Mastering Chains 2023

[BONES]

If you disable loudness normalization on Spotify, you can hear how the big labels (Universal, Sony, Warner...) sent the song loud even there, not at -14LUFS

That's Spotify - a single example, not the entire ballgame. I don't use Spotify, they don't have a lot of content I like to listen to regularly so none of the rest of it matters. And just because you can turn normalisation off or on means nothing because music at -14 LUFS will be normalised to 0dB, just like the stuff at -4 LUFS. It's compression and limiting that gets your LUFS up, not normalisation. i.e. It is perceived loudness, not actual loudness.

[motomotomoto]

I feel like -6LUFS tracks are also safer, both at home and at clubs, compared to -14LUFS tracks.

If you set both at the same target level and clip both at 0dB, then the -14LUFS setup can get 8dB louder (intentionally or accidentally) all of sudden, before you have a chance to touch the fader. At home that's the part where you upset a neighbour with a loud commercial break in the middle of a quiet movie. At club levels it's 8dB less margin until we cross the threshold of pain.

When there is no headroom, you don't need to worry about things getting too loud quite as much.

I agree with this, but also from a quality standpoint when normalization is enabled by streamers, provided you like your master going in. The argument as I understand it against going louder than -14LUFS is that in pushing the volume too loud, you will destroy your mix all by yourself. I don't think that's always the case, but that's the argument.

If a streaming service sees your mix is louder than their LUFS target, say -14 LUFS, they will apply gain reduction. Gain reduction does not in any way degrade or distort your signal, so I don't see the argument that it's bad to submit at a louder target if you like your master. It's only bad if, in reaching for that higher LUFS target, you killed your mix already.

If a normalizing streaming service sees your mix is quieter than their LUFS target, they may raise the volume of your mix, pushing your peaks into overs. So, they apply a true peak limiter that you do not control (for example, https://support.spotify.com/us/artists/ ... alization/). This is sub-optimal. In that link, Spotify recommends -14 LUFS, then says that for users that select the "loud" normalization setting, they will push up tracks to -11 LUFS, regardless of peaks. That means anybody submitting a -14 LUFS track to Spotify will have their track run through a true peak limiter they don't control pushing their track 2-3 dB for users with "loud" normalization.

Would you rather have Spotify apply simple gain reduction down 2-3 dB from -8 LUFS, or apply gain at 2-3 db from -14, and apply a random true peak limiter (you probably paid $$$ for yours)? Different streaming services say they do different things, but we don't know what the future holds as they change those things. What I do know is when looking at LUFS normalization alone, the quality risk is when your track is too quiet for the target, not too loud.

Happy to listen to counterpoints if I misunderstand something, I've been reading a lot of AES and EBU guidelines lately

*I am actively looking at this, but the bonus is that after the streaming service has lowered your volume, your true peaks have more headroom. Fancy that. Whether or not the peaks turn into clips depends on the processing chain the streaming client uses, but any decent chain would also prevent those true peaks from becoming clips before the normalization (encoding lossy formats does not necessarily clip for overs, it's only if you reduce to 16-bit depth before normalization).

-Sam

I more or less agree with this analysis of the risks of being turned up or down, but there are another couple important considerations that I think are worth noting.

1. Mixes that are balanced, processed, and sculpted in a way that can achieve commercial loudness without sounding "bad" sound different to mixes that are not in a way that is more than just being turned down or up volume wise. A pop mix that is hitting -6 LUFS without being crushed by a brickwall is going to have a certain sound to it. You can have your preference as to if you like that sound, but I think it's a mistake to think that a mix that is -6 LUFS and one that is -16 LUFS will sound the same if they are normalized.

2. Normalization is not as universal as people think. Yes, Spotify on your phone and computer normalize, but the streaming services are not all developed with the same features. There are literally hundreds of streaming services which music is distributed to, many of which DO NOT normalize by default. In addition, even the ones that do, don't always normalize on all playback devices. For example, Spotify apps on many types of smart TV's, smart car dashboards, and all sorts of other devices which are not high on the priority list for the developers do not have the normalization features implemented. At least this was the way it was a while back, so it could be different now and I'd love to know if it is.

