# Questions on normalizing volume for solo piano album.



## Argan (Jun 25, 2020)

I’m finishing up a solo piano album (using VSTs). I’ve never mixed or mastered before but fortunately from what I’ve read solo piano doesn’t really need much mixing. I’ve done fairly extensive editing of note velocities, mic positions, and even using various VSTs, so I suppose the would be considered mixing and I’m really happy with the sound. 

However, I’m unsure of how to master the tracks so that the volume is normal across the album. I’ve read that having the loudest part of the song around -1db or -.5db is the best way to do it. Should I do this for each song or should I find the loudest song on the album, make it close to -.5db and then make the settings for all the other songs as similar as possible to that song? 

The only issue is if I make one song at its max level without clipping and do the exact same settings for the vst and mixing sliders for another song that is softer, it only reaches a max of -10db or even less. I am completely new to this but that seems low for max volume of a song. But I also want the dynamics of more velocities to be the same from song to song across the album. Any advice on this? 

Also, does it make a difference for where I turn the volume up? Such as in the plugin, on the track, or the stereo out?


----------



## CGR (Jun 25, 2020)

My advice would be to master the tracks as an entire group to a peak of -0.5 db (Spotify's suggested peak) and then manually increase the quieter tracks to maybe -2 or 3 db peak to retain some natural dynamics between tracks. The problem is that if an single track from your album is streamed in a playlist, you'd want to ensure it doesn't sound too low in volume (although there is some normalisation which streaming services like Spotify apply to the tracks).

It's a tough one because you're balancing natural dynamics & volume levels for an album of tracks intended to be heard as a collection, with having an individual track hold up volume-wise when played amongst other tracks from other albums in a streaming situation. Also, the dynamic range from track to track is a big factor in your decisions with normalisation (eg. a piano piece played at ppp-pp-p would sound unnatural normalised to -0.5 db in the context of a solo piano album with a large dynamic range). Then again, felted piano style tracks are often very dense and compressed (and "loud").

Some mastering engineers here may have more (or differing) information regarding this.


----------



## Buz (Jun 25, 2020)

You'd want to have a loudness target in mind and an idea of how much to allow this to vary. This AES document has some discussion http://www.aes.org/technical/documents/AESTD1004_1_15_10.pdf

Peaks are important in the sense of not clipping, but they're misleading comparing different styles. If one track is less dynamic it will naturally peak lower at a similar perceived loudness.


----------



## Beat Kaufmann (Jun 25, 2020)

Hi Argan
Everyone who puts together an album, no matter what kind of music, has the problem that, at least for the album itself, the volume levels of the individual tracks fit together.
With some music styles it makes sense that the volume absolutely fits to the genre, so that you "belong" to the scene in terms of volume. Fortunately this is probably not the case with you.

When one of the live concerts is recording and often every year from the same customers, I had to find a standard that would last for years.

Here now the basic principle:
You look for a part in your music where it plays loud ( _f_ to _ff_ ) and measure the RMS - value. You can either set this value to a specially defined standard or use a *scale by Bob Katz*, for example.
*By working with RMS values, you are close to the human who feels volume and not peaks.* If you set the RMS-level of such "f-ff-parts" to -14dB for example, you have enough room to adjust the volume without distortion even if you have _ffff_-parts.
Therefore, Bob Katz has suggested different scales, with which many studios work today.

K-12 (radio, broadcast)
K-14 (Country Rock, Pop,...)
K-20 (film, classical music...)
Fabfilter's limiter offers such a measurement system, where you can display the average RMS level and at the same time limit peaks if they occur.
View attachment Tuorial_Mix_an_Orch_Mastering_Volume_K14.mp4
















As you can see, if you measure with the K-14 scale by Bob Katz the music could be amplified by about +2dB for reaching -14dB RMS. You can also see in the video that there is a section at the end, which will get louder... no problem with this System.

-----------------------------------------

The scales of Bob Katz are today more and more replaced - at least in Europe - by the current standards: EBU recommendation R128. It redefines the sound control of radio and television programmes.

Even more the volume over a longer period of time is taken into consideration ... but that would be a chapter in itself.
Basically, however, the volume can be adjusted in the same way with this system as described above.
Although these recommendations have been around for a long time, they are very difficult to implement...
The Fabfilter-Limiter offers such a R128-Scale as well...

