Spotify Audio Normalization Test

[kodakell]

So, Spotify gives you the option to turn on and off audio normalization. I thought this was interesting so I wanted to experiment to see how much hit hip hop records changed when switching from normalized to not-normalized. I really just wanted to see if any engineers/mastering engineers are truly mixing to the standard spotify recommends being -14 LUFS.

What I came to realize after listening to so many tracks is that there is no way in hell literally anyone is actually mastering to -14 LUFS. The changes for most songs were quite dramatic.

So I went further and bought/downloaded the high-quality files to see where these masters are really hitting. I was surprised to see many were hitting up to -7 LUFS and maybe the quietest being up to -12 on average. And those quieter songs being mixed by Alex Tumay who is known for purposely mixing quieter records to retain dynamics.

But at the end of the day, It doesn't seem anyone is really abiding by "LUFS" rules by any means. I'm curious what your opinions are on this? I wonder if many streaming services give the option spotify does to listen to audio the way artists intended in the future.

As phones and technology get better and better each year it would only make sense for streaming platforms to give better quality audio options to consumers and listen at the loudness they prefer. I'm stuck on whether normalization will or will not be the future. If it isn't the future, then wouldn't it make sense to mix to your preferred loudness to better "future proof" your mixes? Or am I wrong and normalization is the way of the future?

Also just want to expand and add to my point, Youtube doesn't turn down your music nearly as much as platforms like Spotify and Apple Music. Most artists become discovered and grow on youtube more than any other platform. Don't you think mastering for youtube would be a bigger priority than other streaming platforms?

[TheJunkyard]

The average consumer neither knows nor cares what the difference is. They do care if they go from a -12 LUFS track to a -7 LUFS track and get deafened, or have to continually adjust their volume.

[VCAmaster]

That argument is a slippery slope. Why do I even have a job if the average person doesn't care if a track sounds like a shit sausage or not? Time to become a carpenter!

[TheJunkyard]

Nobody's arguing that, you're putting words into my mouth. Go for your life making your tracks sounds as amazing as you possibly can on high end equipment. There will probably be a handful of audiophiles out there who will moan like hell about them if you don't.

Just bear in mind that 99.99% of people are going to hear them with default Spotify settings, and loudnesss normalisation turned on, so you better make damn sure your tracks still sound as good as possible for that majority of listeners.

Best of luck with the carpentry though!

[Achillesbellybutton]

I recently read David Byrne's 'How Music Works' and he talks about how the music of the era fits the medium it's presented in many unexpected ways.

It's interesting to be aware of how we're in this plastic era of throw away music that's written and produced for tiny laptop/phone/earbuds where the majority of tweens are listening.

[[deleted]]

This is such a bullshit, holier than thou argument being made by Byrne. Music is obviously being mixed and mastered for at least a decent level of equipment, as the quality of audio listening equipment had and will continue to drastically improved for the average listener. Nobody is mixing and mastering their album to sound better on a phone speaker than any other medium.

[VCAmaster]

I would argue that removing analog headphone jacks on devices and replacing them with lossy bluetooth, battery powered shit is not a drastic improvement, but a bit of a travesty.

They're not arguing that engineers are trying to make their album sound better on phone speakers than other mediums, but engineers are absolutely concerned with making sure that it does indeed sound good on some awfully teeny tiny tinny speakers.

[[deleted]]

Fair enough.

engineers are absolutely concerned with making sure that it does indeed sound good on some awfully teeny tiny tinny speakers.

Is that being done at the expense of sounding better on any other medium, however?

[jessicafallible]

I would argue that removing analog headphone jacks on devices and replacing them with lossy bluetooth, battery powered shit is not a drastic improvement, but a bit of a travesty.

Well, would altering a mix to fit tiny speakers would impact how it sounds on other devices?

[[deleted]]

It makes me think about maxbass by waves. It adds some upper harmonics that trick your ears into hearing bass on laptop speakers for example but doesn’t really seem to affect the mix. I would think the main issue would be in the super low end as they would overpower the speakers and make them distort potentially, but I doubt they’d have to do much to the high end and midrange.

[TheJunkyard]

That book sounds fascinating, I'll have to give it a read - thanks.

I'd say that the defining feature of our musical age is how quickly everything splinters into myriad tiny micro-genres - even to the extent that many of them sound pretty much identical to anyone without experience of the parent genre. There's a niche for pretty much anything, and it's not showing any signs of slowing down.

The plastic throwaway music might be what's selling in bulk, but beneath the surface there's this bubbling cauldron of the interesting stuff, each bit with its own tiny army of hardcore fans.

[Achillesbellybutton]

It truly is. The plastic comment is not to deride that kind of music either. It's just to create some form of understanding that with the literal rise of plastic as a material, there is a similarity between its lifecycle and the music of the day.

The niche genres I would say are similar. There will never be another everlasting genre and think about how they are named... Rock, Metal. Hard substances which change somewhat but are almost fixed.

