Tips for increasing perceived Loudness while maintaining LUFS level

[LiquidCrystal]

Hey guys,

 

So this is kind of a confusing question because I thought that LUFS was supposed to be a measurement of perceived loudness?

 

Anyway, I've got a gig at the moment to make a bunch of tracks for a production music library, and they want all tracks to be mastered to -16LUFS. I've been comparing my tracks to those already in their catalogue and mine sound significantly quieter (when lowered to -16LUFS). How do I make my tracks louder whilst retaining the LUFS level.

 

Usually if I needed to make a track louder for me this would mean more compression/limiting, tighter control of the low end, saturation, etc. But this is when working with to the absolute peak and doesn't seem to be effective when working with LUFS?

 

I guess I'm confused as to how LUFS is measured? And how can I exploit the way that it's measured to make my music sound louder?

 

Thanks in advance for any help guys, been struggling to find useful information about this online so thought I'd ask here.

 

Cheers

[triplets]

I've been comparing my tracks to those already in their catalogue and mine sound significantly quieter (when lowered to -16LUFS). How do I make my tracks louder whilst retaining the LUFS level.

 

If their tracks sound louder at the same LUFS level, it means they have more compression.

Pretty sure they're compressed to the tilt, and then lowered to -16.

[LiquidCrystal]

If their tracks sound louder at the same LUFS level, it means they have more compression.

Pretty sure they're compressed to the tilt, and then lowered to -16.

 

But even if I add heavy compression to my tracks and subsequently add make up gain I can barely get any louder without crossing over the -16. I thought that LUFS favoured a more dynamic mix?

[triplets]

I thought that LUFS favoured a more dynamic mix?

 

LUFS is just a measurement.

They brought the level down so the mixes don't become a loudness competition regardless if it sounds good or bad.

 

Gain staging a mix is not just adding tons of compression and make up gain.

It's an art and a skill that a couple of mouse clicks cannot achieve. It takes years to develop good mixing skills.

[LiquidCrystal]

LUFS is just a measurement.

They brought the level down so the mixes don't become a loudness competition regardless if it sounds good or bad.

 

Hmm ok, I'm not sure how this solves the loudness competition just by lowering the base level. But It appears your correct, I've been checking out their other tracks and they are all super flat and lifeless.

 

Gain staging a mix is not just adding tons of compression and make up gain.

It's an art and a skill that a couple of mouse clicks cannot achieve. It takes years to develop good mixing skills.

 

Yeah I understand this, I was just applying layers of ridiculously heavy compression to the Master to test its effect on the LUFS level.

 

Looks like I'll have to go back to the mix and compress the hell out of everything. What a shame. Thanks for the help.

[triplets]

I'm not sure how this solves the loudness competition just by lowering the base level. But It appears your correct, I've been checking out their other tracks and they are all super flat and lifeless.

 

I think it definitely solves the loudness issue because the limit is set. So you can do whatever you want with the mix as long as it doesn't go over that limit.

So the heavily compressed track will sound flat and lifeless like you found out.

[fuzzfilth]

There's several aspects to this.

 

First, I have the impression you're unsure about the goal of loudness normalisation. It may appear that loudness normalisation should result in identical perceived loudness of two different pieces of audio. It does not. While it actually works pretty well within the physical framing of what can be measured and analysed by the algorithm, it can't measure how we react emotionally to a certain piece of music. A schmaltzy John Denver ballad can have the same LUFs as a 240bpm trash metal attack and certainly they will be perceived differently by fans of each camp.

Then, as you found out, compressed sounds different than dynamic and will be perceived differently on an emotional level, even when LUFs tells you it's identical. What loudness normalisation can do is create a volume platform on which anything can be played without the need to reach for the volume knob. It will not even out all your brain's emotional and cultural baggage.

 

Second, music, and especially production music will not be selected or rejected by content producers based on its absolute level or perceived loudness. To the scale of 'absolutely not'. It couldn't be more irrelevant. If the piece fits the purpose it will be used. If not it will not be. Simple as that.

 

In production music, nothing will get used at its original level, so there is no point in mastering loud unless you go for the actual sound of compression, limiting and/or clipping. The label's request to target -16LUFs is just a measure to have similar and ideally equal loudness during auditioning through 200+ tracks to find the right one.

 

And to top it off, any music that goes under something else of importance (narration, commercial VO, dialogue) will be turned down to the size of an atom to stay out of the way of the important stuff if it's mastered loud, *because* it is mastered (obnoxiously) loud. If you have dynamics in the piece on a medium time scale (there's three time scales in dynamics, - short: 1 snare hit or 1 bass note, - medium: 1 bar, - long: the entire piece's loudness arc) it has a much bigger chance to remain visible.

[LiquidCrystal]

What loudness normalisation can do is create a volume platform on which anything can be played without the need to reach for the volume knob. It will not even out all your brain's emotional and cultural baggage.

 

But this is the issue, the difference between my tracks and theirs was enough to make it necessary to use my volume knob. Also I was comparing my music to tracks of similar genre, instrumentation, and energy levels.

 

Second, music, and especially production music will not be selected or rejected by content producers based on its absolute level or perceived loudness. To the scale of 'absolutely not'. It couldn't be more irrelevant. If the piece fits the purpose it will be used. If not it will not be. Simple as that.

 

In production music, nothing will get used at its original level, so there is no point in mastering loud unless you go for the actual sound of compression, limiting and/or clipping. The label's request to target -16LUFs is just a measure to have similar and ideally equal loudness during auditioning through 200+ tracks to find the right one.

 

Isn't there an expected standard of loudness though in this kind of music? As you say if they're auditioning through tonnes of tracks doesn't it hurt if my tracks are quieter than everyone else's? If two tracks are played side by side the louder will give the illusion of being higher quality won't it?

[fuzzfilth]

If two tracks are played side by side the louder will give the illusion of being higher quality won't it?

No. Thats a false assumption that started the entire loudness war. Playing John Denver louder does not make me like it better. At all.

 

Can you upload two snippets where this issue occurs ? Otherwise we're chasing geese here.

[MikeRobinson]

Given that you just said this: (emphasis added ... ) ... (W00 H00!)

 

I've got a gig at the moment (!!$$!!) to make a bunch of tracks for a production music library, and they want all tracks to be mastered to -16LUFS. I've been comparing my tracks to those already in their catalogue and mine sound significantly quieter (when lowered to -16LUFS). How do I make my tracks louder whilst retaining the LUFS level.

... here's what I'd do: get objective. Get mathematical. Don't compare how the tracks (subjectively ...) "sound to you." (I daresay that, in this context, "nobody really cares what you think ... and that there's a good technical reason for it.") Instead, look for objective measures – then, try as closely as possible to match them. Ask the curators for a full list of the technical parameters that they will use to evaluate the submissions, and try to discern exactly how they will do it.

 

Then, "give 'em exactly what they bought last time."

 

Obviously, the curators of a "music library" care most of all that the offerings throughout their entire product-library are homogeneous, especially in the sense that their customers will encounter no "rude surprises" when trying to integrate their purchases technically into their projects. (Especially when they've bought more than one thing and are now getting them to settle-in together.) Therefore, make your contributions (subjectively) "new, exciting and original," but (objectively and technically) "easy peasy."