All the best
Beat


----------



## CGR (Jun 25, 2020)

Worth a look. He goes on a bit but some very good information here:


----------



## CGR (Jun 25, 2020)

And some relevant info for mastering for streaming services:



Loudness Penalty: Loudness for online streaming AAX, AU and VST


----------



## Beat Kaufmann (Jun 25, 2020)

_"I’ve read that having the loudest part of the song around -1db or -.5db is the best way to do it...."_

As a supplement to my article above, which was about the basic volume, two more additions:

A) Once the volume has been adjusted, you should make sure that any peaks do not reach 0dB. There are several reasons for this, which could be described in detail. One keyword is "Truepeaks". To make it short: it makes sense to use a limiter that limits the maximum output signal to - 0.5 to -1dB. This has to do with the fact that, for example, when converting the mastered signal into an mp3 file, no errors occur, because not every conversion process can handle 0dB. So this -0,5 to -1.0 dB range is a "safety margin" so to say. Also: You won't hear a difference in the volume, whether an occasional peak limiting at -0.5 or at -1dB happens.
*And it should be repeated once again:* Setting the volume via peaks is wrong. So: Normalizing all tracks to -1.0dB peak leads to a useless result.

B) For many people, "mastering" means making it loud. If you produce heavy metal I agree with you, volume is also an issue. But as it looks like, it's not about a music style where "as loud as possible" is the main topic. Then mastering is about getting the best quality out of the previous mix as the last step. That starts with the channel balance, the sound balance, up to the volume. It makes sense to work with references, especially if your own monitoring situation does not offer the highest quality. Once again: Mastering does not mean "as loud as possible" - especially in classical music. 

Beat


----------



## Argan (Jun 25, 2020)

Wow. Thanks for all the great info! Going to do some more research on RMS (a new term for me) and the links above and come back with any questions still left.


----------



## shawnsingh (Jun 27, 2020)

Great general info on loudness here, but for piano specific, it's an interesting challenge because of the potentially massive dynamic range, even just for a single sustained note as it decays. Some useful piano specific suggestions from my limited experience:

Be careful with compression since it can awkwardly increase the perceived sustain of the piano on long held chords. I've found a 2:1 ratio is about as hard as you can push it before awkward dynamics becomes noticable. It's because we become familiar with the way a piano note naturally decays on a particular mix, so we're more sensitive to when compression is applied. But of course it depends on the piano piece too.
At the same time be careful with pushing loudness by using a limiter too. The artifacts caused by a limiter might be more audible with a piano sound, unlike drum like transients that are often noise like in their profile, the piano's pitched transients can get warbling artifacts sooner.
Absolutely make sure to test your mix on lossy audio codecs. MP3, AAC, and HE-AAC all if possible. Perhaps try checking with 128 kbps and with 64kbps, maybe even 48 kbps. Again the pitched but percussive nature of piano with it's huge dynamic range is a tricky combo for lossy compression.
For piano in particular, it's worth seriously considering backing off from a desired target loudness so that you can accommodate the dynamic range you want for your music. One good alternative if your piano VI supports it is to use internal dynamic range limits or midi compression. The idea that you can still use all the velocity layers of the instrument to get the tonal expressiveness of loud and soft, but the literal volume of each not can be scales to reduce the dynamic range.
Mic positions can make a big difference in the transients that you have to deal with. If your piano sound is impossible peaky and you feel you can't get it loud enough, consider reducing close mics for example, which are likely contributing the most to that snappy transient. Also if it's peaky, you could try changing delays on some of the mic positions to see if maybe you can reduce the compounding of peaks from multiple mics from adding together so badly.
Cheers!


----------



## Argan (Jun 27, 2020)

shawnsingh said:


> Great general info on loudness here, but for piano specific, it's an interesting challenge because of the potentially massive dynamic range, even just for a single sustained note as it decays. Some useful piano specific suggestions from my limited experience:
> 
> Be careful with compression since it can awkwardly increase the perceived sustain of the piano on long held chords. I've found a 2:1 ratio is about as hard as you can push it before awkward dynamics becomes noticable. It's because we become familiar with the way a piano note naturally decays on a particular mix, so we're more sensitive to when compression is applied. But of course it depends on the piano piece too.
> At the same time be careful with pushing loudness by using a limiter too. The artifacts caused by a limiter might be more audible with a piano sound, unlike drum like transients that are often noise like in their profile, the piano's pitched transients can get warbling artifacts sooner.
> ...




