I thought that the loudness war was over

[forumuser828520]

I thought that the loudeness war was over ?

Ive load im my audio editor some wav files from Sleep Token and Lana del Ray
and in certain places the wav is like a brick !

What should i do why my mastering ?

Follow the trend, or continue to use my mastering settings at -1 db´s ?
And thats only for some peaks, i dont normalize my files.

[Hugh Robjohns]

Make it sound the way you want it to sound. If that means like a lana DR brick, then do that. If you want dynamics, then do that.

Different music genre, and different listening destinations expect different styles because of fashion. So pick your market and match it.

As for the loudness wars.... sadly not over...

[James Perrett]

I find that most music is fine with gentle limiting to shave off the highest peaks. This may result in the waveform looking a bit like a brick if you zoom out but doesn't make it sound as restricted as some of the more severe limiting that is common these days. With experience, it is usually fairly easy to hear when you have pushed the limiting too far.

[Digital Media Team]

I'd echo what Hugh said here - find some reference tracks in your genre and aim to match those, since you'll likely want to appear in playlists alongside these tracks.

[R_A]

I thought that the loudeness war was over ?

Ive load im my audio editor some wav files from Sleep Token and Lana del Ray
and in certain places the wav is like a brick !

Worth a read:
https://www.izotope.com/en/learn/grammy ... -2025.html

Beyoncé, “TEXAS HOLD 'EM” - Loudness: -7.9 LUFS
Sabrina Carpenter, “Espresso” - Loudness: -7.5

[The Elf]

At least now everyone has a choice. - and personally I find that -1dBTP/-14LUFS is a good guide. It's simple to squash that down if the client requires it.

I've had requests from some acts for masters of -9LUFS. That's fine - it's just a choice. Of course some streaming services may turn it down (there's a 'loud' -9LUFS option on some services), but the listener will turn it back up, so no biggie.

The bottom line is that there's no need to sweat about this. If you want to crush your mixes, and that sounds good for you, then no problem. If you want a more dynamic mix then that can be accommodated too.

Personally I'd stick with 1dB of wriggle room for peaks. I'd rather be 1dB down from max than risk distortion when streamed.

[Hugh Robjohns]

It's interesting, isn't it?

I agree with the Elf that 'crushage' is an artistic choice, albeit with the likelihood of getting turned down significantly when played over any of the main streamers....

However, what that article demonstrates very well is that there is still considerable technical ignorance in peak level management even in the highest echelons of professional mastering.

Not a single track in that Grammy list is compliant with the EBU BS1770-4 spec in respect of true peak levels... Who cares about standards, you may ask?

Well, what that means in practice is that half of those tracks will definitely clip the listener's D-A converter, with the rest very highly likely to clip.

There is simply no excuse or justification for that. None whatsoever. It's pure ignorance, incompetence, or idiocy.

Maybe they don't think clipping matters, or that its a nice effect... but the fact is that the audible results differ with every converter. So what the golden-eared mastering engineer hears is not necessarily what the punter hears...

And all for the sake of turning it down by a decibel or two.

[forumuser828520]

Thanks everybody.

[awjoe]

... 'crushage'...

You can write that new word easily enough, but now try to say it.

(Inconsequential sidebar to your useful post.)

[Hugh Robjohns]

[SafeandSound Mastering]

I do not have a great deal to add to this, the very first thing is I note the Beatles has not been volume adjusted on YouTube, so they must have uploaded target volume -6.x LUFS was not uploaded to Youtube.

Take blanket statements with a pinch of salt.

It is worth considering that M.E.s are under various pressures.

I have mixes here that were originally sent to me at -6.4 LUFS integrated, harsh and distorted. "Listening copies" (limited to -0.1dBFS with a true peak of +0.6dBFS)

I now have the task of either making quieter sound as good and as exciting as "listening copies" that a band have been listening to for a few weeks and been accustomed to. Or as loud and yet less harsh, less distorted and with more body, but as exciting (and avoid ISPs). And explaining information justifying my suggested approaches. It is just about possible believe it or not.

As a consequence they will get 2 sets of masters optimized for each format, basically cause I care.

Nothing is blanket in this line of work, it's bespoke and I often have to deal with all sorts of needs, potential conflicts, trying to be a magician, have exemplary communications, make positive compromises and often do a bit more work than I am actually being paid for.

No such thing as a normal job, every single one different. I enjoy it but it is not easy work by any means. You need eyes in the back of your head. (or ears!)

The end result is not usually in isolation, it is often arrived at from prior stages of production.

As long as I know I have done everything I could to take the middle path on the loud and tricky stuff, it's fine.

[RichardT]

Pop music is driven by fashion. The highly-limited brick sound has become a thing and I guess people like it. Personally, I think it ruins everything it touches.

[Hugh Robjohns]

I don't like the 'brick sound' either, but I can respect that it is expected in some genres and fashions. It's art, innit.

But intersample peak clipping is just plain incompetent...

