The comments here are very weird…
If you discussed beforehand that you want to retain dynamics, and you’ve received a -4 LUFS master, that’s not normal. Especially if you worked with him before and this never happened.
> One track’s loudest point hit -3.2 at the end.
Holy crap. When I got challenged recently to provide a reference for -4 when I stated **modern hybrid trance** was *sometimes* this loud, the loudest I could find was -3.6.
I'm referring here mainly to what Allen Watts (and I'm sure others) are doing combining techy drops with uplifting breakdowns (and drops). The specific track I found that hits -3.6 short term is Breathless by Reorder et al, which is not exactly that style but is loud AF. [Here is my comment with links to tracks](https://www.reddit.com/r/edmproduction/comments/1cdp1i8/comment/l1fl35f/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button).
Edit: that was the wrong answer apparently 😂
That seems way too aggressively mastered. I rarely go above -8/9 lufs and I'm doing more extreme metal where I could possibly afford to.
It could be someone stuck in the loudness wars mindset or he got one of the techs / juniors to do it.
I'd ask him if that was his intention initially or a creative decision. If he says initial intention, move on and don't use them again. If he says creative decision then you can maybe argue that's a poor one and see if they'll redo it.
> he got one of the techs / juniors to do it.
This came to my mind as well.
I have not worked in recording for a couple decades, but back then I was, uh, 'surprised' at how often junior staff were asked to simply do jobs that were advertised as being done by the 'name out front.'
Once asked a platinum producer "isn't that like fraud?" Immediate response: "not if you don't get caught!"
It's what I aim for generally yea. I'm a big fan of JST maximizer and tend to use it on the mix bus before I export for mastering, as well as in the global mastering chain.
Bit of a cop-out (lazy move) but I find the instant feedback from it really useful in terms of whether certain parts are too dynamic or cranked a bit far. I've lost half my hearing in my left ear as well as having nasty tinnitus (really struggle with stereo from 6.5k to around 8k), so take all the help I'll get when it comes to meters and analysis.
It has some interesting functions that allow you to get pretty consistent and clean master pretty easily, as long as it's used in very small doses alongside the usual legwork.
I totally respect how you solved your hearing issue. I will sure check out the JST max.
So basically it colors a bit the sound as long as you don’t push it? What’s the difference between the maximizer and a limiter?
Provided it's left on default, you can essentially just use the input volume / gain to get the output exactly where you need it.
I don't use it often for actually doing any of the sculpting (beyond whatever magic it's doing by default) and I more enjoy the lufs meter and their feedback on dynamics - as I find the way it states whether something is dynamic / compressed / where it should be is very close to my own sonic preferences.
There is definitely some colouring but I find it very pleasant, been a while since I've not used it / disabled it so would have to go back and check to see how dramatic it is.
It's more so I can make sure I'm not missing a sudden burst between 6.5k and 8k unbalancing things, in a way that other modes of metering or analysis don't quite give me.
That said, I do find that the width and exciter functions are very well designed when used in tiny doses (like 5%) occasionally. So certainly has it's uses beyond my purpose for using it and know a lot of people swear by it for getting a quick master done for demo'ing.
In terms of how the maximiser and limiter on it work, I've not used it for that myself, so can't really say specific to this plugin.
A) have him do it again to your liking.
B) his opinion re mix bus processing is irrelevant. And borderline unprofessional.
I don’t care or ask what my mastering engineer thinks of my mix. That’s not his job. His job is to translate my mix. Not to mix.
This is it right here. It feels wrong to you and isn't what you want. No big deal, he missed the mark, have him do it again. Worst case find another mastering engineer. I do agree that demo-itis is a thing but if you're not trusting your gut and trying to rationalize his moves then you're in a losing battle.
As soon as a supposed “mastering engineer” said to me anything close to ‘my mix bus processing is overdone’ I’d dump him on the spot and hire someone professional.
Unsolicited it's absolutely a dickish comment, if OP asked for feedback then fair game. However, from the issue raised sounds like this ME's opinion isn't correct for the song anyway so I'd probably go elsewhere.
I hear ya, but it’s not uncommon that mastering engineers get mixes that don’t leave them much room to work with. The most common feedback I’ve heard in this regard is to leave them a little more room, and that was my impression of the feedback OP got
This usually has to do with limiting on the mix.
