LUFS - the new Loudness Units. What do they mean ? How to read the new breed of loudness meters
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 вер 2024
- Video demonstrating how to read one of the new LUFS loudness meters, and what it means for your audio. Download the example audio file here:
productionadvic...
Not only the video is very informative and clear, it also helped me with my insomnia. Subscribed.
found your website/youtube page a while back but never really took the time to learn and take in the information..let me just say you are HANDS DOWN one of the best at what you do. thank you for doing what you do. learning so much from you. thanks :)
Thank you for being a PRO and sharing your knowledge on youtube. It makes the world a better place.
Thanks, for the video. It shed a great deal of light on what the "Integrated" LUFS levels are used for. Before seeing your video I was a little frustrated with maintaining my Master Buss metering levels at -23.0 (+/- 1) Integrated LUFS--no louder. What a bummer!! Now I understand that I can exceed that barrier with the knowledge that it will be adjusted on broadcast playback.
I have been scratching my head why Logic Multimeter is reading RMS 3dB lower than what my other meter is. Thank you very much for clarifying! :)
Lately I put my music on iTunes and noticed right away the compression on my audio, then realized it was the LUFS standard, it's now everywhere. So thank you for this video, very helpful, I'll be using these rules to correct that in the coming future.
Thanks for making these informative videos Ian. I enjoy listening to people who care about audio.
Spotify made their max integrated LUFS -14 fairly recently. So your hunch was spot on!
Very well explained Ian, the best way to explain a meter plugin is by analysing a part of a song to understand the displayed meters, your video worth the 19 min.
Thank you so much for this. I was a bit confused by what LUFS / LKFS was (and reading the specification for it didn't really help me get my head around it, surprisingly enough) but this made everything clear for me.
You rock!! :-)
Thanks for all your work.
Ian -- This is a much appreciated video. I tried the pink noise track in Studio One version 4.1.1 and if you're still collecting info the RMS figures were right around -11.5, the TP around -1.97, LRA at 0.1. Thanks again for your work.
I know the video is quite a few years old but first of all - thanks for a clear explanation,
and secondly - what is this song? i love it!
Great video.. clear and succinct explanation of what can be a confusing topic..
Nice explanation. The CALM act is currently only for television broadcast in US. I'm looking forward to the day that the music, web & radio industries have similar guidelines/laws. At this time -16 LKFS with a true peak of -2 is our make shift "web standard".
This was very informative to me. As a D&B producer where the genre often leans on loudness and its artifacts, I'm still not sure how to feel about ending the loudness wars.
Thank you Ian...You've answered a bunch of lingering questions for me...Great Content!
Enjoy Your Holidays!
Hello Ian, just for info, the new multimeter plugin for Logic X (distributed with the 10.2.1 update last week) now includes a LUFS meter. While the RMS meter still under-reads by about 3dB, the LUFS meter shows -11.5dB. May be worthwhile mentioning this on you productionadvice website which (obviously) still shows LPX as under-reading. Thanks for the great tutorials.
I noticed that too, Loudness meter it is from now on then. To add FabFilter Pro-L was miles off whereas Izotope Insight was bang on.
the way that spotify has it setup now makes me quite happy. If they just integrate that into all mp3 players and other systems, it would be great.
Fantastic Video I have just started mixing for Radio using PPM. I will be reading the white paper also.
Ian, thank you for a very lucid explanation!
10/10 stars for this tutorial! Thank you!
Thanks Ian that makes everything clearer for me !
Great explanation! But the True Peak will show you peaks that are in between samples which can get 3 db higher than what you are seeing in a sample-peak meter no matter if you are over the 0 or under. I believe the reason for a meter to show a digital signal over the 0dB has to do with 32bit floating point.
