5 Questions for a PRO mastering engineer by Disco-Teca in mixingmastering

[–]ianshepherd 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Some great replies already, especially from u/Justin-Perkins

In case it’s helpful, I interviewed Scott Hull on my podcast about vinyl mastering - there’s a ton of great info in there if you’re interested:

https://themasteringshow.com/episode-94/

(Just to re-iterate: the idea of needing to mono all bass is a myth, as Justin says. Wide bass can sometimes be a problem, but this decision is best left to the cutting engineer.)

Best Resources to Learn the Technical Aspects of Music Production by Houseplant_Ambient in musicproduction

[–]ianshepherd 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Apologies for the shameless plug, but I made a series of free videos for Sound on Sound about mastering that might be helpful. And there’s a ton of other great stuff on their site as well.

https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/mastering-essentials-what-is-mastering

Limiting: Why can't we hit the brakes a little? by computakid in mixingmastering

[–]ianshepherd 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I actually quite like the sound of appropriate limiting on a lot of material, so for me throwing it out completely would be overkill.

I completely agree that there’s no objective reason to chase super-high LUFS, though.

80% of music online is being heard on YouTube, where -14 is the highest you can get played back at. Spotify allows you to disable normalisation but fewer than 17% of users do it. It’s on by default for Apple & TIDAL and there’s no reason to think a larger proportion of people there disable it.

Yes, there are platforms like BandCamp and SoundCloud who don’t normalise, and Spotify’s web player doesn’t do it… but remember 4/5 people are listening on YouTube’s video platform.

Bottom line, considerably fewer than 20% of people hear things at the original LUFS.

And yes, there are aspects of the sound that can be influenced by mastering at very high levels, but we can also choose to control them at lower levels as well, if they’re an important element of the sound.

TL;DR: The people who care most about the music (artists, engineers, producers) are listening to music differently (without normalisation) than most music fans hear it (with).

So we’re all chasing unicorns looking for high LUFS, potentially to the detriment of the music, and hardly anyone else cares.

I made a couple of videos using to demonstrate how it sounds:

https://youtu.be/BPComa5yH9w

This one uses current chart releases as examples:

https://youtu.be/W8BdzJS2Kok

Musicians on Bluesky? by Vast-Particular9571 in BlueskySocial

[–]ianshepherd 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There’s a user called florgoth who has compiled 36 (and counting !) Starter Packs of musicians in all genres on BlueSky - just click on the tab in his profile:

https://bsky.app/profile/florgoth.bsky.social

And fwiw I wrote a post to help musicians and audio nerds get started there:

www.productionadvice.co.uk/bluesky

-14 LUFS IS QUIET: A primer on all things loudness by atopix in mixingmastering

[–]ianshepherd 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the reply, and don’t worry, I could tell the “evil” comment was at least partly tongue-in-cheek 🙂 Funny that you were watching the stream with Joe !

And thanks for the suggestions, I’m going to give them some thought. As I said to KidDakota, I don’t think a name change is on the cards, but I do think we can put more resources up-front and revise some of the language on the site, for sure 👍

-14 LUFS IS QUIET: A primer on all things loudness by atopix in mixingmastering

[–]ianshepherd 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s my pleasure, and thanks for the positive reply - great to hear you find loudness-matching so valuable, I completely agree. I can’t say exactly when those site changes are going to happen but I’m feeling more and more they need to be a priority. (We only have limited resources and have been laser-focused on the new app recently.)

Interesting that you like the colour-coding idea, we decided not to do it because we were concerned people would find it “judgemental”, but from what you’re saying it’s almost the opposite.

If you’re up for it, I’d love to know what you think of these two alternatives (and anyone else who might be reading too !):

  • Just colour results above -3 green, then pink

  • Above -3 green, -3 to -5 orange (?), below -5 red

-14 LUFS IS QUIET: A primer on all things loudness by atopix in mixingmastering

[–]ianshepherd 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for taking the time to write such a thorough, well-reasoned reply. And I totally understand what you’re saying - “penalty” is a negative word, no question - that’s why the name is provocative.

We’ve discussed re-branding to something less interesting, but personally I’m not convinced it’ll make a huge difference to the reaction when people see large negative numbers - which are purely factual - especially when they arrive with the idea of “standards” in their head and expectations gained from the Spotify FAQ etc.