Very helpful info here! Much appreciated. A few comments and questions based off all the advice and what I've tried. Let me know if you think any part of my process I've been applying could be done better. 

I started with the song which I think has the loudest playing for all the songs on the album, figuring if I can get that one to have appropriate loudness without noticeable decreased dynamics, then I can base the rest of the songs with that particular VST off of the settings I applied to that one. Having that said, it is also the song with perhaps the most dynamics. I play part of the song quite loud but the beginning and very end start soft. 

Some things I've tried:

Limiter: So far I've found this the best option to bring up the loudness a touch without any weird dynamic effects. The biggest effect the limiter has is 2db and only really applies to a few seconds of the song overall. Being a newbie to mixing/mastering, my ears cannot easily pick out the moments where it limits and the 2db bump for the rest of the song I'm able to achieve is something at least. I have no idea how much difference 2db actually makes though. 

Compression: I tried applying a touch of compression (less than 1.5:1) and while not a significant difference, I seemed to notice this more than the limiter (maybe because the limiter is acting in only a few brief moments of the song). I know at least one of the VST's I'm using (NI Noire) has an internal compression as part of the plugin. Just to be clear, you are saying that the internal compression for the VST will act differently than a separate compression plugin? I have not tried that yet. 

I've read up on RMS (and LUFS) as a standard for music and learned about the plugin in Logic that measures them, but I'm still a bit confused on how to use this. Do I use it for one stretch of the song or measure the value over the entirety of the song? Right now I've just decided to compare my recording to other professionally recorded solo piano albums. As long as I can get it close, I'll be happy. As you said, with solo piano it's probably better to be a bit lower on loudness than to overly affect the dynamic range. My goal is not to make it as loud as possible, just comparable to other solo piano recordings. 

Mic positions: Unfortunately NI Noire does not have mic positions to mix, although it does offer a wealth of tweakability. The other VST, the Garritan CFX, has two mic positions so the idea of turning down the mic position sounds like an interesting idea. I'm trying to get the Noire songs done first. 

Having that said, Noire is relatively dry and a close sound, so I'm using QL Spaces II as a reverb. Even with a decent sized reverb, it's not quite as ambient as the Garritan CFX. How would adding more or less reverb affect perceived loudness? Part of the reason I'm using the Noire is because its sound fits some of my more modern, rhythmic chord-based songs better, so I don't necessarily want it to sound as wet as the Garritan songs, but also want it to have enough reverb so that it doesn't feel too disjointed from other songs on the album. I guess that's getting into a separate issue than just loudness. But I'm willing to change the reverb if it helps the overall sound/loudness in any way. 

As of now, with just the small touch of limiter applied, the song sounds fairly close to my reference track I'm using. Although the reference track sounds much more distant and airy, it is still noticeably louder, but not much. I think it's something I can live with, especially if on streaming services they are normalized anyway. But if there is an easy way to give my song just a little extra bump of loudness, I'll take any advice I can get.


----------



## GNP (Jun 27, 2020)

It really depends on the sound of your VST itself. But I do notice that a slight bit of compression helps. I often use the API-2500 (piano leveller preset, but tweaked) to help tame abit of the dynamics. Once your dynamics are in order, it's alot easier to manage the overall volume, to make it louder without clipping.


----------



## Rory (Jun 27, 2020)

Argan said:


> I've read up on RMS (and LUFS) as a standard for music and learned about the plugin in Logic that measures them, but I'm still a bit confused on how to use this. Do I use it for one stretch of the song or measure the value over the entirety of the song?



The LUFS system is about measuring loudness perception for an entire performance, whether the performance is an entire film or an entire track of music. There are no LUFS "rules" about momentary loudness, which is why it's OK to have big explosions in movies. The issue is integrated loudness, or the overall loudness of your audio.

I would suggest that you find out what the LUFS standards are for the platform or platforms on which you plan to distribute your music. My understanding is that some people are now mastering recordings differently, with respect to loudness, depending on platform, e.g. CD, radio, Spotify, Apple Music. There is a close relationship between loudness and dynamic range. How much dynamic range, if any, are you prepared to sacrifice having regard to your audience? This is an issue even when one is talking about recordings of the spoken word. You don't say, at least in the two posts that I've read, what genre of music you are recording, apart from a reference to "my more modern, rhythmic chord-based songs". Is your audience sitting in a living room at home listening via Focals or is it listening on earbuds on the subway? If it's both, do you care about the latter?