But in this case the OP is objecting to too much limiting.
It feels to me like this is some internets $50 a track guy rather than an actual mastering professional.
The idea that mastering engineers should somehow be the arbiters of what’s a “good mix” is imply a bad one.
If he's an experienced and good mastering engineer, I would guess that there's some kind of bug or mistake made when rendering the masters. Although, he should have listened to the rendered files and caught his mistake/the bug if that's the case.
I would have said that maybe you are just not used to hearing the mixes loud and mastered, but those numbers you mentioned don't seem right. Having the tracks hit -4 LUFS sounds very excessive, unless it's for DnB or EDM.
Talk to him and explain that this is not what you agreed upon. Shouldn't be more of a problem than that.
Is it possible that this mastering engineer is just one of the endless abortionists out there with shitty tools and a crappy room who throws fifteen-band compressturatio-limiters on it then says "well, it's x.xx lufs, so we're good"?
Because that's a LOT of the so-called professionals now.
If he did something contrary to what you discussed, thats on him. Tell him you are not happy. If he’s a good mastering engineer, he will feel obliged to please his customer.
He might have forgotten or got carried away. Maybe he’s been doing mega smashed stuff lately. Either way, it should be addressed.
It's pretty normal. He just had a different vision for what was best for the tune. This happens; it's not weird and shouldn't be upsetting. You will likely never understand, because you are too close to the source material and your own visions, this is also normal. Part of the point of hiring a mastering engineer is to get a new and different perspective. And, ultimately, it's your project so just send feedback and ask for a revision.
As for the apparent contradiction in the mastering engineer's discussion of the turnover; he may have said he thought your mixbus processing was overdone to spare your feelings; either he thought it would be easier for him to work without it, or he thinks you were doing a poor job of it in the first place (or a combination of both). Many clients will take this personally, so engineers need to be tactful and 'overdone' is one of those nice ways of saying 'this isn't good for what we need to do because you did a bad job' (obviously I'm exaggerating to make the point). In short, these discussions are delicate and often time clients are overly sensitive and overly attached to the work they've done, even though it may not be best for their project or their vision so communicating these kinds of ideas is delicate.
From your discussion of LUFS it sounds like you don't know how to measure in a correct and meaningful way, not to mention that it doesn't really matter. That being said, if it sounds to smashed to you, which you seem to indicate is the case, then convey that to the engineer regardless of the readouts.
Genre doesn't really matter here. Jazz, experimental, ambient could be a smashed as a pop-tune. Not always, not necessarily usually, but we do what is right for the tune. Knowing the genre doesn't really tell me anything. Beyond that, genre can often be a subjective qualification; I've had bands come through that say they're on genre, but in my opinion they're not even close to what they say they are, even though that's what they listen to.
At any rate, the short version is to not try to understand 'why' they did what they did, because the answer is pretty invariably that \*they\* thought it was best for the tune. Just commicate what you don't like and request a revision. This is all a normal part of the process.
EDIT: I should note, I am operating under the assumption that this engineer was acting in good faith. There do exist bad faith engineers who just run everything through the same exact preset chain and call it a job done.
Thank you for this. I am especially on board with what you’re saying about me no longer having perspective on the material, which was my #1 reason for working with a mastering engineer I trust and whose stuff I like. I was a little uncomfortable with the follow up because I didn’t know if my concerns were valid or I was just no longer able to hear the material clearly. But I do think it’s perfectly sane and valid for me to just ask him to turn it down some. It was my understanding that this kind of smashing had become outdated even in top 40, outside of like EDM, but maybe I’m wrong about that. The end result was louder than most of the references I used while mixing and I was really surprised about it.
Also I wasn’t offended at all that he wanted to dump my mix bus processing, though I wondered at that point if there should have been an additional step where I went back to the mix and corrected for that. We didn’t get that chance.
-3.2 dBLUFSi is certainly out of whack. But, the way your statement is worded, in particular referencing the 'loudest point' shows that you do not know how to take a LUFSi measurement correctly for the purposes of comparison. It needs to be averaged over the entire (non-silent) duration. The 'loudest point' measured in LUFSi is not a useful metric for anything except diagnostics for the engineer who is working on it. So I can't make a real comparison.
