So, who knows how to use a limiter? And who wants to?

[Brandon Strader]

There's a lot of people who don't know how to use a limiter. It's a tricky thing, even for people who are pretty familiar with mastering... so I thought I'd share a couple thoughts here. What a limiter does is basically cuts off the peaks of the song -- the lower you set the threshold, the lower into your song's peaks the limiter will cut. Meanwhile, there's also usually a ceiling that you can set as well. This ceiling sets the maximum output level for your song. Basically, you think they do the same thing, right? Well, sort of.

What this basically allows you to do is set the limiting on your song with the threshold (the level at which your peaks will be cut) while the ceiling sets the max output level for your song. So for example, this guy in this picture set his ceiling at -0.8db which means the volume of his song will never go above -0.8db

That's a bit silly, I've always set my output to -0.1db just to prevent clipping from the audio level going above 0db. See, even I'm not completely sure why you would want it as low as -0.8db

I ran into a fiasco yesterday while working on a song because I had set the ceiling to something like -4db to compensate for a loud mix, but what that did was set the volume of the WAV I exported to -4db -- it made the mix too quiet, which is a bad thing. So yeah, even I wasn't sure how it worked, I hadn't really used a limiter that had a ceiling option before. 

As you turn the threshold lower and lower, you'll hear the song get louder and start clipping and pumping dramatically. The end goal is to hit a level of volume that doesn't clip or pump (or does so in the most transparent way that people don't notice it) while not being too loud. 

There's not an easy answer of what your threshold should be in a limiter. You've got to use your ears and choose what is best for your mix. You can also look at the red bar to see how much limiting is being done on your sound. That's a good indicator of how much limiting is going on, too. 

Not sure if any of this information is helpful, but hopefully there's a beginner out there who gets a tiny bit of understanding about limiters from this. 

[timaeus222]

I think you've inspired me to keep working on my book. Time to write about music production!

 

[dannthr]

A few notes:

What is important to acknowledge is that a Limiter is ostensibly (functionally, at least) a compressor with a compression ratio of infinity.  That means what ever you set your threshold to, any signal above that threshold will be subjected to an amplitude factor of 1/infinity.

Because of this expectation, basic limiter plug-ins will usually just have a very simple gain parameter and an output parameter where the output parameter is your threshold.

However, because it is also for all intents and purposes a compressor, some limiters will offer more complex or advanced compressor like behaviors.  This is often true when using a plug-in which models a particular hardware device.  This is because in a hardware situation, a hardware limiter (depending on the components used in its construction) may have some time delays on enacting their limiting effect.  This can mean that a specialized limiter plug-in may have simulated attack and release values that make the effect less rigid.

However, this can become problematic because often times limiting is a part of our mastering chain and mastering is the process where we prepare our audio to media specifications--our delivery specifications must be very exact.

In the case of your Ozone plug-in, I suspect the "vintage" simulation has an attack value and possibly even a ratio less than 1:infinity (infinity isn't really achievable in a hardware scenario).  This puts you in a bit of a situation if this is on your master chain because the limiter may not be brick-walling your audio signal like you need it to, so they provide a ceiling parameter which sets the absolute maximum.

Your description of the limiting process is also indicative of a compressor that utilizes auto-gain (as you said it gets louder as you lower the threshold--this is not the normal result of lowering the threshold) or some kind of make-up gain acting upon your signal which is again more of a compressor style behavior and reinforces the need for an absolute maximum or ceiling parameter.

If you are working on broadcast media (like film or television) then the CALM Act requires a maximum peak of -1.0 dB and a Full Scale measurement in Loudness Units--since you asked about why someone might want a specific peak limit under a particular value.

I have also heard that meeting the Mastered for iTunes specification means that your music file must not have any intersample peaks, which means you will want to use a plug-in that is able to detect and act upon peak values that occur between sample values--though I haven't looked into the Mastered for iTunes specification myself.