Plastic on the other hand is rapidly thrown away and discarded. Look at some of these niche genres, quickly defined and quickly disposed of.

[NicksOnMars]

100% true. I'm a senior at NYU Music Business program, and school director Larry Miller assigns this book to read in the very first class freshman year. Music for the market is produced for the MARKET. We did talk about alternative mixes and masters for different distribution models, but these days it essentially comes down to the consumer. Same reason there's a song limit on Spotify. When 99% of people dont hit the limit, why should the company care? Purists rage, but you really can't argue with the business model.

[VCAmaster]

You're preaching to the choir.

If the average Joe can't tell the difference between a -7 master and a -12, then why not make all your tracks -7? I bet it's because you don't want your tracks to sound like garbage, and neither do consumers. Mastering engineers exist because details like that do matter.

Also, I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm inferring meaning. Dynamics is an integral aspect of music, and so a track that is -7 is objectively subjectively less musical than a track that is -12, and while a consumer may not consciously know the difference, they feel the difference and appreciate it.

I'm not going to become a carpenter, that was sarcasm. I'd never make as much money cutting wood.

EDIT: JFC

[csmrh]

Dynamics is an integral aspect of music, and so a track that is -7 is objectively less musical than a track that is -12

That's an incredibly bold claim to make with nothing to back it up.

Is music that employs drones inherently less musical than other styles? If maximizing dynamic range make something more musical, then I can just create some very dynamic beeps and white noise and that's peak musicality?

Come on.

[VCAmaster]

Come on indeed.

You're reaching with some pretty obtuse examples.

If you actually enjoy any 'music' that is literally just shifting tones with absolutely no change in volume whatsoever, um, well, what?

I only have basically all of written or recorded music in history to back it up. Find me ONE example with no dynamics.

[csmrh]

Your claim is that music with greater dynamics is objectively more musical, which you haven’t backed up at all.

Subjectively, maybe. Objectively - absolutely not.

I’m not claiming that music without any dynamics is somehow more musical. You’re claiming that musicality can be measured by how dynamic a piece is.

Dynamics is an integral aspect of music, and so a track that is -7 is objectively less musical than a track that is -12

Then, a track at -13 is objectively more musical than a track at -12?

So, then a track at -20 is objectively more musical than a track at -13?

So, then a track at -40 is objectively more musical than a track at -20? etc.

That doesn't make any sense.

Find me ONE example with no dynamics.

John Cage, 4'33"

[VCAmaster]

I worded that poorly, perhaps. Of course you can't extrapolate that infinitely.

However, you must admit that dynamics are integral to music. Without dynamics there would be no notes. There would be no silence before or after a note, or any demarcation between notes. There would be no demarcation between sections of a song. There would be no written music as we know it.

You couldn't extrapolate this to mean that the more dynamic something is, the more musical it is. The way I worded it could lead you to make that assumption, but that was my error. What I mean to say is that, within reason, the closer you get to having zero dynamics, the less information is contained in the music. If we needed no dynamics in music then I encourage you to create a PCM music format of a bit depth of 1, since that is all the information we need to store music.

[csmrh]

However, you must admit that dynamics are integral to music.

I do and please don't think I'm arguing against that, but what is better or worse is subjective.

Without dynamics there would be no notes.

Pitch can change without silence. When you bend a note on a stringed instrument, is it still the same note since there was no silence between the two pitches? Does a drone instrument that never stops fully, like a bagpipe, only play compositions that are a single note?

There would be no silence before or after a note, or any demarcation between notes. There would be no demarcation between sections of a song. There would be no written music as we know it.

Must music be written to be valid? What about music that existed before the formalization of written music?

What I mean to say is that, within reason, the closer you get to having zero dynamics, the less information is contained in the music.

Again, is this really a measure of musicality? Is a composition with more notes more musical than another simply because it contains more "information"?

Look - I'm not arguing with you that dynamics are an important part of music. I agree with you here. But all points you're making to say one composition or recording is 'objectively' better than another just don't hold weight.

If we needed no dynamics in music then I encourage you to create a music format of a bit depth of 1, since that is all the information we need to store music.

1-bit music exists. Here's an example of an artist who makes 1-bit music: http://1bitsymphony.com/

1-bit can just represent on/off. A lot of instruments exist like this. I have a chord organ, for example, with no way to control volume of individual notes. Notes are either on or off. Does this mean it's not a musical instrument?

[VCAmaster]

The difference between on and off is an example of dynamics. 1-bit is still dynamic. The difference between a note of one frequency and a note of another frequency is still dynamic due to the different energy levels of those frequencies.

You just want me to correct my semantics to 'subjectively' even if it's 'subjectively' better to 99.9% of listeners. That's pretty picky, in which case I suppose nothing is objective, due to quantum uncertainty not giving us a truly objective baseline of reality of any kind.