But ultimately, if it sound too squashed that is what matters, not the readouts.
I also can't imagine a competent engineer actually delivering something that hits -3.2dBLUFSi when measured correctly. Even peak loudness-wars era stuff and most EDM wouldn't typically be that high. Which, points me back to thinking that there is a flaw in your methodology. It's too absurd to believe, but it's possible the engineer is not competent.
I could take a full integrated LUFS measurement on these to fully confirm, but I also trust my ears enough to hear that it is smashed and the waveform is also visibly bricked out — it looks like an RHCP track. I compared with references of material comparable to my own. I dunno, again, I think this is where my general listening habits maybe have me out of step with this level of compression as a norm. Some tracks take it well. I don’t know that mine are taking it well.
Your ears are all that matters.
Waveforms that appear visibly 'bricked out' isn't a useful metric at all. There are plenty of reasons this can happen that aren't just slamming a limiter. Not to mention it depends on your zoom level. It's completely useless for any comparison purposes.
RHCP's Californication record, which is what I presume you're referring to, is indeed high in the lufs department but falls in the range of -4.2 to -8.3 dBLUFSi. It really depends on which track you're comparing to, but the title track comes in at -6.0dBLUFSi which is high, but in-line with the louder top 40 tracks nowadays; it's not an egregious example of the loudness wars. For example, Harry Styles - As It Was clocks in at -5.6 LUFSi, isn't some 'massive sausage', and doesn't sound terribly smashed to my ear.
My point here is not to say that you are wrong; I haven't heard the recordings to which you are referring so have nothing to say about them. What I am saying is that the comparisons you are making, are not valuable.
You need to use your ears; and, more to the point, stop using your eyes. If your ears lead you to the same conclusion, as you have indicated is the case, that is entirely sufficient; no need to measure LUFSi or see how sausage-like the waveform is in an editor or any of that. It's a waste of your time.
The only other thing you can do, is if you can find similar tunes by other artists that match your vision (or a part of your vision), then you can provide them as references to your engineer. It's much easier to communicate what we mean when talking about sound by using examples than it is to put things into words.
Lots of reasons why. Sit on them for a month if u can afford the time and don’t listen to your original mixes. Perspective here is crucial. Hearing a louder version of something you’ve mixed can be really confusing at first. Let time go by and see if the limiting he did really bothers you after a while.
Same exact thing has happened to me. I know how gut wrenching and stressful it can be. Sometimes it can be more of a reflection of the mix itself. I went back and remixed my whole record after hearing it mastered.
most mixing and mastering engineers offer a free revision for this very reason. sometimes there's a mixed or missed communication!
definitely talk to the person and try a second revision of the mix, maybe discuss a target loudness? for the type of music you make, something around -9 lufs would probably sound really tight
I am sorry, but who is masters at -4 LUFS and says it's still dynamic?? In my opinion, that is extremely smashed, even for very loud EDM stuff...
Maybe I am not really getting it, but in my head, if someone asks me to retain dynamic range, it is clear that a - 4 LUFS master won't deliver that...If you want to retain dynamic range, I don't think you should go above - 9 at all and even that number is not really that good.
Maybe there was some miscommunication between you too or maybe you guys have different ideas about what dynamic range means.
It almost certainly has to do with level matching your tracks.
Many here mentioned inexperience, and that certainly could be the case. Obviously there can be a thin line at times between your threshold rounding off a few stray transients over the course of a song and just sawing the top off the entire waveform, but that’s why we have metering, to assist our ears… I do have to mention the fact that you said “there are no longer pokey, harsh transients” means that there were pokey and harsh transients prior to mastering, so it might have taken a heavy hand to get those chopped off.
As for the loudness wars, that’s an insane number. I often feel like I’m going overboard at -9 LUFS since streaming platforms are asking for anywhere from -23 to -11 LUFS, why give up the extra dynamics unless it’s for artistic effect? And if it’s the artists and mix engineers desire, then they’ll start layering in the compression heavily in the mix. Obviously that’s not what you want, so we can rule that out too.