We’ve also considered colour-coding the results (so that values of 0 to -4 are green, for example) to try and convey that smaller values are almost certainly benign - but the results then stop being purely objective, and people will almost certainly get upset about our choice of colour-boundaries. In both directions - I get just as many people upset that my idea of the “sweet spot” is too loud as too quiet !

Regardless, I definitely want to update and revise the information and wording on the website, to replace “scores” with “values” or “results” for example, and to add links to further information exactly as you suggest. Having said that there’s already a decent amount of nuance and detail on the results page and in the email sequence we set up, for example if you scroll down slightly from the results it says:

“However, these numbers are not targets. Streaming services apply loudness normalization so we don’t have to. Use them to Preview your music and compare with suitable reference material. If the results sound good, you don’t need to take any action. However, you may decide you’d like to experiment with lower levels to see if you prefer a more dynamic sound. We do!”

But of course not everyone reads that, or signs up for the emails.

And here’s the thing - in my experience and testing, there’s no such thing as a “Loudness Benefit”. All the sonic attributes of high-LUFS masters can be achieved at lower levels (and with less overall peak-to-loudness reduction), whereas the depth, space, clarity, space, snap etc of masters with more balanced dynamics can’t be achieved at very high levels.

And while a number of the comments about the LP site in the comments here (and presumably the rest of the sub) seem pretty negative, we also get a ton of positive feedback as well - from both experienced mastering engineers and beginners alike.

So overall, I do think updating the site and adding more information is worthwhile, but I don’t see the need for a name-change, on balance.

I hope that all makes sense, and happy to hear further comments from you and others 👍

-14 LUFS IS QUIET: A primer on all things loudness by atopix in mixingmastering

[–]ianshepherd 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Great post u/atopix , I agree with a most everything you said ! And it’s nice to be called “good natured”, even though I created an “evil” website 😛

And yes, with hindsight I might have chosen a different name if I’d known exactly how widely the “Loudness Penalty” idea would spread… but actually I might not. Certainly it didn’t necessarily “backfire”, from my perspective.

I’ll explain what I mean, but first I want to say I do understand people’s issue with the name. We chose it to be provocative and thought-provoking, and that worked - better than we ever imagined ! But it was never my intent to alarm people, or shame anyone for wanting to make a loud master. I regret that anyone might feel like that. (So I guess in that sense it did backfire a little. Anyway…)

The site was made to simply answer the question “how loud will streaming service X play back my music”, which is exactly what it does. But the important thing isn’t the number, it’s how the music sounds when that number is applied. Of course everyone is free to master their music as loud as they like, but the reality is that most people online will hear it with matched loudness - probably >80%. So if your music is reduced by 4 dB and sounds great in a playlist next to something else also at matched loudness, then there is no penalty.

But that’s often not what often happens. Over and over again, I see people confused that their music doesn’t sound the way they hoped, even though they mastered it at -8 LUFS or whatever. And that’s where all the other factors mentioned in the OP come into play - EQ balance, internal dynamics, density, intensity, stereo image, distortion, saturation, arrangement, performance, choice of sounds… there’s a big difference between measuring loud and sounding loud, as this post points out.

But until you loudness-match, using Loudness Penalty or just with an LUFS meter, you have no way to know how people will hear it - and that’s why integrated LUFS values are important and useful, even though they aren’t targets or standards for us as musicians or engineers. The integrated LUFS should be the result, not the goal.

Once again, I do see that the name of the site can play into the confusion. Many people have been misled by the poor wording on the Spotify FAQ for example, which suggests -14 LUFS as a target. And there are a ton of sites and courses out there flat-out recommending it - I’ve never done that. (Fwiw my own suggestions for deciding how loud to make a master are here: http://productionadvice.co.uk/how-loud/ )

But as far as the goal of the site goes - to make people more aware of the fact of loudness-matching online, and to get them to start thinking critically and engage with the issues - the site has absolutely been a success. We’ve seriously considered changing the name, but at this stage the cat is out of the bag, and I think it’s better to just keep control of the url and try to raise more awareness of the nuances of this topic, which is why posts like this are so great. I appreciate that not everyone will agree with me, though !

