bitflipper
01100010 01101001 01110100 01100110 01101100 01101
- Total Posts : 26036
- Joined: 2006/09/17 11:23:23
- Location: Everett, WA USA
- Status: offline
Finding my LUFS
I've just remastered my first song based on LUFS metering, using the meters in my recently-acquired iZotope Insight. I'm very pleased with the result.
To be perfectly frank, I'd been somewhat befuddled by LUFS. All the documentation is about broadcast requirements, which don't apply to me. There is no official standard for music in general. On CDs there is a large window of what's acceptable. Soundclick and SoundCloud do not compress, and therefore impose no expectations on the submitter.
That leaves home masterers to find their own target by trial and error. For MP3 music it's come down to YouTube, iTunes and Spotify to establish some de facto standards. Those three can't agree on what it should be, though, ranging from -13 to -16. So I reckon the best target to adopt is one that online streaming servers are least likely to compress further.
So this has become my guideline: -16 LUFS. I still set my brickwall limit to -1 dB as I always have, and still enable True Peak (oversampled) detection. For awhile I kept SPAN up alongside Insight for the comfort of familiarity, but it turns out that -16 LUFS yields subjective results similar to K-14. The volume level I set my portable MP3 player to remains the same, and loudness is still perfectly acceptable on my favorite headphones.
So far, I've only done the one song, but I plan to remaster a bunch of old projects this way. This is all leading up to a remaster I'll be doing next year for a friend's album, one I'd originally mixed and mastered two years ago. He recently mentioned that he's sold nearly all of the initial run of 1,000 CDs and would be re-ordering another batch (1,000 copies in 2 years - in the homemade record business that's what you call a "hit"!). I saw that as an opportunity to test myself, to see if I was really getting better at this or if it was just wishful thinking. So I volunteered to remaster it free of charge.
Whilst thumbing through projects to choose for the next experiment, I listened to stuff I'd mastered 10-12 years ago - holy crap, it was BAD. Which is good. It means I really am getting better at it.
 All else is in doubt, so this is the truth I cling to. My Stuff
|
TheMaartian
Max Output Level: -47.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2774
- Joined: 2015/05/21 18:30:52
- Location: Flagstaff, AZ
- Status: offline
Re: Finding my LUFS
2015/12/03 09:59:45
(permalink)
Intel i7 3.4GHz, 16 GB RAM, 2 TB HD Win10 Home 64-bit Tascam US-16x08 Studio One 4 Pro Notion 6 Melodyne 4 Studio Acoustica 7 Guitar Pro 7 PreSonus FaderPort Nektar P6 M-Audio BX8 D2 Beyerdynamic DT 880 Pro NI K9U XLN AK, AD2 AAS VS-2, GS-2, VA-2, EP-4, CP-2, OD Toontrack SD3, EZK
|
Starise
Max Output Level: -0.3 dBFS
- Total Posts : 7563
- Joined: 2007/04/07 17:23:02
- Status: offline
Re: Finding my LUFS
2015/12/03 11:25:06
(permalink)
I had the same dilemma with SPAN. I probably don't really need it anymore since I can use these other tools.
I might be wrong about this, but I think Soundcloud allows upload of almost anything, but when they stream they use a 128 mp3.
Good luck with that project.
Intel 5820K O.C. 4.4ghz, ASRock Extreme 4 LGA 2011-v3, 16 gig DDR4, , 3 x Samsung SATA III 500gb SSD, 2X 1 Samsung 1tb 7200rpm outboard, Win 10 64bit, Laptop HP Omen i7 16gb 2/sdd with Focusrite interface. CbB, Studio One 4 Pro, Mixcraft 8, Ableton Live 10 www.soundcloud.com/starise Twitter @Rodein
|
batsbrew
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10037
- Joined: 2007/06/07 16:02:32
- Location: SL,UT
- Status: offline
Re: Finding my LUFS
2015/12/03 11:34:39
(permalink)
i upload redbook standard wavs to soundcloud,
figure if they are going to dumb it down,
i'd rather they start with a decent file.
i also am on the path for mastering for levels that stay in the ballpark of 'most' pro releases,
but do not push the envelope but so far...
i'm typically doing mixes that average RMS at about -20,
and master up to about -12.
it all depends on your compression schemes, and how much dynamics you decide to leave.