[amanise]

It's not always the first choice of the artist either - but if you don't want to sound puny when streamed against everything else you have to fall in with the loudness norm that prevails. There's a great graphic 'out there' somewhere of a Beatles track waveform as originally released, then re released a couple of times every decade or so - and each time becoming more brick like. You'd have thought the original artists in that case would have had some say in how it got re released - but even they got bricked. I've seen some of my output streamed by an internet radio station looking decidedly puny sandwiched between two acoustic folk tracks. Full modern rock vs acoustic guitar and a voice. That's when you decide you have to give in and pump it up a bit. Personally, I'd rather not have control (and hence responsibility) for that bit.

[Drew Stephenson]

but if you don't want to sound puny when streamed against everything else you have to fall in with the loudness norm that prevails.

But that's the whole point of loudness normalisation!

[R_A]

There's a great graphic 'out there' somewhere of a Beatles track waveform as originally released, then re released a couple of times every decade or so - and each time becoming more brick like.

Has anyone got an audio file of the original version of Billie Jean?

It's my understanding that a 'good brick' (as opposed to a bad brick ). Begins to get baked in the mix, long before the mastering process with plugins that have become popular in certain genres (such as SIR StandardCLIP). Maybe someone who actually gets inside these rooms / sessions can shed a bit more light?

I hear a lot of aggressive use of exciters on vocals - imo the 'numbers' do not always pick up on the extra loudness brutality this brings.

[amanise]

but if you don't want to sound puny when streamed against everything else you have to fall in with the loudness norm that prevails.

But that's the whole point of loudness normalisation!

Well, yes. Perhaps people need to try doing it a bit more. Put it this way, as a folkie yourself, would you appreciate being streamed by some Internet radio jock at loudness levels that would dwarf an Aerosmith track? I wouldn't.

[RichardT]

I don't like the 'brick sound' either, but I can respect that it is expected in some genres and fashions. It's art, innit.

But intersample peak clipping is just plain incompetent...

I agree. I wonder if people who do that do it knowingly? It does add a tiny fraction of loudness and I wonder if that’s all they care about, whatever the cost.

[junkmale]

came across this article which might be of interest -

https://ra.co/features/4472

talking about how some artists use loudness as a creative tool.

many years ago a friend of mine was playing a dj set when the engineer came rushing into the booth with a face like thunder screaming about how my friend was wrecking their rig, to which my friend replied "go away and leave me alone, it's supposed to sound like that!"
wish I could remember what it was they were playing.

[Martin Walker]

came across this article which might be of interest -

https://ra.co/features/4472

talking about how some artists use loudness as a creative tool.

Wow, thanks for the link junkmale - that seems like a fascinating website that's already sent me down a couple of rabbit holes!

[junkmale]

came across this article which might be of interest -

https://ra.co/features/4472

talking about how some artists use loudness as a creative tool.

Wow, thanks for the link junkmale - that seems like a fascinating website that's already sent me down a couple of rabbit holes!

no worries Martin, glad you like RA

I find it a great place for music news, and in particular events/gigs.
(which is searchable by event/artist/location)
their ticket sales process is pretty sweet, and has a very useful resale facility - I had got us tickets for Greg Wilson in Todmorden NYE, but other half was definitely lurgified so resold the tickets with no bother, face value minus a small admin fee.

[twotoedsloth]

Hello,

I have a problem that I run into almost every day. I work at a university, and we livestream all of our student recitals, this on it's own is not a problem. However, some of the listeners complain vociferously that it is not loud enough for them to hear on their notebook computers. The teachers and students really don't want compression, though I'm not sure they know what that is or what it entails. I have been using the Sony Oxford Inflator, and just don't tell people what I'm doing. Again this is fine, but I need to stream to YouTube, so I guess that means I'll have to use the compression built into our mixer - an Allen & Heath SQ5. I have been using 2.5:1 ratio starting at -18 db, and with about 5 db of makeup gain. Any more than this is audible, to me at least.

Is there another solution that I'm overlooking? Sorry if I'm hijacking the thread, just illustrating how the loudness war is still going on in the classical music field.

Best regards,

Peter

[Hugh Robjohns]

I think I'd go for parallel compression as that lifts the quiet bits (which is where the laptop listening struggles) without mangling the transients (which is what most muso's complain about).

[twotoedsloth]

Thanks Hugh,

I'll give that a try on a vocal recital this afternoon.

Fortunate that it's so easy to send a signal to multiple tracks on the SQ5. I know that people love their analog consoles, but this would not be as easy as it is on a digital mixer.

Your advice is greatly appreciated.

Peter

[RichardT]

Yes, that's a good solution.

With classical pieces, sometimes there are just a few seconds of audio that reach the highest levels, while a lot of it is nowhere near the peak.

In that case a more forensic approach can work, if you have time for it. Look for the peak bits and either apply some volume automation or compression just in that area or even, as I've done quite successfully, use a limiter.

It's surprising, with a reasonable limiter, how hard it is to hear it working when its only working for 2-3% of the time. I actually prefer it to compression in this use case, as it minimise how much of the audio is affected, but YMMV.