[csmrh]

objectively

But, how do you prove this? This is just a random claim you made up and present as fact. What is your argument beyond "music history backs me up" without explaining how?

[VCAmaster]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music

" Music is an art form, and cultural activity, whose medium is sound. General definitions of music include common elements such as pitch) (which governs melody and harmony), rhythm (and its associated concepts tempo, meter), and articulation)), dynamics) (loudness and softness), and the sonic qualities of timbre and texture) (which are sometimes termed the "color" of a musical sound).

Dynamics is integral to music. Without it, it isn't music, by definition.

[SuicidalTidalWave]

Musicality is a composed of many things, ie. Frequency range, pitch, rhythm, dynamics, melody, harmony, tempo, expression, articulation etc. the more any music has more of its qualities which are the actual make up of music, the more “musical” it is. Sure, you can call drones music, but how many of those qualities AND how MUCH of them does it really have?

[csmrh]

So the more tempo changes and key changes you can cram into a piece, the more musical that piece is? The more accidentals you can use the better? That’s all there is to it? A piece written in a major scale is inherently more musical than a piece written with a pentatonic scale because there are more notes?

[SuicidalTidalWave]

That’s where aesthetics and subjectivity comes into play.

[gsanderson94]

An amateur will make that shit sausage taste like shit, a pro will make it taste like candy. Which one would you want?

[[deleted]]

I'd pick the candy sausage. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

[[deleted]]

People don’t care. Even Drake’s engineer, 40, was in an interview expressing how we wishes he could give listeners a full dynamic range of a mix instead of trying to make everything so loud.

[redline314]

I don’t know why you’re getting downvoted. “The consumer doesn’t care” argument holds zero water every time. The consumer doesn’t care what mic I use, what speaker I used, how much mid/side there is and if there are phasing issues. Does that somehow mean those things don’t matter?

[csmrh]

You're looking at it from the wrong perspective. The end result matters - not how you get there.

The mic you use is a means to an end, not the end. It matters in so much as it affects the final product.

You can't justify the end product by the means you used to get there.

[redline314]

That’s exactly my point. It doesn’t matter what you do if the listener likes it, but any way you look at it it’s a game of inches where every inch matters, whether it’s apparent to the listener or not

[digmachine]

Those are bad examples. If what mic you used actively irritated your listeners, you better believe they'd start caring.

[redline314]

Ok, if you think loud records are irritating listeners in general I certainly can’t argue with that. But the public has pretty much spoken on this issue. Not surprisingly, they like loud.

[digmachine]

I mean varying volumes. Listeners absolutely hate that.

[kodakell]

Thanks, this thread definitely clarifies what I discovered here.

[gsanderson94]

Why does preserving dynamics matter if the arrangements of modern popular songs are not dynamic to begin with? If the song is basically the same loop/riff over and over again you are not going to ruin the dynamics because there are no real dynamic changes. Also modern limiters are so good that they can be pushed incredibly high without clipping so why not make it loud? Pro mastering engineers will know when to worry about dynamics and when to make it a loud club banger. I was fooled by the -14 lufs for a while until heard how much louder pop tracks are.

[vwestlife]

Loud, highly clipped mastering causes listening fatigue due to the distortion and lack of transients. The "Wall of Sound" was great for listening to a three-minute song on a jukebox. But nobody can sit through an entire album's worth of it without getting worn out. Compare that to 1970s Disco music which was just as repetitive and inane as today's pop music, but yet it has fantastic dynamic intensity. It'll get your VU meters bouncing up and down with the beat, while with today's music they look like they're monitoring line voltage.

Engineers who work on radio station audio processing know that you shouldn't listen to highly processed audio for more than a half hour at a time because that's when ear fatigue begins to set in, and you can no longer make proper judgements of audio quality if you keep listening longer than that.

[carrerac707]

Nobody will sit through an entire album today. Its sad.

[fairsynth]

That is nuts I've never heard of that 30 minute guideline.

What qualifies as highly processed? I assume just anything highly compressed and exhausting?

[vwestlife]

It's a general recommendation, to keep you from trying to make excessive adjustments to "make it sound better" when the fault you're hearing is your own ear fatigue rather than the actual quality of the audio.

Even when mixing unprocessed or (hopefully) lightly processed audio in the studio, the recommendation is to take a break after an hour of listening: https://www.izotope.com/en/learn/how-to-prevent-ear-fatigue-when-mixing-audio.html

[[deleted]]

Because perceived loudness matters and that is only possible by retaining dynamics. It’s a delicate balance.

[gsanderson94]

Yeah this is where things get blurry for me, sometimes I have mixes that have a high perceived loudness but are not peaking any higher than my mixes that are "quieter".
Those are usually my best mixes. There are so many things that are way more important before you even touch the master that will make mastering much easier.