Mastering engineer Jonathan Wyner has made some good videos for iZotope about loudness, the most recent being linked below. Note that while one needs to know platform standards, Wyner does not endorse making them an unthinking target, and in the video he talks specifically about genres starting at 03:10. Also, Ian Shepherd has written some good articles on loudness.

On a practical level, you might find it useful to discuss this with a professional mastering engineer who currently masters piano recordings. Failing that, this is one situation where it may be useful to raise your questions on Gearslutz.


----------



## shawnsingh (Jun 27, 2020)

Argan said:


> I know at least one of the VST's I'm using (NI Noire) has an internal compression as part of the plugin. Just to be clear, you are saying that the internal compression for the VST will act differently than a separate compression plugin?



I just looked up Noire Manual and video, very interesting library, sounds great. Looks like Color and Dynamic knobs are the kind of "compression" that I'm referring to. Actually it's technically even wrong to call it "midi compression", that would imply that you're compressing note velocities before they trigger an instrument, which isn't what I mean either. Especially the Dynamic knob is what I'm suggesting you try. It would still use the full range of quiet and loud samples, but it would scale volume of quiet and loud notes so that the difference between quiet and loud notes is not as dramatic. This is definitely NOT what a normal audio-FX compressor can do - the normal audio FX compressor can only adjust volume overall, for all notes, not caring whether a note is just starting or being sustained or if there are multiple notes or what. So a normal audio compressor risks to sculpt the transient/sustain/decay properties of the piano which can be awkward. The internal Dynamic knob will not cause any weird volume change within each note, but each note will be volume scaled to reduce the overall volume range. I've enjoyed having this feature on EWQL pianos and VSL synchron CFX.



Argan said:


> I've read up on RMS (and LUFS) as a standard for music and learned about the plugin in Logic that measures them, but I'm still a bit confused on how to use this. Do I use it for one stretch of the song or measure the value over the entirety of the song? Right now I've just decided to compare my recording to other professionally recorded solo piano albums. As long as I can get it close, I'll be happy.



Yeah definitely look it up as people suggest, it's worth learning about. the quick one-paragraph summary: Using a meter that visualizes peaks doesn't help tell you what the overall loudness is at any given time. it's main value is to double check that you're not going to risk clipping the audio, and to provide more fun motion-filled visualization. perceived loudness is based more on average energy of an audio signal, and that's what RMS characterizes. LUFS is even better because it considers that our hearing is sensitive differently to different frequencies, so it tries to weight more importance on frequencies we are sensitive to. LUFS is basically a frequency-weighted version of RMS, but also with a few other subtle details. For LUFS, if you want to think about it similarly like it's just a better RMS meter, then you'll want to use "momentary loudness". If you want to see the overall loudness of your entire track distilled into a single number, you want to look at "integrated loudness" which also has some further heuristics that try to ignore very quiet parts of the audio that maybe shouldn't contribute to the concept of "perceived loudness".

But with all that said, your proposed approach of mix referencing and just getting roughly there - I think is all you need to do and you're right not to overthink it. Maybe as you do more tracks you'll find ways to refine how you want to think through it. Then you can take your time to master the technical details as you want =)



Argan said:


> Having that said, Noire is relatively dry and a close sound, so I'm using QL Spaces II as a reverb. Even with a decent sized reverb, it's not quite as ambient as the Garritan CFX. How would adding more or less reverb affect perceived loudness?



I have a feeling the answer will vary depending on which reverb you use. I think generally, reverbs will tend to prolong the strong part of a note, and therefore will indirectly reduce the "peakiness" of the piano compared to a very dry piano sound. In turn, that might make it easier to manage the dynamics. But I'm not totally sure =) the peakiness might also be affected by predelay. My guess is that if you make predelay closer to 0, you'll bring that reverb energy in sooner and that would have a greater indirect effect on reducing peakiness than if you had a long predelay . But at the same time, it has to be the sound you want - I would NOT suggest compromising the sound you want just to try and buy more dB of headroom for loudness.


----------



## shawnsingh (Jun 27, 2020)

Rory said:


> There are no LUFS "rules" about momentary loudness.



can you please elaborate this? I think momentary loudness is quite well defined by EBU TECH 3342 (link)


----------



## Rory (Jun 27, 2020)

shawnsingh said:


> can you please elaborate this? I think momentary loudness is quite well defined by EBU TECH 3342 (link)



I was addressing the question of whether Logic loudness meter numbers should be applied to various parts of a track or the whole track. Yes, "momentary loudness" is a defined term, but what matters is "integrated loudness". For example, specific moments in a film, such as explosions, can be very loud provided that the film as a whole does not exceed the standard.