a LOT of trial and error to dial in your sweet spots,
but i'm there now.
|
batsbrew
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10037
- Joined: 2007/06/07 16:02:32
- Location: SL,UT
- Status: offline
Re: Finding my LUFS
2015/12/03 11:37:12
(permalink)
that said,
i am without true LUFS metering,
but i have worked around it by doing trial masters,
analyzing them in WAVELAB,
and learning where i'm at with that analysis.....
going back, redoing things,
and finally learning how to LISTEN for what it is i need....
setting up goals for max peak levels on a track by track basis is the best way to get there.
|
bitflipper
01100010 01101001 01110100 01100110 01101100 01101
- Total Posts : 26036
- Joined: 2006/09/17 11:23:23
- Location: Everett, WA USA
- Status: offline
Re: Finding my LUFS
2015/12/03 19:37:46
(permalink)
You're right, Starise, most streaming services resample. Unfortunately, there's nothing we can do about that except to upload the highest-quality MP3s they'll accept. That way, there'll be a little less damage when they resample. That's good advice even if you're uploading the same bitrate they'll be streaming at, because I've observed that some resample even when it's unnecessary. However, not all streaming sites compress the audio like YouTube does. That's what I was addressing: compressing your files further. They'll still do some processing on it, but if you stay around -16 LUFS they'll smush it less. In fact, if you went lower than -16 LUFS all they're going to do is turn it up. Bat, the EBU Loudness meter from Toneboosters is pretty good, and a cheap alternative to expensive tools like Insight. I only mentioned Insight because I know a lot of folks here got in on the recent sale, so there are a lot more of us now that have it there as an option - and maybe haven't dug into it yet.
post edited by bitflipper - 2015/12/03 19:49:09
All else is in doubt, so this is the truth I cling to. My Stuff
|
gswitz
Max Output Level: -18.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5694
- Joined: 2007/06/16 07:17:14
- Location: Richmond Virginia USA
- Status: offline
Re: Finding my LUFS
2015/12/03 19:41:48
(permalink)
I'd love to be able to clip on a clip and get the measurement. Right now I have to play through the clip to get the measurement.
StudioCat > I use Windows 10 and Sonar Platinum. I have a touch screen. I make some videos. This one shows how to do a physical loopback on the RME UCX to get many more equalizer nodes.
|
Jeff Evans
Max Output Level: -24 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5139
- Joined: 2009/04/13 18:20:16
- Location: Ballarat, Australia
- Status: offline
Re: Finding my LUFS
2015/12/03 20:59:24
(permalink)
I said ages ago that K-14 will put you very close to -16 LUFS so nothing new there. But I bet your song Dave is consistent level all the way through yes. So the K-14 = -16 LUFS rule only works if that is the case. What happens if you have a K-14 master for two thirds of the track but in the middle third it dropped way down and went quiet. That is where the LUFS reading then would not agree to K-14 so much. What would happen then is your LUFS reading would be lower now eg -18 or -19 LUFS or so. Because LUFS takes in the whole length of the tune. So a low LUFS reading might lead you to master the quiet third up more in order to get it back to something more like -16 LUFS or close to it. I have been known to automate the volume of a track during mastering for just this reason. That quiet third might sit well in your hi fi lounge listening situation but it is going to not be heard say driving down a busy road with the window half down. You have to make decisions there. But for music that is more or less constant all the way through it is much easier in general and most of our tracks are. The free Orban LUFS meter is also excellent. Just be advised it is not a plugin that you can just insert. It is a stand alone thing and you have to be able to route audio to it through your underpinning audio routing software such as TotalMix in the case of RME stuff or PatchMix in the case of EMU interfaces. Geoff not sure what you mean but I don't get bogged down measuring LUFS of individual tracks or clips etc. Waste of time. Use a VU meter for that. LUFS really comes into its own on final mixes not so much individual components.
