Can a loud track be dynamic

seannash

just curious as to this and if anyone has examples id appreciate it.

dont really want to get into the loudness war thing and im not talking about ridiculously loud recording i just mean louder than songs that were commited to tape years ago

MilanPan!c

seannash wrote: »

just curious as to this and if anyone has examples id appreciate it.

dont really want to get into the loudness war thing and im not talking about ridiculously loud recording i just mean louder than songs that were commited to tape years ago

Well, it depends what you mean... the second (Albini produced) PJ Harvey record is LOUD and TOO dynamic. That's an effect, but it's also an example of how a mix can stay dynamic even when it's been mastered like crazy.

I think there's really lots of good examples, but that the first that sprung to mind.

seannash

recently had a discussion on another forum where someone was giving out about a remastered album and a good few people threw out the vlanket statement of "loud=no dynamic range"

i just found it a bit overexaggerated but thought id find out if its true

MilanPan!c

seannash wrote: »

recently had a discussion on another forum where someone was giving out about a remastered album and a good few people threw out the vlanket statement of "loud=no dynamic range"

i just found it a bit overexaggerated but thought id find out if its true

Well, again, it depends what you mean exactly, but essentially no, loud can be ridiculously crushed and quiet can be whisper quiet... On the same track...but that's not common and honestly, not what most people want.

iquinn

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Well, it depends what you mean... the second (Albini produced) PJ Harvey record is LOUD and TOO dynamic. That's an effect, but it's also an example of how a mix can stay dynamic even when it's been mastered like crazy.

I think there's really lots of good examples, but that the first that sprung to mind.

"Rid of me"?
That's not particularly loud by today's standards. imho.

MilanPan!c

iquinn wrote: »

"Rid of me"?
That's not particularly loud by today's standards. imho.

I know, that wasn't really my point, it's too loud when it's loud and too quiet when it's quiet.

It's dynamic and loud.

iquinn

MilanPan!c wrote: »

I know, that wasn't really my point, it's too loud when it's loud and too quiet when it's quiet.

It's dynamic and loud.

I see now.

So it's really just quite dynamic....and not that loud.

MilanPan!c

iquinn wrote: »

I see now.

So it's really just quite dynamic....and not that loud.

turn the whole thing up my 3dB and it's both.

iquinn

seannash wrote: »

just curious as to this and if anyone has examples id appreciate it.

dont really want to get into the loudness war thing and im not talking about ridiculously loud recording i just mean louder than songs that were commited to tape years ago

Soundgarden's Superunkown might fit that description.

shayleon

Seriously, Seanash, can you pls. explain to me what is so important about loud when every stereo has a volume knob?

To feed your need though, try Ramstein's Benzin. Never heard something louder yet, and it also sounds damn good.

seannash

shayleon wrote: »

Seriously, Seanash, can you pls. explain to me what is so important about loud when every stereo has a volume knob?

To feed your need though, try Ramstein's Benzin. Never heard something louder yet, and it also sounds damn good.

no i realise i started a topic in the electronic music production forum on how to get a loud mix but this is a seperate question.


the other question was asked so that i can get my mixes up to a similar volume as commercial tracks so that anyone i send them to doesnt have to be adjusting the gain on them

the reason for this one was to see if you do ultimately sacrifice dynamics for the sake of a loud mix

shayleon

Sound. that makes sense.

btw, Got a CD mastered by Bob Katz, who is considered as one of the biggest authorities regarding audio, and it was way quieter than any other commercial CD that I had mastered anywhere else. Guess it's different though when you are into electronic music.

progsound

Really depends on the source material and how its mixed but i would say yes its possible to be loud and dynamic in some cases

rcaz

What's your definition of loud? If a song is written as a loud song with just one quiet section in the middle, then the mean volume of the whole song will be quite loud, but there'd be good dynamics. I guess the trouble arises when people use compressors to achieve their loudness?

Or do you mean loud as in pushing the equipment to clipping in the studio?

jtsuited

erm.....i think there's a confusion between the different definitions of what dynamic means.

shayleon

El, I think we talk about PERCEIVED loudness. you put a bunch of CDs to the player, and some will sound louder and some will not.

This has nothing to do with clipping and/or distortion.

rcaz

jtsuited wrote: »

erm.....i think there's a confusion between the different definitions of what dynamic means.

Dynamics are variances in the loudness of a piece of music. Dynamic markings like 'forte' or 'piano' tell the performer how loud to play, and a dynamic recording will keep these differences rather than compressing them to a similar level. Am I wrong here?

shayleon wrote: »

El, I think we talk about PERCEIVED loudness. you put a bunch of CDs to the player, and some will sound louder and some will not.

This has nothing to do with clipping and/or distortion.