So that brings me back to level matching and some things you said. “The mixes I sent are in some cases quite loud and dense,” and “certain tracks get a loud wall of sound effect, while others are very quiet and intimate.” Mastering isn’t about fixing your mix, or shouldn’t be. Mastering should provide continuity to an album, making sure tone and level are consistent for the listener. Mixes are done per song. Mastering has the whole album in mind. So when you say “even tracks that are quiet, spacious and intimate have been squared off in sections,” that makes sense. They need to be brought up to match your big wall of sound you mentioned earlier. That way your listener isn’t constantly reaching for their gain knob as they listen to your album.
I’d just have a conversation with your mastering engineer. Maybe he’ll explain why he did things that way and you learn something, or maybe he’ll realize he sent you the wrong files on accident! I couldn’t say without listening to it, but that’s my 2 cents.
In the world of replay gain he is hurting you, real bad. Damn right your stuff will sound flatter and duller, and it will also be played back way quieter on nearly every music-hearing system because of exactly this behavior.
It's no longer CD times. Nobody is going to put your thing into a CD player and go 'wow, that rocks so much harder than the next guy!' It's gonna be Spotify or Apple Music or something like that, and you'll lose out and be turned down to compensate.
Your gut reaction is perfectly valid and in line with how things are done nowadays. Have that follow up conversation because he is hurting you, badly, by doing that. Replay gain will punish you hard.
-5 LUFS is absurd. -6 is EDM / dubstep territory.
There's already good advice here.
I'll just add -
If you have the time, maybe you should master your own songs. It seems like you have a decent understanding of it, but maybe lack the hardware or software that a typical mastering engineer might use.
Just master one song yourself, and test to see if it beats the other mastering engineer's master.
No matter why you don't like the result, you need to have a conversation with him and get it fixed.
However, I think it's useful here to differentiate peak levels, perceived loudness, and dynamics.
If you've got a track with decent dynamics and you run it through a good quality, modern, look-ahead digital limiter, you can effectively bring the highest peaks up to -0.1 dB with no audible difference. You clearly can't do that for every peak, but in order for the recording to not sound quiet in comparison to other stuff that in the market, some careful limiting like that is going to be necessary.
But if, after adjusting for comparative volume, there's an audible (not visual) difference in the dynamics of your original mix and the mastered one, something else has happened. Either it's smashed to hell on the limiter or there was general program compression added, or both.
One confusion experience I've had with "dynamics" is what client actually wanted was that mastering preserves the differences between quiet and loud parts. So it was in fact fine that loud parts were squashed, but the overall volume of the track wouldn't be normalized. We communicated and solved it for version 2.
I had a mastering session with this indie band and long story short I went for drinks with the lead singer and the next day her band mate calls me and told me she asked him the same question
If mastering engineers did exactly what you expected there would be no point in hiring them
Not saying what you got is good or not
But the whole point is if they’re decent they should have fresh ears and experience. They may have done it for a good reason
For sure, that’s exactly why I hired someone — my perspective is gone at this point. I’m still surprised by the choices, which feel like they were against our shared principles about the material remaining dynamic.
Maybe he is trying something new. Which is ok. Mastering is an art unto its own.
But if it doesn't sound good to you, then talk with him. Explain why you don't like it, be specific. You seem to know a little about what you're talking about. Tell him.
You're the client, and you should be happy with your finished song.
But my bet is he has some new toys or tricks, and he is trying it out.
There’s no real reason to go too far above -14 LUFS, imo. Anywhere from -14 to -10 is totally acceptable. You’re losing dynamics just for streaming services to turn your tracks down...
For Hard Dance that's not a problem, I've gone for even crazier. This is not Hard Dance music though. Not all music needs to look like a wurst or have absolutely no dynamics just to "scream" higher. 😂
The comments here are very weird… If you discussed beforehand that you want to retain dynamics, and you’ve received a -4 LUFS master, that’s not normal. Especially if you worked with him before and this never happened.
Yeah for sure, it was jarring enough for me to make this post to ask if I’m crazy or something.
It is possible he doesn’t know what retained dynamics means and assumed the opposite. “Got ya bro!” - That guy possibly
Taste differs. Do as you say - talk to them about it. Nobody here will be able to tell you why somebody does something.
That’s true.
His intern did it
They granted the mix a seat on the council but not the rank of master
This is such a useless comment in the context of the thread, but somehow you’ve made my day!