post edited by Jeff Evans - 2015/12/03 21:13:08
Specs i5-2500K 3.5 Ghz - 8 Gb RAM - Win 7 64 bit - ATI Radeon HD6900 Series - RME PCI HDSP9632 - Steinberg Midex 8 Midi interface - Faderport 8- Studio One V4 - iMac 2.5Ghz Core i5 - Sierra 10.12.6 - Focusrite Clarett thunderbolt interface Poor minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas -Eleanor Roosevelt
|
batsbrew
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10037
- Joined: 2007/06/07 16:02:32
- Location: SL,UT
- Status: offline
Re: Finding my LUFS
2015/12/03 21:08:20
(permalink)
|
bitflipper
01100010 01101001 01110100 01100110 01101100 01101
- Total Posts : 26036
- Joined: 2006/09/17 11:23:23
- Location: Everett, WA USA
- Status: offline
Re: Finding my LUFS
2015/12/03 22:40:27
(permalink)
...What happens if you have a K-14 master for two thirds of the track but in the middle third it dropped way down and went quiet. Exactly. This is what I'm having the most difficulty adapting to: dynamic arrangements. My stuff will typically start out at K-20, spend the bulk of the time at K-14 and ultimately wind up at K-12. I like music that does that. As a toddler my favorite piece of music was the 1812 Overture. The problem with LUFS (and its cousin, DR) is that it's an averaged measurement. If I try to hold the crescendo down in order to get -16 integrated loudness, then the intro will be too quiet. Bring the intro up and the big finish ain't big anymore. Most people who master for broadcast or that make pop music would suggest a simple analysis: the material is too dynamic and needs to be flattened out. Bring the quiet parts up and the loud parts down, and then bring the whole shebang up or down until you hit your magic number. What I'm working to devise is a practical compromise that's informed by the meter but still allows the ears to overrule it. My newest reference is Steven Wilson's Hand.Connot.Erase. That guy nails the technique of drawing you into a delicate passage and then letting loose the canons. I'll have to load some of that up and see what Insight has to say about it.
All else is in doubt, so this is the truth I cling to. My Stuff
|
mettelus
Max Output Level: -22 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5321
- Joined: 2005/08/05 03:19:25
- Location: Maryland, USA
- Status: offline
Re: Finding my LUFS
2015/12/04 03:14:29
(permalink)
OT - I caught this on my cell initially and remember you had Ozone 4, so assumed you upgraded to Ozone 7 Advanced? I skipped 6 due to feedback on the software forum, so would be curious to your take on the dynamic EQ in 7 if you have a moment (I still do not own one, and Ozone 7 would be the most likely source for me).
Sorry for the hijack.
ASUS ROG Maximus X Hero (Wi-Fi AC), i7-8700k, 16GB RAM, GTX-1070Ti, Win 10 Pro, Saffire PRO 24 DSP, A-300 PRO, plus numerous gadgets and gizmos that make or manipulate sound in some way.
|
Jeff Evans
Max Output Level: -24 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5139
- Joined: 2009/04/13 18:20:16
- Location: Ballarat, Australia
- Status: offline
Re: Finding my LUFS
2015/12/04 04:51:52
(permalink)
Dave if you start out at -20 and hang in at -14 for a while and end up at -12 sounds like it might all come out in the wash. (sounds like a Roy Orbison tune to me!! I only say this because I was in a Roy Orbison tribute band for a while and I could not believe how dynamic that man is)
One of the best things you can do is load up something like Steven Wilson and do a measurement over the whole track and see what prevails.
You can always do what Ben Folds has done with his new album 'So There' and just master it quiet and not be too worried about it being loud. You just have to turn it up.
Specs i5-2500K 3.5 Ghz - 8 Gb RAM - Win 7 64 bit - ATI Radeon HD6900 Series - RME PCI HDSP9632 - Steinberg Midex 8 Midi interface - Faderport 8- Studio One V4 - iMac 2.5Ghz Core i5 - Sierra 10.12.6 - Focusrite Clarett thunderbolt interface Poor minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas -Eleanor Roosevelt
|
bitflipper
01100010 01101001 01110100 01100110 01101100 01101
- Total Posts : 26036
- Joined: 2006/09/17 11:23:23
- Location: Everett, WA USA
- Status: offline
Re: Finding my LUFS
2015/12/04 09:48:30
(permalink)
That's what I plan to do today, Jeff. As part of my quest to find "my LUFS" I intend to do what I did in the beginning, which is to analyze as many commercial sources as possible, both material I admire and stuff I don't care for. Ultimately, I will probably do as I did the first two times I went through this process and pick my own standard. And as before, that procedure's prime directive won't be "loud".
