You are here

Youtube normalization vs album master

For everything after the recording stage: hardware/software and how you use it.

Re: Youtube normalization vs album master

Postby CS70 » Thu Feb 21, 2019 2:22 pm

ManFromGlass wrote:Life can be cruel sometimes :lol:

Ah yes - even cassettes had that foldout page sometimes. Although I couldn’t read those fonts anymore without assistance.
I will admit YouTube is now how I listen to music. A good tune can survive crap visuals but good visuals can only distract from a crap tune temporarily I find.

I never owned a turntable so cassette (and a cheap mono player) was all I had as a kid. Loved these foldouts. We're two on the fonts, amazing luck that the drawing software has a zoom tool. Actually anything computer. Was trying to read the instructions on some canned food the other day, realized that there wasn't any shift+mouse wheel available and happily proceeded to take a phone picture of the label and zoom it. Ah, technology! :D
User avatar
CS70
Jedi Poster
Posts: 4982
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 1:00 am
Location: Oslo, Norway
Silver Spoon - Check out our latest video and the FB page

Re: Youtube normalization vs album master

Postby ManFromGlass » Thu Feb 21, 2019 2:24 pm

that is brilliant. Thanks for the tip.
Photos are my new memory of what to get at the supermarket.
User avatar
ManFromGlass
Frequent Poster (Level2)
Posts: 2717
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2011 12:00 am
Location: In the woods in Canada
 

Re: Youtube normalization vs album master

Postby blinddrew » Thu Feb 21, 2019 2:26 pm

Hugh Robjohns wrote:
blinddrew wrote:
Matt Houghton wrote:Do people actually listen to whole albums on YouTube?
Regularly! :)

That's 'cos you're old... like me.

::: raises objection! :::

::: checks date of birth :::

::: retracts objection :::

The only (sensible) thing I'd add to the discussion is that I think the EP has a key role to play here. For artists of limited funds, or those at the beginning of their careers who maybe don't have their repertoire developed, an EP gives you the opportunity to have tell that story or show the sense of progression, without having to either find the funds for a full album or pad out half a dozen great songs with three or four filler tracks.
I agree with CS70 about that, I like listening to an album, but sometimes i like the skip button too... ;)
User avatar
blinddrew
Jedi Poster
Posts: 9602
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 12:00 am
Location: York
Ignore the post count, I have no idea what I'm doing...

Re: Youtube normalization vs album master

Postby Martin Walker » Thu Feb 21, 2019 2:28 pm

Whether it's the square format of a CD or the multi-page folded format of a compact cassette, many if not most such 'album jackets' need you to work under a bright light with a magnifying glass to have any chance of being able to read the content.

This to me rather defeats the object of providing relevant, useful and potential fascinating information in the first place :beamup:


Martin
User avatar
Martin Walker
Moderator
Posts: 15197
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 9:44 am
Location: Cornwall, UK

Re: Youtube normalization vs album master

Postby CS70 » Thu Feb 21, 2019 2:29 pm

Martin Walker wrote:Whether it's the square format of a CD or the multi-page folded format of a compact cassette, many if not most such 'album jackets' need you to work under a bright light with a magnifying glass to have any chance of being able to read the content.

This to me rather defeats the object of providing relevant, useful and potential fascinating information in the first place :beamup:


Martin

And that is definitive proof that we ain't 20 anymore :D
User avatar
CS70
Jedi Poster
Posts: 4982
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 1:00 am
Location: Oslo, Norway
Silver Spoon - Check out our latest video and the FB page

Re: Youtube normalization vs album master

Postby ManFromGlass » Thu Feb 21, 2019 2:35 pm

If I was to buy you a gift, Martin, it would be a hand held magnifier with lights in it, that is until zoomable holographic projection CD jackets arrive! (next year.....)
User avatar
ManFromGlass
Frequent Poster (Level2)
Posts: 2717
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2011 12:00 am
Location: In the woods in Canada
 

Re: Youtube normalization vs album master

Postby Hugh Robjohns » Thu Feb 21, 2019 3:26 pm

I'm surprised more people haven't taken advantage of Q codes to link a CD/Cassette/Record/USB stick or whatever directly to a website with full online material in a readable typeface size and with worthwhile images.

