Mastering Chains 2023

[plexuss]

@T3toooo Doesn’t matter what I pick, it matters what my listeners pick, and I can’t control that.

@plexuss apologies for the -14 misquote! If you don’t care about it getting messed up down the chain, then cool. I won’t debate about whether or not hitting -16 LUFS will make your music sound better in general, that’s a taste thing nobody should try to take from you.

It's actually more than just taste - there is objective rationale, related to DAC generated clipping (ISP). By mastering at -16 LUFS most ISP risks are mitigated. Every dB over -16 increases the risk, and likely the incidences, of this clipping causing IMD and wide-band noise which robs the audio of dynamic range.

[Musik Hack Sam]

If you want to know if you have ISPs, use a true peak meter. That is why loudness measurement tools have separate meters for LUFS and for true peaks: one will not tell you the value of the other.

Where did you read that music at higher LUFS values increases the risk of ISPs and get the -16 LUFS guideline? I don't want to argue so much as find where people are getting this information from.

[ralfrobert]

If you want to know if you have ISPs, use a true peak meter. That is why loudness measurement tools have separate meters for LUFS and for true peaks: one will not tell you the value of the other.

Where did you read that music at higher LUFS values increases the risk of ISPs and get the -16 LUFS guideline? I don't want to argue so much as find where people are getting this information from.

I am also interested in the source of this information.

[plexuss]

If you want to know if you have ISPs, use a true peak meter. That is why loudness measurement tools have separate meters for LUFS and for true peaks: one will not tell you the value of the other.

Where did you read that music at higher LUFS values increases the risk of ISPs and get the -16 LUFS guideline? I don't want to argue so much as find where people are getting this information from.

Unfortunately this is not correct. There is a lot of information out there on what ISPs are, why they happen and what to do to mitigate them. I don't have the time at the moment to find all the citations, sorry.

A true peak limiter will prevent clipping of the resulting render however this is not where ISPs occur. ISPs occur in the analogue audio computed by the DAC - it is DAC dependent. Also, ISPs can be generated by future audio processing such as streaming data compression. The bottom line is that the original source audio might be free of clipping but data compression and DAC later can generate ISPs and fk up the audio quality. In my own experimentation I've found -16 LUFS and a -0.8dB FS limiting threshold does a good job of mitigating ISPs - any lounder and ISPs are more likely. But don't worry about it - if you like how your audio sounds then go with that and don't worry about these details. But if you are after the highest audio quality you have control over, then focussing on ISPs etc becomes more important.

Loudness is inversely proportional to audio quality.

[mystran]

Where did you read that music at higher LUFS values increases the risk of ISPs and get the -16 LUFS guideline? I don't want to argue so much as find where people are getting this information from.

This is an example of a statement where there is a grain of truth behind it, but it's distorted to the point that it no longer makes much sense and there is nothing special about -16 LUFS in particular (at least unless we consider the genre and type of mix and whatever; obviously similar music often behaves similarly with regards to these kinds of ballpark figures).

The grain of truth is as follows: the harder you try to push the signal (saturation, compression, limiting/clipping, whatever), the higher the chance that there will be ISPs, because there will be more sample values close to the ceiling and the distortion that results from reducing the peaks also tends to cause additional Gibbs-ringing in the continuous time reconstruction of the signal.

The target loudness value only matters indirectly, because the higher you aim, the more you're probably going to have to control the peaks (and/or dynamics). Whether ISPs are a huge deal is another matter (it's complicated), but let's not go into that here, because there are meters and limiters to deal with those too.

[CrystalWizard]

Where did you read that music at higher LUFS values increases the risk of ISPs and get the -16 LUFS guideline? I don't want to argue so much as find where people are getting this information from.

Hmm, everywhere...?
It's plain technical knowledge, higher LUFS, more risk of ISPs. See middle paragraph in post directly above.

[Musik Hack Sam]

Where did you read that music at higher LUFS values increases the risk of ISPs and get the -16 LUFS guideline? I don't want to argue so much as find where people are getting this information from.

This is an example of a statement where there is a grain of truth behind it, but it's distorted to the point that it no longer makes much sense and there is nothing special about -16 LUFS in particular (at least unless we consider the genre and type of mix and whatever; obviously similar music often behaves similarly with regards to these kinds of ballpark figures).

The grain of truth is as follows: the harder you try to push the signal (saturation, compression, limiting/clipping, whatever), the higher the chance that there will be ISPs, because there will be more sample values close to the ceiling and the distortion that results from reducing the peaks also tends to cause additional Gibbs-ringing in the continuous time reconstruction of the signal.

The target loudness value only matters indirectly, because the higher you aim, the more you're probably going to have to control the peaks (and/or dynamics). Whether ISPs are a huge deal is another matter (it's complicated), but let's not go into that here, because there are meters and limiters to deal with those too.

Yep, I agree with that certainly! If a true peak meter is not showing ISPs, the LUFS measurement isn’t going to somehow going to tell you more information about that picture, though. Just seeing a lot of misinformation being spread and was hoping I could find the source. I’ll move on.

[kanoharuayu]

If you only had plugin alliance bundle, what would you use on your mastering chain? And what would you use on mixbus / mixing channels?

[foosnark]

Updated my default mastering chain for the album I'm finishing now:

1. Crave EQ (with a default highpass at 45Hz that I almost always leave alone)

2. Wavesfactory Equalizer (replaces TEOTE... they both give good results for mastering, but I'm more confident in my ability to control what's going on with Equalizer, and liked the results just slightly more so far. But I won't be surprised if I encounter cases where I feel TEOTE does better, or even where I run both). I'm using the "Gentle" preset with the boost turned way down.