[Nabeel Ansari]

6 hours ago, Brandon Strader said:

I ran into a fiasco yesterday while working on a song because I had set the ceiling to something like -4db to compensate for a loud mix, but what that did was set the volume of the WAV I exported to -4db -- it made the mix too quiet, which is a bad thing. So yeah, even I wasn't sure how it worked, I hadn't really used a limiter that had a ceiling option before.

Perhaps save explaining music production tools and techniques for people who actually understand them, then?

Making a long post saying "this is how I figure limiters work based on my narrow experience with them" doesn't really help anyone. Limiters are technical systems, and they're deterministic. You can explain how they work, theoretically, and how different plugins/implementations of them differ.
 

But you didn't, you basically just said "this is a picture of Ozone's limiter. When I lower this control, the music pumps more. Also, even I don't understand how it works. LOL"

[Hipnotyk]

5 hours ago, dannthr said:

A few notes:

What is important to acknowledge is that a Limiter is ostensibly (functionally, at least) a compressor with a compression ratio of infinity.  That means what ever you set your threshold to, any signal above that threshold will be subjected to an amplitude factor of 1/infinity.

 

 Very good point that cannot be emphasized enough.  I realized this early on when farming XP in live sound on a digital mixing console, as the compressor's parameters can be tweaked to literally operate as a limiter once a certain threshold is crossed.  This really comes in handy when dealing with instruments and performers that have a tendency to get spontaneously aggressive.  

Even if you don't need to compress a signal for a live performance, it's still imperative to use it as a limiter on nearly everything.

[APZX]

I'm gonna agree with Neblix on this. You have some good points here or there, but ultimately mostly just rambling on because you don't fully understand what all the functions in a limiter do exactly. I mean you're right in that a limiter is essentially just a highly specialized compressor where in ideally it prevents every single peak from ever going above whatever you tell it. There is more than one way to do this. Back in the olden days of AM broadcast there was actually a clipper at the very end of chain. Why? Because of the limitations of analog limiters. Then things progressed with better circuits and the likes until finally digital limiters came about. These offer options not available in traditional analog limiters because digital ones can actually look at the signal before it reaches the processing and this can prevent or eliminate a lot of distortion. In fact it is almost better to describe modern brickwall limiters as distortion hiding devices because that is what they're really doing if you really start to think about it. So, yeah a limiter is ostensibly a compressor, but fundamentally it is a very different device with a very distinct and unique purpose.

If you want some interesting things to think about look at the actual names of a few of the old and beloved compressors out there. The 1176 is a Peak Limiter. The LA2A is a Leveling Amplifier. The LA3A is an Audio Leveler. The Gates Sta Level is a Compressing Limiter. I just bring this up because there certainly commonalities between a compressor and a limiter and even some crossover, but they are actually quite different.

Now, I have to say that you got the CALM act a bit wrong. It isn't a maximum peak of -1dBFS it is a maximum peak of -1dBTP or decibel True Peak. Without digging through the whitepaper to see precisely how dBTP is measured and calculated, it is basically a predictive peak of what the reconstructed waveform would be without actually reconstructing it. Of course the accuracy of this depends on quite a few factors (primarily interpolation but who wants to get into that whole nonsense? I personally don't want to). This is actually important because you mentioned Intersample Peaks and this is precisely why there is the hard limit of -1dBTP. See, Intersample peaks are 100% valid but they'll clip pretty much anything. It is actually not all that difficult to get peaks that are +6dBFS if measured in the digital domain. In order to prevent these huge spikes -1dBTP was chosen as it should only let a very a small amount go above 0dBFS (the clipping point of digital). This is also sound advice when you're converting to MP3 or another lossy codec as they'll often increase the level of the track, which is actually part of the MFiT certification. Remember that even though the DAW is reading -.1dBFS if you measure the signal in the analog domain it could very be above that, which is really what the whole -1dBTP is meant to cope with. Unfortunately, if you want to really dive into this topic then you have to start invoking how the analog domain behaves as well and that is where things start getting messy with dBV and dBU and calibrated converters and calibrated monitoring. It really starts to get a bit funky honestly. Not terribly complicated once you think about it, but definitely confusing initially. 