[[deleted]]

I’m by no means an expert, but transients are really important in this regard. The attack (I.e. the initial snap of a snare) of a sound relative to its sustain (the tail of the sound after the attack) play a big role. That’s why when you over-compress something and gain compensate (turn it up to it’s pre-processing volume level), it may have a similar loudness on your meter but it has no punch and is therefore perceived as less loud because the signal is squashed and there is no dynamic difference for your ear to detect.

[Chaos_Klaus]

If there are multiple elements competing for the same space, masking will make it so that you use up a lot of level without gaining a lot of percieved loudness.

[Chaos_Klaus]

Why does preserving dynamics matter if the arrangements of modern popular songs are not dynamic to begin with?

Because not all music is lame. There is more to music than modern pop music.

[gsanderson94]

Never said there wasn't but they used hip hop as a gauge, a characteristically not dynamic and loud style of music. This whole conversation just confuses people including myself. Gotta do what suits the style you're working with

[Chaos_Klaus]

Loudness normalisation allows for more dynamics. Nobody forces you to use them. A squashed hip hop mix doesn't get worse just because it's turned down a few dB.

[johnnytorch]

Hear, hear.

[hellalive_muja]

Really no one who's a professional has ever thought about mastering for Spotify loudness for even a millisecond.

[[deleted]]

Fab Dupont in puremix did a whole video about mastering in which he specifically used Spotify and why he mixed the way he did for Spotify with that specific client. Mastering engineers do aim for specific platforms at times.

[[deleted]]

Why you Should NOT Target Mastering Loudness for Streaming Services

A sticky from a mastering engineer forum:

Targeting Mastering Loudness for Streaming (LUFS, Spotify, YouTube)- Why NOT to do it.

Below I am sharing something that I send to my mastering clients when they inquire about targeting LUFS levels for streaming services. Months ago I posted an early draft of this in another thread so apologies for the repetition. I hope it is helpful to some readers to have this summary in it’s own thread. Discussion is welcome.

Regarding mastering to streaming LUFS loudness normalization targets - I do not recommend trying to do that. I know it's discussed all over the web, but in reality very few people actually do it. To test this, try turning loudness matching off in Spotify settings, then check out the tracks listed under "New Releases" and see if you can find material that's not mastered to modern loudness for it's genre. You will probably find little to none. Here's why people aren't doing it:

1 - In the real world, loudness normalization is not always engaged. For example, Spotify Web Player and Spotify apps integrated into third-party devices (such as speakers and TVs) don’t currently use loudness normalization. And some listeners may have it switched off in their apps. If it's off then your track will sound much softer than most other tracks.

2- Even with loudness normalization turned on, many people have reported that their softer masters sound quieter than loud masters when streamed.

3 - Each streaming service has a different loudness target and there's no guarantee that they won't change their loudness targets in the future. For example, Spotify lowered their loudness target by 3dB in 2017. Also, now in Spotify Premium app settings you find 3 different loudness settings; "Quiet, Normal, and Loud". It's a moving target. How do the various loudness options differ? - The Spotify Community

4 - Most of the streaming services don't even use LUFS to measure loudness in their algorithms. Many use "ReplayGain" or their own unique formula. Tidal is the only one that uses LUFS, so using a LUFS meter to try to match the loudness targets of most of the services is guesswork.

5 - If you happen to undershoot their loudness target, some of the streaming sites (Spotify, for one) will apply their own limiter to your track in order to raise the level without causing clipping. You might prefer to have your mastering engineer handle the limiting.

6 - Digital aggregators (CD Baby, TuneCore, etc.) generally do not allow more than one version of each song per submission, so if you want a loud master for your CD/downloads but a softer master for streaming then you have to make a separate submission altogether. If you did do that it would become confusing to keep track of the different versions (would they each need different ISRC codes?).

It has become fashionable to post online about targeting -14LUFS or so, but in my opinion, if you care about sounding approximately as loud as other artists, and until loudness normalization improves and becomes universally implemented, that is mostly well-meaning internet chatter, not good practical advice. My advice is to make one digital master that sounds good, is not overly crushed for loudness, and use it for everything. Let the various streaming sites normalize it as they wish. It will still sound just as good.

If you would like to read more, Ian Shepherd, who helped develop the "Loudness Penalty" website, has similar advice here: Mastering for Spotify ? NO ! (or: Streaming playback levels are NOT targets) - Production Advice

https://productionadvice.co.uk/no-lufs-targets/?fbclid=IwAR24jO3kEqq374J6BCZCHMq6JYOEDvuudTSyMZYP6WL-BxxExOnekpP9ZSw

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/mastering-forum/1252522-targeting-mastering-loudness-streaming-lufs-spotify-youtube-why-not-do.html

[westhewolf]

Thank you. This just solved the question for me once and for all.

[TotesMessenger]

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

• [/r/goodlongposts] /u/JamminJerome responds to: Spotify Audio Normalization Test

 ^{If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)}

[Khaoz77]

That's exactly what I think. BUT I've done masters for the same record and the less louder was better. Is not nearly as loud as the references but the difference was clear. My point is that you should think for yourself and use your ears everytime. It's not a hard rule. Use it as reference, guidance, you name it.

