Mastering to LUFS standards

Recording Techniques, People Skills, Gear, Recording Spaces, Computers, and DIY

Moderators: drumsound, tomb

Post Reply
junkyardtodd
gettin' sounds
Posts: 100
Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 5:12 am
Location: lakewood, oh
Contact:

Mastering to LUFS standards

Post by junkyardtodd » Sun Sep 01, 2019 5:17 pm

I've been recording and mastering (on Ozone 7) my dumb indie rock stuff on a hobbyist level for a long time, and in the last few years I've gotten to a point where the tracks sound like I want them to sound, and I can play them next to commercially produced stuff. But now we want to make it available on Spotify, and I'm starting to learn about LUFS. When I put a LUFS meter on the end of my mastering chain I discovered that I was running -11 or so, much hotter than the -16 that Spotify wants. It's easy enough to get down to -16, but then my peak winds up at -2 or -3db. I've been messing with it all day and can't get better results.
Is this normal? Should I just do a separate master for CD? Should I go into the mixes and try to reduce the amount of compression on individual tracks?
:?
Yes, I am one of THOSE people, up in the attic, trying to recreate the magical sounds of my youth (cheap trick, boston, pavement) on the family 8 track recorder.

User avatar
A.David.MacKinnon
ghost haunting audio students
Posts: 3304
Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 5:57 am
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Mastering to LUFS standards

Post by A.David.MacKinnon » Mon Sep 02, 2019 1:19 pm

If it was me I wouldn't change the mixes. If they're doing what you want leave them as is.
I'd compare to other commercial mixes. Are they actually hitting -16 LUFS or is Spotify just turning them down before streaming? Maybe compare a song where you own a hard copy or hi-rez download. What do the meters say on the hi-rez version vs Spotify?
How do your mixes sound with peaks at -2 or -3db? Are you missing anything? Do they sit well next to other mixes sitting at -16 LUFS?

I'd put more emphasis on what my ears are telling me vs what the meters say.

User avatar
joninc
deaf.
Posts: 1900
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 5:02 pm
Location: canada
Contact:

Re: Mastering to LUFS standards

Post by joninc » Mon Sep 02, 2019 3:55 pm

some interesting info here:

loudnesspenalty.com
the new rules : there are no rules

MoreSpaceEcho
zen recordist
Posts: 6340
Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 11:15 am

Re: Mastering to LUFS standards

Post by MoreSpaceEcho » Tue Sep 03, 2019 8:11 am

A.David.MacKinnon wrote:
Mon Sep 02, 2019 1:19 pm
If it was me I wouldn't change the mixes. If they're doing what you want leave them as is.
I'd compare to other commercial mixes. Are they actually hitting -16 LUFS or is Spotify just turning them down before streaming? Maybe compare a song where you own a hard copy or hi-rez download. What do the meters say on the hi-rez version vs Spotify?
How do your mixes sound with peaks at -2 or -3db? Are you missing anything? Do they sit well next to other mixes sitting at -16 LUFS?

I'd put more emphasis on what my ears are telling me vs what the meters say.
Ears over meters all day every day.

Nobody is putting out commercial masters at -16, I can assure you of that. Spotify is turning them down.

I personally don't pay much of any attention to LUFS numbers, I master at a fixed monitoring level and I know if I make things sound good at that level they'll be loud enough to make most clients happy but not so loud that everything's totally crushed and ruined.

So my advice would be to forget about the numbers, just make it sound good to you, and if it gets turned down by Spotify/youtube/whatever, then fine.

Another thread on this here:

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/masteri ... ot-do.html

User avatar
Nick Sevilla
speech impediment
Posts: 4880
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:34 pm
Location: Los Angeles California USA
Contact:

Re: Mastering to LUFS standards

Post by Nick Sevilla » Tue Sep 03, 2019 9:28 am

Just lower the overall gain of your already mixed masters, so they conform to that -16 LUFS standard.

Forget about the peaks, that is useless for this purpose.
Realizing vibratory excursions from a paper widget.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests