Manley SLAM! - Manual (Page 16)

At this writing, there has been a very disturbing trend in CD
mastering to apply levels of audio processing to CDs formerly
only used by “aggressively-processed” radio stations. These
CDs are audibly distorted (sometimes blatantly so) before any
further Optimod processing. The result of 8400 processing can
be to exaggerate this distortion and make these recordings
noticeably unpleasant to listen to over the air.
There is very little that a radio station can do with these CDs
other than to use conservative 8400 presets, which will cause
loudness loss that may be undesired in competitive markets.
There is a myth in the record industry that applying “radio-
style” processing to CDs in mastering will cause them to be
louder or will reduce the audible effects of on-air processing.
In fact, the opposite is true: these CDs will not be louder on air,
but they will be audibly distorted and unpleasant to listen to,
lacking punch and clarity.
Another unfortunate trend is the tendency to put so much high
frequency energy on the CDs that this cannot possibly survive
the FM pre-emphasis/de-emphasis process. Although the 8400
loses less high frequency energy than any previous Orban
processor (due to improvements in high frequency limiting
and clipping technology), it is nevertheless no match for CDs
that are mastered so bright that they will curl the vinyl off car
dashboards.
We hope that the record industry will come to its senses when
it hears the consequences of these practices on the air. Alas,
at this writing, they have shown no signs of doing so.
Anyone—please feel free to quote anything I’ve posted on the
board. I am trying to bridge the broadcasting and mastering
communities, and the best way is to “get the word out.”
This subject has suddenly heated up on the Broadcast.net
radio-tech mailing list. Broadcast engineers have become very
concerned about the clipped and distorted material that they
are being presented with. In fact, one well-respected poster
went so far as to propose a minimum peak-to-average ratio
spec for material that was to be considered “broadcast quality,”
and proposed that stations reject any material breaking this
spec.
The consensus was that radio stations need “radio-mastered”
mixes. These can have all of the EQ and compression applied
to the standard release, but need to have the peak limiting and
clipping greatly backed off or eliminated. This will retain the
flavor added by the mastering, but not the distortion!
In this age of broadband Internet connections, it would be per-
fectly feasible to service stations with “radio-mastered” singles
from a password-protected website. Most stations would prefer
uncompressed files to retain quality and prevent any issues
with “dueling algorithms,” as stations often compress later on
in the chain, either when they store the material to hard disk for
on-air playback, or in their studio-to-transmitter links (STLs).
http://www.orban.com/
16
Limiting and more limiting and more...
The following is a small section of the Orban Optimod-FM, 8400
owner’s manual. This is a compressor used by radio stations be-
fore they broadcast the music signal. Orban is, by far, the leading
company building broadcast limiters in the world. This eloquent
piece posted on by Robert Orban serves as yet
another warning for those that intend to use hyper-compression
on their mix.
We completely agree with Robert’s post and the suggestion to cre-
ate a few masters with lesser amounts of limiting. Hopefully the
password protected web-site can become available and producers
and/or record companies can post optimized mixes for radio.
Perhaps Robert’s post was aimed more at the abuse of multi-band
limiters, but the SLAM! can be made to hyper-compress, and/or
distort which may cause problems further down the chain than just
the basic CD intended for home listening. It is just not that simple.
For example, one might clip a track deliberately for a certain ef-
fect or for apparent loudness. If during the song, a section has less
highs, a station’s multi-band limiter may try to lift the HF bands,
exagerating the HF harmonic distortion and making it more than
ugly. In fact, it might make it un-playable by some stations.
What might we suggest? Musicians might try to play at consistant
volumes. Mix engineers might limit individual tracks and sub-
groups more than the mix. They might also want to rely more on
the mastering engineer for final limiting, and their expertise and
experience with how product translates to broadcasting. Mastering
engineers have to consider the broadcast chains. A&R people have
to realize that songs sell records, and a louder CD won’t make
much difference. In fact, a CD that is too loud, too aggressive, too
in-your -face may also be too exhausting to listen to for more than
one or two songs - but A&R guys don’t read manuals like this.
In more direct practical terms, run the mix 3 times and create 3
versions with different depths of limiting. This gives the mastering
engineer more to work with. The mastering engineer can aslso do
the same thing and create 3 masters. Then the only trick is making
sure the right parties get the right version, without misdirection.
Another idea mentioned earlier is limiting individual tracks, and
sub-groups. One can also create loudness just in how tracks are
mixed and EQ’ed. In fact, absolutely great mixes need very lit-
tle or nothing done in mastering (everybody’s elusive goal). The
worst mixes need the most processing. Slapping a drastic proces-
sor on a bad mix is just that, and doesn’t make it a great mix or
make real mixing easier or ‘mixing’ something that everybody can
do as long as they have that drastic processor. Just gotta mix well
first.
Perhaps the best advice is to do what experienced engineers have
done for 50 years with limiters. Use them gently and carefully. A
few dB may be better than none, and better than 10 dB of limiting.
This, of course, means you have to use your ears and meters and
not presets. The idea is not how much limiting you can get away
with, but how much and how little is optimum and still sounds
good. The usual answer is 2-6 dB on a mix (assuming fast attack
time only).
In simple quick comparisons, we generally tend to prefer the
choice that is louder and most people can be fooled into thinking
X is ‘better’ than Y even with a fraction of a dB more volume. This
is really one place where a bit of extended listening is required to
determine which is actually better to listen to for any longer dura-
tion. Transients and dynamics can be very nice too.
Maybe you were just thinking, how much (or little, right) should
you limit the mix for the mastering engineer. So now you have
to consider how much limiting is appropriate for the artist and
song, how much is appropriate for the CD and that audience and
how much is appropriate for radio, for the label, for vinyl dance
tracks..... If only one version is allowed - be careful, avoid regret-
table squash.