Ok,

So I am mastering two new albums I want to put out, and I am a little confused about loudness, LUFS, streaming specs, etc., though I have an arsenal of tools and such, and feel I am getting the handle of good mix.

Don’t laugh when I present my dilemma.

The availability of online tools and VSTs lets you see where you line up with streaming specs. I won’t discuss CDs since no one really buys them.

In the past, I usually shot for about 16 to 18 LUFS with – 2dB headroom. (I never like to max it out.)

When I run my stuff through a tool like this:

https://www.loudnesspenalty.com/#

It almost always says I am 2 or 3dB over the limit, and so Spotify, for example, will reduce it by that much.

SO, I have started exporting at about 20 to 18, or 19 LUFS, and that keeps me almost exactly in line with Spotify specs, but the headroom is always about -5 dB, and the DR is at a pleasant 11 or 12. (A target for me.)

If that is the case, why does anyone master any louder, or normalize to -1 dB, if Spotify will always turn it down?

In other words, any normalization I do by any means that brings a track to -1 or -2, or even -3 dB always makes it too loud LUFS-wise for Spotify.

So how much headroom do you want? And why would you master loud???

Screenshots of a weird example are below, from of all people, Glen Campbell, on his final album. The LUFS comes in at a horrendous 6, the wave looks like a blue brick, and it has a Spotify penalty of –7.4!!!

Why would anyone master that way in the first place?

I am confused now at what the targets and numbers should be and I thought I had it all figured out.

As a reference, most of the stuff I have been posting on the forum the past year has headroom of about -2 dB, and the LUFS have ranged from 10-14, approximately. So far, I have received compliments on the mixes.

Again, don’t laugh if I am being stupid, but I am confused about loudness targets now.

Hi David, this tool and topic were discussed in depth a couple of years ago..... Check it out.

Your Loudness Penalty

David, what are you using to measure your output. There are several measurements of interest and any one of them out of spec can create an issue. There is basically the overall average level, short term level and peak levels.

I found Youlean LUFS meter a really good tool. The paid version (which was not very expensive) can be set to a particular service provider and is very easy to see where in a song an issue occurs.

The Youlean Pro version is only $37 at the moment. Youlean is a very easy chap to deal with and sends out updates quite regularly.

The free version is also excellent.

See https://youlean.co/youlean-loudness-meter/

These days I tend to use Izotope Insight but only because I have it.

Just a thought

Tony

Thanks Steve,

That is a useful thread!

Thanks Tony,

I just got the YouLean freebie, and I have had the paid Waves loudness meter for a while.

I guess my only head scratching comes at what my targets should be in this day and age.

I think I am guessing that if I am somewhere between 13 LUFS and 18 LUFS I will be ok for most any purpose, and they can turn it down how they see fit on any service.

I don't mix as loud as some folks because I am way more concerned about dynamic range in my music, so you can hear the different instrument subtleties.

Thanks for the tips!!!!

I think there are a lot of variables in how "loud" a certain LUF target will be. Particularly the compression variable. I use Logic Pro X's loudness meter (comparable in function and results to Youlean) and I master at around 12 LUFs plus or minus one. This almost always gives me a less than 1 db +/- differential on the loudnesspenalty site.

FWIW I always use a four or five band multiband compressor when mastering which adds to or at the least does not distract from the more open feel that I aim for. I cannot technically explain this very well. But I know that the more single band compression I use with the same output on my limiter and the same LUF metered reading the louder the song sounds - and loudnesspenalty agrees with this. That's what drove me toward multi-band compression.

Sorry to further confuse the issue!

Bud

This morning I got an email showing iZotope Insight 2 is available at Pluginboutique for $39 at the moment. Insight 2 not only shows levels but also things such as stereo width, phasing and more. Also fairly easy to set things up for your requirements.

Tony

To ride on Bud's coattails ..
multiband compression rules for end product.
Very rarely does a single band have anywhere near the goodness

When you can compress each freq range to the best detail for that range without affecting others, it's a cool tool.
Takes some learning but well worth the effort.

Thanks for all the comments and tips everybody!!



The multibrand compressor is a good idea.

Since I have 847 plugins, I found one in my IK MultiMedia stack.

I am switching various things on and off in a mastering board, like Ozone 9, Ozone 6 (which I also use because of a massive number of presets) IK Multimedia stuff and other tools.

I can usually find the sound I want if I use one or 2 things judiciously, but it starts to fall apart if I overdo it.

* The real beast is Ozone 5 though. The best one they ever made IMHO.

It appears you’re using Cakewalk. May I suggest using the FX Chain in the Pro Channel. This will be ensure the plugins you’re using will be in the order you want (although I notice in the latest that all Pro Channel plugins but the EQ now seem to be removed).

It is or was very possible to look as if everything was good adding plugins in the FX part of the Master Track only to be over written by plugins in the Pro Channel. By default Cakewalk reads top down from the MasterTrack top to bottom then the Pro Channel top to bottom.

By using the FX Chain or several FX Chains in the Pro Channel one can position your required plugins exactly where you need them.

Right click in the Pro Channel select the FX Chain plugin then add your plugins in order then put the FX Chain down the bottom of the Pro Channel. This method allows you to use both the FX area of the Master Track and a separate areas in the Pro Channel.

It is easy to save the FX Chain once you have it set up.

Just a thought

Tony

Edit: what I’m getting at is you could have your LUFS meter at the bottom of your Master Track FX and all looks fine. Then Cakewalk goes to the Pro Channel does its thing and the output is lifted out of whack. The LUFS meter at least should be in an FX Chain box as the last thing in the Pro Channel. Then you’ll have a true indication of your output.