7:50 - I'm monitoring the audio of this video and, at least with MLoudnessAnalyzer and Waves' VU meter, I'd say the momentary loudness is much closer to the ballistics of that particular VU. Another thing I've noticed is that your integrated value for this video is about -20 LUFS or K-20. Under Stats For Nerds, this has given you a perfect content loudness but I'm not sure if older videos like this were 'grandfathered in' because I've noticed that in other ones which surely weren't normalized as such. Thanks.
Fair enough, the ballistics of each meter vary, and I've never tried that one. Whichever feels helpful to you is the right one to go for !
The video actually hasn't been normalised (hence no Content Loudness value) which has happened at certain times over the years - I suspect it's actually quite a bit below the normal reference level, fwiw.
Will this, finally, prevent the advertisements from being +10db to regular programs? One can wish, huh? :)
Quite the opposite, companies paying for ad placements will gladly pay extra for a favorable loudness level. As long as the hosts are willing to follow the traditional path, there is no change in sight. It's sad really.
However I have noticed a change in Swedish television on the matter, and the ads are way more comfortable to listen to nowadays. Stay positive :)
i wish
This is an excellent briefing on levels and loudness, thanks. I now need to check if this still applies in 2020, or if there have been an changes. Im new to music production and looking to gain some knowledge before i crack on with making tracks that are just too loud, or not conforming to standards. I'll check your website.
cheers. m
Really great overview Ian, thx for the clarification :)
Thanks for updating my knowledge and skills.
great video Ian. Thanks.
Nicely explained. Thanks for the great work!
I started using Insight just the other day, and I wasn't certainly what LUFS is, you explained it in great detail and it's promising that this will be better than meters for RMS. And I'm all for the world making music better sounding, make music not noise I say. And being able to mix according to the old days makes me really happy. Just turning down per track on a 20 track song 1db as you say does bring down the LUFS, only thing i have to get to use to this new measurement, better mixes result?
I tested the following meters/analyzers in Cubase Pro 8 using the pink noise file: Steinberg SLM 128 (EBU R 128 only, free), Cubase Pro 8 native Loudness meter (EBU R 128 only), TT Dynamic Range Meter (free, or Brainworx bx_meter $99), Voxengo SPAN (free), Waves PAZ ($129), Vengeance Scope (free for Vengeance customers), Brainworx bx_XL (superb limiter with bx_meter $329), T-RackS CS Meter (free), Klanghelm VUMT Duo with VU set at -12 ($9), Schwa Schope ($25) and Sonalksis FreeG (free). The most accurate of these were the Steinberg SLM 128, Cubase Pro 8 native loudness meter, TT Dynamic Range Meter (or bx_meter) and Brainworx bx_XL. These read spot on -11.5 LUFS (dBFS). Also very accurate were Voxengo SPAN (metering set to DBFS +3), Sonalksis FreeG and Klanghelm VUMT. I must admit that I love the Klanghelm VUMT. When producing/mixing/mastering music I see no need for the new fancy and overly expensive meters/analyzers showing a bunch of statistics. RMS and DR (and my ears) are still my guiding angels for loudness and dynamics. However, one would need to adjust (lower) gain and look at LUFS if required to comply with broadcasting loudness standards.
Thanks for the excellent explanation, Sir.
Nice one Ian! thanks for a logic consequent explanation !
Thank's Ian. I'll share this as well among our staff.
This is great. Thanks for your generosity!
Great and very helpful material for me. Thanks!
Thanks, this explains it pretty well. Most helpful.
very good information, thanks for taking the time to make this!
thanks ian always love the info you give
Very informative! Thanks Ian!
Thanks again Ian !
The complexity of the possibilities are like looking for one glass of water in the ocean.. The idea of wearing all hats from player to recordist to mastering. Hitting the converters in the sweet spot. And delivering a finished pleasant track could keep someone dreaming up when and were to conform to the AES standard. LOL.... Oh My....
thank you so much for this enlightening information!
Thank you! Very informative clip, indeed.
Every ear can tell if a sound is loud or quiet. But you misunderstood me.
I meant to say that you should first listen to the sound only using your ears trying to spot loud and quiet parts yourself.
