LIve Online Stream Mixdown Session

It wasn't just through Covid 19 that I came up with the idea of ​​offering my customers the opportunity to experience the mixdown of their title live over the Internet. Via YouTube he gets a look at my screen, in the studio (my person) and of course there is the live sound in a very good quality. Via chat there is the possibility to intervene live in the event and to help shape the sound. The customer hears his title in his familiar environment and can thus judge how the title sounds to his taste. The prerequisite for this is an Internet-capable computer with an audio card, connected speakers (or headphones) and a YouTube registration for the chat. Here's how it works: An appointment is made in advance. The customer will receive a YouTube URL by email on this date. If he enters / copies this URL into his internet browser, he will hear his title directly and be able to see the mixdown. He can contact me via chat via the Youtube platform. In most cases I will not start the mixdown from scratch, but there will be a pre-mix that can be played. In the course of the title, he can now express change requests that I implement directly. The session ends when the customer has found his sound. Stefan Noltemeyer www.mastering-online.com

Youtube and LUFS (loudness units relative to full scale)

top:original, bottom: youtube version

What does youtube do with Loudness War Tracks, what happens to undersized files? I did an experiment. I play the same music three times with different levels (one minute running time). Original level: 1st version (top left in the picture) -26.5 LUFS with -10.6dBFS (True Peak) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZey80ShEWw 2nd version (above middle in the picture) -16.5 LUFS with - 0.7 dBFS (True Peak) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tnz3rz430bE 3rd version (top right in the picture) -9.1 LUFS with overload + 0.5dBFS (True Peak) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvrkJl1pm70 What does YouTube do with it? 1st version (bottom left of the picture) -21.0 LUFS with -5.9 dB 2nd version (bottom center of the picture) -14.6 LUFS with -0.7dB 3rd version (bottom right in the picture) -14.2 LUFS with - 4dB Conclusion here: It is striking that versions 2 and 3 have almost identical loudness, although the difference was originally more than 6 dB. It is particularly striking that the quiet version was only slightly raised in level, but was not brought up to -14LUFS. Experiments with level tones or level tone series: In a Youtube video (original level with 11.1 LUFS): 1KHz -20dB 1KHZ-10dB 10KHz -20dB 10KHz-10dB That resulted in the reproduction on Youtube: with 14.3 LUFS 1KHz -23dB 1KHZ-13dB 10KHz -23dB 10KHz-13dB next attempt (original level): with -1,8LUFS 1KHz -20dB 1KHZ-10dB 10KHz -20dB 10KHz-10dB 1KHz -1dB !! This resulted in the playback on Youtube: with 14.1 LUFS 1KHz -30dB 1KHZ-20dB 10KHz -30dB 10KHz-20dB 1KHz-15dB Conclusion here: Egel what level tones, what level, in the end it becomes about -14 LUFS. So the question arises, why wasn't the quiet audio file also brought to -14LUFS? Most music download platforms such as Spotify, Apple Music etc. operate in a similar way. The desired / implemented loudness is about -14 LUFS for fully modulated titles For this reason, we are now creating two masters, one with a loudness of -16 LUFS to -14 LUFS and one with the usual CD loudness. https://mastering-online.com/ Stefan Noltem

the different vocal recording

I was faced with the task of recording a classical opera voice. Since I had already realized some rock / pop jazz productions with this singer, I proceeded as usual. My recording booth was perfect for vocal recordings and recordings of individual instruments like acoustic guitars or horns. The very low-reflection acoustics are good for a sound-neutral recording. 

Especially with quiet sound sources such as a spoken voice, otherwise a coloration is added to the original sound, which is ugly and irreversible. 

There is nothing to do against reflections from the walls, floor and ceiling. The audible coloring can not be clarified with any equalizer. Using a compressor in the mixdown,
reinforces the problem. Especially with quiet sound sources such as a spoken words coloration is added to the original sound, which is ugly and irreversible. 

As usual I used my setup with a Neumann TLM 49 microphone and a Focusrite ISA One preamp, but the high strong soprano voice didn´t sound that way we´re looking for. So we tried to raise up the distance to the mic up to one meter. The sound was a bit nicer, but has not really convinced. Our Internet research has shown that opera voices are often recorded with a stereo microphone at a distance of about 1.5 meters. Of course we tried that ... and we enjoyed the result.

The recording was placed in the 30 square meters control room. There is a reduced acoustics. with a RT60 of 0.3 sec. With an A / B stereophony of 20 cm distance between the microphones (Rode NT55) and a distance of one meters to the singer, we had the desired result. The sound was different than usual. The voice sounds more open, bigger and more airy.

Interesting are the slight fluctuations of the voice in the panorama, which are only audible through headphones. 

Although I mixed a digitally generated reverb to the original signal later in the mixdown, the sound was different than in our vocal booth..... You never learn ...

audio/video example (x-mas video the "Händel-Blues")

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lm9_cavasTo

Stefan Noltemeyer

http://www.mastering-online.com/index_e.aspx