Even though I have well over 2000 CD albums and full-fat downloads on my NAS storage system accessible via iTunes and Sonos, all with cover art and basic details of composer, artists, date etc.... I really miss having access to the sleeve notes for more comprehensive information, and constantly find myself digging out the original CD to read the notes (usually to find things like recording location info for classical works, and contributors or occasional band members for other material).
User avatar
Hugh Robjohns
Moderator
Posts: 26397
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Worcestershire, UK
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Re: Youtube normalization vs album master

Postby blinddrew » Thu Feb 21, 2019 4:06 pm

Bandcamp allows you to add additional material with downloads, we did a 'traditional' CD-type booklet download with the band EP last year but I must confess it's not something I've bothered with on my solo stuff because there's really nothing interesting to share! :D

[EDIT - Doh! hit post too early]
Meant to say Hugh, that's a really interesting point. I'm listening to a CD at the moment from a local musician who, presumably for reasons of cost as it's an independent release, hasn't included any kind of booklet. I'd love to have a quick way of jumping to an online version of a set of liner notes. Missed opportunity methinks, but one to file away for the future.
User avatar
blinddrew
Jedi Poster
Posts: 9602
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 12:00 am
Location: York
Ignore the post count, I have no idea what I'm doing...

Re: Youtube normalization vs album master

Postby Matt Houghton » Thu Feb 21, 2019 8:19 pm

Hugh Robjohns wrote:
blinddrew wrote:
Matt Houghton wrote:Do people actually listen to whole albums on YouTube?
Regularly! :)

That's 'cos you're old... like me. We were brought up with the concept of a body of related music -- ie. the 'album' -- rather than disparate individual tracks.

I am regularly frustrated by my daughters' (both 20-somethings) complete disinterest in, or appreciation of, the concept of an album of related material and the idea of just sitting and listening to one artist's work for 20, 30 or 40 minutes. They live in a 'shuffle' world... and I think they are in the majority these days!

H

Alas, I'm no Spring chicken myself these days. My point wasn't the appeal (or otherwise) of the album. They were 'normal' when I grew up too, and I still listen to them. It was more about my surprise that people who care about this stuff are using YouTube as the preferred method of delivery...
Matt Houghton
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1002
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:00 am
SOS Reviews Editor

Re: Youtube normalization vs album master

Postby Hugh Robjohns » Thu Feb 21, 2019 9:15 pm

Yeah, there is that.
User avatar
Hugh Robjohns
Moderator
Posts: 26397
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Worcestershire, UK
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Re: Youtube normalization vs album master

Postby zenguitar » Fri Feb 22, 2019 1:48 am

Matt Houghton wrote: It was more about my surprise that people who care about this stuff are using YouTube as the preferred method of delivery...

Maybe not a preferred method of delivery, but when your CD player has 'died' and (in the short term at least) repair or replacement isn't an option, there's a lot to be said for making use of YouTube when you have a quality AI already attached to your computer. ;)

Andy :beamup:
User avatar
zenguitar
Moderator
Posts: 9546
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Devon
When you see a fork in the road, take it.
Yogi Berra

Re: Youtube normalization vs album master

Postby blinddrew » Fri Feb 22, 2019 10:21 am

Tends to be when I'm at work for me. If I'm at home I'm generally still a CD fan...
User avatar
blinddrew
Jedi Poster
Posts: 9602
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 12:00 am
Location: York
Ignore the post count, I have no idea what I'm doing...

Re: Youtube normalization vs album master

Postby ManFromGlass » Sun Feb 24, 2019 3:02 am

I can only crank the tunes at my studio so mostly YouTube due to bonus video. It takes me totally out of any mix I am obsessing over.
User avatar
ManFromGlass
Frequent Poster (Level2)
Posts: 2717
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2011 12:00 am
Location: In the woods in Canada
 

Re: Youtube normalization vs album master

Postby Tasukete » Mon Feb 25, 2019 4:30 am

Hi everyone once again. I truly appreciate your replies :)

I think I made the original post unnecesarily complicated and not clear enough, as the responses you gave me were mostly in reference to something else...

CS70 wrote:In a way you have it the other way around, there’s no ‘right volume’ for a composition, but it’s the listener that decide what he or she wants

Ramirez wrote:It doesn’t matter that there is an overall change of -5dB or so because you don’t know what the listener’s volume knob at home is set to anyway. They might be listening at 5dB louder than you to begin with...

There is a right volume and a wrong volume, but I mean the listeners volume! Because all I want is for each person to hear my album at the exact same level they already have it set. Sure, each person will end up listening the album at a different volume, but it will be the right volume FOR THEM.

That's my point. What I was saying is that clearly there are parts in the album that are technically too loud and thus youtube turns the whole album down just to be safe (again, it's one entire mix, one video, not separate videos for each track). So technically it's safe but also it makes the entire album sound lower than it should be.

Zukan wrote:I suggest you get hold of Nugen's Mastercheck and mix to the meter using whatever streaming service targets you load

Thanks Zukan. I had tried this already and saw how much Youtube would reduce the gain, again making the whole album in general sound too low.

