Apple Logic Pro /LogicExpress Discussion

--- In Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com, "Wade" <bloomer@...> wrote:
>
> Hi again Iraklis,
> 
> --- In Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com, "iraklis_l" 
<iraklis.lampropoulos@> wrote:
> 
> > Since my clipping does not occur on the bass channel, but rather 
this 
> > bass channel is causing the MAIN OUTPUT to clip, I understand 
that I 
> > need to use the Limiter on it (the channel) instead of a 
compresor 
> > and the Ad-Limiter on the output as I already have. However what 
> > should I do in order for my output not to clip WITHOUT the Ad-
> > Limiter? Of course the normal answer is to bring the whole output 
mix 
> > down which is what I have done until there is no clipping and 
then 
> > add the Ad-Limiter back in to bring up the level I lost. However 
this 
> > results to the song being very low in volume compared to normal 
radio 
> > mixes. Shouldn't the Ad-Limiter compensate by definition (since 
it 
> > uses brickwall) for all the level I lost when I reduced the 
output 
> > level slider?
> > 
> > Another approach I have tried is to leave the output level at 0dB 
and 
> > reduce the level of all channels the same number of dBs so that 
their 
> > relative levels are maintained. With this method, in order to get 
the 
> > output not to clip I have to reduce all levels tremendously, 
which 
> > again leads to a song of low volume, for which the Ad-Limiter 
does 
> > NOT compensate back. It is all due to this one bass channel. 
> > 
> > Do you have any other method of preference that you would suggest 
or 
> > do you believe that once I add the Limiter on the bass channel 
(will 
> > try it when back tonite) I will be able to maintain my whole mix 
loud 
> > without clipping with the output at 0dB and then add the Ad-
Limiter 
> > for the final extra couple of dBs?
> 
> Ah, ye olde dominant bass. This is a classic mixing headache you 
are negotiating here :)
> 
> Perhaps the first thing you should consider is that any commercial 
song you hear on the 
> radio is EXTREMELY compressed and brickwall limited, beyond the 
point where it's even 
> healthy. First it's compressed and limited some by the mix 
engineer, then the mastering 
> engineer will crush it up a ton with a brickwall limiter (for you, 
that's the equivalent of 
> putting your well-mixed track into the adaptive limiter reaaaally 
hot... though I don't think 
> the adaptive limiter goes that hot? Can't say too much here cos I 
haven't used it much), 
> and then this already massively crushed material is fed by the 
radio station through a 
> series of filters and compressors to squish it even further when 
they broadcast it. It's a 
> competitive war of loudness that can't really be won, and it's at 
its worst in the realm of 
> commercial music that can be heard on radio. If you're working in 
some other genre, you 
> may have more breathing space and a greater tolerance for more 
dynamic levels, but if 
> not...
> 
> So first, don't aim for as loud as radio, even as your own 
mastering engineer, because 
> that's the extreme end of the process. It's also been shown that a 
song not brickwall 
> limited to hell comes out sounding better on the radio than the one 
that has, cos it's hard 
> to futher squish something that's already of pancake width.
> 
> My next suggestion though is that the use of EQ in your mix is just 
as important as your 
> use of compression and limiting - maybe more important - in 
achieving general loudness 
> and a satisfying mix. Especially in the case of a troublesome bass 
(will discuss in a 
> second.) So, I dunno how far along you are along in your 
understanding of EQ VS your 
> understanding thus far of comp/limiting, but you should probably 
accept that until you 
> can use all of these things with some skill, it will prove hard for 
you to get a mix that 
> sounds competitively/comparably loud or full, versus the products 
of people who do know 
> how to use these things which you hear all around you all the time. 
(It's frustrating - I've 
> been there)
> 
> Loudness comes down to there being a finite amount of frequency 
bandwidth for your 
> recording. Typically when the instruments all just play as they 
were recorded, many of 
> them will share large chunks of frequency. Where they clash overtly 
the result can be 
> muddiness or complete masking of sound, plus all those frequencies 
that are being 
> doubled up are eating up your bandwidth. The track will hit zero db 
sooner without 
> sounding particularly loud. With EQ you can strip overlapping 
frequencies in part or in 
> whole from one or both (or more) of the instruments which are 
clashing. The non-stripped 
> frequencies you leave somewhere fill that area of the spectrum, but 
the muddiness goes, 
> you gain bandwidth, and hopefully the frequencies containing the 
most characteristic 
> qualities of the instrument remain and are heard better than 
before. You get better sound 
> and the same or greater loudness while your main output doesn't 
peak as soon.
> 
> So the bass is a very typical problem-maker. Bass instruments take 
up a lot of your mix in 
> any case 'cos of the way the human ear works, so you tend to have 
make room for them. 
> Find other instruments which are bassy and try rolling off the 
lower frequencies. As you do 
> this, you may find your main bass track becomes more audible, hence 
you can turn it 
> down, hence the whole track doesn't cliip as soon... etc etc. Roll 
bass off any tracks which 
> don't have bass elements, or very minimal ones. Every bit of 
bandwidth you reclaim can 
> help. Of course this all takes a lot of practise to be able to do, 
but you just gotta get in 
> there and start trying at some point. Roll some bass off, listen to 
the mix, use your ears. If 
> things ever sound 'worse' or annoying, put back what you've taken 
out and look for 
> alternate solutions, other instruments you can treat.
> 
> While learning to use EQ, a spectrum analyser can be extremely 
useful, cos it'll show you 
> the effect of your fiddlings on the spectrum while you hear them at 
the same time. If 
> you're on Logic Pro, there's one somewhere amongst the helper 
plugins, though the free 
> Inspector from EA is better.  Just looking at these things can show 
you hot or weak 
> frequency spots in your mix.
> 
> For your song - I suggest mentally putting the adaptive limiter 
aside for now and 
> concentrate on making the mix and individual tracks work better. 
When you've got a 
> decent mix, then feed it into the ad-limiter to get that last stage 
boost of loudness. Which 
> should still not be as loud as radio ;)
>



Very interesting response - thanx a lot mate!

I agree in almost everything you mentioned. I know that shooting for 
the radio levels is not really a realizable goal, but I mentioned it 
to make sure we are all on the same page about wanting it loud since 
it is the reference AFAIK. The truth is that I can compensate with 
less of course as long as it is not as low as it is now (meaning that 
when I play the exported mp3 version of it on iTunes I always have to 
compensate volume for the songs before and after it on the 
playlist.... 

I did use the Limiter and got a bit of improvement in that the bass 
is slightly louder and the clipping is 1.5dB less in the output, but 
it is 's still clipping...

With respect to the EQ I find it extremely important and try to 
practise exactly what you described with allowing different frequency 
ranges for different instruments to get rid of muddiness and have 
them blend nicely (it is really very satisfying  when you achieve 
this blend as an engineer and all sounds stand out on hteir own and 
in the mix). So have tried it here also but somehow I think I need to 
give it another take cause I really like the track!! 

will definitely try out your spectrum analyzer too but I usually just 
turn on hte one in the channel EQ of Logic. even htough sometimes i 
see a slow response..


Very nice input guys - really useful topic i reckon - there is been 
so much about it so its great finally getting things a bit more 
clarified as to how other people do it... full respect.

Cheers,

iraklis