[Brandon Strader]

Guys?  Please remember the intent of the thread is to help people figure out how to use a limiter, not to correct each other on semantics 

[APZX]

dBTP vs dBFS is not semantics. There is a very big difference between the two. dBFS is decibels referenced to full scale whereas dBTP is decibel True Peak. There is a fairly substantial difference in what that means. Not semantics and to say so is just wrong. Even in the picture of Ozone they say True Peak Limiter. I mean if you're going to reference something by name, the CALM Act and then state the maximum allowed peak is -1dBFS when it clearly says in the specification it says -1dBTP? That is something else entirely. The specification calls for dBTP with purpose as dBTP and dBFS can be completely different from one another, not necessarily that they will be because Whittaker-Shannon Interpolation Formula. 

Now, if you want to start talking about how to use limiters and their various functions and such then start talking with actual definitions of the various aspects. Like what is a ceiling? What is the threshold? What does an infinite:1 ratio mean? What does the release on a limiter do? Why do some limiters have attack times? That is just a start of the various things you can talk about with regards to limiters. From here it is a natural extension to start talking about, "Well why can't I get my mix louder? When I keep turning up the limiter it just starts to pump in a nasty way." From a question like this it comes fairly naturally that the discussion evolve into topics covering mixing, gain staging, headroom, & monitoring. 

Instead as Neblix pointed out you mostly rambled without really getting into the specifics of how a limiter works, why they work, and why they're used. Limiters have a very defined purpose and the approach on how to accomplish it is just as interesting as their uses.

I'll admit my post was rambling a bit, but it was mainly focused on one thing dBTP. The beginning was mostly an addition to your original posts with some history and trying to further specify precisely what is a limiter. 

[Nabeel Ansari]

1 hour ago, Brandon Strader said:

Guys?  Please remember the intent of the thread is to help people figure out how to use a limiter, not to correct each other on semantics 

Understanding what you're talking about isn't semantics. It's understanding what you're talking about. Oversimplifying and omitting crucial details as to what goes into a technique and how the associated tools work helps no one.

You said the equivalent of "turn the knob and the music pumps. you want it not to pump, so turn it back until you stop hearing the pump." That's obvious. That's not informative.

That doesn't explain anything about why limiters are used in music, why they were invented, when they are used, how they are used in different styles of music. You didn't talk about the difference between RMS vs. peaks, or crest factor, or anything remotely technical that greatly assists a person in giving very simple instructions on how to get effective limiting. You didn't talk about what "pumping" actually means in a technical context. You didn't even post any sound examples to show the difference between "more pumping" and "less pumping".

And ironically, in a thread about using a mastering limiter, you didn't once use the terms "compression" or "dynamic range". In fact, you said "cuts the peaks", which is factually incorrect. Cutting the peaks is what's called hard clipping.

 

@APZX Watch/specify who you're replying to. You lumped Brandon and dannthr together.

[AngelCityOutlaw]

I miss when the average post on this site wasn't from an egomaniac looking to stroke their e-dick.

4 minutes ago, Neblix said:

Understanding what the fuck you're talking about isn't semantics. It's understanding what the fuck you're talking about. Oversimplifying and omitting crucial details as to what goes into a technique and how the associated tools work helps no one.

You said the equivalent of "turn the knob and the music pumps. you want it not to pump, so turn it back until you stop hearing the pump." That's obvious. That's not informative.

That doesn't explain anything about why limiters are used in music, when they are used, how they are used in different styles of music. You didn't talk about the difference between RMS vs. peaks, or crest factor, or anything remotely technical that greatly assists a person in giving very simple instructions on how to get effective limiting. You didn't talk about what "pumping" actually means in a technical context. You didn't even post any sound examples to show the difference between "more pumping" and "less pumping".

And ironically, in a thread about using a mastering limiter, you didn't once use the term "dynamic range".

