You are here

Volume Levels At Bouncing ???

All about the tools and techniques involved in capturing sound, in the studio or on location.

Moderator: Moderators

Volume Levels At Bouncing ???

Postby DigitalMusicProduction » Thu Feb 25, 2021 10:51 am

Hi

I'm sure this question is self explanatory, but just to be sure,

Would it be correct to say regardless of an audio signals input recording volume level, the final volume outcome of any track will be rendered at what ever volume levels are set at the final stage just befoe bouncing?
User avatar
DigitalMusicProduction
Regular
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2020 7:00 pm

Music is a universal language that speaks to every person, a euphoria of moods that inspires, convicts and heals 

Re: Volume Levels At Bouncing ???

Postby blinddrew » Thu Feb 25, 2021 1:08 pm

Yes. The output will be a result of the input level plus any gain, compression, expansion, eq or other processing applied to the track and any buss it feeds into (including the master buss).
User avatar
blinddrew
Jedi Poster
Posts: 14267
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 12:00 am
Location: York
Ignore the post count, I have no idea what I'm doing...

Re: Volume Levels At Bouncing ???

Postby DigitalMusicProduction » Fri Feb 26, 2021 11:03 am

At this stage just before bouncing when bringing up the loudness volume meter in logic, should i be looking to target each tracks volume level at -14LUFS average? And -1dBFS peak, Thus to comply with the required online streaming volume levels?
User avatar
DigitalMusicProduction
Regular
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2020 7:00 pm

Music is a universal language that speaks to every person, a euphoria of moods that inspires, convicts and heals 

Re: Volume Levels At Bouncing ???

Postby Luke W » Fri Feb 26, 2021 11:45 am

No, your loudness measurement should be done across the final output. It's the summing of your individual tracks that adds up to your final level, so how they measure on their own isn't really relevant, and trying to get them to hit particular figures won't be helpful or necessary.
User avatar
Luke W
Frequent Poster
Posts: 886
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:00 am
Location: Northamptonshire, UK
Studio - Techical Audio Services - Bespoke Construction

Re: Volume Levels At Bouncing ???

Postby blinddrew » Fri Feb 26, 2021 2:54 pm

Woah, just to avoid any further confusion, what do we mean "track" here?
If we're talking about individual audio/midi elements that make up a song, then yes Luke is correct; it's the total that matters not the composite parts.
But if by 'track' you mean 'song on an album' then each individual song is the unit that will be measured by the streaming service.
Isn't the English language fun? ;)
User avatar
blinddrew
Jedi Poster
Posts: 14267
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 12:00 am
Location: York
Ignore the post count, I have no idea what I'm doing...

Re: Volume Levels At Bouncing ???

Postby Luke W » Fri Feb 26, 2021 3:43 pm

Ah, yes, I probably should have checked that...

Don't mind me. :lol:
User avatar
Luke W
Frequent Poster
Posts: 886
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:00 am
Location: Northamptonshire, UK
Studio - Techical Audio Services - Bespoke Construction

Re: Volume Levels At Bouncing ???

Postby DigitalMusicProduction » Sat Feb 27, 2021 12:32 pm

Little confused about that response, what exactly is being explained here? Example there will b a 11 track album, therefore at the end of recording and mastering each track separately, should i then be measuring the volume of that track with the loudness meter just befor bouncing?
User avatar
DigitalMusicProduction
Regular
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2020 7:00 pm

Music is a universal language that speaks to every person, a euphoria of moods that inspires, convicts and heals 

Re: Volume Levels At Bouncing ???

Postby CS70 » Sat Feb 27, 2021 12:35 pm

DigitalMusicProduction wrote:Little confused about that response, what exactly is being explained here? Example there will b a 11 track album, therefore at the end of recording and mastering each track separately, should i then be measuring the volume of that track with the loudness meter just befor bouncing?

I think it's more a matter of what exactly is being asked here :lol:

What are you concerned about? Forget loudness etc, just what you are worried about. Maybe loudness has got something to do with it, maybe not.

After mastering, you're done, you shouldn't be measuring anything. The gift is wrapped, the paint applied, the box is sealed etc etc (pick the analogy you like best)
User avatar
CS70
Jedi Poster
Posts: 7776
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 1:00 am
Location: Oslo, Norway
Silver Spoon - Check out our latest video and the FB page

Re: Volume Levels At Bouncing ???

Postby Hugh Robjohns » Sat Feb 27, 2021 12:58 pm

DigitalMusicProduction wrote:At this stage just before bouncing when bringing up the loudness volume meter in logic, should i be looking to target each tracks volume level at -14LUFS average? And -1dBFS peak, Thus to comply with the required online streaming volume levels?

Assuming you're using the term 'track' to mean a complete, finished, recorded piece of music, then yes. Adjust the overall volume of that complete 'track' to be -14LUFS.