Point being, it's not just about being turned up or down and there is no guarantee that all of your listeners will experience the normalization that supposedly killed the loudness war.

[Frankie.T]

If you disable loudness normalization on Spotify, you can hear how the big labels (Universal, Sony, Warner...) sent the song loud even there, not at -14LUFS

That's Spotify - a single example, not the entire ballgame. I don't use Spotify, they don't have a lot of content I like to listen to regularly so none of the rest of it matters. And just because you can turn normalisation off or on means nothing because music at -14 LUFS will be normalised to 0dB, just like the stuff at -4 LUFS. It's compression and limiting that gets your LUFS up, not normalisation. i.e. It is perceived loudness, not actual loudness.

You wrote: "-14 LUFS will be normalised to 0dB"
This is not how normalization works.

If you have a song at -14LUFS the song get untouched. If the song is louder the volume fader (not limiting neither compression) is turned down till the song is at -14.

I saw few comments from people who seems to listen niche music, wich is nice!! Anyway what's the point to discuss on something if we don't consider what 99% of people listen music, but just 1%?
I mean i can even create a platform where music get normalized at -60LUFS and songs are reversed. What's the point to talk about that.

If we wanna talk about our tastes it's a nice talk we can do, but here it seems the discussion is generic, so what the majority of people listen, it's the example to take.

The market (unfortunatly) is not so much fragmented. I say unfortunatly because i love more indie music than "commercial" music. And i'd like to see more indipendecy to be more considered, but again this is another topic.
The point is very simple people usually takes their phones and use spotify, apple music and youtube, and they listen whatever it got recommended or search the 10 songs radios force you to listen over and over.

If we want to talk about unicorns and personal ideas, i'm open for that, and probably it's even more interesting. But we cannot close our eyes, just because we don't like what 99% listen or the way it works.

[t3toooo]

I saw few comments from people who seems to listen niche music, wich is nice!! Anyway what's the point to discuss on something if we don't consider what 99% of people listen music, but just 1%?

Now give us some hard facts about your statement

[Musik Hack Sam]

I more or less agree with this analysis of the risks of being turned up or down, but there are another couple important considerations that I think are worth noting.

1. Mixes that are balanced, processed, and sculpted in a way that can achieve commercial loudness without sounding "bad" sound different to mixes that are not in a way that is more than just being turned down or up volume wise. A pop mix that is hitting -6 LUFS without being crushed by a brickwall is going to have a certain sound to it. You can have your preference as to if you like that sound, but I think it's a mistake to think that a mix that is -6 LUFS and one that is -16 LUFS will sound the same if they are normalized.

2. Normalization is not as universal as people think. Yes, Spotify on your phone and computer normalize, but the streaming services are not all developed with the same features. There are literally hundreds of streaming services which music is distributed to, many of which DO NOT normalize by default. In addition, even the ones that do, don't always normalize on all playback devices. For example, Spotify apps on many types of smart TV's, smart car dashboards, and all sorts of other devices which are not high on the priority list for the developers do not have the normalization features implemented. At least this was the way it was a while back, so it could be different now and I'd love to know if it is.

Point being, it's not just about being turned up or down and there is no guarantee that all of your listeners will experience the normalization that supposedly killed the loudness war.

100% agree with your thoughts too, it fills in the picture nicely. The focus should always be on getting the type of sound you want out of your mix/master, which may or may not lend itself well to high LUFS (your point 1).

Then in your point 2, you never can tell what the client tech is going to be, so getting to obsessed over how the client might affect your mix will not control as many listener scenarios as you may like, try as you might. I wrote a lot but was basically harping on the fact that taking some of this mastering advice based on broadcast standards could end up backfiring, a narrower point.

In the end, basing your masters off hard targets is going to convince you to turn off your ears at times you might otherwise be critical.