Hey, Maestro. You should ask your counselor about how you can politely correct people without sounding like a complete asshole 20 year old who speaks like he has 35 years experience. Advice is cheap - you can take it or leave it. Nobody should be ultimately relying on posts by hobbyists on a random internet forum for professional music advice anyway. In that thread about YoungProdigy's FL Studio problems you talked about things that are "bad form" in public settings. Apparently, you don't consider going on a profanity-laden tirade against someone who made a post you don't like on the internet to be "bad form".

We get it, you think you're hot-shit because you intern or whatever for Impact Soundworks. Why a software company would want to have someone with your attitude representing them is a mystery, but why don't you put all your knowledge to use and write an all-encompassing guide so that you can at least spare us your patronizing posts.

1 hour ago, APZX said:

dBTP vs dBFS is not semantics. There is a very big difference between the two. dBFS is decibels referenced to full scale whereas dBTP is decibel True Peak. There is a fairly substantial difference in what that means. Not semantics and to say so is just wrong. Even in the picture of Ozone they say True Peak Limiter. I mean if you're going to reference something by name, the CALM Act and then state the maximum allowed peak is -1dBFS when it clearly says in the specification it says -1dBTP? That is something else entirely. The specification calls for dBTP with purpose as dBTP and dBFS can be completely different from one another, not necessarily that they will be because Whittaker-Shannon Interpolation Formula. 

Now, if you want to start talking about how to use limiters and their various functions and such then start talking with actual definitions of the various aspects. Like what is a ceiling? What is the threshold? What does an infinite:1 ratio mean? What does the release on a limiter do? Why do some limiters have attack times? That is just a start of the various things you can talk about with regards to limiters. From here it is a natural extension to start talking about, "Well why can't I get my mix louder? When I keep turning up the limiter it just starts to pump in a nasty way." From a question like this it comes fairly naturally that the discussion evolve into topics covering mixing, gain staging, headroom, & monitoring. 

Instead as Neblix pointed out you mostly rambled without really getting into the specifics of how a limiter works, why they work, and why they're used. Limiters have a very defined purpose and the approach on how to accomplish it is just as interesting as their uses.

I'll admit my post was rambling a bit, but it was mainly focused on one thing dBTP. The beginning was mostly an addition to your original posts with some history and trying to further specify precisely what is a limiter. 

Jesus Christ...it was Dan Reynolds who was talking about the CALM act, which is a U.S. regulation about the volume of commericials in broadasting if you're going to make a long post like this throwing around terminology for the sake of pseudo-intellectualism irrelevant to the topic at hand, at least read and properly quote people. Why is anyone even talking about this? Strader's post is talking about increasing loudness while limiting the output in music production. No guide I have seen anywhere else on the internet talks about the difference between dBTP or dBFS, whittaker-shannon interpolation and certainly not the CALM act because it is irrelevant information to most people looking to use a limiter on their music.

IF YOU DON'T LIKE BRANDON'S POST, TRY THIS:

1) Ignore it.

2) Politely correct him or add to/build off of his post

3) Say, "Thank you for sharing this with us Brandon. I hope it helps someone out there!"

I don't even give a shit if I get banned for mini-modding at this point. This site used to be the best around for useful advice and feedback and it felt like everyone worked as a team to help each other but guys like you are degrading it into holier-than-thou pissing-matches that don't help anyone and no one else seems to have the balls to call you out on it. 

 

[timaeus222]

Neblix and APZX, you were technically correct on each point, but yeah, you guys could have been more polite (APZX, you were a bit more rambling, but nevertheless I get what you were going for, and Neblix, at least you removed some undesirable words). Thank you, Dan, for being that guy. Regardless, some good information here. Thanks!

[Brandon Strader]

Yeaah I mean I admitted in the original post there was stuff I didn't know and was experimenting with, but I was specifically trying to talk about it in layman's terms so your average beginner or basically anyone could get something out of it. All the arguing about CALM dbSTD and dbTRS and DB-LGBTQ isn't really helping anyone here with the basics of using limiters. I didn't tag this as a tutorial and input is encouraged especially to correct me cause I was wrong. I'm just not too satisfied with how that went down. 

