# Loudness and -23 LUFS



## jonathanwright (Feb 6, 2014)

There seems to be a lot of information about the -23 LUFS mixing standard going around now, and I wondered if many of you guys use it practically?

I've tried out a couple of test mixes and at -23 LUFS they are really quiet, and so wondered if I'm doing something wrong or it's meant to be that way?


----------



## ceemusic (Feb 6, 2014)

I mix & aim all my sources to -23 , -24 LUFS / RMS, -10-/ -8 peak.
Similar to K-14 metering I gain-stage tracks & vst's @-20db.
The commercial or a louder cd value is maintained during the mastering stage.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Feb 6, 2014)

Here's my short comments on -23 LUFS - AAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGHHHHH

(and that AAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGHHHHH should peak 0db).

Here's the slightly longer response:

It's primarily for broadcast, and it's an absolute, total, unmitigated shambles. I know a phenomenal number of people working in broadcast sound, and so far I haven't met one who thinks its a good idea. This month's Sound On Sound article was written in a parallel universe.

Here's the basic problems with the currently proposed implementation in the UK.

1. Not all programmes should sound the same level averaged over time. The X Factor should sound "louder" than The Sky At Night. If you make an LE program the same average level as a a reflective one, the net result will be absurd.

2. It was designed to smooth transitions between programmes, adverts and presentation. Yet adverts and presentation are exempt, at a stroke making the whole system a charade. In fact, it will probably make it worse - with average levels going down (anecdotally, an LE show will probably wind up around 6db quieter under the new method, and if the ads are the same ear-splitting level, you've made an existing problem considerably worse).

(2 1/2 - live programmes are a particular nightmare, for obvious reasons)

When it comes to delivering music stems to a production, I honestly wouldn't worry about it for now, unless you are specifically asked to. Do you do each cue to -23? All averaged together? What about the rest of the programme? It's not really relevant when you think about it.

The entire industry here, from my experience, would like -23db to crawl under a big rock and never been seen - or heard of - again. It needs a total rethink from the ground up.


----------



## jonathanwright (Feb 6, 2014)

Thanks for that guys.

Guy, I'm pleased to see I'm not the only one scratching his/her head (eyes out) about this.

So many of these articles I'm reading are saying 'this is the way it should be done' without explaining the real world applications and lack of implementation.

I can now happily go back to my normal way of doing things, thanks for clearing it up for me!

Cheers,

Jon


----------



## Dietz (Feb 6, 2014)

As much as I believe that a Loudness Standard is a good idea in general, I'm convinced that EBU R128 is pretty useless when mixing music which will stand on its own. These values are meant to be used for whole _programs_, not for _parts_ of a program.

... mixing hard, pounding rock music with LUFS -23, anyone ...? *LOL*


----------



## Vlzmusic (Feb 6, 2014)

Most negative remarks I hear come down to "-23 is too quiet!"
But what about LUFS as measuring unit - does it have its uses? Can it represent anything useful in an audio material - I have this statistic in all my progs now.


----------



## gsilbers (Feb 6, 2014)

Guy Rowland @ Thu Feb 06 said:


> Here's my short comments on -23 LUFS - AAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGHHHHH
> 
> (and that AAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGHHHHH should peak 0db).
> 
> ...




some thoughts. 

on your 1) 

LKFS/LUFS IS average level over time. it is calculated per acts.. in length of time. 
every program is different but in general the idea is for the average to stay around the same level of percieved loudness. 
as your comment about not liking it , that is another matter. i do agree that it is 
a little "forced" and aesthetically or creativily you want your audience to feel more intensity of a surprise enemy attack then a theatrical.more dyanmic mix would make sense. 
at the same time, then how or who would judge that!!?!?? i mean, if i am the producer/mixer of those cops shows that mix hitting that l2 to the max i want it to sound like that. there are many many examples in the TV program and then movies that later get released in TV that if they had to be standarzied someway. 
so lufs/lks is one way. 