Yes, Michael, I did go for the recent Ozone Advanced bundle, and am grateful that our favorite software pusher cclarry talked me into it. It's been a game changer.
I started out on Ozone 2 way back when, upgraded to 3 and then to 4 but it became obvious that the relative benefit of each upgrade was getting smaller and smaller. By the time Ozone 5 came around, the benefit was so miniscule that it seemed like a horizontal upgrade that served no purpose other than keeping iZotope in the black. So I skipped that rev.
But the jump from 4 (or 5) to 7 and from standard to advanced is huge. Whereas IRC3 (introduced in v. 5) didn't seem to add much, the new IRC4 is truly outstanding. The transient booster eliminates the last major advantage Pro-L had over Ozone. Alloy was an unexpected bonus in the bundle, too.
The dynamic EQ is very good but I still like MDynamicEQ much better. It's my standard EQ for vocals and bass. On the master bus I only use MSpectralDynamics, but I am starting to use Ozone's multi-band compressor on the Mid channel only, as a widening enhancement. Early experiments have been encouraging.
All else is in doubt, so this is the truth I cling to. My Stuff
|
TheMaartian
Max Output Level: -47.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2774
- Joined: 2015/05/21 18:30:52
- Location: Flagstaff, AZ
- Status: offline
Re: Finding my LUFS
2015/12/04 10:43:27
(permalink)
bitflipper...
Bat, the EBU Loudness meter from Toneboosters is pretty good, and a cheap alternative to expensive tools like Insight. I only mentioned Insight because I know a lot of folks here got in on the recent sale, so there are a lot more of us now that have it there as an option - and maybe haven't dug into it yet.
Couple of questions. First, and this may be really noob, what, if any, difference is there between LUFS and dBFS? Second, I've heard really good things about Waves Dorroughs meter plugins (current sale price: $119). How would you rate them against Insight (list: $499) and/or the Toneboosters meter plugins (list: €20)?
post edited by TheMaartian - 2015/12/04 10:58:36
Intel i7 3.4GHz, 16 GB RAM, 2 TB HD Win10 Home 64-bit Tascam US-16x08 Studio One 4 Pro Notion 6 Melodyne 4 Studio Acoustica 7 Guitar Pro 7 PreSonus FaderPort Nektar P6 M-Audio BX8 D2 Beyerdynamic DT 880 Pro NI K9U XLN AK, AD2 AAS VS-2, GS-2, VA-2, EP-4, CP-2, OD Toontrack SD3, EZK
|
stickman393
Max Output Level: -60 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1528
- Joined: 2003/11/07 18:35:26
- Status: offline
Re: Finding my LUFS
2015/12/04 11:53:32
(permalink)
My sweet spot so far seems to be -11, but I'm firmly in the "rock music" category. You guys have probably seen this already, but I recommend this post: http://productionadvice.co.uk/online-loudness/ Especially this graphic (full version in the link above): 
post edited by stickman393 - 2015/12/04 12:06:48
|
mettelus
Max Output Level: -22 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5321
- Joined: 2005/08/05 03:19:25
- Location: Maryland, USA
- Status: offline
Re: Finding my LUFS
2015/12/04 12:19:23
(permalink)
Thanks Dave, I had seen that Ozone 7 had hit the streets but tend to have the software forum hidden so I don't get a sudden case of GAS. This thread did remind me to look at my account and I have a coupon for 7 Advanced (from 5/6 Advanced) in there for $149. I can get two weekends out of a trial if I test it this weekend, and after checking the software forum threads it didn't get the disapproval as 6 did. Your feedback is most appreciated!
Again, sorry for the hijack.
ASUS ROG Maximus X Hero (Wi-Fi AC), i7-8700k, 16GB RAM, GTX-1070Ti, Win 10 Pro, Saffire PRO 24 DSP, A-300 PRO, plus numerous gadgets and gizmos that make or manipulate sound in some way.
|
bitflipper
01100010 01101001 01110100 01100110 01101100 01101
- Total Posts : 26036
- Joined: 2006/09/17 11:23:23
- Location: Everett, WA USA
- Status: offline
Re: Finding my LUFS
2015/12/05 10:25:13
(permalink)
☄ Helpfulby TheMaartian 2015/12/05 10:50:45
Mettelus, I'd urge you to give it a go. Being on a tight budget, I was reluctant to spend the money and was happy with the tools I already had. Buying it meant that I had to further postpone the Ominsphere upgrade I've been looking forward to since February.