 

And i apologize for saying the song got louder from limiting the way I put it, I was limiting as part of a chain, so I did have auto gain going. 

[Nabeel Ansari]

1 hour ago, Brandon Strader said:

Yeaah I mean I admitted in the original post there was stuff I didn't know and was experimenting with, but I was specifically trying to talk about it in layman's terms so your average beginner or basically anyone could get something out of it. All the arguing about CALM dbSTD and dbTRS and DB-LGBTQ isn't really helping anyone here with the basics of using limiters. I didn't tag this as a tutorial and input is encouraged especially to correct me cause I was wrong. I'm just not too satisfied with how that went down. 

 

And i apologize for saying the song got louder from limiting the way I put it, I was limiting as part of a chain, so I did have auto gain going. 

In the absence of our curated guides forum that disappeared at some point I forgot that only things tagged as "tutorial" are to be treated like ones, so I guess I overreacted. I really don't understand why the whole broadcast loudness standard thing came in either, seems way irrelevant to me.

My entire deal is that if you want to explain (or, really, if you want to learn) how limiters work, you need to become familiar with notions of loudness and dynamic range.

Put simply, loudness is not a result of high peaks (high instants of energy) but rather how that energy sustains over time. If a single has loud drum transients but not much else and it's a sparse signal, it's perceptually still quieter. When we compress things (and when we limit them, which is just a more extreme version), we reduce their dynamic range. That means we shove the peaks down closer to where the average signal energy is.

So what happens then? The whole thing is quieter, but it is more "sustained" so to speak. So then we jack the whole thing up because we gained some headroom, and now the signal is much louder, because it has more sustained, constant energy. This is where RMS comes in. RMS isn't a direct measurement of loudness, but it is much more accurate than straight peak values for telling you how "strong" the signal is. Think of it like an average (it's not exactly, but I don't want to give a math lesson).

So when you limit things, what you're doing is squashing higher peaks and giving everything the same relative energy (the degree of which depends on your threshold). The distance between your highest peak and your average energy (how your transient/peaks compare to your sustained energy) is called your crest factor, and that's really what we mean by dynamic range.

When we use limiters on the signal, we want to consider the numbers like RMS and crest factor of the signal. If the RMS is too high, or the crest factor is too small, that's the "pumping" we hear. Good transparent limiting gets our RMS up while maintaining a level of dynamic range we can still perceive as not being squished out.

For instance, in the old days when engineers were really trying to push the loudness war, there were metal albums that would get mastered at like -8 dB RMS. They sounded squashed and terrible, honestly, but in metal, that's kind of the expectation. It's gotta be loud and harsh.

But compare that to classic rock? You want those numbers to be different, RMS to be much lower; get that crest factor back, have the nice distance between transients and sustained energy. It's more organic that way. The indisputable fact is that compression of any kind squashes transients, it turns drum into mush and kills tightness, same goes for any instrument.

Of course in modern day, you still want it to be kinda loud, but definitely not as pumped as metal or EDM. When I did more electronic/breakbeaty stuff, I would push it to -10dB RMS, and even that was a bit much. Now I go between -13 and -12 for most stuff because I work more with acoustic samples instead of synths and processed layers.

So while using your ears is great, it doesn't help newbies in particular, because dynamics processing takes a good ear. Going by some reference numbers gets them closer to the result, faster.

[Brandon Strader]

I can agree about checking the RMS numbers. I try to hit -10 or so myself (I don't pee myself if it dips into -9 or -8 a bit) 

usually say a beginner can generally avoid RMS issue if they do not push their mix quite up to professional loudness. With practice though, go for it, but keep that meter on.

