How do they get their waveforms so BEEG!?!

[ulrichburke]

Dear Anyone.

Self-taught disabled mixer here - OK, read c**p!! - and I mention the disability because I have to use a notation program/MIDI for everything, can't physically play anything.

When I load a ref. MP3 into Audacity, the waveform's usually like a blue brick. I mean it's so solid you can't see the wiggles unless you zoom waay in. But it's not sounding any louder than mine, which in comparison (wish I could upload screenshots!) looks like wiggles in a shoelace.

So I thought 'Ah, mysterious mastering....' but it doesn't SOUND any louder than mine. It's just massively FATTER. Anyway. Downloaded the stems for a remix contest and THEY'RE all massively fatter than my waveforms. Looked things up, read you're supposed to put a limiter on the out buss to get more volume, did so, was a BIT louder - had to do it 4 times because of clipping - but wasn't THAT noticeably fatter. (OK, a bit, nothing to write home about.)

How the heck are they getting waveforms that massive without being so mega-loud they're clipping like a hairdresser on speed? Does it matter that mine aren't that massive, considering they're objectively as loud? (Or seem to be!) And why do they go for getting them that massive, considering they don't seem to be any louder? What's all the brick-like massiveness achieving?

Sorry for 3 questions, just am not getting it.

Yours puzzledly

Chris.

[The Elf]

Compression, a good spread of frequencies in the mix, clippers and limiters.

But now go and read about 'the loudness wars' and why trying to achieve that 'solid brick' waveform is not a good idea any more (or really why it never was)...

[RichardT]

If the waveforms look like solid blocks it’s likely that compression and / or limiting have been applied to the music.

I wouldn’t worry about what other people are doing! The best thing while you’re developing your music to do is apply compression only to the extent that suits it. That will depend very much on the style you are writing in. Some people mix with compression on the whole mix, some don’t. I prefer not to, and I put compression on individual mix elements instead, but there are an endless variety of ways of working here. Do what sounds best to you, and cross check the results with other music you like.

If you’re going to release your music, you do need to think about its loudness, though, as that’s an important consideration for streaming services. I do that as the final step of the production process after I’m happy with the mix. This is where limiting comes into play. If you need more information about loudness and limiting, let us know. Depending on the level of limiting that gets applied, the waveform will end up looking more block-like! But if they really look like solid blocks there’s a good chance that excessive amounts of processing have been applied, and that’s a bad thing.

[Drongoloid]

I don't know much about Audacity but in Reaper (and most other DAWS I guess) you can make the waveforms bigger (or smaller) irrespective of the sound level in the clip. It's just an aesthetic manipulation of the clip - it doesn't affect the level. Maybe you can do this in Audacity.

[Albatross]

[RichardT]

Yes, that’s why Californication sounds so horrible!

[Sam Spoons]

Brilliant song though

[Dave Rowles]

Yes, that’s why Californication sounds so horrible!

I remember buying and listening to that album on CD when it first came out. It was the first time I heard digital clipping as my CD player couldn't cope with the high levels. It wasn't pleasant at all.

[Luke W]

Yes, that’s why Californication sounds so horrible!

Painful listening. A real shame.

[Drew Stephenson]

A friend of mine played it once, took it back and then hunted out the Japanese pressing which was apparently slightly better.

[Hugh Robjohns]

Give it another few years, but there'll be numerous AI plugins for rebuilding dynamic range into legacy digital recordings soon... mark my words!

[The Elf]

A friend once played me one of these hyper-compressed recordings through the (very!) costly expander he had had built by a hi-fi enthusiast, which (he was assured) was magically able to re-establish all of the original dynamics of the recording. I tried to be polite...

[Hugh Robjohns]

I vaguely remember a DBX system that installed an expander into the replay chain from a vinyl record player, and used specially DBX-encoded (compressed) vinyl discs.

When set up correctly it definitely enhanced the dynamic range and reduced surface noise considerably... but it was prone to terrible mistracking and loud clicks became REALLY LOUD!

[James Perrett]

Give it another few years, but there'll be numerous AI plugins for rebuilding dynamic range into legacy digital recordings soon... mark my words!

Ray Dolby invented a very effective gadget for doing this back in the 1960's

And I also have dBX 117 continuously variable expander/compressor here which could serve a similar purpose though I haven't actually switched it on for many years.

[Hugh Robjohns]

The trouble is that the analogue inventions of Dobley and XBD requires the source material to have at least some dynamic variation which can be increased. CDs of the last 20 years have no dynamic range at all... hence the need for some form of AI that can work out what the original source instruments should have sounded like!

[FrankF]

The trouble is that the analogue inventions of Dobley and XBD...

This Dobley chap, was he a vicar by any chance?