Hugh Robjohns wrote:
Now, as long as YouTube's normalisation process simply reduces the level of the entire album by a consistent 5.4dB (in your case), then there's no problem as the relative level differences and dynamics between the different tracks are maintained as intended.

I never said youtube changes the relative differences between the tracks, in that sense the entire album is left exactly as it is!

Hugh Robjohns wrote:
Tasukete wrote:...my perception is that the volume I ended up with is basically the same as from commercial albums of different genres, give or take a db.

Perfect. The system works then! ;-)

I meant on my computer, but not on youtube.


Hugh Robjohns wrote: But they never will, because they all have their own volume controls and their own individual listening level expectations and requirements. Someone listening late at night, say, isn't going to want the replay level as loud as someone in the day, for example. You can't prescribe an absolute reference listening level for Joe Public. And you can't demand that your music should always be played back louder than someone else's.

Again, what I meant to say is that I want the volume to be leveled with whatever the listener has at that time. So if someone is listening at night at a low volume, when my album appears it is just fine, it is a good level for that moment, for that listener.

Tim Gillett wrote:
Have you checked by how many db YT lowers a range of other peoples' uploads?

I have, and for example commercial pop music I've seen anything from -0.7 all the way to -9.4db.


So again my question is whether you know how to reduce these peaks without altering the sound material. I precisely don't want to alter the dynamic range, I don't want to sacrifice any musicality, I would just like to find a way so that listeners can listen to the album just as they are normally listening to just about anything else. And again, in this case Youtube's normalization isn't doing that because it is taking those really high peaks as a reference and turning down the whole thing down as a result.

The mistake is from my end, the problem is I don't know how to fix it, and I thought perhaps some of you have an idea what can be done.

Again, thanks :)
Tasukete
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 8:36 pm

Re: Youtube normalization vs album master

Postby Hugh Robjohns » Mon Feb 25, 2019 10:41 am

Tasukete wrote:What I was saying is that clearly there are parts in the album that are technically too loud and thus youtube turns the whole album down just to be safe (again, it's one entire mix, one video, not separate videos for each track). So technically it's safe but also it makes the entire album sound lower than it should be.

Youtube turns the level down to make it attain the same perceived loudness as everything else on Youtube. It's nothing to do with making it 'safe'; it's just about compatability and consistency.

You could completely avoid the apparent volume discrepancy if you mixed/mastered your material to be compliant with YouTube's target loudness, rather than peak-normalised. But bear in mind that YouTube haven't revealed exactly how their normalising system works. It could be based on the overall integrated loudness, or on the maximum level of short-term loudness, or on the maximum true-peak level, or any combination of all three... So keeping your true-peak value at or below -3dBTP might help minimise any applied attenuation for peak-protection, and keep an eye on the short-term loudness value.

If you don't want to do that you'll just have to accept that YouTube's platform is loudness-normalised, and your particular mix dynamic is being reduced slightly to bring it into line with YouTube's requirements -- along with those of a great many others who are equally non-compliant.

I get the frustration, but it's just something we need to learn to work with because it won't be going away. As musicians, mixers and producers get used to loudness normalisation they will start to increase the dynamic range of their material again...

So again my question is whether you know how to reduce these peaks without altering the sound material. I precisely don't want to alter the dynamic range,

If you want to reduce the 'peakiness' of the peaks you will, inherently, also be reducing the dynamic range. There's no getting around that. It is by reducing the peaks that you can then raise the average volume -- which is what you are trying to do -- and the overall dynamic range is reduced... except that the more you raise the average volume the more YouTube will attenuate your music to keep it in line with its target loudness... There will be a best compromise position where you sacrifice some of your dynamic range and accept some adjustment from YouTube's algorithms.

And as for reducing peaks, you can use limiters, compressors, manual manipulation/editing etc etc...

I don't want to sacrifice any musicality, I would just like to find a way so that listeners can listen to the album just as they are normally listening to just about anything else. And again, in this case Youtube's normalization isn't doing that because it is taking those really high peaks as a reference and turning down the whole thing down as a result....

I get what you're saying. It sounds like the basic problem is that you are comparing your music, which has a very wide dynamic range, with other music which has a smaller dynamic range. As a result of Youtube's integrated loudness adjustment, the quieter bits of yours then seems too quiet by comparison, and the loud buts aren't as loud as you'd like them to be.

So you have two choices: (a) leave it as it is knowing that the full dynamic range is being maintained, even if it is all being turned down a little overall... or (b) remix it with less dynamic range to gain greater compatibility of average levels.

At the end of the day, there are always compromises to be made when trying to ensure maximum compatibility across platforms.

H
User avatar
Hugh Robjohns
Moderator
Posts: 26397
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Worcestershire, UK
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

PreviousNext