2) where did you read that commercials are excempt? they also follow the EU/US rules. 


correct about delivering music and not worry about lufs. keeping the mix that relates to your movie/tv show is the main thing. maybe keep the k14 meter just for reference. the rerecording mixer will make sure the full mix will be to spec. 
which mean that if you have really high levels for sections then those will get pulled down. 


lufs/lkfs is big business for many... (like me)  
movies with theatrical mix will get act segmented and have to be lufs/lks post processed. thats big business for some who need to do it so its spec ready for broadcast. there are some very good post processing boxes like the dolby dp600. 
which processes in average over time and not the broadcast ones which just crush the levels and make it sound crappy. 
doing post processing is $


as a general thought. if you mix tv show to lufs spec its actually mixing a show to sound good. thats it. the main rerecordig mixer where i work started to use the lp100 dolby box when the new fcc mandate come down... 
he has been mixing tv shows for 15 years in burbank (hollywood) and his first comment was.. yes, its about the same as i was mixing before. the studio is dolby approved so he was always mixing dialogue levels a the "normal" range for tv... and after mixing with the lkfs meter... it was about the same.

if i am not mistaken the issue came about those theatrical releases in TV that they would have the main character mumble something might happen and suddenly a huge explosion. in a theatre you can hear the mumble very good. in tv work that and other areas will go very silent.. so when commeercials came in it would be a smash! and poeple complained since commercials were mixed with cranking the l2 like pop music. now since they require to me lkfsed as well the transition is smoother. unless yuo watch hulu. man thats annoying.


----------



## gsilbers (Feb 6, 2014)

jonathanwright @ Thu Feb 06 said:


> There seems to be a lot of information about the -23 LUFS mixing standard going around now, and I wondered if many of you guys use it practically?
> 
> I've tried out a couple of test mixes and at -23 LUFS they are really quiet, and so wondered if I'm doing something wrong or it's meant to be that way?



are you mixing music or a tv show? 

if its music you dont use lufs. you can use k meter scale. k14. 

and it is not quieter. it is the normal range. maybe turn up your speakers levels.


----------



## gsilbers (Feb 6, 2014)

jonathanwright @ Thu Feb 06 said:


> Thanks for that guys.
> 
> Guy, I'm pleased to see I'm not the only one scratching his/her head (eyes out) about this.
> 
> ...



if you are in music then no. there is nothing at all for lkfs/lufs. 
if you in post there is a tons of articles.
there is an incredible informative and incredibly boring video exampling all this some where in the EBU website. its like 2 hours long. it gets very very technical. 

also, as my own opinion is that i think all this came upon dolby having US and EU lobbying to pass this laws so they can get more money. govmnt saw this oportunity when there where complaints and pass those laws .like wtf? cant first world countries move from their couches and turn down the volumen on the remote.?!?! 
so this extra really expensive and complicated process got pushed down our throughts for minimal reason. on the other hand i guess its progress in technology and buesiness for some like me who deal with this all the time. 
i get the closed caption and descriptive video govmnt mandates but lufs/lkfs seems to be too much and too complicated for just saying "turn it down stoopid" .
anyways, just ranting.


----------



## gsilbers (Feb 6, 2014)

Vlzmusic @ Thu Feb 06 said:


> Most negative remarks I hear come down to "-23 is too quiet!"
> But what about LUFS as measuring unit - does it have its uses? Can it represent anything useful in an audio material - I have this statistic in all my progs now.



lufs not for music. good for mixing to tv shows. 
the stats are generic for audio so im guessing composers get confused since it really doesnt apply to them unless you are deliveing L2 cranked up mastered music files.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Feb 6, 2014)

gsilbers @ Thu Feb 06 said:


> LKFS/LUFS IS average level over time. it is calculated per acts.. in length of time. every program is different but in general the idea is for the average to stay around the same level of percieved loudness.



That's the exact point every audio professional I know disagrees with. Consider a reflective documentary on fly fishing. Now consider a Gangsta Rap gig. Think about the overall content of both. Maybe the fly fishing documentary has whole stretches of little more than atmos and the occasional bit of acoustic guitar. Then there's a voiceover, and another few minutes of nothing. Meanwhile the gig is full on, all the time. The whole point of loudness standarsiation is to make these two diamatrically opposite things to be the same overall level. This will be achieved by making the gig much quieter overall, while the tweeting birds become obtrustive in the documentary, and the voiceover will pin you back against the wall.

