Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Tear This Mix Apart!
They are usually standard -14 LUFS -1 db peak. I usually don't sweat the small stuff when I mix and master, though, so if it goes -16 LUFS or -10 LUFS, I usually go "eh, I'll take it" and move on from there.

As far as the OP's mix, there's a lot of mid and low mid that just sounds really muddy. I think he also used a "brickhouse" effect on his limiter, which squashes any and all transients. If you limit that much, you gain a lot of "energy" in the song, but you lose dynamics.

I went ahead and mastered it with his music. I mastered it if this was a client that wanted it to be mastered for streaming sites. It's still on the hot end (-10.8 LUFS, -1 db peak) but I can live with that. Smile This just gives you an idea on mastering and such.

.mp3    ImpActDyingLightMaster.mp3 --  (Download: 5.3 MB)

Why LUFS to being with, its just a constant value across a whole song regarding the RMS, what if the song is really low in volume at start but way to high in volume in the end? Tongue
(11-03-2022, 08:22 PM)crownoise Wrote: Why LUFS to being with, its just a constant value across a whole song regarding the RMS, what if the song is really low in volume at start but way to high in volume in the end? Tongue

Yes, I think you are correct with your thinking here - my recent Saturn Syndicate mix is much louder at the end so I set the master limiter whilst looping the end section.  You can also check this thread for more on this, and my volume analysis of Adele - Easy On Me.

I probably didn't make my previous thought points clear enough.

Hopefully Attack-on-mixes will chime in here, as this is their thread and we are discussing that mix - I'll try and give it another go at explaining my thoughts:

Basically I felt that Attack-on-mixes aim was to make a loud, competitive mix.  To my mind, a competitive mix has to stand up and be measured against what is currently popular in the industry - hence my advice to use a current charting rock track as a reference whilst mixing.  My own analysis of current tracks shows the actual LUFS values for heavier rock and punk tends towards the -6-7 LUFS value.  Most things in the 'real world' seem to average around the 9 LUFS mark.

People can argue all they like about this -14 LUFS thing, I feel it might be well meaning, but not always good advice as such perhaps?  My reasoning is that a lot of punk and rock tracks come in around the -6 LUFS mark.  I think it is a definite skill to get things this loud, and you really do have to start out your mix with this goal in mind. 

Yes, for sure you can argue this is too loud, or whatever, and point out the side effects of this and I won't disagree.  My thinking is that if you want to learn to make loud, competitive mixes, then you have to learn to make loud competitive mixes, not -14 LUFS mix.  If you do produce a mix that can go loud, you can make a mix that will stand at -14 LUFS too.  Not every -14 LUFS mix will be able to stand being limited to -7 as you might find the thing completely falls apart and you've got issues that were not quite so apparent when not quite so squished. 

Would I limit a jazz or orchestral track to -6 LUFS? No!! I might not even limit it to -14 LUFS but maybe -17 or so.  It all depends on context and genre.  We all approach each mix differently, and as it's own thing right, and mix in context?

I have a suspicion that a lot of people might not always listen to the library mix properly, or reference their mix with commercial tracks and see how it holds up.  Yes, of course my mixes still suck.  My personal experience is that I get a lot out of listening and comparing my mixes to commercial product and figuring out how to close that gap and feel that others might get something out of trying that too.  Commercial mixes are the real competition, and goal as such, right?

Some people think that -14 LUFS is some sort of 'industry standard' or whatever, but my analysis doesn't back that up as yet.  Maybe things will change in the future.  Yes some streaming services normalise to that level, but my analysis of different genres shows that certainly the rock, punk and EDM genres are still supplying loud mixes.

If you don't want to make loud mixes - then don't make loud mixes.. My thoughts are mainly aimed at those that do want to give it a go, and to present an alternative point of view. 

Subjective for sure - personally I feel my mixes have got a whole lot better from always comparing them and taking direction from the library mix and the commercial mixes, and for me that includes the loudness factor too. 

Hence sharing my thinking here.  Yes you can also argue that I have 'ruined' a lot of my previous mixes from trying to make them loud, but that is what this is all about - trying things, learning, practicing and figuring things out.

Yes, it's true that I only mix on this board.  We are all here to learn, help each other, share our experiences and have fun right? I don't think it hurts to aim for the stars though, and compare our mixes to whatever is commercially successful - which in my view is whatever is currently popular and charting.

Maybe this comes across as a bit too much of a rant, or whatever, but I'm really not looking to start any arguments here - I'm Just sharing my 2p, for whatever that is worth Smile.

Hey everyone, 
I agree with MikeJ on this.
Mixes are won by inches, not miles, when it comes to mixing. So comparing your work with mainstream music regarding loudness and dynamics etc.. is a must.
My goal for this song was to make it loud and aggressive and make sure it could hold its own with others in this style. 
However, as MikeJ said, you never mix a jazz record like metal or pop record; it's all about perspective and comparing apples to apples.
I do appreciate everyone chiming in and presenting your ideas and thoughts on this subject in a respectful and explanatory way.
Music is about pushing boundaries and being unapologetically you.