Low mix volume due to very bad peak to average ratio

[Bambi]

Hello, I write in search of help with an issue I have during the mixing process. My mixes sound very low because there is too much difference between the peak and the average levels of the mix. I use a greatly muffled mini drumset recorded with only 1 microphone. I also record a distorted organ line and a distorted bass-organ base (both with a very narrow dynamic range). To get a good balance between my drums and the rest of the instruments, I have to set the drums on a level in which many of the kick and snare hits are above any note played by the organ and the organ bass. So this gives me a great distance between the drum hits (both peaks and average) and the rest of the instruments, resulting on a horribly low sounding mix. I've tried to correct it using a limiter, and the result improves, but it's still very low. I've tried limiting the drums only versus limiting the whole mix, but I get the same results, as the limiter affects only the highest peaks of the mix, that are the percussion ones. If I limit harder to reach the other instruments too, my drums start to sound horrible.

I don't use any EQ yet, although some day I will, nor external effects. Maybe recording my drums with more mics would give me a better control of the height I can give to each element in the mix, besides allowing me to compress each drumset element separately. However, I really like the idea and simplicity of recording my whole drumset with only one mic and wouldn't like to change it. I've also weighed the possibility of using drum triggers or electronic drums, even with the option of canceling the dynamic sensitivity so to get more even hits (like in a drum machine), but I don't really feel comfortable with the idea.

I don't know how much of the volume issue I have is related to the somewhat atypical drumset I use or the recording of it with only 1 mic, and how much is related to the own nature of percussive instruments. In any case, I'd like to know if there is anyway I can improve the peak to average ratio in my mixes to get final louder results. It can be changing something on the recording phase or in subsequent phases of the production. Lastly, if there is any solution that implies the use of some device, it would have to be a hardware one rahter than software, as I work completely dawless

 

[BazzBass]

using only one mic on the drums is very limiting ,pun intended.

the key here I think is to use two mics. One on the kick, and the other over the snare to capture the rest of the kit. This way you have separation of the very low frequency of the kick from the rest of the kit, allowing you to compress and EQ them differently.
Just by adding one mic you can greatly improve your options to get a better sound and a narrower dynamic range.

I'm no expert though,just my thoughts. I have recorded music ever since the original Portastudios in the 80s so my knowledge is somewhat based on my experiences over the years rather than any technical training.

calling @-mjk- and @Arjan P

 

[-mjk-]

@Bambi, the answer to your original question is compression/limiting.

There is nothing wrong with a low level mix if you are only playing it for your own purposes. The mix level only becomes an issue when considering a release.

This is all about low LUFS levels of the final mix. So, again, this is about Mastering, and we're beating the same dead horse. If you have the mix sounding how you like it, then a good Mastering engineer can bring up the overall level without totally destroying the dynamics of the mix - within reason of course.

When you say things like:

Lastly, if there is any solution that implies the use of some device, it would have to be a hardware one rahter than software, as I work completely dawless

.... that very severely limits your options. Realistically, as a standalone device the Model 12 is not capable of delivering a finished, mastered product, and it never claimed to do that. From the start, it was obvious that the Model series was designed to interface with a DAW and most likely the design intent was for users to polish their works for delivery in the DAW. After reading many posts by you I feel that a DP-32SD might have been a better fit for you than the Model 12 as the DP-32SD has more options, including Mastering - plus you don't need a DAW for anything (unless you want to).

@Bambi, I really want to hear what you are doing. I would like to take one of your mix files, analyze it and run it through my mastering chain and see what happens.

You should do whatever you want to do - record anything, any way you like and do not concern yourself with the overall level of the mix, as long as you are up above the noise floor. But, after that, I would put it on someone else to get you a deliverable product. There are just too many hats to wear and the Model 12 isn't really designed for delivering a product like that.

