Tracks are quiet, even limited to 0 DB with no dynamic range

[dented42ford]

Not to come across as giving conflicting advice, but multiple stages of dynamic reduction doesn't always give you the loudest master. It's definitely something I use a lot (and I'm glad limiters like DMG's Limitless offer this internally in one plug in), but there's times I've found it backfires too. Trying to limit an already heavily compressed signal can occasionally lead to distortion a bit earlier than if you were just dealing with a limiter and dynamic signal. Depends on the track, limiter, etc and all that, but thought I would offer that suggestion in case you're still having issues getting the volume you need.

Most of it seems to be sparse arrangements and a really tight low end balance IME, when you get get those right a lot of the heavy lifting later on is much easier/forgiving.

Tarekith, you are of course right in the "general sense", but I was referring more to mixing issues rather than mastering ones. Though many mastering engineers will use many stages of minor dynamic range modification on a master, that is indeed often not the best way of going about things in many cases. This is especially true in transient-rich material, where maintaining the integrity of the "groove" is of paramount importance, and pushing the limiter to get more loudness can indeed cause undesirable audible non-linearity.

The issue is when the individual mix elements are too dynamic. In that case, nothing that is done on the 2-buss can really push the loudness without destroying the mix. The best way to address that is in the mixing stage, making sure the mastering engineer has a more "coherent" mix to work with - hence the recommendation of multiple stages of mix level dynamics processing, rather than excessive limiting, clipping, and compression on the 2-buss.

In the case of electronic music, which is what I suspect most on this forum are interested in, the real trick seems to be giving the mastering engineer a lot of dynamics to work with in the drums in particular. That was why I gave the "frequency rules of thumb" - typically the trickiest element to balance is the kick/subs, and the more dynamic that area is the easier it is to get a loud, but still exciting, master.

[Shift Gorden]

After reading this thread I decided to experiment with a lot more sub groups/busses and taming different busses with gentle dynamics/EQ. Wow. It's made a huge difference to the depth of my overall mix.

Everything is so much more balanced now - things seem a lot more stable.

[Pitch Black]

IMHO, subgroup bussing is vital during mixdown. 20+ years ago I watched a studio engineer buss a rock band mixdowwn to "the drums" + "the music" + " the vocals". and he finished the mix by subtly manipulating these 3 faders to "sell" the song - honstly it was crazy how much he massaged these three levels at the very end of his mixdown process.

When you think about it, most people (non-musician/tech types) really only hear 2-3 "things" in music: the vocal + "the music" mostly. I always buss my mixes down to 3-4 busses at the end. I love it because it gives me a "creative" burst at the end of the long, involved, sometimes tedious process of mixdown. You get to play with broad, emotional strokes again after doing all that donkey-work. And as mentioned by others, it gives you a good technical base for the final blending of your elements.

[blyte]

Your track has two major issues:

Too Much Low End: You seem to love the bass. There is nothing wrong with that, but you have to be very careful when working with bass-heavy material. The issue is that low frequency information requires more energy for "equivalent" volume than high frequency information. This has the counter-intuitive effect of making tracks with an inordinate amount of low frequencies seem quieter for the same overall volume level and dynamic range than a track with more information in the midrange and highs. This is because the human ear is much more sensitive to midrange information than low end information - and the excess of lows before the limiter makes the midrange seem recessed by comparison, when volume matched to a track with similar energy quantity.

The solution is to either create really sparse tracks with a lot of separation - this is the "Hip Hop Trick" - or to manipulate psycho-acoustic tricks to make the bass "appear" bigger than it is - this is the "good mastering trick", and is essentially what the "Bass Enhancer" plugins, such as Waves, do.

Too Much Dynamic Range Before Limiter: This is a more insidious problem, but is largely related to the first one. You don't seem to have used much dynamic range compression before the limiters, letting the limiters do the heavy lifting on "making the track loud". This is not the best way to go about things!

Generally, the best way to increase perceived volume without "sucking all the life out" is to use many different stages of relatively minor compression throughout the mix. (This is especially important for midrange instruments in a bass-heavy mix.) In other words, instead of trying to get the whole track louder by limiting the hell out of each track and then the master, try multiple stages of less extreme compression (~2-5db MAX) instead.

IMHO, the best way to do this is to "buss" similar sounds together. You compress each individual sound just enough to barely hear it working. Then you compress each buss - collection of instruments sent to a "sub-master" track - so that you can barely hear it there. Then you do the same on the master track. Then you add the limiter, which should have a lot less to limit at this point!

Another advantage of this technique is that it lets you do some neat side-chaining tricks - and no, I don't mean "side-chaining" in the "house-pumping" manner. Basically, it lets you use certain elements to control the emphasis of other elements by frequency range - so you could, say, subtly emphasize certain elements without any obvious pumping effects by side-chaining clashing sounds to them. The most obvious application is to emphasize vocals - this is what side-chains were invented for in the first place, way back when - but once you get your head around the technique, it has numerous creative applications!

A word of warning about using this sort of multi-stage dynamics treatment (otherwise known as good mixing acumen, but I digress): The lower the frequency content, the less effective compression becomes! Low-freq content is, by definition, at a lower "wavelength" than higher frequency content. Due to the first thing I mentioned - the frequency masking effect of extreme lows - the more you compress the lows, the more they "disappear" in the mix. It is best to try to keep the lows as dynamic as possible, to retain maximum punch in the area it is most effective. Go nuts on the highs, and be a bit careful in the mids, but be very conservative in the lows. This is, of course, just a rule of thumb, but it is a very helpful one!

Dude.. this has to be single handedly one of the most helpful tips on mixing I've read. I've had so many struggles with my mixes (I'm still pretty new to this) and your comment on "Too much low end" is saving my life. I'm realizing my ear is a little sensitive to high end, which is probably why I tend to mix low. This awareness should help my mixing now. THANK YOU SIR!