After that it's OK to check it with all kind of meters you personally like.
Great info. Thanks, Ian!
Great stuff Ian!
Awesome explanation, thanks!
this is AWESOME! :)
Hi Ian, first off, I'm really grateful that someone as knowledgable as your good self as taken the time to create this fantastic video to explain this topic. Secondly: I have a question I was hoping you might be able to answer:
Is the -23 LUFS standard the AVERAGE reading a track has to conform to or the absolute HIGHEST reading that any part of the track must conform to. Put another way - if a section of the track, lets say the outro, averages -18 LUFS, is this still acceptable provided the track as a whole averages below -23 LUFS? I'm learning audio production so maybe you covered this in the video without me realising, but if you can clarify this then thanks so much!
***** Thanks for the quick and helpful response, top man!
Thank you, very helpful!
Great! Very helpful, very informative!
Great explanation! Thank you!
Ian the GOAT.
Thank you so much !! Awesome stuff.. Im sure u could get a lot more detailed.. But Very helpful.. Have been looking for some metering concepts and/or books.. This video is great !! :)
Excellent! Thanks a lot!!
Great video! Very helpful! Thanks a lot!
Thanks for this... Very Helpful
I don't understand why one would be upset about the loudness metadata being included with files and supported by playback software. Listeners themselves have long since chosen ReplayGain as a volume equalization standard. Would FM radio with somewhat lower available dynamic range also normalize to -23 dB? Probably not.
For digital at 24 bits it doesn't of course matter. Although, I noticed that the popular Lame MP3 encoder in VBR mode assumes the threshold of hearing a certain number of dBs below full scale, and would produce an increasing amount of artifacts as the volume of the input was scaled down. CBR mode, widely regarded as obsolete, coded the long fade I created well up until the end. It's likely other encoders also assume loud, hot signal.
Thank you Ian, awesome video and great flow in your speech. Easy to follow and understand, which I can not unfortunately say about "Mastering Audio" by Bob Katz.. But well, he at least urged me to go and search for answers to the right questions :)
Thanks you for your videos !!
great video, thanx!
That was well explained but I think only audio engineers understood you properly. For music makers . What LUFS IS EQUIVALENT TO 00 DBFS? Could you please give us a very short answer. Thanks in advance.
Hi Ian, thank you for sharing, your videos are very interesting and informative! \\ one happy subscriber
Interesting information cheers!
Very informative, thanks!
Ah...just read Ronnie Allen's post a bit further down...are you saying that radio stations and other Broadcasting houses will "turn the levels down" themselves, if they receive a mastered track which has, say an RMS of -10?
Just to let those know who might be like me. I thought this meter would show you RMS.
In the video, he says for a beginner we are not wrong to think RMS and LUFS are not similar. So I bought the plug in LCAST. and the security code to use it never arrived. I got a refund because they said the plugin will not measure RMS and that they are entirely different. WHAT? that contradicts what I was told then in this video. This info I got by email from the firm who make LCAST METERING PLUGIN called METERPLUGS.
They said, RMS measures signal strength. LUFS takes into account the frequency distribution of a signal whereas RMS has a flat response. -23 LUFS is a typical target for loudness normalization. Then they recommended I watch this video.
So basically I am going round and round. Thanks video for making me think RMS and LUFS were the same thing and spending money with your firm and losing hours only to find you yourselves then say they are different things entirely.
In my view, Ian is correct in stating that it is not wrong to think of RMS and LUFS as similar, if that helps your understanding. That said, Meterplugs is also correct and wise in stating that they are quite different, positioning themselves on the side of caution. I believe that the difference is that RMS measurements are based on raw dB alone whereas LUFS is based on LUs. They too are similar, but different. LUs more accurately represent perceived loudness as per the anomalies of human hearing, the sensitive spots being in the range of 1-5 kHz, whereas dBs just consider amplitudes at any frequency. Never forget the Fletcher Munson curves! In other words, to achieve your purpose, you don't really want RMS, you want LUFS. RMS is just something that we have all become comfortable with due to the historical technological limitations of metering.