More people than you know are using the Model series and Digital Portastudios to record tracks for professional mixers to finish. Others are mixing on their devices and sending the mixes out for Mastering. Only a very few are doing finished, mastered music products that they are distributing, using those tools alone.

 

[Bambi]

Hello BazzBass and MJK. BazzBass, thank you very much for your suggestion. I'll consider it, as it also makes sense to me. I have to find a balance between simplicity and results; perhaps, using 2 mics isn't too much of a bother if I can perceivably improve my levels.

MJK, thank you for your message. I'll tell you my quality goal with my recordings so you can have an approximate idea. By the moment, I don't need to get as a professional result as to upload my music to Spotify, for example, but I really would like to get a closer result than I have know regarding loudness. I know I can't get an equivalent level by myself but, by the moment, I'd be glad if I can get a sufficiently close sounding audio respecting volume. I'd like to achieve this before I consider learning other processes such as EQ and similars.

Regarding the intended use for the Model 12, I know that it can't deliver a fully mastered file. I've always thought of it as the best option I had to record and mix my songs. I wanted to see the results and expand my gear and knowledge according to that. I seriously weighed the option of getting the DP-24SD instead of the Model 12, but finally the second seemed to fit my needs better, as long as I could later complement that gear with other necessary equipment.

About your suggestion of helping me with the mastering of 1 song, I thank you again for the idea. I need to record first the drum part of a little cover song I'm doing. It will take me some time until I have it and mix it with the rest, but I'll let you know when I'm finished. Thank you very much for offering to help.

Lastly, regarding limiting, by the moment I'm doing some trials with Audacity. As applying heavy limiting affects my balance and the sound of my instruments, I'm trying to mix anticipating the effect of the limiter to compensate for the results. I've tried limiting the whole mix and limiting the instruments separately, but my audios are still very low, and the sound is worsened, too. The recording levels are ok, so they are not the problem. I don't know if a dedicated external limiter would offer a better result. Meanwhile I send you my other audio I'd like to experiment some more with Audacity, but I don't know if the problem is it's limiter, my lack of knowledge, or the original recording from which I part

 

[BazzBass]

mjk has it in a nutshell.

Capture the performance as best you can with what you've got. make sure nothing peaks over 0db ,(tho some say even that doesn't matter?) and you have no unwanted noise on each track.

Then,you can either mix it yourself,then hand it over to a mastering engineer, OR hand the raw stems over to be mixed and mastered.

 

[Bambi]

Hello BazzBass, I'll think about it. The idea of having a professional final product is very suggestive. Although at the same time I'd like to learn how to do things by myself, for the sake of knowledge and because I really enjoy it. Maybe I can even send my mixes to a professional engineer for mastering while I keep learning and progressing by myself. But first I want to make sure I can get a good enough song, recording and mix, that worths sending it to a professional mastering engineer.

If I sent my mix to masterize it externally, I obviously would send it without any limiting and with enough headroom for the engineer to work. Meanwhile, I'd like to ask you and MJK if you think a dedicated limiter would give me a considerably better result than using the tool inside Audacity

 

[-mjk-]

I'd like to ask you and MJK if you think a dedicated limiter would give me a considerably better result than using the tool inside Audacity

@Bambi wow - now that's a question: Will you get better results with an hypothetical piece of hardware that you may or may not be/come proficient with, vs: a DAW that is not really meant for the purpose you intend to use it.

I believe the correct answer to that question is: You will regret spending money on a hardware limiter device and you will not get satisfactory results with Audacity because it is not a full featured DAW and is very limited when it comes to repair or mastering work.

I'd like to suggest some things, if I may. We can play "What do you think of this" as you read and discover new things, until the cows come home, lol. Or, I can just make some recommendations.