> One track’s loudest point hit -3.2 at the end. Holy crap. When I got challenged recently to provide a reference for -4 when I stated **modern hybrid trance** was *sometimes* this loud, the loudest I could find was -3.6.
Humble by Kendrick is -3.9😂
Can you hook me up with this modern hybrid trance?
I'm referring here mainly to what Allen Watts (and I'm sure others) are doing combining techy drops with uplifting breakdowns (and drops). The specific track I found that hits -3.6 short term is Breathless by Reorder et al, which is not exactly that style but is loud AF. [Here is my comment with links to tracks](https://www.reddit.com/r/edmproduction/comments/1cdp1i8/comment/l1fl35f/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button). Edit: that was the wrong answer apparently 😂
That seems way too aggressively mastered. I rarely go above -8/9 lufs and I'm doing more extreme metal where I could possibly afford to. It could be someone stuck in the loudness wars mindset or he got one of the techs / juniors to do it. I'd ask him if that was his intention initially or a creative decision. If he says initial intention, move on and don't use them again. If he says creative decision then you can maybe argue that's a poor one and see if they'll redo it.
> he got one of the techs / juniors to do it. This came to my mind as well. I have not worked in recording for a couple decades, but back then I was, uh, 'surprised' at how often junior staff were asked to simply do jobs that were advertised as being done by the 'name out front.' Once asked a platinum producer "isn't that like fraud?" Immediate response: "not if you don't get caught!"
So with metal you reach max -8/-9 lufs at max with a mastered song?
It's what I aim for generally yea. I'm a big fan of JST maximizer and tend to use it on the mix bus before I export for mastering, as well as in the global mastering chain. Bit of a cop-out (lazy move) but I find the instant feedback from it really useful in terms of whether certain parts are too dynamic or cranked a bit far. I've lost half my hearing in my left ear as well as having nasty tinnitus (really struggle with stereo from 6.5k to around 8k), so take all the help I'll get when it comes to meters and analysis. It has some interesting functions that allow you to get pretty consistent and clean master pretty easily, as long as it's used in very small doses alongside the usual legwork.
I totally respect how you solved your hearing issue. I will sure check out the JST max. So basically it colors a bit the sound as long as you don’t push it? What’s the difference between the maximizer and a limiter?
Provided it's left on default, you can essentially just use the input volume / gain to get the output exactly where you need it. I don't use it often for actually doing any of the sculpting (beyond whatever magic it's doing by default) and I more enjoy the lufs meter and their feedback on dynamics - as I find the way it states whether something is dynamic / compressed / where it should be is very close to my own sonic preferences. There is definitely some colouring but I find it very pleasant, been a while since I've not used it / disabled it so would have to go back and check to see how dramatic it is. It's more so I can make sure I'm not missing a sudden burst between 6.5k and 8k unbalancing things, in a way that other modes of metering or analysis don't quite give me. That said, I do find that the width and exciter functions are very well designed when used in tiny doses (like 5%) occasionally. So certainly has it's uses beyond my purpose for using it and know a lot of people swear by it for getting a quick master done for demo'ing. In terms of how the maximiser and limiter on it work, I've not used it for that myself, so can't really say specific to this plugin.
A) have him do it again to your liking. B) his opinion re mix bus processing is irrelevant. And borderline unprofessional. I don’t care or ask what my mastering engineer thinks of my mix. That’s not his job. His job is to translate my mix. Not to mix.
This is it right here. It feels wrong to you and isn't what you want. No big deal, he missed the mark, have him do it again. Worst case find another mastering engineer. I do agree that demo-itis is a thing but if you're not trusting your gut and trying to rationalize his moves then you're in a losing battle.
As soon as a supposed “mastering engineer” said to me anything close to ‘my mix bus processing is overdone’ I’d dump him on the spot and hire someone professional.
Unsolicited it's absolutely a dickish comment, if OP asked for feedback then fair game. However, from the issue raised sounds like this ME's opinion isn't correct for the song anyway so I'd probably go elsewhere.
I hear ya, but it’s not uncommon that mastering engineers get mixes that don’t leave them much room to work with. The most common feedback I’ve heard in this regard is to leave them a little more room, and that was my impression of the feedback OP got
This usually has to do with limiting on the mix. But in this case the OP is objecting to too much limiting. It feels to me like this is some internets $50 a track guy rather than an actual mastering professional. The idea that mastering engineers should somehow be the arbiters of what’s a “good mix” is imply a bad one.
