What dbfs do you aim for when submitting to the brief?

[BrianSteel]

In reference to supervisors or Taxi screeners viewing waveforms as well as the consideration for getting broadcast quality audio:

Some creators master their mix. It's seems like a lot of creators simply mixdown their mix which gives a more dynamic waveform appearance. Apparently the brick wall looking master waveform doesn't have the right optics for sync. The debate on mastering or not continues. I am considering simply doing a mixdown without mastering so the waveform looks more dynamic like what you see on the Taxi reference tracks uploaded to dropbox as well as the files from Taxi members on Taxi.com. I may be mixing apples & oranges here but to get to the point, what dbfs (or RMS) as it reads on your DAW master bus meter do you go for if you don't master your mixdowns and the brief or the client hasn't specified such details? Thanks.

[Paulie]

I think the "mixing versus mastering" concept is outdated. Everything is in the box these days... you need to do whatever it takes so that your recording sounds finished, not like a demo.

I used to aim for -14 LUFS, then I had a library tell me he needs his stuff at -10LUFS. I get a lot of placements through him, so my response was "yes sir!" I think if you are between -14 and -10 you are good to go.

Here is a cool article that explains some of this stuff with really nice visuals:
https://www.masteringthemix.com/blogs/l ... nd-youtube

[BrianSteel]

I think the "mixing versus mastering" concept is outdated. Everything is in the box these days... you need to do whatever it takes so that your recording sounds finished, not like a demo.

I used to aim for -14 LUFS, then I had a library tell me he needs his stuff at -10LUFS. I get a lot of placements through him, so my response was "yes sir!" I think if you are between -14 and -10 you are good to go.

Here is a cool article that explains some of this stuff with really nice visuals:
https://www.masteringthemix.com/blogs/l ... nd-youtube

Thanks for the reply Paulie as well as the article. I think I have the idea now. My interpretation of what you are saying i.e. paraphrasing: to do whatever it takes to get a finished product because it's all in the box translates to master the mix.
Additionally, get a good LUFS level which is easily achievable using a LUFS meter. I have a few of those lying around. LOL. Thanks again. I feel more confident going forward with the mix/master portion of my current project with these goals in mind and with the article as a guide.

[SteveR]

Here is a cool article that explains some of this stuff with really nice visuals:
https://www.masteringthemix.com/blogs/l ... nd-youtube

Handy article, thanks Paulie

[AlanHall]

Here is a cool article that explains some of this stuff with really nice visuals:
https://www.masteringthemix.com/blogs/l ... nd-youtube

I read the article, explains quite a bit about the needs of the end user. Not as much about the measurement criteria as I'd like though.

I just got a return with a -14LUFS, -1dBTP suggestion from the screener. So - LUFS being relevant here - I have a related question:
When I'm watching the LUFS meter, I see (since the windowing function is a fairly short time frame. seconds? milliseconds?) the level rise and drop as the music phrases in and out. Maybe from -17LUFS to -12LUFS, with the peaks being rarer than the troughs. Am I looking to get -14LUFS peak, or "something visually around" -14LUFS on average?
I guess I'm asking how aggressive the streaming services (and digital content libraries) are about minor excursions above -14LUFS (or whatever their target value is).

Any comments welcome,
Alan

[Telefunkin]

Am I looking to get -14LUFS peak, or "something visually around" -14LUFS on average?

Aim for that value (or whatever the recommended LUFS value is) as an average. The short-term LUFS value shows short-term excursions (imagine faster continuous averaging), but is not the true peak. Once you get your average LUFS up to the desired level you might then find that the true peak on your metering (not LUFS or short-term LUFS) is actually hitting or attempting to exceed 0dB. In that case, you need to set the limiter to prevent that happening. Furthermore, most would recommend having a safety margin by setting the limiter maximum to -1dB true peak just to ensure that no inter-sample peaks (isp) risk exceeding 0dB.

Its rare that a track remains at the same average LUFS all through, so you have to make a judgement call on how to deal with that. You might adjust the mix, or you might aim for the recommended LUFS value on only the loudest section, or you might allow brief periods where the LUFS exceeds the aim.

There are variations on the recommendations for all these values, but the principles remain the same. An important addendum to this is that the end result is no good if the meters are right but the music sounds distorted (in a bad way). Therefore, I'd also suggest listening carefully for adverse effects of pushing a mix too far, especially if there are loud transient peaks in the music, from an 808 for example. Limiting is not always transparent, so use your ears as well as the meters to ensure everything still sounds good at the aim levels. If not, you might need to go back to the mix and control any offending instrument peaks with a compressor/limiter/clipper on the track or on the buss.

By the way, libraries have their own recommended levels (as Paulie says), regardless of streaming platform recommendations. Give them what they ask for, not what Spotify or Soundcloud say. The streaming platforms will adjust your track so that it aligns with their spec anyway and you'll soon hear whether it sounds any worse. If its for Taxi submissions then the recommendations in the earlier reply should be fine.

I hope that helps .

P.S. Anyone needing a LUFS meter plugin could try this one (the one I use). The free version has some features blocked but it still does all you need.
https://youlean.co/youlean-loudness-meter/

[AlanHall]

[snip]
...I hope that helps

Thank you, Graham. Understood!