[t3toooo]

If a normalizing streaming service sees your mix is quieter than their LUFS target, they may raise the volume of your mix, pushing your peaks into overs. So, they apply a true peak limiter that you do not control (for example, https://support.spotify.com/us/artists/ ... alization/). This is sub-optimal. In that link, Spotify recommends -14 LUFS, then says that for users that select the "loud" normalization setting, they will push up tracks to -11 LUFS, regardless of peaks. That means anybody submitting a -14 LUFS track to Spotify will have their track run through a true peak limiter they don't control pushing their track 2-3 dB for users with "loud" normalization.

Would you rather have Spotify apply simple gain reduction down 2-3 dB from -8 LUFS, or apply gain at 2-3 db from -14, and apply a random true peak limiter (you probably paid $$$ for yours)? Different streaming services say they do different things, but we don't know what the future holds as they change those things. What I do know is when looking at LUFS normalization alone, the quality risk is when your track is too quiet for the target, not too loud.

Happy to listen to counterpoints if I misunderstand something, I've been reading a lot of AES and EBU guidelines lately

Okay, first a lesson for you what is LUFS anyway. I can't read this weekend science anymore. Opinion based mixed up assumptions with some facts in between.

https://gearspace.com/board/mastering-f ... dness.html

2: If you write about spotify "Loud" feature who cares? Then select another preset without the Limiter:


https://support.spotify.com/us/artists/ ... alization/

From Spotify:

Mastering tips
Loudness normalization means we don’t always play your track at the level it’s mastered.

Target the loudness level of your master at -14dB integrated LUFS and keep it below -1dB TP (True Peak) max. This is best for lossy formats (Ogg/Vorbis and AAC) and makes sure no extra distortion’s introduced in the transcoding process.
If your master’s louder than -14dB integrated LUFS, make sure it stays below -2dB TP (True Peak) to avoid extra distortion. This is because louder tracks are more susceptible to extra distortion in the transcoding process.

YouTube, a streaming service, does only volume adjustment without any limiter. As I wrote several posts before.
If I listen to Morricone or a heavily produced electronic Music track ( on YouTube ) , it is ONLY a FLAVOUR of SOUND that I might like or not like and has nothing to do how loud it is. Because of the adjusted LUFS it is more or less the same perceived loudness.

( here for reference: viewtopic.php?p=8715777#p8715777 )

[mystran]

Okay, first a lesson for you what is LUFS anyway. I can't read this weekend science anymore. Opinion based mixed up assumptions with some facts in between.

https://www.itu.int/rec/R-REC-BS.1770-4-201510-I/en

LUFS is effectively "K-weighted" RMS that ignores (near-)silence when computing long term averages.

The K-weighting is basically standard two-pole +4dB high-shelf boost at around 2k and a two-pole highpass at around 100Hz. The RMS should be measure with 400ms rectangular windows (comparable to the typical 200-250ms time constants that are approximately what you'd expect in traditional RMS meters using exponentially moving averages) with 75% overlap and there is a gating algorithm that's used to ignore quiet blocks when computing the long them measures.

From the technical point of view some of the choices are quite arbitrary and quite like the result of trying to find a compromise between conflicting interests. It's not a bad way to get a ballpark estimate of loudness for comparison purposes, but there really isn't anything that makes it fundamentally better than another reasonable estimate of loudness, other than the fact that it's been agreed upon as a standard.

[t3toooo]

Okay, first a lesson for you what is LUFS anyway. I can't read this weekend science anymore. Opinion based mixed up assumptions with some facts in between.

https://www.itu.int/rec/R-REC-BS.1770-4-201510-I/en

LUFS is effectively "K-weighted" RMS that ignores (near-)silence when computing long term averages.

The K-weighting is basically standard two-pole +4dB high-shelf boost at around 2k and a two-pole highpass at around 100Hz. The RMS should be measure with 400ms rectangular windows (comparable to the typical 200-250ms time constants that are approximately what you'd expect in traditional RMS meters using exponentially moving averages) with 75% overlap and there is a gating algorithm that's used to ignore quiet blocks when computing the long them measures.

From the technical point of view some of the choices are quite arbitrary and quite like the result of trying to find a compromise between conflicting interests. It's not a bad way to get a ballpark estimate of loudness for comparison purposes, but there really isn't anything that makes it fundamentally better than another reasonable estimate of loudness, other than the fact that it's been agreed upon as a standard.