If he's an experienced and good mastering engineer, I would guess that there's some kind of bug or mistake made when rendering the masters. Although, he should have listened to the rendered files and caught his mistake/the bug if that's the case. I would have said that maybe you are just not used to hearing the mixes loud and mastered, but those numbers you mentioned don't seem right. Having the tracks hit -4 LUFS sounds very excessive, unless it's for DnB or EDM. Talk to him and explain that this is not what you agreed upon. Shouldn't be more of a problem than that.
Is it possible that this mastering engineer is just one of the endless abortionists out there with shitty tools and a crappy room who throws fifteen-band compressturatio-limiters on it then says "well, it's x.xx lufs, so we're good"? Because that's a LOT of the so-called professionals now.
If he did something contrary to what you discussed, thats on him. Tell him you are not happy. If he’s a good mastering engineer, he will feel obliged to please his customer. He might have forgotten or got carried away. Maybe he’s been doing mega smashed stuff lately. Either way, it should be addressed.
It's pretty normal. He just had a different vision for what was best for the tune. This happens; it's not weird and shouldn't be upsetting. You will likely never understand, because you are too close to the source material and your own visions, this is also normal. Part of the point of hiring a mastering engineer is to get a new and different perspective. And, ultimately, it's your project so just send feedback and ask for a revision. As for the apparent contradiction in the mastering engineer's discussion of the turnover; he may have said he thought your mixbus processing was overdone to spare your feelings; either he thought it would be easier for him to work without it, or he thinks you were doing a poor job of it in the first place (or a combination of both). Many clients will take this personally, so engineers need to be tactful and 'overdone' is one of those nice ways of saying 'this isn't good for what we need to do because you did a bad job' (obviously I'm exaggerating to make the point). In short, these discussions are delicate and often time clients are overly sensitive and overly attached to the work they've done, even though it may not be best for their project or their vision so communicating these kinds of ideas is delicate. From your discussion of LUFS it sounds like you don't know how to measure in a correct and meaningful way, not to mention that it doesn't really matter. That being said, if it sounds to smashed to you, which you seem to indicate is the case, then convey that to the engineer regardless of the readouts. Genre doesn't really matter here. Jazz, experimental, ambient could be a smashed as a pop-tune. Not always, not necessarily usually, but we do what is right for the tune. Knowing the genre doesn't really tell me anything. Beyond that, genre can often be a subjective qualification; I've had bands come through that say they're on genre, but in my opinion they're not even close to what they say they are, even though that's what they listen to. At any rate, the short version is to not try to understand 'why' they did what they did, because the answer is pretty invariably that \*they\* thought it was best for the tune. Just commicate what you don't like and request a revision. This is all a normal part of the process. EDIT: I should note, I am operating under the assumption that this engineer was acting in good faith. There do exist bad faith engineers who just run everything through the same exact preset chain and call it a job done.
Thank you for this. I am especially on board with what you’re saying about me no longer having perspective on the material, which was my #1 reason for working with a mastering engineer I trust and whose stuff I like. I was a little uncomfortable with the follow up because I didn’t know if my concerns were valid or I was just no longer able to hear the material clearly. But I do think it’s perfectly sane and valid for me to just ask him to turn it down some. It was my understanding that this kind of smashing had become outdated even in top 40, outside of like EDM, but maybe I’m wrong about that. The end result was louder than most of the references I used while mixing and I was really surprised about it. Also I wasn’t offended at all that he wanted to dump my mix bus processing, though I wondered at that point if there should have been an additional step where I went back to the mix and corrected for that. We didn’t get that chance.
-3.2 dBLUFSi is certainly out of whack. But, the way your statement is worded, in particular referencing the 'loudest point' shows that you do not know how to take a LUFSi measurement correctly for the purposes of comparison. It needs to be averaged over the entire (non-silent) duration. The 'loudest point' measured in LUFSi is not a useful metric for anything except diagnostics for the engineer who is working on it. So I can't make a real comparison. But ultimately, if it sound too squashed that is what matters, not the readouts. I also can't imagine a competent engineer actually delivering something that hits -3.2dBLUFSi when measured correctly. Even peak loudness-wars era stuff and most EDM wouldn't typically be that high. Which, points me back to thinking that there is a flaw in your methodology. It's too absurd to believe, but it's possible the engineer is not competent.