----------



## Argan (Jun 28, 2020)

shawnsingh said:


> Especially the Dynamic knob is what I'm suggesting you try. It would still use the full range of quiet and loud samples, but it would scale volume of quiet and loud notes so that the difference between quiet and loud notes is not as dramatic.



Awesome. That makes much more sense and practical. I've messed around with the dynamics knob before when trying out Noire for the first time but never thought to use it to tweak the recording. This approach--still applied very subtle--seems like it will work much better than normal compression, which I'm finding takes away too much clarity, even at a small amount. In fact, I've spent a lot of time editing the velocities of different notes, from either simply hitting the key too hard during the recording or from the natural inaccuracies that occur between the velocity sensor of the keyboard and the VST, and this approach has made my recordings sound so much better and natural. So I think a small tweak in the volume of different velocity-triggered notes will do the trick, especially if it adjusts the volume and not the timbre/attack of the note, which a velocity curve would do. 



shawnsingh said:


> But with all that said, your proposed approach of mix referencing and just getting roughly there - I think is all you need to do and you're right not to overthink it. Maybe as you do more tracks you'll find ways to refine how you want to think through it. Then you can take your time to master the technical details as you want =)



I'm feeling much more confident with this approach because of the helpfulness of everyone here. This is my first time really learning about mixing and mastering (even though it's only a solo instrument) and the learning process is part of the fun. Even though I have a lot to learn, it's nice to go into the final stages of the project knowing that I'm not missing some crucial, obvious thing that should be done. I'm sure my mixes and masters will get better in the future. For now, good enough is good enough! It's already sounding better than it otherwise would have if I didn't come here for advice.


----------



## Beat Kaufmann (Jun 29, 2020)

Hello again Argan
Concerning the volume, I also recommend not to work with LUFS, because there the volume is integrated over the whole measuring time.

To give you an idea where this might lead to, I have recorded 3 short piano pieces for you (zip-file, ~60MB, 2x wav 44,1kHz/24Bit). Once completely unedited and once "mixed/mastered". I used the K-14 scale. If the piano is played loud, the RMS value is around -14dB. With a security of -1dB the limiter almost never had to intervene.
The dynamic setting on the piano was "normal". The velocity curve was linear.

My mastering chain:

Compressor (New York variant) _This means: Soft signals are lifted._
Transformer Emulation (Overtone Enhancement) _For an even more interesting sound_
Compressor (normal 1: 2, very soft knee) _further minimal dynamic reduction_
Reverb (Type "Algo", mainly "Tail")
EQ _for airy heights (above 7 kHz) _
Limiter
It is important to know that I use all the effects *v e r y * sparingly.
If you want you can try to achieve a similar result by mastering the raw example yourself...

Why did I do this? 
Corona makes it possible - I have little work at the moment. There are no concerts to record...

Have fun.
Beat

By the way, this is the way to practice all the different things in my tutorial "Mixing an Orchestra": with exercises. 
And you will always get my detailed procedure... as a possible solution. So you can compare and maybe learn something new.​


----------



## Rory (Jun 29, 2020)

Beat Kaufmann said:


> Concerning the volume, I also recommend not to work with LUFS, because there the volume is integrated over the whole measuring time.
> 
> To give you an idea where this might lead to...



It leads, in the case of commercial radio, film and television distribution, to conformity with the law, and in the case of major distribution platforms like Apple Music and Spotify to compliance with their effective requirements. Ian Shepherd says that Tidal is applying LUFS directly.

The fact of the matter is that LUFS is the new standard notwithstanding small pockets of resistance from people who don’t like change. Those people can do whatever they want if they don’t care whether their work is distributed on commercial platforms.

Faced with failure to conform, broadcasters will simply reject the material. Some music platforms will effectively bring it into conformity whether the maker likes it or not, which means ceding control over one’s content to an algorithm.


----------



## Beat Kaufmann (Jun 29, 2020)

Rory said:


> It leads to conformity with the enforced requirements of major distribution platforms like Apple Music and Spotify, and in the case of radio and commercial film and television distribution to conformity with the law.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that LUFS is the new standard notwithstanding small pockets of resistance from people who don’t like change...
> 
> Faced with failure to conform, broadcasters will simply reject the material....



