Best LUFs levels for Taxi screeners

[Cliffkeller]

Hi, I use Ozone 8 for my post mix "Mastering" and it allows me to select my LUFs levels. Preset is usually -14 as that is the most common for streaming sites. Does anyone know the optimum for Taxi?
My concern is that when I upload WAV files to Taxi my files tend to look like they are slamming as opposed to displaying peaks and valleys. I know sometimes screeners at libraries will balk at forwarding files that look that way. In fact I remember hearing that type of advice at the Taxi rally.
Any Taxi screeners out there have a suggestion for the Taxi members who master their tracks?
By the way you can see my tracks for reference, my taxi member number is K-1019-0755.
thank you,
Cliff Keller

[RPaul]

Hi, I use Ozone 8 for my post mix "Mastering" and it allows me to select my LUFs levels. Preset is usually -14 as that is the most common for streaming sites. Does anyone know the optimum for Taxi?
My concern is that when I upload WAV files to Taxi my files tend to look like they are slamming as opposed to displaying peaks and valleys. I know sometimes screeners at libraries will balk at forwarding files that look that way. In fact I remember hearing that type of advice at the Taxi rally.

I'm not a TAXI screener, but I do use Ozone (9 Advanced) in a similar way. I do think the -14 LUFS figure is a relatively typical number used by streaming services for adjusting the volume of tracks for consistency between tracks from different places. I've also been using the -1 dBFS true peak along with that since I am mainly making my song masters for streaming services.

I'm not sure there is necessarily any "magic" to the -14 number in that I've noted a number of experienced engineers talking about very different typical numbers for different genres (e.g. see https://bobbyowsinskiblog.com/2019/06/0 ... standards/, which mentions numbers for different uses, but says there is no standard for music), but I have found the -14 figure seems to work pretty well for me for keeping my tracks at a relatively consistent apparent loudness without my having to worry about mastering a batch of tracks at the same time to get a similar result (e.g. when collecting previously created tracks into an album alongside newer tracks). I'd previously used a method that targeted a dynamic range of 14 dB, and, if I got less than that, I'd turn the peak level of the recording down by 1 dB for every dB less than 14 dB of dynamic range. That older method worked well for keeping loudness feeling consistent between tracks, not to mention for encouraging me to try to achieve more dynamic range in my tracks (while I rarely achieved 14 dB, I frequently was in the 10-13 dB range), but it also tended to result in my masters sounding quite a bit softer than commercial masters.

With respect to the displaying peaks and valleys or not, that really isn't the result of using -14 LUFS, at least not in and of itself. If you look at my TAXI member page (URL is in the signature block below), while not every track was done since I started using this method, there are quite a few that were, and there are a wide variety of looks in the peaks and valleys of what shows in the TAXI displays. Ones I know for certain were done using the -14 LUFS method:

* Anything from "The Road That I Must Take" album ("Sweet, Sweet Color of Love", "Stories", "I Didn't Think")
* Dream a Mighty Dream
* Love Holds On
* After Us
* Bubble Gum
* Les mots que l'on ne sait pas dire
* Canal Street Jump
* Treasured Moments
* Steel
* Like a Lover Would (Cool Jazz Mix)

So, if it's not using the -14 LUFS method, what makes things more or less block-like versus peak-and-valley-like? It's the arrangement and its dynamics. The integrated LUFS number is an average. If you had a square wave with a single pitch at one level, say -14 dBFS -- the commensurate example of no peaks and valleys -- you'd get the same LUFS reading as if you and a classical piece with pianissimo and fortissimo passages, and everything in between that happened to average out to the same figure.

One other thing worth mentioning, and this relates to the question as to whether using a specific LUFS figure for everything is a good idea or not is that, in my experience, while it mostly works for keeping my tracks feeling a similar loudness, there have been at least a few cases where a specific recording felt considerably louder (or softer, but the case I'm remembering was louder) despite using the same standard as the tracks around it. One such case for me was with "Sweet, Sweet Color of Love (2019 Remix)". All the other tracks on my "The Road That I Must Take" album felt a similar loudness to me, but that one felt a bit louder. I ended up leaving it that way, but I strongly considered "turning it down" because the difference was noticeable.

Rick

[ResonantTone]

Oh man.. I could talk for a while about this. I'll try to keep this to the condensed version.

First of all, it's important to understand that -14 LUFs is used by streaming sites like spotify because they have a wide variety of genres, and they want to keep the listening experience pretty even. There is no benefit for you as a taxi member to aim for this number. Aim for what sounds good.

The second hugely important piece of info here is that the average LUFs level for any given piece of music is extremely, extremely genre dependent. You need to know what is considered to be sounding good for that genre, and aim for that. If you're mixing pop/edm at -14 LUFs, it's most likely going to be balked at and passed over very quickly. On the other hand, if you're creating some easy listening jazz piano and are pushing -6 LUFs, well... yeah, you get the idea. The other thing to consider is that for most modern mainstream music, smashing the master is part of the sound! People can say all day long "don't brickwall it so hard" or whatever because they don't see a bunch of transients.. the problem is they are trusting their eyes instead of their ears. If that's not your cup of tea... that's fine. But if you want to get to a comparable level as what's trending on the top of mainstream charts, then you better learn to master in a way that makes stuff loud and STILL sound amazing.

The best possible way to use LUFs as a measurement imo is to 1) create the best possible music possible first, and then 2) use your master/limiting/ozone or whatever to make sure you are in the ballpark FOR THAT GENRE. Don't go by some streaming service's standards here... it makes no sense.

Sorry if that came off as ranting, lol. I love talking about this stuff though, so hit me up if any of that doesn't make sense.

Best of luck!

Andrew

[cosmicdolphin]

The only thing you need to ask yourself is this...is the loudness of my track in line with the references ?

Yes ? Cool. You're good.

No ? Then make it louder until it is.

Personalyl I have never had any Library ask for the tracks they've signed from me to be made less loud. More loud ? Yeah ..several times. LUFS meters ? Just ignore them and use your ears/references.

[ttully]

Yes...what Mark (cosmicdolphin) said..... 100% spot on.

[cassmcentee]

I make every piece as loud as I can...
In the last 5 years I've only had a library ask me once to turn one down a little bit.
Editors will adjust the volume for their purpose
Do your mixes still sound good at low volume is the most important question!!!