The improvement brought by Ozone 7 came as a surprise. It's turned out to be the best software purchase all year. I don't even mind that I had to push back Omnisphere until next year.
Colin: yeh, I'm starting to see that -16 LUFS may not work for everything. I remastered an old tune yesterday that was rockier and more aggressive, and -16 made it come out sounding limp. I pushed it up to -14 and it was a significant improvement. So as I gradually dial in "my LUFS" it looks like it'll end up being a window rather than a fixed target.
That Ian Shepard article was one of my primary references when I started this experiment. But it's hard to correlate pictures of some unknown audio to your own stuff.
An interesting experiment would be to take one of your -11 masters and turn the final level down by 5 dB (simulating what YouTube would do to it) and see what you think. Maybe it won't make an appreciable difference, I don't know. I'd love to hear a song posted to YouTube with multiple LUFS values. Theoretically, YouTube's software should assure that the volume remains constant.
My guess is that it could have deleterious impact on both heavily-compressed AND highly-dynamic material alike.
John: LUFS differs from straight dB readings in that it's weighted to take into account human perception, which doesn't hear all frequencies equally and doesn't register all volume envelopes equally (e.g. a sustained sound seems louder than a short percussive sound at the same dB level). That's the advantage of LUFS: you're more likely to be comparing apples to apples when A/Bing disparate material.
All else is in doubt, so this is the truth I cling to. My Stuff
|
yummay
Max Output Level: -83 dBFS
- Total Posts : 396
- Joined: 2003/11/06 09:01:58
- Location: Canada, Quebec
- Status: offline
Re: Finding my LUFS
2015/12/06 09:39:20
(permalink)
Oh my. No wonder I am still in the hobbyist category after all these years.... Mindblown...
Bit (and everyone else contributing...) great post, again.
Yummay, Amuses-gueules sonores Bite-sized sounds and harmonic entrées Dell Studio 1747 (I7), Tascam US20x20, Yamaha 01v96V2 / Behringer ADA 8000, Godin LGXT+ Roland GR-09, Behringer Motor 49. Windows 10 (64), Sonar Platinum, Komplete 10, Sound Forge 10, Vegas pro 9, Waves Gold.
|
Wookiee
Rrrrugh arah-ah-woof?
- Total Posts : 13306
- Joined: 2007/01/16 06:19:43
- Location: Akahaocwora - Village Yoh Kay
- Status: offline
Re: Finding my LUFS
2015/12/06 12:38:59
(permalink)
Some very interesting read here thanks Bit and the other contributors
Life is not about waiting for the storm to pass, it's about learning to dance in the rain.
Karma has a way of finding its own way home.
Primary, i7 8700K 16Gigs Ram, 3x500gb SSD's 2TB Backup HHD Saffire Pro 40. Win 10 64Bit Secondary i7 4790K, 32GB Ram, 500Gb SSD OS/Prog's, 1TB Audio, 1TB Samples HHD AudioBox USB, Win 10 64Bit CbB, Adam's A7x's - Event 20/20's, Arturia V6, Korg Digital Legacy, Softube Modular, Arturia Keylab-88, USB-MidiSport 8x8
|
Starise
Max Output Level: -0.3 dBFS
- Total Posts : 7563
- Joined: 2007/04/07 17:23:02
- Status: offline
Re: Finding my LUFS
2015/12/07 13:05:42
(permalink)
I like using dynamic EQs to tame frequencies that tend to be overbearing. I like the one in Ozone 7 Dave mentioned & Meldas MDynamic EQ. This has helped me to get a low master up a few notches and still keep the dynamics. I start out at lower levels , maybe -6db with the occasional peak. I stage light compression where I need it in the tracks that need it. Usually set to a fast attack and a low ratio like 2:1 and a threshold that takes 1 or 2 db off.
When this all hits the master I add dynamic eq set to reduce offending freqs by around 2db. I place a transparent limiter at the end. Those TRacks limiters are great for this.This usually gets acoustic material up to a decent level but doesn't over do it. I don't try anything too radical with acoustic material. The ceiling doesn't get raised much since I want it to breathe.