 

though a a master I just did hit -6 but it's really transparent. It's too loud, obviously, but doesn't pump or clip so I didn't realize it was too loud. I had a meter on but I was on a deadline and couldn't figure out how to lower the RMS quickly. For my specific chain I figure it will require extensive updates to the multiband compressor

i do target around -6 RMS for electronic music though. Personal taste. But not acoustic/metal

[dannthr]

I think this (any serious discussion on audio tools) is a good discussion to have and people should not fear being corrected or clarified--neither should people feel glory for wielding knowledge but rather they should feel encouraged to assist each other in revealing the function and procedures of the tools we all love and use.

We have an opportunity to ensure a strong community where everyone improves simply by participating--simply by engaging--and we lose or miss that opportunity when we attack people for not knowing or belittle people for explaining to the community how much (or little) they may know about a subject.

Knowledge is really just an ever expanding grasp of what is happening and it is in our human nature to continue to act upon what we understand at any given time we understand though our understanding may grow tomorrow--if we're lucky--and change our subsequent agency.

In this way, we are all in this together and we all benefit from assisting each other.

Now, for the very oddly specific (and seemingly misinterpreted) post about my input, APZX, I'm not sure why you confused me with Brandon Strader--I can only assume that you didn't really read carefully since you harp on about distinguishing Full Scale measurement vs. True Peak when I did not specify Full Scale measurement as the peak limit measurement (even suggesting that would be silly since it is a peak value we're discussing).

With regards to my comparison between a limiter and a compressor, all I can say is that I choose my words carefully (though I cannot ensure you will read them with the same care).

So let's work together on this, yeah?

os·ten·si·bly

äˈstensiblē,əˈstensiblē/

adverb

adverb: ostensibly

1. apparently or purportedly, but perhaps not actually.

    

[dannthr]

14 minutes ago, Brandon Strader said:

I can agree about checking the RMS numbers. I try to hit -10 or so myself (I don't pee myself if it dips into -9 or -8 a bit) 

usually say a beginner can generally avoid RMS issue if they do not push their mix quite up to professional loudness. With practice though, go for it, but keep that meter on.

 

though a a master I just did hit -6 but it's really transparent. It's too loud, obviously, but doesn't pump or clip so I didn't realize it was too loud. I had a meter on but I was on a deadline and couldn't figure out how to lower the RMS quickly. For my specific chain I figure it will require extensive updates to the multiband compressor

i do target around -6 RMS for electronic music though. Personal taste. But not acoustic/metal

If it works well, go for it, but I wouldn't worry too much about hitting RMS numbers, trust your ear whenever you can--listen on a wide variety of speakers.

 

One of the things that is really important to remember when you start cutting off peaks in your music is that any time you shave off a waveform, you begin squaring your wave-shape and this increases the amount of harmonic distortion in your program material.

Sometimes this is desirable, sometimes it is not, and in these cases, trust your ear--take baby steps as you begin your mastering process--and constantly A/B things.

[Nabeel Ansari]

23 minutes ago, dannthr said:

If it works well, go for it, but I wouldn't worry too much about hitting RMS numbers, trust your ear whenever you can--listen on a wide variety of speakers.

 

One of the things that is really important to remember when you start cutting off peaks in your music is that any time you shave off a waveform, you begin squaring your wave-shape and this increases the amount of harmonic distortion in your program material.

Sometimes this is desirable, sometimes it is not, and in these cases, trust your ear--take baby steps as you begin your mastering process--and constantly A/B things.

I have found that the harmonic distortion from limiting the primary reason I try not to push the limiter; the squashed dynamics and smushed peaks are actually next in line.

[dannthr]

Totally agreed, Nabeel!

This can also be a really frustrating position--I've had projects where I had to match the audio levels of another audio professional who slammed the sound beyond my comfort zone and had to resign myself to delivering what I feel is low quality audio because of the harmonic distortion introduced from crushing the dynamic range.

At the same time, there's definitely a preference and I will also admit that some music handles the distortion pretty well--square waves are comprised of odd-ordered harmonics--so some music which already features a lot of odd-ordered harmonic distortion can take it more.

