|
Clipping your tracks on purpose when mastering?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MrJiveBoJingles |
I've heard a couple people say that they will clip their masters on purpose in order to gain headroom. The thinking goes that if you clip the master by a little bit, you can make your track sound louder and therefore more attractive on a first listen without creating any distortion that will be noticeable to most listeners. I've heard at least one person say that some professional mastering engineers now use this practice.
The old adage is that "if it sounds good, it is good," and so you might wonder that if you can clip the track a little bit without any audible distortion, then what's the problem? The signal might be "distorted" in the technical sense, but it might not sound any worse for it.
Anyway, what do you guys think of this practice? |
|
|
| Subtle |
| Its all a big conspiracy, they are trying to take control over our volume knobs. |
|
|
| dannib |
Yes its true that some mastering engineers will do this to gain a bit of extra volume. Although they will usually clip their AD converter of a very high quality interface. Depending on the model of converter this can give a desirable sound that can sound somewhat better than brickwall limiting.
Essentially its just limiting, although some converters will round off the waveform rather than chop it off. Rather like soft-clipping. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| The "loudness war" has gotten insane. When I hear one of these stupidly loud masters it makes me want to turn the thing off, not turn the volume up. Music needs ebb and flow but this hyper-limited garbage is just noise to me. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
Interesting quote from a guy who masters dance music:
| quote: | | I generally give my DJ/remixer clients 2 copies- 1 for playing out (-12 to -9 RMS) and another smashed for Beatport. Most can hear the difference but are aware of the competition they face -- and unfortunately a preview with less level is more difficult to sell on Beatport. It doesn't bother me that much because a lot of the music is quite disposable anyway. |
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/mast...akes-out-2.html |
|
|
| DigiNut |
A heavily clipped audio file can potentially damage a system playing near the maximum power handling (i.e. a club).
Lightly clipped, no, but you can get a much better result using a soft clipper. Even if you don't automatically detect the harsh 3rd-order distortion, it will likely lead to ear fatigue. I'm sure I hear those tracks at clubs sometimes - they're the ones where I have to cover my ears, even when I'm wearing earplugs.
It's different on an analog mixer; on those you can let it clip to +2 or +3 dB because it's mostly 2nd-order distortion. |
|
|
| Subtle |
| The beatport player should have averaged out every track so that none were louder or quieter. |
|
|
| evo8 |
thats really interesting, i often wondered if dj/producers had different versions for playin out in clubs as opposed to versions they would give to online music sites |
|
|
| Kismet7 |
| Unless you have a proper room, proper monitors that you've learned well, proper hardware equipment, it is not a good idea to master your own music, not even for demos. Let someone who has the proper equipment and experience handle it, not to mention the benefits of a fresh set of unbiased ears. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by evo8
thats really interesting, i often wondered if dj/producers had different versions for playin out in clubs as opposed to versions they would give to online music sites |
It makes sense. What sounds good at a superficial listen on Beatport may not be what sounds best in a club. It also meshes nicely with something written earlier in that same thread:
| quote: | | Someone mentioned that he was in a club that was blasting all the modern, smashed songs and then all of a sudden they played something from the 70's. The guy described how it sounded so much better and before he knew it the dance floor was packed and literally everyone in the joint was dancing. Of course it was the song that mattered but the person did make a note of how much better it sounded than the modern smashed stuff. |
Looks like I'm not the only who thinks the excuse "But the squashed stuff works better in a club!" is nonsense. |
|
|
| wrzonance |
Careful of bias. Just because he played a bumping tune from the 70s and everybody went ape- doesn't mean it had anything to do with the level of compression. It could have been that the crowd recognized the song and loved it already. *EDIT* whoops! I skimmed the quote! The quote pointed out that people already loved the song.
HOWEVER, I will say a lot of disco and funk sounds ing superb on a loud system. A well mixed and mastered record shines on a beefy system.
Which brings me to my point.
If you have the capability to blast the out of a dance floor with a massive PA, why would you need the extra help in the mastering process? You just don't.
A good DJ is always checking his meters on the mixer, and his headphones, and his monitors. He's going to match the amplitude between the songs he's mixing as best he can.
What I find endlessly ing frustrating though, is that BECAUSE of the squash-scene, I always find myself cranking up my older trance records to match modern stuff. Or worse, turning down some of the newer tracks. But the perceived loudness in the newer tracks ALWAYS clashes with the older tunes when I'm mixing in to the new tune.
So let's settle this. Clipping sounds like . It just does... and the trend towards squashing (loudness wars!) has been played out. If you want some dirty, grimy distortion, do it with an external processor, or plug-in ON THE ELEMENT OF THE SONG that you WANT to sound nasty. Go ahead, distort and the out of your bassline or kick, but leave the overall mix alone.
If you want your music to sound louder. Turn up the volume knob.
Mastering engineers: Give us back our volume knob.
Love,
Adam |
|
|
| gr8ape |
a lot of unawareness in this thread
clipping the master gives you more headroom its just a fact |
|
|
|
|