Nothing I do changes anything by more than a few db here or there . A comparison with K-14 usually confirms that it doesn't peak but still has breathing room. This is usually a low peak RMS reading compared to a lot of other material .. I'm still playing with the formula though. I have found the compression format comparison valuable in Ozone 7 Advanced. I haven't worked with LUFS... another system to learn. Seems like a great way to measure. This is a very general statement but it seems to help me personally.....I want my mixes to be comfortable on my ears at slightly over half volume on most systems, but I want it to be capable of being driven hard and still retain a good sound at loud levels.. Surprisingly this seems to translate pretty well across different systems. If the mix breaks up at 3/4 volume something is wrong. If it can't be heard at low volume, something's wrong.
Intel 5820K O.C. 4.4ghz, ASRock Extreme 4 LGA 2011-v3, 16 gig DDR4, , 3 x Samsung SATA III 500gb SSD, 2X 1 Samsung 1tb 7200rpm outboard, Win 10 64bit, Laptop HP Omen i7 16gb 2/sdd with Focusrite interface. CbB, Studio One 4 Pro, Mixcraft 8, Ableton Live 10 www.soundcloud.com/starise Twitter @Rodein
|
sharke
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 13933
- Joined: 2012/08/03 00:13:00
- Location: NYC
- Status: offline
Re: Finding my LUFS
2015/12/07 13:21:14
(permalink)
Jeff Evans
You can always do what Ben Folds has done with his new album 'So There' and just master it quiet and not be too worried about it being loud. You just have to turn it up.
I just had a listen to some tracks off that and it sounds VERY nice.
JamesWindows 10, Sonar SPlat (64-bit), Intel i7-4930K, 32GB RAM, RME Babyface, AKAI MPK Mini, Roland A-800 Pro, Focusrite VRM Box, Komplete 10 Ultimate, 2012 American Telecaster!
|
TheMaartian
Max Output Level: -47.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2774
- Joined: 2015/05/21 18:30:52
- Location: Flagstaff, AZ
- Status: offline
Re: Finding my LUFS
2015/12/07 15:40:52
(permalink)
Starise
I like using dynamic EQs to tame frequencies that tend to be overbearing. I like the one in Ozone 7 Dave mentioned & Meldas MDynamic EQ. This has helped me to get a low master up a few notches and still keep the dynamics. I start out at lower levels , maybe -6db with the occasional peak. I stage light compression where I need it in the tracks that need it. Usually set to a fast attack and a low ratio like 2:1 and a threshold that takes 1 or 2 db off.
When this all hits the master I add dynamic eq set to reduce offending freqs by around 2db. I place a transparent limiter at the end. Those TRacks limiters are great for this.This usually gets acoustic material up to a decent level but doesn't over do it. I don't try anything too radical with acoustic material. The ceiling doesn't get raised much since I want it to breathe.
Nothing I do changes anything by more than a few db here or there . A comparison with K-14 usually confirms that it doesn't peak but still has breathing room. This is usually a low peak RMS reading compared to a lot of other material .. I'm still playing with the formula though. I have found the compression format comparison valuable in Ozone 7 Advanced. I haven't worked with LUFS... another system to learn. Seems like a great way to measure. This is a very general statement but it seems to help me personally.....I want my mixes to be comfortable on my ears at slightly over half volume on most systems, but I want it to be capable of being driven hard and still retain a good sound at loud levels.. Surprisingly this seems to translate pretty well across different systems. If the mix breaks up at 3/4 volume something is wrong. If it can't be heard at low volume, something's wrong.
I like your way of thinking! 
Intel i7 3.4GHz, 16 GB RAM, 2 TB HD Win10 Home 64-bit Tascam US-16x08 Studio One 4 Pro Notion 6 Melodyne 4 Studio Acoustica 7 Guitar Pro 7 PreSonus FaderPort Nektar P6 M-Audio BX8 D2 Beyerdynamic DT 880 Pro NI K9U XLN AK, AD2 AAS VS-2, GS-2, VA-2, EP-4, CP-2, OD Toontrack SD3, EZK
|
olemon
Max Output Level: -75 dBFS
- Total Posts : 768
- Joined: 2011/10/27 05:35:19
- Status: offline
Re: Finding my LUFS
2015/12/07 16:39:26
(permalink)
Excellent discussion and something new for me to pay attention to.