And if you listen to some recordings, like the last two Flaming Lips records, they're not dynamic at all, because the 'loud' parts distort and the 'quiet' parts are the same loudness, but not distorted. Am I wrong here too?

jtsuited

El Pr0n wrote: »

Dynamics are variances in the loudness of a piece of music. Dynamic markings like 'forte' or 'piano' tell the performer how loud to play, and a dynamic recording will keep these differences rather than compressing them to a similar level. Am I wrong here?

See, here's the problem with the language..... the dictionary definitions of the adjective dynamic:

(of a process or system) characterized by constant change, activity, or progress : a dynamic economy.
• (of a person) positive in attitude and full of energy and new ideas : she's dynamic and determined.
• (of a thing) stimulating development or progress : the dynamic forces of nature.
• Physics of or relating to forces producing motion. Often contrasted with static .
• Linguistics (of a verb) expressing an action, activity, event, or process. Contrasted with stative .
• Electronics (of a memory device) needing to be refreshed by the periodic application of a voltage.
• Electronics of or relating to the volume of sound produced by a voice, instrument, or sound recording equipment.

If you look through each of the definitions, you'll notice they can mean wildly different things in the context of describing a track.

It's a word I never really like being heard used outside of a scientific sense. I remember an A&R man years ago talking to a band I was in about how we needed the recording to sound more 'dynamic'. Turns out he just meant faster. True story.

TelePaul

I always wonder about 'Harvest' by Neil Young and 'Born to Run' by Springsteen. They were recorded within two years of each other, but there's quite the volume jump, and although it's not a fair comparison in terms of genre, I'd say BTR has a far greater dynamic range. I think you can have both if you're careful.

MilanPan!c

TelePaul wrote: »

I always wonder about 'Harvest' by Neil Young and 'Born to Run' by Springsteen. They were recorded within two years of each other, but there's quite the volume jump, and although it's not a fair comparison in terms of genre, I'd say BTR has a far greater dynamic range. I think you can have both if you're careful.

Honestly, there's NO reason you can't have both except that NO ONE wants it.

No one commercial anyway.

It doesn't suit the way people listen to music these days... At least the way the majority listen to music.

There's NO technical reason, AT ALL, why you can't have quiet and loud in the same track.

progsound

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Honestly, there's NO reason you can't have both except that NO ONE wants it.

No one commercial anyway.

It doesn't suit the way people listen to music these days... At least the way the majority listen to music.

There's NO technical reason, AT ALL, why you can't have quiet and loud in the same track.

Well again it depends on the source material i.e. heavily distorted electric guitars will not be dynamic as the amp is already compressing the signal quite a lot, automation can help here to regain some dynamic range if required.

The performance will also dictate to a large extent the dynamic range present in the material i.e a very consistant performance will reduce the dynamic range some what

now that i have my "pdantic pat" reply over i do agree that the i pod generation do not want massivly dynamic content as this leads to people having to adjust their volume from track to track which no one wants to do

and most comercial stuff nowadays just isnt composed or arranged to be dynamic anyways

MilanPan!c

progsound wrote: »

Well again it depends on the source material i.e. heavily distorted electric guitars will not be dynamic as the amp is already compressing the signal quite a lot, automation can help here to regain some dynamic range if required.

The performance will also dictate to a large extent the dynamic range present in the material i.e a very consistant performance will reduce the dynamic range some what

now that i have my "pdantic pat" reply over i do agree that the i pod generation do not want massivly dynamic content as this leads to people having to adjust their volume from track to track which no one wants to do

and most comercial stuff nowadays just isnt composed or arranged to be dynamic anyways

well, let's look at a tangible example...

Smells Like Teen Spirit

the loud bits can be compressed to ****, like a certain recent Metallica fiasco and the verses can be essentially uncompressed an even turned down, if you want... This will create a track that is wildy dynamic, where the loud bits are as loud as anything else, but the quiet bit are very quiet and live sounding.

Is this a good sound?

I wouldn't want it, but anyone here could prolly do it, including me. It's just that easy.

krd

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Honestly, there's NO reason you can't have both except that NO ONE wants it.

No one commercial anyway.

It doesn't suit the way people listen to music these days... At least the way the majority listen to music.

There's NO technical reason, AT ALL, why you can't have quiet and loud in the same track.

Sorry Milan, I've got a shocking noosflash for ya.

Tastes change. The maxed out slip knot might be fine if you're a 14 year-old on acid in your mom's basement - it's not a pleasant experience for everyone.

I've heard lyric FM don't use any compression or limiting on their broadcasts. And people have become so used to the maxed out sound they get a shock when they're listening to lyric. They get in the car - switch it on - something low is playing, they turn the volume up to hear it - a minute later the music changes and it starts to boom like crazy. Lyric is only good to play if you're in a car that's expensive enough to have most of the noises of car and the traffic blocked out.