Sorry? Do you pop up here randomly? Or are you a bot?
You do not seem to read any replies. It does unnecessarily complicate this "discussion"

mystran wrote: ↑Thu Jul 27, 2023 3:39 pm
PieBerger wrote: ↑Thu Jul 27, 2023 2:45 pm
It's an arms race and unless all parties involved agree at all times, on an amnesty, nothing is going to change. DJ B won't want to risk playing after DJ A, if B's material is mix/mastered to -14LUFS and A's is -6LUFS, not unless FOH (assuming there is one) knows about this in advance and makes the necessary accommodations. Playing significantly quieter music after a loud set, is not likely to be well received by your average party-goer on the dancefloor, based on my own experience anyway.
I feel like -6LUFS tracks are also safer, both at home and at clubs, compared to -14LUFS tracks.

If you set both at the same target level and clip both at 0dB, then the -14LUFS setup can get 8dB louder (intentionally or accidentally) all of sudden, before you have a chance to touch the fader. At home that's the part where you upset a neighbour with a loud commercial break in the middle of a quiet movie. At club levels it's 8dB less margin until we cross the threshold of pain.

When there is no headroom, you don't need to worry about things getting too loud quite as much.
Excuse me?

By that logic I could say. Wouldn't it be practically to nuke three-quarters of the world's human population to finally solve the climate change?

Or: Why do we not start globally eating insect Pizza and insect meat to solve the food problems?



By the way. Often a modern quiet movie has the dynamic already built in and disturbing the neighbours is a question of the overall loudness, so no need to give a loud commercial break example, there should be no difference in loudness. If the loud commercial break is too loud it is because they are cheating with the first second of audio, it is often way too loud ( at least here in Germany private television channels )


Now, I would like to turn it around and ask a question instead.

What could be done to adjust the level -14 and -6 LUFS automatically in a DJ setup?


A train driver also can't drive a train through a station by his own will without stopping. So plenty of safety measure everywhere.

viewtopic.php?t=595851&start=165

[DCrown]

Two songs with LUFS - 10 are not necessarily perceived equally in loudness, there are some more things like crest factor

[Musik Hack Sam]

If a normalizing streaming service sees your mix is quieter than their LUFS target, they may raise the volume of your mix, pushing your peaks into overs. So, they apply a true peak limiter that you do not control (for example, https://support.spotify.com/us/artists/ ... alization/). This is sub-optimal. In that link, Spotify recommends -14 LUFS, then says that for users that select the "loud" normalization setting, they will push up tracks to -11 LUFS, regardless of peaks. That means anybody submitting a -14 LUFS track to Spotify will have their track run through a true peak limiter they don't control pushing their track 2-3 dB for users with "loud" normalization.

Would you rather have Spotify apply simple gain reduction down 2-3 dB from -8 LUFS, or apply gain at 2-3 db from -14, and apply a random true peak limiter (you probably paid $$$ for yours)? Different streaming services say they do different things, but we don't know what the future holds as they change those things. What I do know is when looking at LUFS normalization alone, the quality risk is when your track is too quiet for the target, not too loud.

Happy to listen to counterpoints if I misunderstand something, I've been reading a lot of AES and EBU guidelines lately

Okay, first a lesson for you what is LUFS anyway. I can't read this weekend science anymore. Opinion based mixed up assumptions with some facts in between.

https://gearspace.com/board/mastering-f ... dness.html

2: If you write about spotify "Loud" feature who cares? Then select another preset without the Limiter:


https://support.spotify.com/us/artists/ ... alization/

From Spotify:

Mastering tips
Loudness normalization means we don’t always play your track at the level it’s mastered.

Target the loudness level of your master at -14dB integrated LUFS and keep it below -1dB TP (True Peak) max. This is best for lossy formats (Ogg/Vorbis and AAC) and makes sure no extra distortion’s introduced in the transcoding process.
If your master’s louder than -14dB integrated LUFS, make sure it stays below -2dB TP (True Peak) to avoid extra distortion. This is because louder tracks are more susceptible to extra distortion in the transcoding process.