If you spent $60 on Reaper (and Reaper works indefinitely, unregistered) you could practically anything with the stock plugins (which Reaper is well known for), and with an incredible free plugin like Limiter6, there wouldn't be much limiting you (pun intended). But once you buy a hardware limiter that's kinda it. It is what it is and you cannot upgrade it by getting a new free, or paid plugin. This is why nearly all mastering engineers are doing most of their work in the box. Some have said that these days, the plugins are so good that they are doing 100% of their mastering work in the box. It's easy to see why too. A mastering EQ and compression chain would cost well over $5,000 USD. The TDR Limiter6GE (which I own and frequently use) costs 50 Euros and is worth every Euro. I also use Eventide's Split EQ that I paid $99 for. So, for roughly $160USD or so, I have one of the most versatile compressor/limiters ever created and also the new, groundbreaking SplitEQ which I found mind-blowing. I do have other tools, but between those 2 software tools I can do nearly all the heavy lifting I need.

 

[Bambi]

Hello MJK, I agree that a dedicated mastering hardware is very expensive, and that a hardware limiter is a very limited tool Certainly the actual digital production options are infinite, awesome and inexpensive. Regarding mastering, can you get the right loudness you need only by limiting? Or does EQ, although it's not its main goal, also contribute? And when you limit, doesn't your balance and your instruments sound suffer too much?

 

[-mjk-]

I should probably move all of this to the Mastering topic, since we are going down that rabbit hole.

Regarding mastering, can you get the right loudness you need only by limiting?

If you are doing it right, yes.

Regarding mastering, can you get the right loudness you need only by limiting?

EQ interacts with the limiter. You have to go back and forth between the EQ and the limiter. It's helpful to have some kind of RTA as a sanity check.

And when you limit, doesn't your balance and your instruments sound suffer too much?

Yes, if you don't know what you're doing.

I suggest that you check out Streaky Mastering on YouTube and watch his tutorials.

 

[BazzBass]

another Reaper fan here

It's $60 for around 4 years

it has all the effects you need to start with.

the how to videos are awesome,especially Kenny G's

the forum is full of very helpful people,all your questions will be answered.

and you can use it completely free til you decide. Complete full DAW.

 

[Bambi]

Hello MJK and BazzBass; MJK, thank you for your feedback about limiting and EQ. I discovered Streaky through you, and I've seen several of his videos. I'll take a look at some more. I like Izotope very much, too.

BazzBass, thank you for the info. I agree that having a welcoming and helpful forum is certainly really important.

Regarding limiting and EQ, I understand that they interact very much with each other, but is it possible, or was it usual before the digital era, to apply them separately instead of going back and forth, and still get good results? For example adjusting EQ first and only later applying limiting, without going back to EQ?

 

[Bambi]

And I have another question, but regarding compression and limiting. It could fit in the "Mastering" thread, but it can also fit in here. I'd like to know how much differs compressing a mix several times versus limiting only once:

1) Can you get the same loudness level with both techniques?

2) In case that you can, would compressing several times provide a less squashed and more natural sound than limiting only once? Or would they sound very similar?

 

[-mjk-]

Regarding limiting and EQ, I understand that they interact very much with each other, but is it possible, or was it usual before the digital era, to apply them separately instead of going back and forth, and still get good results? For example adjusting EQ first and only later applying limiting, without going back to EQ?

If you were able to take a guess at how a limiter would change the spectrum of a song, in advance, and apply the compensating EQ first, so that it perfectly matched the end result of the limiter, that would qualify you as a superhero. Good engineers can make a ballpark guess, but it's not really reasonable to think one would not have to tweak things.

The last 3% of anything you do is what makes it perfect.

Analog or digital makes no difference, since the digital tools are copies of the analog ones.

@Bambi, I really do not get that question.

 

[-mjk-]

2) In case that you can, would compressing several times provide a less squashed and more natural sound than limiting only once? Or would they sound very similar?

The more coats of spray paint you put on, the less recognizable the original finish.

Yes you can do it in stages, and to some degree you do that when you compress/limit the individual tracks when recording. But things are additive up until the point where you have destroyed the dynamic range.