[shadowpsyc]

All depends on what limiter, some have more controls, some have less and some don't even have a threshold or a ceiling. Reading the manual for any plugins is always a good move. I use the host native limiter and Maximus in FL myself because I'm ghetto and these have idiosyncrasies like an ahead knob that has nothing to do with look ahead and is actually more like sustain and an attack knob that actually functions as look ahead and creates latency...those things would create all sorts of problems for someone that didn't read about it.

[timaeus222]

2 hours ago, Neblix said:

So while using your ears is great, it doesn't help newbies in particular, because dynamics processing takes a good ear. Going by some reference numbers gets them closer to the result, faster.

Pretty much agreed; the only thing I would question is what I bolded.

I'm on board that anyone who has not trained his/her ears to listen for dynamic range, loudness, and the like would have trouble detecting pertinent issues, and that communicating to them via language like "dB RMS" is an effective way of conveying how loud something is without knowing how loud their system is. But it seems like you're also saying that taking a systematic, numeric approach makes it easier to learn how to write loud music properly. It might, if one doesn't get overly focused on what the numbers "ought" to be.

For instance, it sounds like you prefer a borderline of -10 dB RMS, and Brandon as well.

So, based on numbers and numbers alone, then I should expect that either of you would find the MP3 of this too loud. I seem to recall it being -6 dB RMS when I looked at it with Sonalksis FreeG Stereo, but correct me if I'm wrong. Personally, I intended it to be that loud, and I was aware that it was that loud. Based not on numbers, but on my ears, I don't believe it is too loud with respect to my vision (high energy, guitar-toting drum & bass).

If by your ears you believe it is not too loud, then I don't think mere reference numbers, like for dB RMS, are sufficient to assert "too loud" or "too quiet" (perhaps our volume settings on our computers are different; always a possibility, as "too loud" can mean either actual volume or small crest factors), or sufficient to guide a "newbie" faster towards proper dynamic compression. It can be helpful though. Granted, they have to constantly train their ears on such material too; I think we agree on that. But if a "newbie" gets caught up on what the numbers "ought" to be, couldn't it hinder them more that they are shooting for a goal that might encourage his/her conforming to specific loudness standards? I'm all for numerical measures of 'loudness', but IMO, there comes a time where being less systematic might be more conducive to writing more creatively.

Come to think of it (and I don't mean to belittle; this is just for discussion), Master Mi is one example that comes to mind when I consider someone who adheres to "EBU R128" loudness standards that he has continued to expressly praise, and yet, I find his music rather quiet (EX: https://soundcloud.com/master-mi/lufia-2-tyrant-breaker-master-mi-remix-version-15). Either he did not adhere to those standards properly, or something's wrong with those standards. Whatever the case, how loud his music sounds correlates with how much he adheres to those standards, no?

That's my point. If anything, I would let your ears be your guide (or even someone else's whom you trust), and check numbers if you know that they aren't going to limit how you express yourself through music.

[Nabeel Ansari]

I did specifically mention that the numbers are dependent on what the content of the music is, or at least tried to imply it. I wasn't trying to say -10 dB is a catch-all.

To me, when I listen to that mix, I'm not surprised when you tell me it is -6 dB RMS. I also don't think it's too loud given the content. But do -6 dB RMS on say, a contemporary jazz trio, and I certainly would find it too loud and quashed (and have an unpleasing amount of harmonic distortion given that it's on pure acoustic instruments). But the RMS isn't of direct importance, the crest factor is (and it's dependent on RMS, obviously, these systems aren't linear); even if I turned my speakers down a small crest factor is still loud. Maybe not sound pressure wise but certainly dynamic range wise. dB SPL is a whole different aspect of loudness; but sound pressure is something you can't control no matter what. You don't know what sound pressure output a person's headphones/speakers are, so it's not worth mixing for, at least to me. (Unless it's for a specific sound system, car, venue, etc.)

