02:18 pm

Cool Edit Pro is kind of a pain in the butt compared to most of the more recent multitrack programs.

Give Reaper a try. It's a great program, full-featured, easy to learn, has great online Wiki-style documentation, free to try, and cheap to keep. Plus it has a great online community supporting it.

I think it's going to be easiest to make the change now while you're still learning the basics. CEP is old and getting older. It's already been sunset and is now known as Adobe Audition. Getting support or updates/upgrades is getting next to impossible. At some point you're going to have to make the change.

Anyways, just giving some advice. I just know that there's going to come a time when you update OS or something and CEP will no longer work since its development has been halted for years now.

If price is an obstacle, try Kristal Audio Engine. It's free, although its got a few limitations (max track count, no MIDI support, limited inserts and aux sends per channel). But for $0, its a handy little app.

one-man recording to insanity
Member
Since: Mar 16, 2009


Mar 24, 2009 02:44 pm

That's understandable. Reaper does sound really great. Kristal probably is, too! The reason I haven't upgraded (I don't even download updates for CEP, actually, still running 2.1 I think) is because I'm not sure the flaky laptop I record with could handle a newer program. It's only got 1gig ram, a 1ghz processor I think. CEP already pushes it pretty hard.

The results I've gotten are pretty good. Works fine. Sounds like Reaper or Kristal would be easier to use and learn new tricks with if my computer could run them, but I'm scared to try!

I am not a crook's head
Member
Since: Mar 14, 2003


Mar 24, 2009 03:00 pm

Both Kristal and Reaper are small downloads and quick installs. Worth a shot!

Reaper itself has a small footprint. It's not until you get a few tracks going, VST effects on them, or loading a VSTi with a big bank of samples that it'll start taxing system resources.

one-man recording to insanity
Member
Since: Mar 16, 2009


Mar 24, 2009 04:43 pm

That's what I'm kinda worried about. I've never had any problems doing as many tracks in CEP as I needed (I don't overdo it, but my ramshackle method does use 12 tracks on average I'm sure, with effects on each); I'm worried that might be too many with a newer program.

Or maybe it would behave just the same? It does seem like most folks are running much more powerful PCs than I am, which is what's kept me using old tech! I figure old PC, old program, but maybe I'm figuring wrong and something newer would be just the same or better.

Czar of Turd Polish
Member
Since: Jun 20, 2006


Mar 25, 2009 01:46 am

Well, as far as I know in CEP you must apply an effect to the track, there is no live monitoring of effects. If that is the case then there would be a large difference in performance the way newer DAW software works. Now, they do have neat features for locking tracks, basically it writes a new .wav and references that yet does not modify the original file. I would definitely at least try them.

one-man recording to insanity
Member
Since: Mar 16, 2009


Mar 27, 2009 09:16 pm

Actually, CEP does have live monitoring, I believe--maybe even as one is recording, but I'm not sure on that. I know it has the "lock" feature, which I use almost constantly, so I don't do too much live monitoring.

I do think I might give Reaper a try, or maybe Cakewalk--saw that mentioned somewhere. Just wary to learn anything new.

Related Forum Topics:



If you would like to participate in the forum discussions, feel free to register for your free membership.