Dynamics are really enjoyable. I'm going to listen to some fairport convention now. Y'Know, it gets a bit much when the producer is going "Yeah, right, I want that tin whistle so high in the mix, they'll feel like it's jabbing them up the arsehole"

progsound

MilanPan!c wrote: »

well, let's look at a tangible example...

Smells Like Teen Spirit

the loud bits can be compressed to ****, like a certain recent Metallica fiasco and the verses can be essentially uncompressed an even turned down, if you want... This will create a track that is wildy dynamic, where the loud bits are as loud as anything else, but the quiet bit are very quiet and live sounding.

Is this a good sound?

I wouldn't want it, but anyone here could prolly do it, including me. It's just that easy.

I agree you can mix in dynamics to an extent via automation ect but what i was getting at is the source material is king if you want a steller finished product ie if your aim is a very dynamic song ect best to arrange the song for an acustic guitar instead of an electric as it will have a larger dynamic range (just an example) actual dynamics > mixed in dynamics imo

rcaz

jtsuited wrote: »

See, here's the problem with the language..... the dictionary definitions of the adjective dynamic:

(of a process or system) characterized by constant change, activity, or progress : a dynamic economy.
• (of a person) positive in attitude and full of energy and new ideas : she's dynamic and determined.
• (of a thing) stimulating development or progress : the dynamic forces of nature.
• Physics of or relating to forces producing motion. Often contrasted with static .
• Linguistics (of a verb) expressing an action, activity, event, or process. Contrasted with stative .
• Electronics (of a memory device) needing to be refreshed by the periodic application of a voltage.
• Electronics of or relating to the volume of sound produced by a voice, instrument, or sound recording equipment.

If you look through each of the definitions, you'll notice they can mean wildly different things in the context of describing a track.

It's a word I never really like being heard used outside of a scientific sense. I remember an A&R man years ago talking to a band I was in about how we needed the recording to sound more 'dynamic'. Turns out he just meant faster. True story.

Yeah, it can be ambiguous, though there's one universally-accepted meaning for it when talking about music performance/composition. Guess that doesn't apply to this side of things!

MilanPan!c

krd wrote: »

Sorry Milan, I've got a shocking noosflash for ya.

Tastes change. The maxed out slip knot might be fine if you're a 14 year-old on acid in your mom's basement - it's not a pleasant experience for everyone.

I've heard lyric FM don't use any compression or limiting on their broadcasts. And people have become so used to the maxed out sound they get a shock when they're listening to lyric. They get in the car - switch it on - something low is playing, they turn the volume up to hear it - a minute later the music changes and it starts to boom like crazy. Lyric is only good to play if you're in a car that's expensive enough to have most of the noises of car and the traffic blocked out.

Dynamics are really enjoyable. I'm going to listen to some fairport convention now. Y'Know, it gets a bit much when the producer is going "Yeah, right, I want that tin whistle so high in the mix, they'll feel like it's jabbing them up the arsehole"

I like dynamics as well, to an extent, if the source material dictates.

I'm not a fan of the loudness wars and the resulting musical casualties, but the fact is most radio stations are NOT lyric, most popular music stations do heavily compress EVERYTHING and most commercial labels pursue loudness as a commercial concern, not as an outcome of taste.

By the way, Lyric is my primary station of choice, and my car ain't all that hot... you just accept those extreme dynamics when you listen to classical music.

Turn on 2FM and tell me that **** aint compressed to hell.

Most of us here aren't recording classical music. And even if we are recording strings or brass (firsts for us in riot tapes land recently) those aren't gonna be mixed in isolation from the songs (i.e. they'll be compressed at the mastering stage, at the VERY least).

Loudness wars=stupid
Making a recording 3-6db below norm for your genre=stupid

krd

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Loudness wars=stupid
Making a recording 3-6db below norm for your genre=stupid

I've heard a really good argument recently for -3db. I'll write it up on another thread.

Radio stations and clubs have their own system of limiters and compressors.

A -3dB recording will be played back at the same volume as a 0 db recording. If you're -3db and the compressors aren't set to nuke - they have room to move - if on the other hand you're at 0db there's nowhere to go and you get muddiness and saturation.

Dynamics sound brutal if they're put through violent compression. The quite bits sound way too loud and the loud bits drop in volume.

I don't know. Everything you hear on 2fm sounds like it's been recorded by putting a mic to a pair of I-pod headphones at full blast.

I have no idea how you prepare a master for radio play - but I know when they play stuff back on Irish "hits" stations - if the mix isn't perfect for their compressors, you get all kinds of weird drops and pumps in the sound.

MilanPan!c

krd wrote: »

I've heard a really good argument recently for -3db. I'll write it up on another thread.

