Just stumbled across your channel. Fantastic. Excellent video. Excellent explanation. Since it came along, I've always struggled with LUFS and have always mixed to -23 LUFS on the master bus. It works fine for me and seems to be consistent across everything I try to mix. I haven't reached any mastering stage since I started 40 odd years ago on analog gear. I'll leave that to better ears than mine. I'd like to do that also with mixing, but that's a luxury most of us can never afford.
Hi Jesco, thank you for this addendum! It makes sense to me now. Although I wasn't clear in the quoted comment maybe by writing 'turning up/down the monitor volume'. So let me rephrase; 'setting the monitor volume and keep it there' is what I do actually. I do confess that I check my mastered tracks afterwards on several different volume settings. Having said this the LUFS discussion will stay in this world forever probably as soon as we mix Pop, Rock and Classical and master it through one and the same LUFS setting. Different styles of music are perceived at different (pleasant) loudness levels, independent from whatever medium we use. But the listener is used to hear it all at an even loudness and is satisfied. Maybe that's why I also do not go to amplified concerts anymore since every style of music is live-mixed to the max legally allowed dB-level so it seems. Anyway thanks again for your addendum. It all seems to fade in and out to each other doesn't it? ;-)
Great video Jesco.. nailed it... room calibration and monitoring calibration cannot be underestimated. BTW... can you please water your plant to the right.. maybe little Seasol too... It will be happy! :-)
Great video, Jesco. In addition to what you explained, even if we are measuring the perceived loudness it will still differ from one track to another. If a track has lots of low frequent energy (like 808’s) and another track has a more subtle low range and a focus on the mids, the second example would be considered “louder”. All to do with how human hearing works at different frequencies. Cheers!!
Could have been good to mention that a sound system can be SPL calibrated. You can link your preferred SPL level to your preferred LUFS target. For example if your style is usually mastered to -8 LUFS. You can calibrate your system to have -8 LUFS at your preferred SPL, for example 76 dB SPLc. You could also give yourself 10 LU of headroom for mixing by turning the speakers 10dB louder and working 10dB quieter.
I think the place that this gets so confusing is that LUFS is a concrete "target" to strive for. For any given LUFS number a mix generates, the true peak that results from that volume is where your limits are. If I have a mix that is -10 LUFS and the TP is -0.9, I want to export that mix over one that has -14 LUFS and a TP of -3dB. Whether people understand it or not, the one that is -10 /-0.9 almost always will be perceived to be "better" because relative to the other one where you though you matched the LUFS to streaming targets, it will sound "louder."
I don't mean to be rude here but I think you have misunderstood the function of the master fader or, I may completely misunderstood your video (that is absolutely a possibility :-). ) The master fader function, in a music production workflow (not to be confused with a live setting), is (mainly) to adjust the peak level of the master bus. In a music production/mix situation it should newer be used for setting the general listening level, that's done with the Speaker Level/Monitor controller. A mix has to have the highest peak level in correspondence to the standards you work in. For streaming files it's usually Tp -1db. It's then possible to monitor LUFS in a constructive way. LUFS, the dynamic range, is adjusted by using limiters, clippers, compressors and by adjusting individual channel faders, or a mix of both (Im trying to oversimplify as much as needed.....). To mix with a peak master bus level of -30db (or whatever) is not a good practice as it means reducing the systems total dynamic by -30db. In the analog word that would mean lifting the background noice by 30 db. I do agree that setting a "standard" listening level is very important. In my opinion this is much better done by using what Dolby suggests, using pink noice and a sound level meter.
I'm still a little confused on how exactly to execute this, if only because I am having difficulty visualizing what you're describing. Any chance you can do another short video demonstrating this on-screen? Are you using a meter plug-in on your master fader set to the desired LUFS level, and then every time you mix a project, you are always checking that meter to make sure it's hitting that level (and if not, moving the master fader to compensate)? But then again you said you want the master fader and the monitor volume to stay fixed, so now I'm confused as to how exactly you're hitting this desired LUFS number -- unless you're always adjusting your individual tracks, in which case you've just switched the "constantly moving volume" that we're trying to avoid, from one place in the chain to another. Yeah I'm still confused lol I need to see it in practise if that's at all possible, thanks! :)
Trying this out in Pro Tools, I'm thinking the old method of routing all tracks to an aux (let's call it "Output"), and then routing that aux to the master fader might make sense. Drop the meter plug-in on the master, but use that Output fader to get the desired LUFS -- this way you leave the master at the same level and of course the monitor volume as well. Maybe that's the solution?
One question regarding volume matching. I feel like it is easier to tell which track is louder than the other if I increase the total listing volume, but if our perceived frequency response changes with our listening volume, does'nt that mess with our ability to volume match?
![Twenty One Pilots - “The Line” (from Arcane Season 2) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/E2Rj2gQAyPA/mqdefault.jpg)
Just stumbled across your channel. Fantastic. Excellent video. Excellent explanation. Since it came along, I've always struggled with LUFS and have always mixed to -23 LUFS on the master bus. It works fine for me and seems to be consistent across everything I try to mix.