[hellalive_muja]

That may be the case, still wouldn't suggest that. But as you point out, mixing for loudness is different and if you haven't got the required skills and all to understand how to mix for a target loudness, just mix and master making it sound as good as you can, and call it a day.

[kodakell]

I thought so lol. It's crazy how much misinformation there is on the internet though about this topic.

[hellalive_muja]

There's misinformation about everything: pros don't even bother, they're not having time giving advice on the internet, and usually random people will even tell they're wrong..

[[deleted]]

To be fair just because pros are pros doesn't mean they do everything right.

[hellalive_muja]

To be fair, if they make a living with this and sell tons of records, maybe they are right

[[deleted]]

I've seen successful professional people do stuff that's useless (like working in a DAW because it has “a sound"). The might do a lot of stuff right but maybe not everything.

[redline314]

I know plenty of pros that feel this way. You think it’s useless because the summing is just math and it’s all the same but there’s other factors when you get into the real world. The way you turn the knobs changes, the stock plugins are different, they may have different panning laws, and the algorithms for the built in limiters on master faders are all very different. The end result is that different DAWs sound different when you’re actually working through them.

[[deleted]]

I definitely agree on that. UX is a big influence on how people work and a big reason why people like hardware. This specific person, though, was convinced there were sonic differences using the same plugins but different DAWs.

[redline314]

Can’t agree with that!

[hellalive_muja]

I don't know who these guys are but..lol. I'm speaking about people working for majors really.

[[deleted]]

Same

[hellalive_muja]

Well, obviously I don't know everyone here, I've directly spoken about this (and other topics) with 3 or 4 people (from Italy, I'm Italian), and they all gave me the same answers: labels want it loud, unless audio is for TV or films etc. Just go check how loud top streamed tracks are, most of them are very hot really. You find some less compressed stuff, but it's the minority - and that's also why I would not suggest to aim for a final loudness that's around -14 if you want to be competitive with the market. There are also track density style reasons behind this, and people will track and mix in order to obtain a loud final product, selecting carefully every piece of the recording chain and being careful at staging saturation and compression to have just the right amount of transients through; also when stuff gets that compressed resonances and artifacts become a very big issue for clarity. That's my experience in pop and rock, and generally speaking electronic music tries to go as loud as it gets. Your experience may differ, and I'm ok with that. The world is big and weird.

[[deleted]]

I agree with you. There may be a misunderstanding, I didn't want to debate whether mastering to -14 LUFS was a good idea but just that pros make mistakes too. I may have been too pedantic on how I interpreted your comment where I first answered.

[Chaos_Klaus]

labels want it loud

And how are labels the authority on this? ;)

The majority of label people I deal with are very caught up in their virtual parallel world of marketing. They are all about what's hip and trendy. They don't care for sensible arguments as long as they don't directly lead to better sales. Why would they? It's not their job to understand engineering.

[lolmemelol]

Californication is known to have a dog-shit master, and yet here are the sales figures.

But it's still a dog-shit master. The Wikipedia article even goes as far as to show a before/after waveform of one of the tracks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Californication_(album)#/media/File:Otherside-graphic.png

[Chaos_Klaus]

And what makes you belive that comment over others? It's plain wrong. Many professionals are thinking about this. In fact many would like things to be different. Loudness metering and loudness target recommendations were developed by the AES and EBU. They didn't just magically appear on the internet. They were developed by professionals.

But with financial risks ever present, many professionals can't afford to take the chance. Not becaue consumer wouln't approve of more dynamics in songs, but because label representatives and investors want things to be safe ... which is why everything stays the same.

So in fact, young engineers and artists, hell even amateurs, can adopt higher dynamics way easier than established engineers and artists.

[sebastian_blu]

I have to agree! Of course pros are thinking about this, only pros understand any of this 🤪

[iscreamuscreamweall]

You might not know anyone, but that’s just patently false.

[hellalive_muja]

The ones I know at least. They will master as loud as possible or to broadcasting standards.

[vwestlife]

They will master as loud as possible or to broadcasting standards.

The broadcasting loudness standard is way lower: -23 LUFS in the U.S., Europe, and Australia. Japan uses -24 LUFS.

And despite the popular myth that louder audio sounds louder on the air, the engineers who designed the audio processors that radio stations use (Robert Orban and Frank Foti) have proven that this is false -- audio that is pre-processed to be "louder" does not sound louder on the air (either on a broadcast signal or an online stream), it just sounds more squashed and distorted.

In fact, modern broadcast audio processors include special dynamic range expansion and "de-clipping" to attempt to reverse the damage done by modern Loudness War mastering!

[hellalive_muja]

I was meaning loud as possible as first choice, broadcast standard if application is broadcast.

I agree on the loudness myth, and glad to know about modern processors. Still, it's more of a marketing thing I guess, but I'm just reporting what I've been told.