YouTube, a streaming service, does only volume adjustment without any limiter. As I wrote several posts before.
If I listen to Morricone or a heavily produced electronic Music track ( on YouTube ) , it is ONLY a FLAVOUR of SOUND that I might like or not like and has nothing to do how loud it is. Because of the adjusted LUFS it is more or less the same perceived loudness.

( here for reference: viewtopic.php?p=8715777#p8715777 )

I know what LUFS are, and clearly so does Mystran. Regardless, the client application compensates for high/low LUFS tracks by simply increasing or decreasing gain, then applying a limiter if they increased gain, because that would affect peaks.

I don’t control what client my listeners use, so telling me to turn off the loud setting in Spotify does not help me deliver better quality audio to my audience.

My point was that the -14 LUFS target does not protect the quality of your music between shipping it out and delivery to a listener. I then used Spotify as an example, because it tells you to deliver at -14 LUFS, but will then slap gain and a limiter on music delivered at that level in some situations because it is too quiet.

If your listeners like loud pop music, they are more likely to pick the loud setting, so to preserve quality on Spotify, you’d have to deliver at -11 LUFS or hotter. The conversation started when somebody recommend people always deliver at -14 LUFS to preserve quality for streaming services. I am laying out the case against this advice as gospel for pop.

[t3toooo]

My point was that the -14 LUFS target does not protect the quality of your music between shipping it out and delivery to a listener. I then used Spotify as an example, because it tells you to deliver at -14 LUFS, but will then slap a limiter on music delivered at that level in some situations.

So, that is your experience with Spotify's "Loud" setting?

[Musik Hack Sam]

My point was that the -14 LUFS target does not protect the quality of your music between shipping it out and delivery to a listener. I then used Spotify as an example, because it tells you to deliver at -14 LUFS, but will then slap a limiter on music delivered at that level in some situations.

So, that is your experience with Spotify's "Loud" setting?

In the link I posted, they say they do this. They even state the limiter has a 5ms attack and 100ms release time! I am a new poster, so KVR may have “protected” the link.

[t3toooo]

Okay, ( again ) from Spotify page there is clearly written if you use a premium Account then you can choose between different presets:

https://support.spotify.com/us/artists/ ... alization/

How we adjust loudness
We adjust tracks to -14 dB LUFS, according to the ITU 1770 (International Telecommunication Union) standard.

We normalize an entire album at the same time, so gain compensation doesn’t change between tracks. This means the softer tracks are as soft as you intend them to be.
We adjust individual tracks when shuffling an album or listening to tracks from multiple albums (e.g. listening to a playlist).
Positive or negative gain compensation gets applied to a track while it’s playing.

Negative gain is applied to louder masters so the loudness level is -14 dB LUFS. This lowers the volume in comparison to the master - no additional distortion occurs.
Positive gain is applied to softer masters so the loudness level is -14 dB LUFS. We consider the headroom of the track, and leave 1 dB headroom for lossy encodings to preserve audio quality.
Example: If a track loudness level is -20 dB LUFS, and its True Peak maximum is -5 dB FS, we only lift the track up to -16 dB LUFS.
Premium listeners can also choose volume normalization levels in the app settings to compensate for a noisy or quiet environment

#Loud: -11dB LUFS
Note: We set this level regardless of maximum True Peak. We apply a limiter to prevent distortion and clipping in soft dynamic tracks. The limiter’s set to engage at -1 dB (sample values), with a 5 ms attack time and a 100 ms decay time.
#Normal: -14dB LUFS
#Quiet: -19dB LUFS[/b]

I guess Spotify's "Normal" would be what is YouTube's default.

Why don't you set it to "Normal"? Because it is too low?

[plexuss]

[snip...]The conversation started when somebody recommend people always deliver at -14 LUFS to preserve quality for streaming services. I am laying out the case against this advice as gospel for pop.

I said -16 LUFS and I stand by that regardless of who fks up the audio down the chain.

[Musik Hack Sam]

@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.