Hope this helps. And if I were you, I would reconsider and purchase LCAST. Great value for the money. :)
Thanks Ian. Spot on. LUFS is definitely where it's at. Although RMS is certainly useful, what good is it if only our meters are 'hearing' it? What if a production's content is supposed to be bass heavy? Should it be penalized somewhat during broadcast by its RMS or granted some degree of leniancy by its LUFS? What do we want to master to? Our ears, or our DAWs?
Thanks Ian, really informative :-)
Great video. You say that the song would be turned down because the LUFS exceed the new threshold. Does that mean people will have to mix and master to a reference of -23 instead of between the -15 and -10 that I have been working to? And will existing tracks have to be re-mastered at lower levels?
No. -23 is just the normalization value that broadcasters will play it at. You should continue to mix and master at sensible values that exhibit the desired dynamic range of your audio production, e.g. TRUE PEAK at 0, LUFS at say -11, and MAX LUFS at say -8. The broadcasters will take it from there and play it back as to their level requirements, which will be on a loudness par with the rest of their program. As long as you are happy with your LUFS, you should be happy with the broadcast. Don't worry. It's all relative, and hopefully this legislation will encourage mixers and masterers to utilize more dynamic range. The headroom is certainly there in broadcasts, so why not?
I predict that one day soon the loudness war will change over into a full maximized dynamic range war, and that will be good for us all. I can't wait.
Thanks Ian.
Thank you for the info!!
Useful?
Extremely so.
Many sincere appreciations from the world of ignorant but driven songsters.
Very helpful thank you.
man you're the man
thanks!
Interesting stuff were is the link to the noise file as you said you would provide in the video
Hi Ian, im currently using Waves WLM throughout my template to try and set some volume guidlines within my mixing template. Im a tad confused though. If im trying to precisely balance the volume of a kick and snare, what value should i be trying to match? Short Term or Long term? Or should i be looking at their true peak? The reason i want to do this is so i can minimise the need for any compression. Can you help? Im not sure WLM is the best option, can you recommend any other lufs plugin?
Thank you very much!
Great tutorial, but since LUFS is pretty similar to RMS, which are the main differences between the 2?
The "playback" level it's just how you turn up or turn down a song like in a cellphone or a computer?
12:13 A real eye/ear opener for me!
This is a great video, but in terms of Classical music where you say it'll need to be turned up by quite a bit - if the whole track is turned up then surely the original peak of that song may well go well above 0dB? Or is the song turned up to an average of -23dB with all -1dB sections hard limited. Thanks :)
So... what is the difference between Short & Momentary ? I watch the video & there is no answer for that... :)
I have in Cubase metering in LU & also metering in LUFS (when I turn on the loudness section in the mixconsole)- what is the difference when to use LU metering & when to use LUFS metering ? what should I use ?
Final question:
In terms of final output to UA-cam:
how much to aim while in mixing stage in Cubase ? how much to aim while in mastering stage that file in Wavelab ?
I know it's a general question, but lets say I'm talking about EDM music that going to play on UA-cam.
Great Tutorial ! although many questions still remain unclear for me...
brilliant thank youuuuuuu
Very good. Thank you
This is great. But Im not sure if all youtube songs are of same loudness. Ive seen some that are really quiet. What do you have to say about this Ian ?
Great work! - thanks for making this available.
One question that puzzled me: At 12:50 you mention that when broadcast the track would we turned down 12.5 dB (to match -23 LUFS). But since LUFS is measured "psychoacoustically" didn't you mean the track would be turned down 12.5 LUFS ? - I mean a -12.5 dB change isn't the same as a -12.5 LUFS change is it?
Actually it is. A change of 1 LU is equivalent to a change of 1 dB
I see... puzzling :) - so the LUFS measurement is different from DBFS but not the scale?