You don't need to do anything about the true peak level, other than make sure it is below -1dBTP. If it's -2 or -6dBTP or anything below -1dBTP it's fine and you can ignore the number.

If it's higher than -1dBTP (like 0 or +2dBTP) then you'll need either to compromise your Integrated loudness a little and pull the overall level back down a bit or, more sensibly, use a good limiter to reign in the transient peaks by a few dB.
User avatar
Hugh Robjohns
Moderator
Posts: 30726
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Worcestershire, UK
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound
In my world, things get less strange when I read the manual... 

Re: Volume Levels At Bouncing ???

Postby Frank Rideau » Sat Feb 27, 2021 4:10 pm

Thanks to Hugh, he got the discussion back on track.
Frank Rideau
Regular
Posts: 229
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 1:00 am
http://soundcloud.com/orgasmo-sonore Revisiting Obscure Film Music

Re: Volume Levels At Bouncing ???

Postby desmond » Sat Feb 27, 2021 4:13 pm

In case the OP is confused, the word "track" can mean different things, and which was meant in this case was not obvious from the context, hence the confusion:-

- track (as is in a CD track) - a single song/mix or an album or collection of songs

- track (as in multitrack recording) - a single part of a multitrack recording, eg the track with the bassline recorded on it, or the track with the singer's vocal recording, all of these tracks which get mixed together to form the overall mix of the song.
User avatar
desmond
Jedi Poster
Posts: 11457
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 1:00 am
mu:zines | music magazine archive | difficultAudio

Re: Volume Levels At Bouncing ???

Postby DigitalMusicProduction » Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:02 pm

Hugh Robjohns wrote:Assuming you're using the term 'track' to mean a complete, finished, recorded piece of music, then yes. Adjust the overall volume of that complete 'track' to be -14LUFS.

That entirely answers the question.

Out of interest is there a comparison between dBFS and LUFS ? Example what would -18dBFS equivalate to in -LUFS ?
User avatar
DigitalMusicProduction
Regular
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2020 7:00 pm

Music is a universal language that speaks to every person, a euphoria of moods that inspires, convicts and heals 

Re: Volume Levels At Bouncing ???

Postby CS70 » Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:29 pm

The same relationship that there is between the salary you get every month and the money you have in the bank at the end of the year. If you get lots every month, there's chances that your bank account will be fat at the end of the year. But it also depends on how much you spend!

LUFS is an integrated measure (over time), calculated over the totality of the song via the appropriate algorithm. Very roughly Integrated means that it's summed up - in our case over time. Whereas "decibels on the full scale" is a measure of an individual measuring, and taking the average of a set of measurements is a much simpler arithmetic operation.

The specific equivalence between an average and the LUFS computed by following the algorithm can be surely be seen for trivial cases (say, a constant signal at -18dBFS) but not sure how interesting that is.
User avatar
CS70
Jedi Poster
Posts: 7776
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 1:00 am
Location: Oslo, Norway
Silver Spoon - Check out our latest video and the FB page

Re: Volume Levels At Bouncing ???

Postby Hugh Robjohns » Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:36 pm

DigitalMusicProduction wrote:That entirely answers the question.

Hurrah! :D

Out of interest is there a comparison between dBFS and LUFS ? Example what would -18dBFS equivalate to in -LUFS ?

No, because they are fundamentally different things. It's that fundamentals word again... and an absent understanding of fundamentals like this is where you keep tripping up.

dBFS is an measurement of the instantaneous signal amplitude measured in decibels relative to peak digital level (hence the suffix, FS which stands for 'full scale').

LUFS is a measurement of the perceived loudness of a programme integrated over time. It is measured in Loudness Units relative to digital full scale -- hence the acronym LUFS*.

While they both broadly measure the size of the signal, they each measure that size in a very different way, and they also do it in very different time dimensions. So there is no equivalence whatsoever.

*For the benefit of our American friends, this loudness measurement is denoted with LKFS which refers to Loudness (units) with a K-weighting filter, relative to (digital) full scale.

LKFS and LUFS are completely equivalent. The LKFS term came first from the ITU-R BS1770 standard, but it was subsequently renamed in Europe to make it 'more friendly' to end users as LUFS (pronounced 'luffs').
User avatar
Hugh Robjohns
Moderator
Posts: 30726
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Worcestershire, UK
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound
In my world, things get less strange when I read the manual... 

Re: Volume Levels At Bouncing ???

Postby desmond » Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:56 pm

Hugh Robjohns wrote:LKFS and LUFS are completely equivalent. The LKFS term came first from the ITU-R BS1770 standard, but it was subsequently renamed in Europe to make it 'more friendly' to end users as LUFS (pronounced 'luffs').

How annoying would it be If I start spelling/pronouncing it as "lukfs"? (lufks?)
More or less than the kettle lead thing? Asking for a friend.... ;)
User avatar
desmond
Jedi Poster
Posts: 11457
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 1:00 am
mu:zines | music magazine archive | difficultAudio

Next