[James Perrett]

The trouble is that the analogue inventions of Dobley and XBD requires the source material to have at least some dynamic variation which can be increased. CDs of the last 20 years have no dynamic range at all... hence the need for some form of AI that can work out what the original source instruments should have sounded like!

It is amazing how well it can work on some material though. I was inspired to try it after listening to some old undecoded mixes and thinking they sounded similar to modern highly compressed mixes. If it makes old mixes sound new, I wondered what happens to a new mix when decoded? It certainly seems to give a compressed mix a bit more breathing space.

[Hugh Robjohns]

[Yearofthegoat]

The past few CDs I've bought have been original 'un-re-mastered' ones (via Discogs, due to usually good info about the CD versions), deliberately to get the proper dynamic range.

Problem is, the discs are older and eventually there won't be any playable ones left.

Maybe there's a market for a de-re-masterer/decompressor?!

[RichardT]

I wonder if the big record companies archive their pre-masters? That would be a great thing!

[tea for two]

So I thought 'Ah, mysterious mastering....' but it doesn't SOUND any louder than mine. It's just massively FATTER. Anyway. Downloaded the stems for a remix contest and THEY'RE all massively fatter than my waveforms.

How the heck are they getting waveforms that massive without being so mega-loud they're clipping like a hairdresser on speed? Does it matter that mine aren't that massive, considering they're objectively as loud? (Or seem to be!) And why do they go for getting them that massive, considering they don't seem to be any louder? What's all the brick-like massiveness achieving?

Sorry for 3 questions, just am not getting it.

Yours puzzledly

Chris.

Hi there Chris

Trend went from Loudness wars of 90s-late 2k, towards Phatness in this past decade.

As popular music streaming music became more Beatz oriented, the trend went towards Phatness.

As more people listen from their Phones, the trend continued towards what would sound Massive from Phones onto Headphones : Not loud as that might damage ear.

It's also because they are targetting a younger audience.

::

Aside from Plugins as Presonus Fat Channel XT, Fabfilter Pro Q, the Sausage Fattener lol, CamelPhat.

Can also increase Resonance with a filter to give some massiveness.

::

One of the more straightforward ways of getting a Massive, Phat mix :
choice of Sounds, Arrangement, Dynamics when playing, Eq.

This is how I do it. I like Deepness, Presence in my mixes that don't have drums nor bass.
Some may say this is Massive Phat, it's just what Sounds I select, how I Put them together in a piece, where in the Frequency range I play different parts of the piece, the Dynamics in how im playing, then very lastly Eq only if required.

Where the piece has Drum and Bass, I'm selective with how I select the tone of the Drum and the Bass then tone them more within context of the key, arrangement, other sounds, to give them Presence, Deepness.

I like Bass with oomph depending on what type of piece yet not boomy pillowy as that takes away Presence, Deepness.
I don't like overblown mids as this sounds bloated to me and takes away Presence, Deepness.
I don't like shrill highs as this hurts my ears. This can make a piece sound weedy if there's too much highs. With Vocalists, Sample vocals that are high, I will balance this with sounds, arrangements that are in the midlow.
I don't like every instrument or nearly every instrument pushed forward continually as that muddies the mix to me and takes away from Presence, Deepness.

[James Perrett]

I wonder if the big record companies archive their pre-masters? That would be a great thing!

Yes, the record companies will usually have everything in their archive (provided it hasn't been destroyed in one of the famous fires over years). For a major re-release project I would expect to be given the multitracks, original masters, rough mixes, alternate mixes and then the final production masters for vinyl (and sometimes other formats too).

Some labels made a concerted effort to digitise all the masters that were used for releases but, as I understand it, there is still much that hasn't been digitised.

[James Perrett]

Problem is, the discs are older and eventually there won't be any playable ones left.

CD's don't deteriorate unless they are mistreated. The old marketing claim of "Perfect Sound Forever" seems to have been borne out in practice. Even 25 year old CD-R's are still perfectly playable if they've been kept out of the light.

[Hugh Robjohns]

Problem is, the discs are older and eventually there won't be any playable ones left.

CD's don't deteriorate unless they are mistreated. The old marketing claim of "Perfect Sound Forever" seems to have been borne out in practice.

I'm not sure I'd say that as an absolute, but I've certainly got CDs from 1983 that are still perfectly playable, and CD-Rs from the early 1990s likewise.

However, I also have a small handful of CDs and CD-Rs that have failed.

The CDs are all early ones. Some were printed with inks which attacked the sealing lacquer resulting in oxidation and tarnishing of the reflecting layer. Others had the reflecting layer going right to the edges, and imperfect sealing resulted in oxidation again. These discs look bronze rather than silver.

I've ditched the duff CD-Rs, but they generally failed because the organic chemical used for the dye layer wasn't stable and deteriorated.