That's all quite correct. But Argan needs a guidance that leads to the following goal: First of all he has to "mix" his whole album so *that all pieces fit together*. He would be ill-advised to bring every single piece or also parts of the album into a form via "LUFS". Under certain circumstances the quiet pieces become too loud and loud ones too quiet then. 
So in a first step it makes sense if "Loud" always corresponds to a certain and same RMS level. Argan can actually reach that - even as a beginner. It is also not difficult to achieve a safety of about -1dB for the peaks. That you can't achieve all this with "file-normalize" has already become clear.

If the whole album is mixed and fixed, then it could make sense to determine the volume "integrated" with those LUFS. But as long as one does not know where Argan wants to publish his piano music and how it sounds, I personally would do nothing more. So far as my suggestion.

Beat


----------



## Rory (Jun 29, 2020)

Beat Kaufmann said:


> That's all quite correct. But Argan needs a guidance that leads to the following goal: First of all he has to "mix" his whole album so *that all pieces fit together*. He would be ill-advised to bring every single piece or also parts of the album into a form via "LUFS". Under certain circumstances the quiet pieces become too loud and loud ones too quiet then.
> So in a first step it makes sense if "Loud" always corresponds to a certain and same RMS level. Argan can actually reach that - even as a beginner. It is also not difficult to achieve a safety of about -1dB for the peaks. That you can't achieve all this with "file-normalize" has already become clear.
> 
> If the whole album is mixed and fixed, then it could make sense to determine the volume "integrated" with those LUFS. But as long as one does not know where Argan wants to publish his piano music and how it sounds, I personally would do nothing more. So far as my suggestion.



I think that we're in agreement on substance and I agree that your "first step" is a good start.

I hope that Argan has thought through who his audience is, what his audience's listening environment is likely to be and what platforms and file format(s) he intends to use for distribution. The answers these questions have a significant impact on mixing. I also hope that he evaluates his mix not just on good speakers, but also on computer speakers, headphones and earbuds. Most consumers of music are not listening via a high quality DAC on high-end monitors properly spaced in an acoustically treated room 

Also, if he can upload his music to one or more of his chosen distribution platforms on a pre-publish, private basis and then listen to the result, it's well worth doing before publishing.


----------



## Argan (Jul 6, 2020)

Beat Kaufmann said:


> Hello again Argan
> Concerning the volume, I also recommend not to work with LUFS, because there the volume is integrated over the whole measuring time.
> 
> To give you an idea where this might lead to, I have recorded 3 short piano pieces for you (zip-file, ~60MB, 2x wav 44,1kHz/24Bit). Once completely unedited and once "mixed/mastered". I used the K-14 scale. If the piano is played loud, the RMS value is around -14dB. With a security of -1dB the limiter almost never had to intervene.
> ...



Sorry. I was away in the wilderness for a little while. 

Thank you for taking the time to do this! Beautiful playing. May I ask which VST you used? It sounds very natural to my inexperienced ears.

I'm about halfway through mastering my CD. I may post some sections of it later. So far I've done a very light mix of limiting, a touch of parallel compression (which as I understand it is similar to the New York variant?), with a New York Piano Hall preset in Spaces II. Within the Noire VST I have also give a nudge to the "air" EQ. So far it sounds great! I have noticed a small loss in dynamics but it would be very hard to notice without hearing the original back to back with the master. And although there is just a touch of clarity lost, it also seems to be more glued together if that makes sense, which I think helps smooth out a VST piano I think.

The Loudness Penalty site has also been extremely helpful. While I'm trying to rely mostly on my ears to tell if the songs on the album fit together, the site has helped me check if any song is way off the mark. (I'm not sure which of the platforms use LUFS or RMS, but my goal is to get the songs to at least level or above the Spotify standard so that no major platform has to use any harmful methods to raise the levels of the song).


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jul 8, 2020)

I highly recommend downloading the Youlean Loudness Meter (free version will be fine). Insert it either in standalone, or right at the end of your mastering chain. Set your limiter to -1.0dB (apply threshold as needed), then get your mixes to -14 LUFS (integrated), and voila!









Youlean Loudness Meter - Free VST, AU and AAX plugin


Youlean Loudness Meter is your ultimate free VST, AU and AAX plugin for loudness measurement. Featuring LU, LUFS, LKFS, LRA and PLR measurements.




youlean.co


----------