 

[BazzBass]

you don't want to compress things more than once, or at most,compress each track as needed, then compress/limit at mastering stage.
Limiters are , ostensibly, harsh compressors, very basically speaking.
You do not need compression on a track if the musician has good dynamic control, or if the recording engineer can keep the dynamic range within limits. But ,of course, you can use compression as an effect rather than a tool.

 

[Bambi]

Hello MJK and BazzBass, thank you for your answers. MJK, after writing my question about limiting and EQing without going back and forth I realized it didn't make much sense. You explain it very well in your answer.

Regarding compression, I appreciate both BazzBass and MJK feedback. I only have one little doubt; when processing a single instrument during mixing, does it make any difference or is it preferable to apply all the compression needed at once, or is it better to divide the compression process in 2 steps, applying a little compression first and then repeating the process?

 

[-mjk-]

@Bambi, There's no such thing as better. The answer is to do whatever is better for the track. Compressors are for controlling dynamics and making things thicker. I only compress things that need to be compressed. I can't determine that until I start working with a track. Nobody can. You're asking all these hypotheticals that have infinite permutations. I've been trying to give honest answers about these things, but honestly the correct answer to some of these questions is "I have no idea." You need to get in front of the mixing desk and try this stuff out for yourself. Have no fear, you can't break it.

 

[Bambi]

Yes, I didn't express myself correctly. Rather than asking "what is better" I meant to ask if there is any perceivable difference between doing all the compression at once or dividing the process in 2 smaller compression steps. Is there much difference? Obviously if I ask you all of this questions is because I can't try them by myself. I don't have the necessary gear yet, or I have a very bad one so my conclusions aren't reliable at all. I have to get the knowledge from people who have more experience and more standard-quality gear than I do, in orden to learn better and to decide if it's worthy buying that gear or not. If I use compression in Model 12 I do notice some difference between doing all the compression at once and doing it divided in 2 smaller steps, but obviously the Model 12 compression features are very limited. So I don't know if there is much difference between the two options when using a dedicated compressor with standard capabilities, be it hardware or not

 

[Mark Richards]

Bambi, making really effective use of an external compressor or limiter that has all the bells and whistles takes at least a few years of experience. It starts by reading, but is learned primarily through hands-on experimentation, and obviously requires purchasing the external gear.

As I understand it, your goal is to control peaks so you can increase the average level of your tracks or mix, but with minimal impact on dynamic range, yes?

If so, the Model 12's compressor should be able to do that.

To achieve what you want when tracking (or mixing, assuming the Model 12 has onboard stereo compression available for mixdown, of course) requires experimenting by using level and compression adjustments to balance the signal until you reach a compromise between dynamic range and loudness. The greater the compression, the more gain you can use at the cost of dynamic range.

Whether you do that only once, and to what degree; or process the same signal more than once, and to what degree, is a creative decision. There are no rules other than your vision for the song and your ears.

If those processes fail to achieve the vision you have and audio level you want for your song, then you might want to consider purchasing the necessary outboard gear that will meet your needs, and undertaking the learning curve to use it effectively; or you may want to consider having your song mixed and mastered by a professional who has the experience and necessary gear.

That's all I can offer or add to this discussion. Hope it's somewhat helpful.

 

[Bambi]

Hello Mark, thank you very much for your answer. Yes it is very helpful. That's my idea, increasing my song's volume without changing too much it's balance, sound and naturality. One of my problems is that, for example, when I compress the drum track, if I reduce more than 2 or 3 dB from the peaks, the track loses a bit of it's naturality and human touch, but if I compress too little I can't almost rise the track's volume, which is also my intention. That is why I was asking if a dedicated compressor or limiter could give me a higher gain reduction without affecting my sound too much.

Regarding doing all the compression at once or dividing it in 2 smaller steps, ok, I get the idea. I just didn't know if there was even a noticeable difference between doing it one way or the other