• Hi and welcome to the Studio One User Forum!

    Please note that this is an independent, user-driven forum and is not endorsed by, affiliated with, or maintained by PreSonus. Learn more in the Welcome thread!

-LUFS

Well… though I have tried to embrace the idea of LUFS in general, whenever I have given my music to professional mastering engineers (really good ones in Germany) they just didn’t care about the LUFS at all in the end, they used their ears and limiters, but literally none of them ever looked at the LUFS and said „this is probably going to be made quieter on YouTube“ or similar things.
Also, it seems that „traditionally“ mastered music like that is still perceived louder or „better“ on Spotify, Apple Music etc.
So in the end, if you try to mix into that -14LUFS sweetspot or anything, your mix will sound more quiet in comparison.
 
I released four songs last month, and this time I mastered at -14 LUFS. Compared to other similar type recordings on Spotify, etc., my mixes sound quieter, i.e., not as good. So to hell with streaming standards. Next time I'm going in hot. They can turn it down if they want to.
 
Next time I'm going in hot. They can turn it down if they want to.

That's always my advice - make it sound the way you want. As long as you respect True Peak specs, the streaming service will turn the volume down as needed. (In most cases they won't turn it up if you're below their target.)

However with rock projects, I do master to -12.5 LUFS because it's my (admittedly subjective) sweet spot for dynamics vs. loudness. That way my tracks have a consistent sound and level whether a streaming service turns them down, I'm doing reality checks over different playback systems, or sending tracks to friends and clients. It's also not under any streaming service's target, and simplifies album assembly (I still do album projects, not just singles).
 
I released four songs last month, and this time I mastered at -14 LUFS. Compared to other similar type recordings on Spotify, etc., my mixes sound quieter, i.e., not as good. So to hell with streaming standards. Next time I'm going in hot. They can turn it down if they want to.
Sorry, but I disagree. If your mix at -14 Lufs sounds worse in your opinion, then the problem is not in LUFS, but in proper mixing and balancing of dynamics and volume. A properly mixed mix should sound good both at low and high volume, which is usually not the case when mixed by non-professionals (in most cases). There is so much nonsense written on the Internet about this problem that it is not surprising that everyone considers raising Lufs a panacea for all their ills.
 
I've done tests of compressing material mastered at -14 or -16 to bring it up to -10 or -9. When volume normalized, they have the same perceived loudness. However, a problem is that LUFS is a measurement standard, not a standard of how various streaming services set their targets. For example, Spotify has an option to turn off normalization. Then your music plays back at whatever level you mastered it. For their "Loud" option (-11 LUFS), they'll bring up the level of softer music but add limiting. I think Pandora does the same thing.

Another issue is True Peak. As John Pihel says, you need to achieve a balance of dynamics and volume for mixing. For streaming services, you also need to balance LUFS with True Peak settings. If you send a super-hot master to Spotify, then the True Peak should be no higher than -2 dB. This has to be taken into account, or the streaming site's transcoding can not only add distortion, but change the perceived level. It's difficult for an LUFS preset to choose the correct tradeoff. For example, it might lower the requested LUFS value to compensate for excessively high True Peak values.

And...if you think you're doing the right thing by mastering to -16 LUFS for Apple, YouTube will not turn it up to match their -14 LUFS target. Spotify will turn it up, but add an extra dB of headroom...and so on Also note that streaming services can, and do, change their "standards." I think (not sure) YouTube was specifying -13 LUFS at one point but is now doing -14 dB LUFS.

A final issue is the program material itself. Dynamics processing is part of rock music. It brings up room sound and has other attributes that create a distinctive sonic signature. If you don't use dynamics processing to hit a lower LUFS level, then it may not have that "rock" sound. This is why I think it's important to get the sound you want. As long as it's above -14 LUFS, the streaming service will turn it down to hit its target for perceived loudness.

I know...TMI :)
 
I've done tests of compressing material mastered at -14 or -16 to bring it up to -10 or -9. When volume normalized, they have the same perceived loudness. However, a problem is that LUFS is a measurement standard, not a standard of how various streaming services set their targets. For example, Spotify has an option to turn off normalization. Then your music plays back at whatever level you mastered it. For their "Loud" option (-11 LUFS), they'll bring up the level of softer music but add limiting. I think Pandora does the same thing.