I haven't reached any mastering stage since I started 40 odd years ago on analog gear. I'll leave that to better ears than mine. I'd like to do that also with mixing, but that's a luxury most of us can never afford.
Hi Jesco, thank you for this addendum! It makes sense to me now. Although I wasn't clear in the quoted comment maybe by writing 'turning up/down the monitor volume'. So let me rephrase; 'setting the monitor volume and keep it there' is what I do actually. I do confess that I check my mastered tracks afterwards on several different volume settings. Having said this the LUFS discussion will stay in this world forever probably as soon as we mix Pop, Rock and Classical and master it through one and the same LUFS setting. Different styles of music are perceived at different (pleasant) loudness levels, independent from whatever medium we use. But the listener is used to hear it all at an even loudness and is satisfied. Maybe that's why I also do not go to amplified concerts anymore since every style of music is live-mixed to the max legally allowed dB-level so it seems. Anyway thanks again for your addendum. It all seems to fade in and out to each other doesn't it? ;-)
Great video Jesco.. nailed it... room calibration and monitoring calibration cannot be underestimated. BTW... can you please water your plant to the right.. maybe little Seasol too... It will be happy! :-)
Great video, Jesco. In addition to what you explained, even if we are measuring the perceived loudness it will still differ from one track to another. If a track has lots of low frequent energy (like 808’s) and another track has a more subtle low range and a focus on the mids, the second example would be considered “louder”. All to do with how human hearing works at different frequencies. Cheers!!
Could have been good to mention that a sound system can be SPL calibrated. You can link your preferred SPL level to your preferred LUFS target.
For example if your style is usually mastered to -8 LUFS. You can calibrate your system to have -8 LUFS at your preferred SPL, for example 76 dB SPLc.
You could also give yourself 10 LU of headroom for mixing by turning the speakers 10dB louder and working 10dB quieter.
I think the place that this gets so confusing is that LUFS is a concrete "target" to strive for. For any given LUFS number a mix generates, the true peak that results from that volume is where your limits are. If I have a mix that is -10 LUFS and the TP is -0.9, I want to export that mix over one that has -14 LUFS and a TP of -3dB. Whether people understand it or not, the one that is -10 /-0.9 almost always will be perceived to be "better" because relative to the other one where you though you matched the LUFS to streaming targets, it will sound "louder."
I don't mean to be rude here but I think you have misunderstood the function of the master fader or, I may completely misunderstood your video (that is absolutely a possibility :-). )
The master fader function, in a music production workflow (not to be confused with a live setting), is (mainly) to adjust the peak level of the master bus. In a music production/mix situation it should newer be used for setting the general listening level, that's done with the Speaker Level/Monitor controller. A mix has to have the highest peak level in correspondence to the standards you work in. For streaming files it's usually Tp -1db. It's then possible to monitor LUFS in a constructive way.
LUFS, the dynamic range, is adjusted by using limiters, clippers, compressors and by adjusting individual channel faders, or a mix of both (Im trying to oversimplify as much as needed.....).
To mix with a peak master bus level of -30db (or whatever) is not a good practice as it means reducing the systems total dynamic by -30db. In the analog word that would mean lifting the background noice by 30 db.
I do agree that setting a "standard" listening level is very important. In my opinion this is much better done by using what Dolby suggests, using pink noice and a sound level meter.
I'm still a little confused on how exactly to execute this, if only because I am having difficulty visualizing what you're describing. Any chance you can do another short video demonstrating this on-screen? Are you using a meter plug-in on your master fader set to the desired LUFS level, and then every time you mix a project, you are always checking that meter to make sure it's hitting that level (and if not, moving the master fader to compensate)? But then again you said you want the master fader and the monitor volume to stay fixed, so now I'm confused as to how exactly you're hitting this desired LUFS number -- unless you're always adjusting your individual tracks, in which case you've just switched the "constantly moving volume" that we're trying to avoid, from one place in the chain to another. Yeah I'm still confused lol I need to see it in practise if that's at all possible, thanks! :)
Trying this out in Pro Tools, I'm thinking the old method of routing all tracks to an aux (let's call it "Output"), and then routing that aux to the master fader might make sense. Drop the meter plug-in on the master, but use that Output fader to get the desired LUFS -- this way you leave the master at the same level and of course the monitor volume as well. Maybe that's the solution?
One question regarding volume matching. I feel like it is easier to tell which track is louder than the other if I increase the total listing volume, but if our perceived frequency response changes with our listening volume, does'nt that mess with our ability to volume match?
The setup speakers email doesn’t come through dude?
Again your link doesn’t work!!! I have tried to email you but you haven’t replied, I think something is not working within your setup
First explain integrated lufs, short term lufs. Etc. and also I don’t like using lufs for that. There is better ways. Way simpler