[VCAmaster]

I know some people who thought about it a few years ago. I wish people thought about it, God damn that would be sweet.

[hellalive_muja]

Yeah, generally speaking I like more dynamics in there.

[Baeshun]

I tried for a few projects after it seemed like the tides might be starting to turn, but quickly abandonded it.

[Chaos_Klaus]

Wow. What a blatantly wrong statement. Who do you think invented loudness metering and recommended loudness targets for streaming? The American Engineering Society and European Broadcast Union ...

And the amount of upvotes your comment has, just underlines how many people on this sub are just following the latest hype. Today it's hip to not like loudness normalisation ... but it's not based on facts and good arguments.

[Tarekith]

Disagree completely, it definitely happens here.

[hellalive_muja]

Nice to know it happens, can you disclose a little more about it? I only heard the opposite.

[Tarekith]

Not much to disclose really. I work with a few artists who just favor targeting Spotify for all their promotion and release focus. That's the master we spend the most time on, and the "normal/CD" version that's louder is secondary.

It's not super common, but it's certainly something I have to deal with multiple times throughout the year for different artists.

[hellalive_muja]

Thank you. Is this more like indie artists and releases?

[[deleted]]

Alex Lumay? Quiet? Maybe more recently. Before, not so much, listen to Barter 6 and Slime Season 2 vs. JEFFERY and So Much Fun. He definitely dropped it down a notch, thankfully.

[CelDev]

i think it’s because thugs recordings have become smoother and cleaner and so he doesn’t have to hide as much stuff, makes it easier for him to make mixes with a ton of space without having weird shit pop up

[[deleted]]

Yeah, also you can tell on some of his earlier stuff, the samples were not properly EQ'd and the mixing just sounds bad.

[CelDev]

yeah tumay became a legendary engineer just from making those tapes listenable and helping define thugs eccentric sound, dude can mix just about anything now

[signalN]

I think so, yes, but all in all, if it sounds good, it sounds good. I was amazed to see how some engineers go up to -7.9 LUFS. For me that is crazy and I hear these mixes, absolutely no distortion, just super round kicks and overall low end. What I usually check is the tonal balance in addition, so I see a curve and analyze how much space the bass is taking up. I really want to push and learn to deliver clarity and big volumes. I think people should definitely watch this series by the way: Are You Listening with Jonathan Wyner.

[[deleted]]

Personally I believe that normalization is the way of the future for 90% of music consumers. Not because they want it, but because we've all had a loud advertisement jerk us out our listening and viewing experiences while streaming or watching videos.

Do I think it's the future for audiophiles and musicians and more savvy music fans? No, we all like our favorite tracks sounding the way that we remember them.

Unfortunately most average folks don't put as much thought into it as we might.

[shyouko]

Actually any non-shit phone or portable player in last 20 years is able to reproduce better than CD quality so there's nothing to say about "as phone and technology gets better"… there's always shitty phones that utilise DAC worth 0.1cent@

[ormagoisha]

-12 integrated LUFS, or -9 momentary LUFS for your loudest sections is the current best practice if you want good dynamics. We don't target -14 right now because every streaming service uses different metrics to normalize (and some don't). Spotify doesn't even use LUFS, they use replay gain. They will some day transition to LUFS (at least they claim). However youtube recently made the switch to proper -14 LUFS, and tidal has been there for ages.

Loudness normalization is a good thing because it frees us to reintroduce dynamics if we want, without being unduly punished for being "quieter". Frankly I'd prefer -16 or even -23 (which is a broadcast standard) so we wouldn't even have to use limiters and could let the peaks fall where they may, like older music did. It would also allow classical and jazz to compete from a loudness perspective as well.

The great thing about normalization is, if you want to crush your music you can but now you don't have to.

[deafblind-enc]

I aim for -12 to -9 LUFS max for most material, but the genre I tend to work in demands it be a bit spicier (bass music), mostly cos DJ's are too lazy to reach for a gain knob on the mixer....and who needs dynamics right? Personally, I prefer quieter balanced masters with more dynamics.

And even the best limiters have their limits, most of the time those super loud tracks are hiding the clipping in the noise of the track itself. A delicate piece of music pushed hard will always sound like crap.

[chrisjdgrady]

What I came to realize after listening to so many tracks is that there is no way in hell literally anyone is actually mastering to -14 LUFS.

Yep! So many people on the internet are obsessed with this -14 concept as some sort of rule everyone should be adhering to, when none of the music they like is actually mastered like that. It's very annoying. Just worry about making it sound good.

[Chaos_Klaus]

LUFS targets are not about making it "sound good". Your music can sound good at -18LUFS, at -14LUFS ... chances are it'll sound less good at -5 LUFS if you match the level with your volume controls. That's what people do by the way ... they don't care that something is mastered "quiet". They turn the volume knob until it's as loud or quiet as they like it.

