Home › Forums › General Questions › RMS, dBFS, LUFS and “Loudness”?
- This topic has 11 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 7 months ago by woodsdenis.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 25, 2014 at 9:28 am #15451Art MunsonKeymaster
I was wondering how folks are measuring the “loudness” levels of their final mixes. One library I’m working with generally wants -8 to -12 RMS, peak -0.3 and LUFS at -11. I find many times the mix sounds just too squashed. Any tips to share?
Great video and article for a fuller explanation of all those acronyms. http://productionadvice.co.uk/lufs-dbfs-rms/
March 25, 2014 at 9:28 am #15453Art MunsonKeymasterBump
March 25, 2014 at 9:45 am #15456EdouardoParticipantAs I emerged from the electro world, I use LUFS (averaged on 3 seconds) to assess the loudness. The approximate value I set depends on the style of music. Electro Techno, I aim at around -9,-10, with peaks at -8, it goes with the sound. I might even have bumps at -6 when serious dynamic squashing is part of the artistic approach.
When I need more dynamics (more orchestral, hybrid, rock etc…), I will be happy at -11 / -12 LUFS and can go as low as -18 / -20 for the calm sections or breaks. I keep in mind that the editor, if he wants to thump a non thumpy track, he can, while the reverse is not possible! I do play around though at the final stage and listen to the track when I seriously push the limiter, just to check if it would not sound too awful… just in case…
Actually sometimes I wonder if I should skip or seriously reduce the limiting, as it makes the sound of the music more flexible for the editor to change. However, it might grasp less attention on a first listen… A balance to find…
btw, what does “Bump” mean in the threads?
March 25, 2014 at 9:55 am #15458woodsdenisParticipantI aim for -12 rms on modern pop/rock stuff seems to be ok balance, -10 rms for music that actually uses hyper compression for the sound. I would think that -12 rms may sound too squashed for some types of acoustic or orchestral music.
The trick is to use the most transparent limiter you can, my go to is the Fabfilter pro L. It is outstanding , you can demo it next to your own go to.
Ian Shepard has some great videos explaining the new average loudness algos used now, and that less compressed music will actually sound louder. There is a great comparison of U2 recordings on his channel and the the way that they are treated on streaming services.
March 25, 2014 at 9:49 pm #15511Art MunsonKeymasterbtw, what does “Bump” mean in the threads?
A faux reply to move a topic to the top of the “Recent Replies” column.
March 31, 2014 at 7:57 pm #15654VladParticipant@ Art,
Good topic. Did you settle on any analysis plugins that you found to be favorites? I am thinking that the plugs I have used for years are perhaps insufficient.
Thanks in advance!
March 31, 2014 at 10:20 pm #15658Art MunsonKeymasterI’ve been using Span by Voxengo and Ozone 5. Working for me but sometimes I feel like I can never learn enough!
April 1, 2014 at 3:04 am #15659VladParticipantAgreed. Okay, I have similar plugs.
Ozone 5, Nugen Visualizer, Sonalksis Free G
April 1, 2014 at 8:09 am #15662MichaelLParticipantI use Izotope’s Insight, which comes with Ozone 5 Advances or Rx3 Advanced.
I still feel like I fight against pushing levels too high. (my personal taste).
April 1, 2014 at 8:22 am #15663woodsdenisParticipantVoxengo Span is free !!!!! and very good
April 1, 2014 at 9:51 am #15666bradymusicoParticipantThe trick is to use the most transparent limiter you can, my go to is the Fabfilter pro L. It is outstanding , you can demo it next to your own go to.
+1 on all things Fabfilter! I use Pro L on every track. Pro Q and Saturn are also amazing.
April 1, 2014 at 3:54 pm #15671woodsdenisParticipant+1 on all things Fabfilter! I use Pro L on every track. Pro Q and Saturn are also amazing.
Absolutely, the multi band is amazing too, very clever stuff.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.