Utter, total nonsense. Different programs SHOULD have different average levels, to attempt otherwise is folly.



gsilbers @ Thu Feb 06 said:


> as your comment about not liking it , that is another matter. i do agree that it is
> a little "forced" and aesthetically or creativily you want your audience to feel more intensity of a surprise enemy attack then a theatrical.more dyanmic mix would make sense.
> at the same time, then how or who would judge that!!?!?? i mean, if i am the producer/mixer of those cops shows that mix hitting that l2 to the max i want it to sound like that. there are many many examples in the TV program and then movies that later get released in TV that if they had to be standarzied someway.
> so lufs/lks is one way.



The old brickwall limiting way is, in my view (and those of colleagues) far better, although its certainly not perfect. Essentially, if an LE show peaks 6 from beginning to end on a PPM, what would be perfect is for a drama to be "allowed" to hit 7s at peak. As loudness shows, just using an average algorithm to calculate that is an ass. Maybe there is a better formula that allows for some leeway, and allows for different types of content. A drama mixer would love a good dynamic range, an LE mixer wants the sound of heavy compression / brickwall limiting - it's the sound of LE. That might be a productive way forward - agreed levels / standards for different genres, so factual / drama / LE can work best to the medium and then have the overall levels more appropriately judged. That would probably be a good decade of arguing to agree on anything though. 

Films on TV require their own solution. Already as I understand different mixes are done for theatrical / home use. There isn't a one-solution-suits-all. If someone is watching Gravity on the kitchen TV while making pasta, they'll want the dynamic range very low. If someone has it on the HD channel pumped through their home cinema setup, they'll want a decent dynamic range thanks very much. In fact, the dolby spec does allow for this - not always sure how successful it is though.



gsilbers @ Thu Feb 06 said:


> 2) where did you read that commercials are excempt? they also follow the EU/US rules.



That's been told to me by multiple sources, including someone who this week went to a BBC information day on it all. If that changes here, then its certainly a more sensible way forward.



gsilbers @ Thu Feb 06 said:


> correct about delivering music and not worry about lufs. keeping the mix that relates to your movie/tv show is the main thing. maybe keep the k14 meter just for reference. the rerecording mixer will make sure the full mix will be to spec.
> which mean that if you have really high levels for sections then those will get pulled down.
> 
> 
> ...



I think what's driving a lot of this is certain aesthetic judgements that are far from universally applicable. The SOS article glowingly praised a Chris De Burgh track next to a modern highly-maximised pop record - the moral was that the pop production was "bad". This a ludicrously subjective judgement, laughably so in my view. Production techniques are integral to genres of music. Witness the extreme sidechain compression on dance records - that would sound awful on a country song. One isn't "better" than the other, but they are very different styles. For SOS to effectively suggest that pop / dance should be mixed and mastered like easy listening is hopeless.

When it comes to TV shows, its even worse. Anecdotally, as I say here in the UK LE mixers who have tried -23db say that essentially they can mix the same way if their overall levels are 4-6db quieter. So next to another genre of show, or an advert, they will be quiet, and people will need to turn up their sets - the exact situation that this is meant to prevent.


----------



## kdm (Feb 6, 2014)

Guy Rowland @ Thu Feb 06 said:


> It needs a total rethink from the ground up.



+23, or 24 if you are in the US.

It kills dynamic range, but that's seems to be kind of the point unfortunately. But in my opinion, it's the wrong solution to the wrong problem. The original intent was to address perceived loudness, but to do that in a single algorithm that could be implemented and tracked at the encoder/decoder level, we basically ended up with a loudness compressor function. It works okay on shows with similar mix styles - most dramatic TV is dialog-centric, with music behind, and some fx, but nothing over the top, so it isn't a stretch to go from a CSI show to a family drama with little difference to begin with, and little negative impact by specs. 

ATSC/A85 (US spec) seems to be an ever evolving "what's next" document to me. It seems more concerned with limiting dynamic range for encode/decode than addressing dynamic range in a creative way to allow for a better home experience.

Part of the problem is in fact the wide range of material - how do you retain the impact without dropping the level too low, using a single algorithm? Program dependence requires decisions on the part of the mixer, and broadcaster, not a loudness measurement algorithm. 