I also would venture to disagree simply because when people are new and try things themselves by ear they will almost always have bad results and have to be given feedback and try to reduce the effects until feedback says it's okay; whereas explaining how crest factor and RMS play into "pumping" and limiting => harmonic distortion (maybe you don't have to give concrete numbers like "shoot for 6 or 8") makes them able to see what happens when they change the numbers around. It's more about how the sound behaves when you change the numbers to me that's the important learning aspect, less about fixing specific numbers like -13 or -10 and creating so-to-speak archetypical loudness profiles to aim for.

But that's just a math student's approach to it.

Keep in mind this is mainly fueled by the consideration that dynamics processing isn't a linear system. It's very hard to just intuit things by ear when you're new in the dynamics world, compared to say, turning feedback down on a delay or changing an EQ gain.

[APZX]

Sorry for the mix up Danthr & Strader. 

Danthr,

When I read your post initially it looked like dB full scale. For that I apologize. 

Though the discussion has definitely turned quite interesting now talking about RMS (which honestly is a crap way to measure loudness because it isn't weighted), Crest Factor (quite geeky), and all that fun stuff. Though I think it should be noted of equal importance to this whole thing of limiting are the Equal Loudness Curves. 

AngelOwlCity,

It is important to note the difference between the two especially for someone looking to use a limiter on the master otherwise when you convert to a lossy codec it is possible to clip the playback of the codec. 

[dannthr]

I'm not a fan of RMS for certain things, for sure, same with LU measurements.  I only mentioned the CALM Act and Mastered for iTunes because Brandon inquired as to why someone would want a ceiling under -0.8dB--I only mentioned it as an example of a legitimate specification where you would want to control your peak values.

As you've mentioned, RMS doesn't inform us about how loud it will sound--but I think also pushing for an RMS value can be a very messy way of asserting a total dynamic range for a project.  That's why I try to encourage people to use their ears and even more, I will HEAVILY encourage newbies to use a reference recording.

So if you're mixing a rock project, maybe you'll pick a FooFighters' track as a reference--go back and forth and try to achieve the results you enjoy as a music listener.  I think there are a lot of great opportunities to learn from using a reference track over just adhering to a guideline.

[dannthr]

9 hours ago, timaeus222 said:

Come to think of it (and I don't mean to belittle; this is just for discussion), Master Mi is one example that comes to mind when I consider someone who adheres to "EBU R128" loudness standards that he has continued to expressly praise, and yet, I find his music rather quiet (EX: https://soundcloud.com/master-mi/lufia-2-tyrant-breaker-master-mi-remix-version-15). Either he did not adhere to those standards properly, or something's wrong with those standards. Whatever the case, how loud his music sounds correlates with how much he adheres to those standards, no?

If he adhered to the EBU R128 loudness standards then his music should sound mostly quiet.  That specification leaves a very wide dynamic range and if it's music, which often has a very consistent level throughout, then the music would be mastered quite low compared to other music you're accustomed to--that specification actually encourages you to turn your volume up so that levels are well represented (quiet sounds quiet, loud sounds loud, etc.)--like the CALM Act, the specification is designed to make audio programming that has very little dynamic range (or highly compressed audio as is the case with commercial breaks) very quiet--this helps it maintain consistency with dynamic programming like a film or TV show.

[APZX]

14 minutes ago, dannthr said:

I'm not a fan of RMS for certain things, for sure, same with LU measurements.  I only mentioned the CALM Act and Mastered for iTunes because Brandon inquired as to why someone would want a ceiling under -0.8dB--I only mentioned it as an example of a legitimate specification where you would want to control your peak values.

I'd just like to chime in on this and I've mentioned it before in this thread. The reason for having a peak of say -0.8dBFS comes from the fact that when it is placed into a lossy codec the level can increase not only the RMS (though not really perceived) and peaks can be generated that will clip the playback system. All of these loudness acts are a way to not only ensure that everything has roughly the same consistency when it comes to loudness, but also so that during play you're playback system is going to be unlikely to clip. MFiT isn't necessarily about loudness, but more about not clipping the codec on playback, but that is the gist of things.