I just submitted a song to CD Baby, a 16-bit wave file which I had mastered/exported using SPlat's Pow-r 3 and with peak limiting set to -0.3 db. Usually I export MP3 files and upload them to SoundCloud, etc. But, CD Baby wants a wave file which they use to generate MP3s. During the review, when I had a chance to audition their MP3, I thought it sounded too compressed, too harsh, too...much. I replaced the original wave file with one that had 1.0 db of headroom. That MP3 was much closer in overall sound to the wave file I exported from Sonar.
One thing I did do was load that 16-bit wave file into O7 and use the Codec Preview for an MP3, just to see if there was any clipping. There were some overages at around +0.2 or +0.3 - though I'm not sure I'm using the Codec Preview properly on a 16-bit wave file mastered for -0.3 db. But, I guess the lesson is to leave more headroom and mix and master accordingly.
I must admit, I didn't even know what Insight was.
The journey continues....
https://www.reverbnation.com/scottholson Platinum, Studio One 3 Pro, Win 10 (x64), AMD FX-8350, ASUS M5A97 R2.0, 16GB, RME UCX, Digimax DP88, Faderport 8, Revive Audio Mod Studio Channel, Vintage Audio M72, Summit Audio TLA-50, KRK Rokit 5 G2 Monitors, Guitars "If you wait till the last minute, it only takes a minute."
|
arlen2133
Max Output Level: -78 dBFS
- Total Posts : 601
- Joined: 2010/05/20 00:09:27
- Location: Inland Empire, CA
- Status: offline
Re: Finding my LUFS
2015/12/07 18:24:29
(permalink)
Good stuff Dave! Got me thinking as I've upgraded to Wavelab 8.5 recently. Will be looking at the LUFS meter more often and trying to come up with "standard" or if my current one okay.
Been mastering files to RMS -12 (like Batsbrew). Works fine for my own compositions, but would I'd be interested in "expanding" my understanding of the loudness standards for future clients.
Arlen aka Mr Grant my music
Cakewalk by Bandlab, Sonar Platinum (2017.09) & X3e , Windows 7 64 bit, Intel I5 3.4 Ghz, 32 Gbs RAM, Saffire Pro40, various pres and VSTi's.
|
batsbrew
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10037
- Joined: 2007/06/07 16:02:32
- Location: SL,UT
- Status: offline
Re: Finding my LUFS
2015/12/07 18:44:20
(permalink)
|
BenMMusTech
Max Output Level: -49 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2606
- Joined: 2011/05/23 16:59:57
- Location: Warragul, Victoria-Australia
- Status: offline
Re: Finding my LUFS
2015/12/08 00:51:15
(permalink)
I've been trying to work out these Luffs meters ever since I got Vegas Pro... http://productionadvice.co.uk/lufs-dbfs-rms/ I just found this...this guy say's he's happy with for audio mastering 11-12 integrated level...I've just checked my recent masters and apart from an EDM track...all spot on...so as I said in a previous post...using the console emulator and tape emulator VU meters, and aiming for 6 and 12's will get you a 11 or 12 integrated reading. Just for fun, I ran Bowies Blackstar...but take into account this is an Mp4 for Itunes through the meter and I got 10. Ben PS For what it's worth, I found soundcloud compressed the EDM track...I could hear it...I was like what is going on here, now I know. This had an integrated level of 8-9. Anything on the 11-12 range seemed to be fine.
post edited by BenMMusTech - 2015/12/08 01:23:39
|
bitflipper
01100010 01101001 01110100 01100110 01101100 01101
- Total Posts : 26036
- Joined: 2006/09/17 11:23:23
- Location: Everett, WA USA
- Status: offline
Re: Finding my LUFS
2015/12/08 11:01:47
(permalink)
☄ Helpfulby olemon 2015/12/09 19:48:29
olemon: make sure you're turning on the "true peak" option in Ozone (it's off by default). That'll at least protect you for CDs if not MP3s.
It doesn't hurt to be more conservative with MP3s. In terms of peak values, in order to absolutely guarantee that it never, ever, ever exceeds 0dB after encoding and playback you'd have to limit peaks to -6 dB! My experience has been that limiting to -1 dB (assuming an oversampled detector such as Ozone's) is an acceptable compromise. That level works Ok for CDs, too. If it's not loud enough listeners will just turn it up.