Another issue is True Peak. As John Pihel says, you need to achieve a balance of dynamics and volume for mixing. For streaming services, you also need to balance LUFS with True Peak settings. If you send a super-hot master to Spotify, then the True Peak should be no higher than -2 dB. This has to be taken into account, or the streaming site's transcoding can not only add distortion, but change the perceived level. It's difficult for an LUFS preset to choose the correct tradeoff. For example, it might lower the requested LUFS value to compensate for excessively high True Peak values.

And...if you think you're doing the right thing by mastering to -16 LUFS for Apple, YouTube will not turn it up to match their -14 LUFS target. Spotify will turn it up, but add an extra dB of headroom...and so on Also note that streaming services can, and do, change their "standards." I think (not sure) YouTube was specifying -13 LUFS at one point but is now doing -14 dB LUFS.

A final issue is the program material itself. Dynamics processing is part of rock music. It brings up room sound and has other attributes that create a distinctive sonic signature. If you don't use dynamics processing to hit a lower LUFS level, then it may not have that "rock" sound. This is why I think it's important to get the sound you want. As long as it's above -14 LUFS, the streaming service will turn it down to hit its target for perceived loudness.

I know...TMI :)
I don't mind saying that when Craig states his opinion on such things, it comes with a lot of experience, and a very good working knowledge over mastering.

I'm not here to make the guy blush, but if you have a thirst for mixing, he is that instructional sensei. I know I owe a lot to his mastering instruction, back from NAMM booth presentations from 2012, to Mastering with Presonus videos, and other endeavors. I figured I was good with -9 to -11 LUFS with an eye (ear?) on TP, but hearing Craig state that is quite reassuring.

The bottom line is be clear on what it is you're sending out. Proof it out, and make sure it translates, and is resolvable. It's your product, so get it right. Otherwise, if you're not sure, send it to a competent, or proven professional.
 
Last edited:
I don't mind saying that when Craig states his opinion on such things, it comes with a lot of experience

What a polite way to say "that dude is old" :LOL:

Otherwise, if you're not sure, send it to a competent, or proven professional.

Truer words were never spoken. I didn't learn about mastering by sitting in a home studio, but by working with mastering engineers like the late Randy Kling. Almost 40 years ago, after he had mastered several projects with which I was involved, I wanted him to master my mix for the Forward Motion album done with Spencer Brewer. I played him my "mastered" version as a reference for the sound I wanted. He said "well...you don't need me any more." But that was only because I watched everything he and others did, and thankfully, they were generous with their knowledge. The same holds true for what I've learned about mixing since the 60s. I was fortunate enough to participate in projects that were mixed by world-class engineers. I paid very close attention :)
 
Sorry, but I disagree. If your mix at -14 Lufs sounds worse in your opinion, then the problem is not in LUFS, but in proper mixing and balancing of dynamics and volume. A properly mixed mix should sound good both at low and high volume, which is usually not the case when mixed by non-professionals (in most cases). There is so much nonsense written on the Internet about this problem that it is not surprising that everyone considers raising Lufs a panacea for all their ills.
Thanks for your input. I always try to make the best mixes I can, but going forward I'll keep your helpful advice in mind.
 
John Pihel @ Larry Jones
Sorry, but I disagree. If your mix at -14 Lufs sounds worse in your opinion, then the problem is not in LUFS, but in proper mixing and balancing of dynamics and volume. A properly mixed mix should sound good both at low and high volume, which is usually not the case when mixed by non-professionals (in most cases). There is so much nonsense written on the Internet about this problem that it is not surprising that everyone considers raising Lufs a panacea for all their ills.
FWIW, I don't believe anyone here simply discussed setting LUFS to anything and that's all there is to it. This is a forum, and conversation will take different approaches towards different needs or stressing a few simple points. We're not trying to cover every avenue of resolve. That's why it was briefly mentioned variations can occur based on what ones music source material might be. Of course testing ones material at different levels is always recommended. Even particularly these days, check how it sounds when streamed. How it also sounds through ear buds, and other forms where one's music is going.
There will always be different opinions. Including the pros and cons of one stop shopping programs that are little more than snake oil. But hey, if it works for ones needs, then it's worth it for.....
their needs.
Setting LUFS is just a part of that equation.