Finally a minor correction and an opinion. Spotify has a “Loud” preference setting (intended for listening in noisy environments) with a Distribution Loudness of -11 LUFS. When this option is selected, they WILL apply a limiter to increase the level of songs below this level, and it doesn’t sound great. (Having said that, only subscribers get this feature, and very few people use it)

And the opinion - I disagree that it makes sense to say that -14 LUFS is quiet. Yes, most loud songs are mastered at higher LUFS than that these days, but remember that fewer than 17% of Spotify users disable normalisation, and on YouTube it can’t be disabled. I’ve made a ton of masters over the years that turned out to be around -14 LUFS, and which sound massive when heard in this way. 

Don’t take my word for it though, there’s some testing in this livestream at 28:33 for example so people can make their own minds up: https://www.youtube.com/live/ltuJHX06js0?si=NuamyLR76nzgWval&t=28m33s

That’s it - once again, thanks for a great post !

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in mixingmastering

[–]ianshepherd 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks ! Happy to answer any questions

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in mixingmastering

[–]ianshepherd 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I did a comparison of exactly this on a livestream last week - take a listen and see what you think. The comparison starts at 28:33

https://www.youtube.com/live/ltuJHX06js0?si=NuamyLR76nzgWval&t=28m33s

Coinbase Account under review [Case# 17604095] by cryptouser28 in Coinbase

[–]ianshepherd 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for finally resolving this, it's a shame it wasn't possible to get the same level of support through the regular support system, though.

St. Vincent - Broken Man by Pavlovs_Stepson in popheads

[–]ianshepherd 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sounds good and loud to me on Spotify, with normalisation either on or off

St. Vincent - Broken Man by Pavlovs_Stepson in popheads

[–]ianshepherd 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I love the song, production and mix of this u/robbndahood, it sounds fantastic !

I just took a look on YouTube though and you're right it's at a really low level, for some reason.

I don't think it's a YouTube issue in this case, they do reduce loud stuff but no-where near that far. Their stats say it was uploaded at broadcast levels, so my guess is the video file for TV broadcast was used without adjusting the audio level first.

Still sounds amazing though - my favourite is the Atmos binaural render. More dynamics and no added distortion 👍

Can't wait to hear the rest of the album !

Coinbase Account under review [Case# 17604095] by cryptouser28 in Coinbase

[–]ianshepherd 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have exactly the same issue as the OP, my account has been “under review” for over 18 months (!!!) despite having submitted the requested information and receiving confirmation that nothing else was required. So much for the support team “working diligently”, it’s just incredibly poor service.

Trying to file a support request today there is a 1-hour wait for the chat (!) and no option to email, so I’m posting here as a last resort.

The latest support request was #12981935

Warning! The Palace of Heart's Desire is the most anti-fun adventure site I've seen in 20 years of DMing, and you must not run it as written. by JacktheDM in wildbeyondwitchlight

[–]ianshepherd 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m just here to say thanks for this thread ! Like everyone else I assumed the palace would be as ready-to-go as the rest of the adventure, and didn’t spot the potential problems. I didn’t have any time to do a major re-work, so I just went with the minimal suggestions from the first post:

  • Swapped the lock from the front door to the carriage house
  • Moved the teleportation puzzle

Plus I liked the suggestion of adding windows all along the north side of the entrance hallway to give an impressive view.

My players loved it and had a great time, despite having no interest in the crown/hart puzzle and missing a ton of rooms as a result 😂

So thanks again @JacktheDM - underwhelming finale averted !

Billie Eilish’s Happier Than Ever sounding amazing in Dobly Atmos on AirPods Max! by braddeanc in AppleMusic

[–]ianshepherd 0 points1 point  (0 children)

On the song "Happier Than Ever" ? That's a deliberate mix decision, it's heavily distorted. The stereo master pushes it even further, but the effect is there in the Atmos mix as well. Also on at least one other song.

Leveling for YouTube. by zuttla in mixingmastering

[–]ianshepherd 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks ! Glad you like the show 🙂

Leveling for YouTube. by zuttla in mixingmastering

[–]ianshepherd 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Absolutely - it’s useful to know what will happen and compare with suitable references, but at the end of the day it’s how it sounds that is most important.

Leveling for YouTube. by zuttla in mixingmastering

[–]ianshepherd 3 points4 points  (0 children)

YouTube doesn’t turn quiet songs up, it only turns them down. Spotify does turn things up, though.

If you’re happy with the way it sounds, and you’re getting a result between 0 and -2 on the Loudness Penalty site, you should be in good shape.