Radio stations and clubs have their own system of limiters and compressors.

A -3dB recording will be played back at the same volume as a 0 db recording. If you're -3db and the compressors aren't set to nuke - they have room to move - if on the other hand you're at 0db there's nowhere to go and you get muddiness and saturation.

Dynamics sound brutal if they're put through violent compression. The quite bits sound way too loud and the loud bits drop in volume.

I don't know. Everything you hear on 2fm sounds like it's been recorded by putting a mic to a pair of I-pod headphones at full blast.

I have no idea how you prepare a master for radio play - but I know when they play stuff back on Irish "hits" stations - if the mix isn't perfect for their compressors, you get all kinds of weird drops and pumps in the sound.

totally agree with all of that... the breathing compression ****... ugg

I believe digital radio solves a lot of this, but I also believe most broadcasters don't care and still compress everything like mad for that as well...

oh there's one more thing, stuff that's equal volume, so non-dynamic stuff doesn't do the pumping compression thing, which explains a LOT.

Neurojazz

it's -.03db for masters - this reduces digital overs in consumer equipment.

trackmixstudio

"10,000 days" by Tool, mixed by Joe Barresi stands out in recent years.
Loud and dynamic.
It's all to do with having the right frequency balance.
You could master a track to zero db yet another track could sound far louder because it has a better balance.
Watch out for low mids 200-500. These frequencies eat headroom and a mix heavy in these frequencies will never be as loud as a mix that controls them.
The ear is most sensitive at about 1-5K so if you can get a mix with lots of content here without it sounding harsh you are on to a winner.
What I normally do is put a 1-2 db hi shelf boost at 3k and then go into each individual track and notch any annoying frequencies (normally 4-5K in guitars and 7-8K in drum overheads.)
A super trick to get a huge low end is the compress the bass using a sidechain from the kick. This lets you keep the bass and kick drum high without the low end overloading on each kick. Each time there is a kick drum the bass (Synth or guitar) gets pulled back a couple of db letting the kick drum through. When you use fast attack and release it makes a huge difference and lets you sit the kick drum in the mix without trying to push it above the bass. Using this technique you can get big low end in a track without the kick drum slamming the mastering limiter and pulling the whole mix down in mastering.
Also hi pass filter EVERYTHING (each track). Sweep up until you really notice it then go back a bit. Most instruments contain low frequencies that eat up headroom and cloud the mix. Using HPFs lets the low end of the track cut through much better allowing space for the bass and kick letting you keep them at the right level rather than trying to get them above the mush which results in them being too loud and above the overall mix thus hitting the limiter and pulling the whole track back (as above)
Mixing into a compressor (My settings are 4db reduction medium attack fast release) works well too because you can hear if the mix is pumping too much and adjust accordingly. Nothing tells you your kick is too loud better than the whole mix pumping on every hit.

MilanPan!c

trackmixstudio wrote: »

"10,000 days" by Tool, mixed by Joe Barresi stands out in recent years.

Loud and dynamic.

It's all to do with having the right frequency balance.

You could master a track to zero db yet another track could sound far louder because it has a better balance.

Watch out for low mids 200-500. These frequencies eat headroom and a mix heavy in these frequencies will never be as loud as a mix that controls them.

The ear is most sensitive at about 1-5K so if you can get a mix with lots of content here without it sounding harsh you are on to a winner.

What I normally do is put a 1-2 db hi shelf boost at 3k and then go into each individual track and notch any annoying frequencies (normally 4-5K in guitars and 7-8K in drum overheads.)

A super trick to get a huge low end is the compress the bass using a sidechain from the kick. This lets you keep the bass and kick drum high without the low end overloading on each kick. Each time there is a kick drum the bass (Synth or guitar) gets pulled back a couple of db letting the kick drum through. When you use fast attack and release it makes a huge difference and lets you sit the kick drum in the mix without trying to push it above the bass. Using this technique you can get big low end in a track without the kick drum slamming the mastering limiter and pulling the whole mix down in mastering.

Also hi pass filter EVERYTHING (each track). Sweep up until you really notice it then go back a bit. Most instruments contain low frequencies that eat up headroom and cloud the mix. Using HPFs lets the low end of the track cut through much better allowing space for the bass and kick letting you keep them at the right level rather than trying to get them above the mush which results in them being too loud and above the overall mix thus hitting the limiter and pulling the whole track back (as above)

Mixing into a compressor (My settings are 4db reduction medium attack fast release) works well too because you can hear if the mix is pumping too much and adjust accordingly. Nothing tells you your kick is too loud better than the whole mix pumping on every hit.

Lots of awesome advice (a lot of which I already do, but for newbies this is gold dust).

Shame I hate tool so very much.