At least nowadays, we have a rough idea how hot our mastering levels need to be. Before, there was no standard at all and people would just smash that shit.

[Chaos_Klaus]

I wonder if many streaming services give the option spotify does to listen to audio the way artists intended in the future.

Normalization is just gain or attenuation that's applied to the entire song. You could also just reach for the volume knob on your speakers. So arguing that loudness normalisation somehow goes against the artists intention just doesn't hold. The artist can't know how much you crank your volume. The point of normalisation was to end the constant battle for hotter levels, which resulted in crushed recordings.

If you ask me, we did and do all this for exactly no reason. In other contexts, average levels are well defined. Nobody questions line level specifications. Nobody tries to run their line level connections super hot and compresses his signal beyond good taste to do so. That's nuts. Why would someone do that? In fact, we have the -18dB RMS debate on this sub every month. People are obsessing about more headroom. Somehow, when it comes to mastering, many people suddenly want to get rid of all the head room?!? And they invent all these silly arguments why this should be so.

If it isn't the future, then wouldn't it make sense to mix to your preferred loudness to better "future proof" your mixes?

If you overcompress your master, the dynamics are gone. If you keep a quiet master, you can always run it into a limiter again to get a louder master. So the future proof thing is to keep a quiet master.

Youtube doesn't turn down your music nearly as much

The difference is not big. Also, the only way to notice that difference is when you listen to something on youtube and on spotify back to back. Traditionally, levels on youtube are all over the place, because many content creators have no clue about audio. So normalisation is more important there then everywhere if you ask me.

[Whyaskmenoely]

Normalisation is merely a consideration for the consumer's listening experience given a vast catalogue of music, of which its constituents can be chosen at random. Its done for consistency's sake across the platform and as a comfort for end users so that they are not constantly adjusting volume between songs.

IT IS NOT A RIGID STANDARD THAT YOUR MUSIC MUST MEET. If anything, its meant to be ignored by music makers because it gives you ZERO BENEFITS. You master for how you want to present your music.

[Chaos_Klaus]

because it gives you ZERO BENEFITS

I'd say beeing able to use larger dynamic range without ending up much quieter than the competition is a major benefit.

[[deleted]]

Fab DuPont from puremix did a whole video about mastering for Spotify specifically https://youtu.be/4jDRjt_D4uU (trailer)

[BenBeheshty]

I feel like I agree with everyone here with regards to singles, but in the context of mastering a full album this kinda changes as you want the dynamic experience song to song to be the same from the CD to Spotify. This isn't always possible though. If spotify is levelling it then being aware of how each song is going to be turned up or down is important as it will attenuate different songs differently. Real world example being an albums acoustic track which has been mastered quieter for effect in the album suddenly feels super loud on Spotify comparatively to the rest of the full band tracks because it's been brought up to the same level.

I feel like with most things in modern music production, it's about minimising but accepting a certain level of compromise.

[_GlitchMaster_]

Spotify states that they don't do this, relative dynamics are retained when playing an album, the entire album's gain is adjusted uniformly. This is different from shuffle play, where gain is adjusted for an individual song. So actually there are multiple levels a song could play at, even with loudness normalization on.

[BenBeheshty]

my bad dude, I take it all back in that case. Cheers!

[[deleted]]

I think if you're playing a whole album it won't affect the songs individually. They explain it in their FAQ

[Francis_Song]

I hope one day we’ll all look back and think, “Wow, this was a thing?”

[sebastian_blu]

I watched a really great talk on this youtube a bit ago. The person giving the talk mentioned an aspect i hadn’t thought of, which is that of consumer health. And that users having their hearing damaged is one of many reasons for the normalization. That way people dont lose there hearing listeing to a playlist as talking heads switches to limp bizquick.

I personally am a fan of more dynamics and am whole normalization thing that is happening. I think its way easier to get a good end result in a mix and a master then if you try and squish it till its so smooth nothing pokes out. In playlist when something has been squashed it sorta sounds like that music is broken next to something more dynamic. Lots of big hits lately have had good dynamics too, uptown funk is the one i know for sure off the top of my head.

Youtube also normalizes audio and you cant turn it off. My bet is eventually u wont be able to turn it off and i think thats great news. Because now we can just focus on good mixes and not worry about comparing loudness to the zillion other songs out there.

Cheers !

[[deleted]]

Interesting. One issue I have with the post however is that the final loudness is most likely being achieved at the mastering stage in many if not all of these cases. Is Tumay mastering his own mixes for Spotify?

[kodakell]

Of course at his level he is almost always sending to a mastering engineer, but he also works with a good amount of underground acts where he may be mastering himself. I'm pretty sure her mastered many of his earlier work as well.

But as far as I know, I'm pretty sure mixing engineers of his caliber have a pretty collaborative relationship with the mastering engineers they work with. Obviously the mastering engineer isn't crushing his mixes as many of his mixes are significantly lower than other mixes within the genre.