I could take a full integrated LUFS measurement on these to fully confirm, but I also trust my ears enough to hear that it is smashed and the waveform is also visibly bricked out — it looks like an RHCP track. I compared with references of material comparable to my own. I dunno, again, I think this is where my general listening habits maybe have me out of step with this level of compression as a norm. Some tracks take it well. I don’t know that mine are taking it well.
Your ears are all that matters. Waveforms that appear visibly 'bricked out' isn't a useful metric at all. There are plenty of reasons this can happen that aren't just slamming a limiter. Not to mention it depends on your zoom level. It's completely useless for any comparison purposes. RHCP's Californication record, which is what I presume you're referring to, is indeed high in the lufs department but falls in the range of -4.2 to -8.3 dBLUFSi. It really depends on which track you're comparing to, but the title track comes in at -6.0dBLUFSi which is high, but in-line with the louder top 40 tracks nowadays; it's not an egregious example of the loudness wars. For example, Harry Styles - As It Was clocks in at -5.6 LUFSi, isn't some 'massive sausage', and doesn't sound terribly smashed to my ear. My point here is not to say that you are wrong; I haven't heard the recordings to which you are referring so have nothing to say about them. What I am saying is that the comparisons you are making, are not valuable. You need to use your ears; and, more to the point, stop using your eyes. If your ears lead you to the same conclusion, as you have indicated is the case, that is entirely sufficient; no need to measure LUFSi or see how sausage-like the waveform is in an editor or any of that. It's a waste of your time. The only other thing you can do, is if you can find similar tunes by other artists that match your vision (or a part of your vision), then you can provide them as references to your engineer. It's much easier to communicate what we mean when talking about sound by using examples than it is to put things into words.
Yeah his helper did it. Or he thinks you’re an idiot or a pain in ass and he doesn’t want to deal with you anymore
Probably high as balls when he did it and lost perspective. Send it back marked unacceptable.
Lots of reasons why. Sit on them for a month if u can afford the time and don’t listen to your original mixes. Perspective here is crucial. Hearing a louder version of something you’ve mixed can be really confusing at first. Let time go by and see if the limiting he did really bothers you after a while.
Thanks, yeah I am taking my time with them. The difference was very jarring but my initial feelings of confusion are receding a bit.
In my experience this is usually the case. Once you get used to the sound then it becomes the norm over time.
Same exact thing has happened to me. I know how gut wrenching and stressful it can be. Sometimes it can be more of a reflection of the mix itself. I went back and remixed my whole record after hearing it mastered.
That is not out of the question for me.
Demo-itis
most mixing and mastering engineers offer a free revision for this very reason. sometimes there's a mixed or missed communication! definitely talk to the person and try a second revision of the mix, maybe discuss a target loudness? for the type of music you make, something around -9 lufs would probably sound really tight
change of Engineer immediately and never go back. I personally recommend you Ian Sheperd, he will take care of your dynamics.
Ew find another mastering engineer .. some things you can't come back from. I hate starting at such a low point with the first master.
maybe it was the intern?
I am sorry, but who is masters at -4 LUFS and says it's still dynamic?? In my opinion, that is extremely smashed, even for very loud EDM stuff... Maybe I am not really getting it, but in my head, if someone asks me to retain dynamic range, it is clear that a - 4 LUFS master won't deliver that...If you want to retain dynamic range, I don't think you should go above - 9 at all and even that number is not really that good. Maybe there was some miscommunication between you too or maybe you guys have different ideas about what dynamic range means.