Talking about LUFS, DR, K-whatever.average RMS and peak limiting is kinda meaningless without also taking into account where and how the product will eventually get played back. What works on a CD might be a disaster as an MP3.
What we really should be talking about is dynamic range. If you post a -11 LUFS file to YouTube, they're going to turn it down 5 dB. That will still be acceptable IF the material has a wide-enough dynamic range. If listeners think it's too quiet, they'll just turn it up. But if you had sacrificed dynamic range in order to push your master up to -11 LUFS, it's gonna sound flat and lifeless after you turn it up.
The integrated loudness number is ultimately a crude measurement based on averages. To illustrate the inherent limitation of averaging, consider these (actual) statistics: the average state has 3,760 square miles of permafrost and produces 6,300 tons of pineapples annually. Hitting a given LUFS target does NOT assure that a master isn't under- or over-dynamic.
All else is in doubt, so this is the truth I cling to. My Stuff
|
arlen2133
Max Output Level: -78 dBFS
- Total Posts : 601
- Joined: 2010/05/20 00:09:27
- Location: Inland Empire, CA
- Status: offline
Re: Finding my LUFS
2015/12/08 15:03:19
(permalink)
batsbrew
arlen2133
.. but would I'd be interested in "expanding" my understanding of the loudness standards for future clients.
here you go
http://www.digido.com/media/honor-roll.html
Thanks Bats... Saved and bookmarked so I can go over in detail when I get home tonight. 
Arlen aka Mr Grant my music
Cakewalk by Bandlab, Sonar Platinum (2017.09) & X3e , Windows 7 64 bit, Intel I5 3.4 Ghz, 32 Gbs RAM, Saffire Pro40, various pres and VSTi's.
|
TheMaartian
Max Output Level: -47.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2774
- Joined: 2015/05/21 18:30:52
- Location: Flagstaff, AZ
- Status: offline
Re: Finding my LUFS
2015/12/15 12:29:47
(permalink)
☄ Helpfulby Starise 2015/12/15 12:44:35
bitflipper
... the EBU Loudness meter from Toneboosters is pretty good, and a cheap alternative to expensive tools like Insight...
Bit, I just picked up the TB loudness meter. Simple, but effective. Thanks for the heads-up. The full 5.1 version works great on stereo. Is there any reason to use the stripped down stereo version? Edit: I'm in the process of putting together a podcast called "Life On Maars". While doing so, I came across a nice set of posts on Podcasting Basics. As I was rereading one just now, I found a link to their post on "The Audio Producer's Guide to Loudness." Good read...and the TB Loudness meter is covered! http://transom.org/2015/t...ers-guide-to-loudness/
post edited by TheMaartian - 2015/12/15 12:58:04
Intel i7 3.4GHz, 16 GB RAM, 2 TB HD Win10 Home 64-bit Tascam US-16x08 Studio One 4 Pro Notion 6 Melodyne 4 Studio Acoustica 7 Guitar Pro 7 PreSonus FaderPort Nektar P6 M-Audio BX8 D2 Beyerdynamic DT 880 Pro NI K9U XLN AK, AD2 AAS VS-2, GS-2, VA-2, EP-4, CP-2, OD Toontrack SD3, EZK
|
bitflipper
01100010 01101001 01110100 01100110 01101100 01101
- Total Posts : 26036
- Joined: 2006/09/17 11:23:23
- Location: Everett, WA USA
- Status: offline
Re: Finding my LUFS
2015/12/15 20:31:37
(permalink)
☄ Helpfulby TheMaartian 2015/12/16 10:40:36
That's the next category we sorely need loudness standards for: podcasts. Even some of the audio-related podcasts I listen to are mastered LOUD.
I find it ironic that so many audio-centric podcasts have embarrassingly horrid audio quality. I could forgive a podcast about cats for being noisy and distorted, but when the topic is audio?
Why use the stereo version rather than the surround? I can think of two reasons. First, the UI will be less cluttered. Second, it's possible the meters could get confused by stereo input (iZotope Insight assumes Left-Center-Right by default, which screws up the balance meter because it's looking for a nonexistent center channel).
All else is in doubt, so this is the truth I cling to. My Stuff
|