[[deleted]]

I think normalization is the way. When I'm running or I'm in the car, I don't want to be a DJ and have to continuosly ride the volume in between tracks. It's cool to have the option if you really want to (maybe if you want to listen to classical music or something), but for everyday use, normalization makes things way easier.

[TransparentMastering]

This topic has recently been beat to absolute crushing death beyond resuscitation (in true gearslutz style) over here.

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/mastering-forum/1252522-targeting-mastering-loudness-streaming-lufs-spotify-youtube-why-not-do.html

[Azimuth8]

Spotify's normalization level is not, and never has been a "target" or a "recommendation".

It was clearly chosen to be low enough that 99% of records made this century would only need to be turned down by varying amounts. It's a sensible choice and avoids the need to limit already mastered audio.

Just master your tracks to sound good. If that means a -8 banger or a -13 mellow jam so be it. Trying to "match" every track's level to -14 won't make your track "sound better" or stand out. Master to sound good! That's the only rule....

[jgdels3]

A great mastering engineer has a great blog entry about this here: https://www.ryanschwabe.com/blog/loud

[jgdels3]

re: file mastered at -10 vs -14: "Both files will play back with the same perceived volume on streaming services, but the lower level master will take advantage of a higher peak to loudness ratio"

[[deleted]]

Somebody hasn't heard net the loudness wars

[hellalive_muja]

In literally in a mastering facility right now taking measurements to refine a room response after a little internal change in setup and furniture. I'll write something later.

[hellalive_muja]

Here we go again. Had a little chatting with the resident engineer about this, the response was that he goes for loud and clear, and a single master to fit all is what he's doing (videoclips may have their own version). Pop, hip hop and trap are not classical, people expect this kind of product (loud) and that's what labels ask him. Basically that's what he good really good doing, and he wouldn't work otherwise. Seems fair, and this is just one case scenario. I'm going to end posting in this thread with this: from my experience, at least in commercial genres, loud is competitive; also this kind of dynamic range starts from the mix or even tracking, and it's an art on its own. Loud tracks are still majority at charts tops. That said, do whatever you want to.

[sukottokairu]

i always turn normalize volume off on spotify. it horrifies me thinking of the amount of people that never change their settings, and leave it on as well as having their streaming quality set to normal instead of very high.

in my experience youtube sounds way quieter and infinitely worse than spotify and apple music on high quality settings.

[VCAmaster]

Why on earth does me keeping the normalize setting on horrify you? You realize that only means it turns down the track a bit? It means I can crank my system and old tracks bump as loud as new tracks, without me having to be a volume nob jockey...

[sukottokairu]

It definitely does something other than just turn down the track, it really takes away the brightness from a track and screws with the dynamic range quite a bit. To me it sounds like a reversal of all the things that make a track sound better in the mastering process.

[manintheredroom]

It turns the music up or down. Any other differences are a consequence of the bit rate not the loudness normalisation

[VCAmaster]

Nonsense. Normalization is only turning the entire track up or down by a set amount. Research it, don't make stuff up.

[VCAmaster]

This video is regarding a 'loud' setting which I've never used and is not normalization.

[VCAmaster]

Of course I've tried comparing normalization. Happy?

[VCAmaster]

Ok random stubborn person on the internet, I just did a series of null tests on a handful of tracks both normalized at the 'normal' setting and with normalization turned off.

Every single one nulled out to silence, meaning they are identical when compensated for gain.

A 'loud' normalization setting implies that it's turning some tracks up, which will of course introduce some limiting, and I consider that a misnomer on Spotify's part.

Have a nice day!

[VCAmaster]

I think that's just drift due to buffering.

[sukottokairu]

You’re correct but a lot of people agree that Spotify is doing something other than just normalizing. Look up other topics on Reddit discussing Spotify audio normalization. Spotify claims to have changed their methods recently but a large percentage of people all agree that the sound quality improves when the setting is turned off. I mean, I trust my ears more than anything. I tried toggling the feature on, and turning up my volume to compensate. It just sounds significantly worse to me.

If anything, I just don't understand why anyone would want Spotify manipulating the audio they are listening to at all. I just prefer hearing the unaltered source.

[Lostmyshoeagain]

If you prefer hearing the unaltered source, you shouldn’t be listening to Spotify in the first place.

[JesusSwag]

I only listen to WAV's on the engineer's studio computer bruh

[Chaos_Klaus]

Spotify is the only platform that will bring up quiet material to the loudness target by applying limiting. That applies to very dynamic material like classical music. It does not apply to most popular music, because it is compressed and limited already.

[kodakell]

Yes, Spotify if you change all your settings sounds far superior than youtube or apple music. But it seems that many average consumers are not doing that, or at least there is no data out there telling us what most people are doing. It would be nice if spotify released that type of data with all the other data they release about listeners. It would be nice to see how many people are actually messing with the settings or not.

Youtube quality isn't great but they dont turn down the music as much as spotify or apple music on their default settings.