David, the dynamics module in Ozone 9 is a 4 band compressor. FWIW in Ozone 9 Adv all of the modules can be used standalone. I like to use them that way so I can insert other fx in the chain.

Bud

Thanks Tony, those are great tips!

I have both the recent version of Cakewalk Bandlab but also use an older version of Sonar Artist for simplicity a lot.

I make sure to have my plug ins in the right order before they get to the final meter.

Thanks Bud!

Hopefully I have an image of what I'm getting at.

At the Master Track LUFS look ok after the Pro Channel way low. Note this can just as easily be reversed so the after the Pro Channel the levels are higher. The point is the actual level is the one from the Pro Channel (as I understand it)

Maybe I am wrong. However when adding A maximiser to the Pro Channel rather than the Master Track FX I get a consistent result. (that tells me the Master FX is the final place)

Note this is an example not a real working project.

Thanks Tony. Very useful.

This is turning into a cool thread. I would love to see more tips and screenshots and methods and tricks on mastering from others.

It would be fun to see what others are doing and have discovered.

Also, on Bandlab, I *think* that the effects on the Pro Channel on the Master track come BEFORE the rack menu slots (what you see on the Master strip when you close Pro Channel) on the signal chain. Otherwise you could not use 3rd party limiters and meters as the FINAL stage before output, right? For example, my Ik Multimedia Meter is the very last thing in my signal chain on the rack menu in the Master Track.

Whatever THAT says is what I get when I export and measure the export. Is that you are saying too?

I know everybody does things slightly differently and I always love to see what others are doing and are excited about in new mixing and mastering discoveries.



I eat this stuff up.

David et al, I don’t use any product or tool as a given. For example, I tended to use BIAB to generate my tracks as a basic usually Realtracks but maybe as some MIDI. If I am adding MIDI I tended to pull the song into Cakewalk to add and manipulate MIDI. I would then freeze and/or export the tracks and pull them into Reaper for mixing and “mastering”. Why, mainly to cut out the “nice” features of Cakewalk. I reckon whilst the Pro Channel is good if you use it, it can become an issue if you don’t use it. (It is there).

Ok why use Cakewalk for MIDI? I found Cakewalk easier particularly the Piano Roll and adjusting features. Probably because I spent years learning it.

However, once I purchased Tod’s Pedal Steel and worked with his ToolBars and subsequently created a number of Note Maps for various instruments I’ve found Reaper easier to use. Creating Note Maps and ToolBars that are saved with an instrument makes life way easier.

For example, an AmpleSound guitar has many key switches to adjust articulations, also many key switches to adjust Capo positions which require multiple keystrokes. Using a using a ToolBar for Capo Position it is a one button push. The button sets the cursor a bit before the note, adds the keystrokes. Easy and more accurate.

VSL Synchron Player control uses many CC lanes. To have these named in a “Note Map” really makes life simpler. Instead of trying to remember what CCs do they are named to tell you. Unfortunately Cakewalk does not have this ability (yet) as I understand it.

Different tools for different jobs. I believe a DAW is a tool and one should use it to their advantage. Which is the best tool :- the one you find the easiest to get the result you want to get the job done.

Sorry for the rant, just spent too long on a different topic with a different group.

Tony

Hey Tony,

Keep it up!

Listen. I can run a little experiment later, but just thought I would ask because I have not messed with Pro Channel that much, though I know I should.

SO--

In your experience, is it, or is it not true that the effects associated with Pro Channel (I mean Pro Channel inserts on the Master Track) come BEFORE the effects loaded on the rack menu on the front-facing strip of the Master Track?????



I think the answer is yes, and has to be, but just wanted to see if that is what you are saying. Everything has follow a flow in the signal chain.

I *think" the flow is always top to bottom, like on the Pro Channel you have to move the modules around depending on what you want feeding into what, but the OUTPUT from the Pro Channel is to the rack menus, top to bottom to the LAST plugin in there, and that output is your final drip.

Is that the flow as you see it man???

Tony,

So I experimented.

It appears the answer is YES. The Pro Channel does feed into the rack menu.

Interestingly, added and switched on the basic compressor in Pro Channel and it does add a little extra spice and clarity, without significantly impacting LUFS.

I will have to experiment a lot more with this.

Thanks for sending me on this mission.

David, check out this video which demonstrates signal flow.

https://youtu.be/pRIZWiN6iZo

I still find the way though the Pro Channel a bit confusing which is why I ended up mixing and “mastering” in Reaper where I felt I had more control as it has nothing anywhere. Having said that there is nothing wrong with Cakewalk once you have FX chains saved and doing what you need.

Tony

This is great Tony, thanks!

Exactly what I needed.

I love his little chart. Cool.

I don't have a lot to say here as everything so far is pretty spot on, but I'll add two things:

1: I was taught to set my final limiter to "-0.2db". Having a db or two of headroom doesn't benefit you in any way - if you're mastering for a 16-bit target, you'll have 96db of dynamic range, so setting your limiter to -2 reduces that to 94db and technically pushes your noise floor up by 2db (arguable) but otherwise eats up ~2db of dynamic range you could otherwise be using. The -0.2db is because most brickwall limiters will overshoot a tiny amount.

2: In many places I use dynamic EQ's instead of multiband compressors. I find them to be more transparent, as you generally have control over EQ slope and can have more control over what frequencies to boost/attenuate (and in fact you can boost, which many multiband compressors can't do), not to mention that multiband compressors tend to cause more phase issues meaning a dynamic EQ sounds better in parallel than a comp would. My personal favourite is the excellent TDR Nova plugin (the free version is great, but the inexpensive paid version can function as an expander too).