3. DDMF MagicDeathEye (previously was replaced by Noise Engineering Librae, but now it's back). It's just super reliable and easy to work with. (Librae needs to be used with kid gloves if mastering with it IMHO, but can be awesome for individual tracks.)

4. Sideminder ZL. Making sure my stereo phase correlation is healthy with minimal effort (though I do try to watch that on individual channels when I do shady mid/side stuff or separate L/R oscillators, etc.)

5. Voxengo Elephant. Replaces Toneboosters Barricade because... the TB installer is terrible and managed to remove stuff basically at random and I didn't feel like correcting it. Elephant works great anyway.

Meters: Span, Correlometer, and Youlean Loudness Meter.

[dionenoid]

Where did you read that music at higher LUFS values increases the risk of ISPs and get the -16 LUFS guideline? I don't want to argue so much as find where people are getting this information from.

There's no such info, because it's nonsense.

The general consensus is that high LUFS values can be one of the factors that can cause ISP's. This is something totally different than just stating 'the higher the LUFS, the more chance of ISP's' which is wrongly simplifying a rather complex issue.

What's most important in reducing the risk of ISP's is leaving sufficient peak headroom. With enough headroom, even the highest LUFS values won't cause ISP's.

Btw, in real life situations, leaving a ceiling between -0.2 and -0.5 dB will be enough to avoid the risk of ISP's. See for example this topic :
https://gearspace.com/board/mastering-f ... k+headroom

When converting to other formats tho (like mp3, or comparable as used by most streaming services) it's often recommended to leave a bigger headroom. Most streaming services therefor use either a -1 or -2 dB TP value, this is calculated next to LUFS values.
https://support.spotify.com/us/artists/ ... alization/
https://www.peak-studios.de/en/intersam ... le%20peaks.

Anyway, back to ISP's. In reality, there are many other factors that play a huge role in causing ISP's :
- High frequency content
- Using higher samplerates
- Excessive eq-ing
- Mixing skills
- Unskilled use of limiting or clipping
- Loudness

See for example :
https://matlefflerschulman.com/learning ... al%20audio.
https://gearspace.com/board/mastering-f ... dible.html
https://www.productionmusiclive.com/blo ... hey-matter

In my experience, high frequency content is the number one contender. But even there, leaving enough peak headroom will completely reduce the risk of ISP's.

And even tho most ppl will never be able to hear ISP's, mastering engineers do have to take notice because of the risk of ISP's causing issues on some playback devices and when converting to other formats.

And while we're at it, i advice anyone who is mastering towards -14 LUFS to read this :
https://gearspace.com/board/mastering-f ... ot-do.html
https://productionadvice.co.uk/no-lufs- ... OnekpP9ZSw

As you can read, most ME's advice to simply ignore any of the LUFS norms. Make a mix and/or master that sounds good, and use that for everything.
Because in the end, if it sounds good, it is good.

[_leras]

A few inter sample peaks aren't going to hurt too much.

-14 is also pretty easy to achieve. If you peak at -1 you can feel pretty safe that you won't overly distort.

There's only so much you can do in a master to add 'volume'. I'd say EQ and mastering compression that adds a gentle groove are more important. Sure push a clipper/limiter to your taste, but to me this can easily be overcooked.

If you really want a 'loud' final track it has to come from the mix.

[legendCNCD]

There's only so much you can do in a master to add 'volume'. I'd say EQ and mastering compression that adds a gentle groove are more important. Sure push a clipper/limiter to your taste, but to me this can easily be overcooked.

If you really want a 'loud' final track it has to come from the mix.

Hear hear!

Its the mixing, and in there already taking the notice of peaks and handling them, taking excess fat and cruft away with EQ etc. These days I have a 'problem' : there is not much to do concerning getting the master loud, the mix already is around -15 LUFS / -9 RMS usually. It can get obnoxiously loud if I want but it'll drill out the dynamics too much haha.

[discogsaddict]

Such a vast topic. And so much of this really comes down to whether you're mastering your own music/mixes with access to the project or other people's music.
Then there is music genres and where this music is to be played.
Streaming and LUFS are hot topics atm but what I will say is if the material is any kind of club/rave/festival music which is to be sent to djs, forget -14LUFS and such. If you or the client wants djs to play it or dance music label managers to choose it. They will pass up on anything that appears quiet or weak in comparison to what they're used to.
Some people may not like me saying this but it's just how it is. Don't shoot the messenger

[PieBerger]

Such a vast topic. And so much of this really comes down to whether you're mastering your own music/mixes with access to the project or other people's music.
Then there is music genres and where this music is to be played.
Streaming and LUFS are hot topics atm but what I will say is if the material is any kind of club/rave/festival music which is to be sent to djs, forget -14LUFS and such. If you or the client wants djs to play it or dance music label managers to choose it. They will pass up on anything that appears quiet or weak in comparison to what they're used to.
Some people may not like me saying this but it's just how it is. Don't shoot the messenger

I tried saying as much a few pages back with respect to loud mixes/masters for dance music and took plenty of shots for the team

[_leras]

Such a vast topic. And so much of this really comes down to whether you're mastering your own music/mixes with access to the project or other people's music.
Then there is music genres and where this music is to be played.
Streaming and LUFS are hot topics atm but what I will say is if the material is any kind of club/rave/festival music which is to be sent to djs, forget -14LUFS and such. If you or the client wants djs to play it or dance music label managers to choose it. They will pass up on anything that appears quiet or weak in comparison to what they're used to.
Some people may not like me saying this but it's just how it is. Don't shoot the messenger

I tried saying as much a few pages back with respect to loud mixes/masters for dance music and took plenty of shots for the team

Well -14 is pretty easy to achieve. Hopefully there's a balance between just cooking it and having some dynamics. Not everything is completely slammed. Ymmv