But to John's point, sure there's a lot of nonsense written towards LUFS. I rarely venture out to those areas, but in the interest of set guidelines for LUFS, people will find their needs, or have it done for them. There has to be some guidelines for example listen to advertisements or seriously loud Metal, which when viewing the waveform looks like a tube of salami. Just so they can get LUFS to -4. (Bam!)
😉
Streaming services have to set some guideline. But just like a speed limit sign on the road, you dont have to go that speed. You simply find your place.
 
Last edited:
But to John's point, sure there's a lot of nonsense written towards LUFS. I rarely venture out to those areas, but in the interest of set guidelines for LUFS, people will find their needs, or have it done for them. There has to be some guidelines for example listen to advertisements or seriously loud Metal, which when viewing the waveform looks like a tube of salami. Just so they can get LUFS to -4. (Bam!)
😉
Exactly. This is especially typical for performers who decided that they are sound engineers too. And then they create video "lessons" and tell everyone how to do it. It's terrible.:confused:
 
You mean the same click bait addicts who review gear such as a compressor they have on a loaner, and would rather throw around a term like "glue" than even have a clue as to the devices shear subtleties of threshold, attack, release, or gain?

Not for nothing, even some of the so called "mix engineers" are three clicks from being a club date rodie.

...... I know. Don't get me started. 😉
Onward and forward.
 
Last edited:
The streaming services didn't help either. They were ambiguous as to exactly what purpose their "targets" served, or why Apple chose -16 LUFS and Spotify chose -14 LUFS (I still don't know why, maybe someone does). As to many YouTube videos, they're the knowledge equivalent of fast food - the look and feel of knowledge, but devoid of substance. Fortunately, we have venues like this, where discussions can occur.

Remember, no one vets YouTube videos. Here, we have knowledgeable people looking over our shoulders who can correct us (hopefully in a diplomatic way!) if appropriate. That's how we all learn, right?
 
LUFS is an objective measure to a subjective attribute (of music) as loudness is. It uses a model which does not apply equally well to all individuals, so to an individual the perceived loudness of songs may vary even if they all have the same LUFS rating. Still, for lack of a better alternative streaming services have adopted the unit to achieve a more even perceived loudness across songs. And in the end the listener decides how far the level is turned up on their speakers, headphones or ear pads. In that respect every target is fine.

The differences in LUFS levels ‘prescribed’ by the services is very much with end user/application in mind. A lower LUFS target allows for higher peaks above the sound plane, which is great for detail in quiet listening environments but useless in noisy environments or for music genres with limited dynamics and extensive compression/limiting. So stereotyping: Classical music in an auditorium benefits from dynamic headroom, and rock music in a car not so much.

So there I think lies part of the answer to the OP’s question: Let your music genre (and peers) and intended 'use' dictate how much dynamic room you have or need, so with how high a LUFS value you can get away with without compromising your work or hitting the true peak limits. Stations will turn you down as they will turn down other songs in the same genre. And then listeners make a selection depending on their individual preferences, mood and listening environments, and set their output levels accordingly.

My $.02 ;)
 
Last edited:
..... Here, we have knowledgeable people looking over our shoulders who can correct us (hopefully in a diplomatic way!) if appropriate. That's how we all learn, right?
Indeed. The beauty of a well based forum such as this one is that it breaths. It evolves as it needs to. No one can cover what will be a "fit for all", in so few (or many) words, but the fact that we as users, sound men, engineers, PC builders, artists, and crafters come from different approaches, experiences, and backgrounds who use these industry related products. A good forum simply allows for a meeting place that we can check, bounce, or build ideas off one another. This forum provides an excellent resource for those who can benefit from well shared information or ideas.

Continuing on topic.... (with Switchback's comments).
 
Last edited:
Back
Top