|
R128 metering and loudness
|
View this Thread in Original format
| optik |
I've had a look into R128 metering, which is interesting. Decided to master a track to -23 integrated LUFS and try and keep a loudness range of at least 9LU
I managed to get it to -15.2 LUFS with 8.5db of range. This is a lot higher dynamic range than my usual productions (maybe 4-5)
track is here:
https://soundcloud.com/clubsharkrec...8-well-a-little
if you listen you'll have to turn up the volume a little, but I think it's let me get a lot more depth and bass into the mix..
I'm thinking now is the time to leave the loudness war, what with apple's new volume matching on itunes radio
any discussion (about the mix, or the concept)appreciated |
|
|
| theterran |
Sounds similar to how I do my (more recent) mixdowns. Though I've been running around -18 to -20 LUFS with 8-10db range.
I really like the larger dynamic range offered by not squishifying a track.
Plus, when it comes down to it...tracks done this way sound much better when you turn the volume up.
-Edit- Though I do add to the loudness when presenting my stuff...people get ruffled if it's not loud enough. For personal use though...I know where my volume button is located. |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
Amen brothers.
I've always calibrated to -18 dbfs (score / surround protocol) and seeing loads of new people go to LU (basically the same level) and actually care about their range is such a great thing to have happen.
Will try to have a listen when I get home.
One thing though, certain metering programs aren't quite right in their calculations or at least standardization (the DBFS and RMS don't properly correlate to LU). |
|
|
| optik |
thanks for the replies guys,
I am so tempted to add a bit of invisible limiting to this before I fatdrop it, but I I trying to resist.
I should have posted the earlier WIP for comparison: (old, non R128 version)
https://soundcloud.com/clubsharkrecords/tshark-wip
that one I'm mixing to my usual levels and have limited. It sounds so harsh and squashed in comparison, and there isn't actually that much difference in the perceived volume. The differences are astounding if you play both tracks at a similar level.
I might actually email fatdrop and ask them to introduce perceived loudness R128 on their playback engine, then all the promos would sound the same volume and good music, not loud music would get played by the DJs.. The promo end of this game is still a serious issue in the loudness war. |
|
|
| Richard Butler |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
I've always calibrated to -18 dbfs
|
Does this mean your mixes pre-mastering are peaking around minus 18 db?
I'm almost finished rebuilding my pc from scratch with help of a mate. Seeing as I've replaced the mother board, CPU and pretty much everything else I decided to also upgrade to Cubase 7.5 from Cubase 5.
Cubase 7.5 includes a loudness meter. In layman's terms how does one use of these?
Also what are RACKS?
I'm used to INSERTS where you insert effects or instruments into a channel.
Why would I need a rack?
Duuurrrr |
|
|
| optik |
this guy is a dude:
http://productionadvice.co.uk/blog/
loads of videos about loudness and the tools required.
I used the new meter in cubase 7.5 - whilst mixing I was trying to keep the integrated reading at about -23 LUFS and the range above 10LU - thi9s was a challenge because it was so quiet compared to my normal techniques.
i did pretty much all of the work at the instrument faders then bussed the bass, drums, cymbals etc. to groups and made fine adjustments to sections there. There final mix was sounding very good with my main output turned up.
I then did a very subtle bit of multiband compression - just enough to see the GR meters working using cubase's built in multiband, with a linear phase eq before the compressor just to fix the harshness at about 5k and to low cut the bass (at about 30hz)
I exported the track and then did a bit of limiting - the track was nowhere near the limiter (and rather than set the limiter ceiling at -0.3, I set it at -1), but it did add a bit of perceived loudness. Over the whole process, I let the limiter raise the volume of the track as it sounded nice, and ended up with about -16 integrated with a range of 9LU (which is the difference between the peaks and the average)
it's so much easier than trying to extract every last drop of loudness from a mix - means you can concentrate on how the track sounds rather than filling the frequency spectrum
we'll see how the first promo goes! |
|
|
| Raphie |
| Very good! Also happy to read the coin starts to drop. Clean and dynamic is the new loud :D |
|
|
| theterran |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
One thing though, certain metering programs aren't quite right in their calculations or at least standardization (the DBFS and RMS don't properly correlate to LU). |
I've noticed this. Tried a selection of metering programs and noticed different results. |
|
|
|
|