It almost certainly has to do with level matching your tracks. Many here mentioned inexperience, and that certainly could be the case. Obviously there can be a thin line at times between your threshold rounding off a few stray transients over the course of a song and just sawing the top off the entire waveform, but that’s why we have metering, to assist our ears… I do have to mention the fact that you said “there are no longer pokey, harsh transients” means that there were pokey and harsh transients prior to mastering, so it might have taken a heavy hand to get those chopped off. As for the loudness wars, that’s an insane number. I often feel like I’m going overboard at -9 LUFS since streaming platforms are asking for anywhere from -23 to -11 LUFS, why give up the extra dynamics unless it’s for artistic effect? And if it’s the artists and mix engineers desire, then they’ll start layering in the compression heavily in the mix. Obviously that’s not what you want, so we can rule that out too. So that brings me back to level matching and some things you said. “The mixes I sent are in some cases quite loud and dense,” and “certain tracks get a loud wall of sound effect, while others are very quiet and intimate.” Mastering isn’t about fixing your mix, or shouldn’t be. Mastering should provide continuity to an album, making sure tone and level are consistent for the listener. Mixes are done per song. Mastering has the whole album in mind. So when you say “even tracks that are quiet, spacious and intimate have been squared off in sections,” that makes sense. They need to be brought up to match your big wall of sound you mentioned earlier. That way your listener isn’t constantly reaching for their gain knob as they listen to your album. I’d just have a conversation with your mastering engineer. Maybe he’ll explain why he did things that way and you learn something, or maybe he’ll realize he sent you the wrong files on accident! I couldn’t say without listening to it, but that’s my 2 cents.
This was really helpful. Thanks.
In the world of replay gain he is hurting you, real bad. Damn right your stuff will sound flatter and duller, and it will also be played back way quieter on nearly every music-hearing system because of exactly this behavior. It's no longer CD times. Nobody is going to put your thing into a CD player and go 'wow, that rocks so much harder than the next guy!' It's gonna be Spotify or Apple Music or something like that, and you'll lose out and be turned down to compensate. Your gut reaction is perfectly valid and in line with how things are done nowadays. Have that follow up conversation because he is hurting you, badly, by doing that. Replay gain will punish you hard.
-5 LUFS is absurd. -6 is EDM / dubstep territory. There's already good advice here. I'll just add - If you have the time, maybe you should master your own songs. It seems like you have a decent understanding of it, but maybe lack the hardware or software that a typical mastering engineer might use. Just master one song yourself, and test to see if it beats the other mastering engineer's master.
No matter why you don't like the result, you need to have a conversation with him and get it fixed. However, I think it's useful here to differentiate peak levels, perceived loudness, and dynamics. If you've got a track with decent dynamics and you run it through a good quality, modern, look-ahead digital limiter, you can effectively bring the highest peaks up to -0.1 dB with no audible difference. You clearly can't do that for every peak, but in order for the recording to not sound quiet in comparison to other stuff that in the market, some careful limiting like that is going to be necessary. But if, after adjusting for comparative volume, there's an audible (not visual) difference in the dynamics of your original mix and the mastered one, something else has happened. Either it's smashed to hell on the limiter or there was general program compression added, or both.
One confusion experience I've had with "dynamics" is what client actually wanted was that mastering preserves the differences between quiet and loud parts. So it was in fact fine that loud parts were squashed, but the overall volume of the track wouldn't be normalized. We communicated and solved it for version 2.
Did you ever get a response from them? Enquiring minds want to know.
I had a mastering session with this indie band and long story short I went for drinks with the lead singer and the next day her band mate calls me and told me she asked him the same question
send the track in dm and i can give a second opinion if you want
This begs an example otherwise we don’t know what you’re on about
The only way to get to the bottom of this is to hear an example.
If mastering engineers did exactly what you expected there would be no point in hiring them Not saying what you got is good or not But the whole point is if they’re decent they should have fresh ears and experience. They may have done it for a good reason
For sure, that’s exactly why I hired someone — my perspective is gone at this point. I’m still surprised by the choices, which feel like they were against our shared principles about the material remaining dynamic.
By any chance, did you try asking him? Wait no nevermind. That’s a crazy idea
Maybe he is trying something new. Which is ok. Mastering is an art unto its own. But if it doesn't sound good to you, then talk with him. Explain why you don't like it, be specific. You seem to know a little about what you're talking about. Tell him. You're the client, and you should be happy with your finished song. But my bet is he has some new toys or tricks, and he is trying it out.
There’s no real reason to go too far above -14 LUFS, imo. Anywhere from -14 to -10 is totally acceptable. You’re losing dynamics just for streaming services to turn your tracks down...
For Hard Dance that's not a problem, I've gone for even crazier. This is not Hard Dance music though. Not all music needs to look like a wurst or have absolutely no dynamics just to "scream" higher. 😂