David Filskov Yes. Strictly speaking dBFS is a peak level measurement, and tells you almost nothing about loudness, as I say in the video.
So a change in level of 1 dB will cause a change of 1 LU. But you could apply some kind of EQ which would also cause a change in the measurement (and apparent loudness).
In the same way, there are processes you can apply to audio which significantly change the peak (dBFS) measurement that have no effect on the loudness.
Does that help ?!?
Yes, thanks again! - since the measurements are different I'd expect the scales to be different to. At first this "mismatch" seems impossible :) - but it's starting to make sense now.
maybe stupid question here, but as mentioned, does a lufs meter in a way show the actual loudness that a limiter or compressor might provide, like in a way see what the limiter or compressor is actually doing to the sound, unlike a peak/dbfs meter where you really just constantly see the same peak or "apparent loudness as mentioned above"???
Hi Ian
Just a question: How do you integrate/use a Brickwall Limiter to ensure that your Integrated reading stays at -23LUFS?
Our Local Broadcasting specifications are as follow: "Audio must be EBU R128 compliant after final Mix. (Integrated loudness of -23LUFS over the duration, with an allowable maximum True Peak of -3dBTP) 24bit 48khz stereo".
Does that also mean that my ceiling must be set to -3 dBFS (if using the L1 for instance)?
Thank you
what is the sense of taking the average of the whole song? would make much more sense only analysing he loudest parts
In the end you say that a DR range of 9 with a 0 FS peak would show an LUFS of -9. But wouldnt’t the LUFS be about 4.5? Or, in other words, wouldn’t the DR be 18 if the LUFS is -9?, since the LUFS is an average?
I am a voiceover narrator who discovered Auphonic.com which uses LUFS. I've used it to process narrations. I deal with ACX.com which requires submittions to be between -23 and -18dbs RMS, with a peak of -3 db and noise floor of -60db and -50 db. What LUFS settings would be appropriate to match ACX requirements. Also I do TV/radio commercial auditions. What would those settings be? There are a list of settings to choose from including -24LUFS, A/85, ATSC no gate (US, TV) Thanks.
thanks Ian
Hi Ian. Thanks for taking the time to do this.
What's the name of the song/artist you used for the video?
do u watch your flocks by night, Ian ?
Hi Ian,
I'm still confusing myself to death re: using loudness meters. For the moment I'm using the ttdr "free meter" For an experiment I used a simple acoustic guitar track (using the amplesound guitar emulator....great vst) I turned on the realeq from reaper, loudmax limiter and the TT meter, Now mind you this was just a soft accoustic guitar sequence. Nothing fancy. pretty much flat eq with just a few bump ups in the medium low and the high to enhance the sound of acoustic strings. By carefully manipulating the limiter and the volume I got the master out to stay solidly at about minus 3 db. But no mater what I did whether lowering the fader on the actual track or the master fader, the TT kept reading on side (left as "OVER" while the other side stayed where your previous videos said they should be at minus 1 or lower.
What am I not "getting???"
It sounds to my ears fine, but according to the TT I'm clipping somewhere.
Can you send me a link to the video on using the meters and limiters again? I just cannot seem to get this right. And it shows up when I mix down. There's pumping that I do not notice when I'm working on the mixes. I am also still confused about using side chain compression. Not on drum base stuff but on vocals. I like to keep a clean vocals when the singer is singing, and only augment the dynanics when the singer stops with small reverb or delay. Solely for dynamics. Can you advise a bit on these matters. I'm frustrated because I'm not doing really complicated music, and am more interested in making certain the lyrics of the songs are clearly heard over the music. Thanks. Not sure if I'm even explaining myself correctly but need to ask. Thanks again.
Marty
So i guess the reason different videos differ....Is because some will have high dynamic range, so sometimes you might get a really loud section- if there are really quiet sections. Because the whole integrated value is measured.
very useful. thanks
Are there any other plugins that graph out LUFS like this over a track?