Commercial spots/adverts really need one standard, designed to limit average loudness somewhat lower than programming so they average out based on how they are mixed originally. Then perhaps adopt a "sustained" loudness window with a maximum, after which levels should return to something reasonable. This standard tries to do that, but it seems too strict to me to allow for reasonable, cinematic or dramatic dynamic range fluctuations.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Feb 6, 2014)

kdm @ Thu Feb 06 said:


> Program dependence requires decisions on the part of the mixer, and broadcaster, not a loudness measurement algorithm.



Great post, kdm... sums it up perfectly.


----------



## dannthr (Feb 6, 2014)

One thing I like about it is the LU measurement and the increased awareness of Loudness and importance of Dynamic Range. Maybe -23 isn't the final solution, but I love that it's being discussed.

The -23LUFS has been embraced by first party game publishers like Sony and Microsoft. Games published by Sony are now measured for LUFS over 30 minutes of gameplay to hit -23LUFS +/-2LU and a -1 peak threshold. 

I actually LOVE that this means that game developers are paying a lot more attention to the mix, the quality of the mix, and the dynamic range of the mix. Which is important because Games are mixed in real-time as they're played, which means that mix behavior is becoming more important.

Anything that increases the focus on audio quality in game development is a good thing, in my opinion.

I also _like_ the loudness measurement spec over RMS, so I dig it.

With that said, I just mixed an iPhone game and I found -16LUFS/-1LU Peak was the right spec to get the mix just loud enough to be heard on high device volume in a moderately loud café setting without sacrificing too much dynamic range for folks listening on headphones.


----------



## chrisr (Feb 7, 2014)

Guy Rowland @ Thu Feb 06 said:


> The entire industry here, from my experience, would like -23db to crawl under a big rock and never been seen - or heard of - again. It needs a total rethink from the ground up.




Hi Guy,

I work in audio post in London and I've watched/been part of the adoption of LUFS over the past couple of years. I have to say I'm now a bigger fan of the new system than the old. I think that when implemented correctly, loudness specs allow for much more freedom in mixing, not least in the approach to/use of headroom for pretty much the first time ever since the move to digital. If I find the time I'll try to address the examples you highlighted at some point, but I'm afraid I don't have the time right now, other than to say that the combined UK broadcaster specs inparticular appear to me to be reasonable and flexible - even to the point of:

"Although the target loudness is -23 LUFS, in exceptional circumstances other target levels may be permitted by agreement with the broadcaster." which is a fantastic cover-all I think.

The ITV commercial and sponsorship specs both say (quoted from docs) "All delivered commercial material must fully comply with the EBU R128 Recommendations on loudness." - and even go on to give some PPM approximations of how that sort of loudness might be obtained in the appendix, which is helpful.

I agree that loudness should have zero impact to what a composer submits - it's of no relevance to them.

Anyway, just wanted to say that not everyone over here thinks LUFS are all bad - I have noticed some flaws but I think they're mostly outweighed by the benefits. I'll be interested to hear how your mixer buddies get on with it in the coming months and years!

best,
Chris


----------



## Guy Rowland (Feb 7, 2014)

chrisr @ Fri Feb 07 said:


> "Although the target loudness is -23 LUFS, in exceptional circumstances other target levels may be permitted by agreement with the broadcaster." which is a fantastic cover-all I think.



Actually that puts the fear of God into me. Already things are becoming very fuzzy with failing QCs - different people using different standards. I understand that different methods will be allowed to coexist for some time. From a dubbing mixer perspective, this means more stuff landing back in your lap with a "failed" tag around its neck, as someone has been told it has to be one thing and you've been told another.

It's always good to hear some positive comments, but again I fear that its going to be terribly material dependent. Many documentary and dramas I can see being pretty well served by Loudness - the problem comes with LE and studio-based shows reach essentially slam the limiter for the duration as house style.


----------



## chrisr (Feb 7, 2014)

ha ha - well each to their own! - but I'd respectfully disagree 

There's only one published spec for mainstream UK broadcast now - it's the same for all mainstream UK broadcasters - found via their websites:

http://dpp-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-c ... rdsITV.pdf

https://dpp-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/wp- ... ardsC4.pdf

http://dpp-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-c ... rdsBBC.pdf

... you'll see it's the same document with different logos.

If a producer or QC is telling you or your colleagues to mix to something else then point them to those links. Much better to have it in black and white than word of mouth.

Either way - those sorts of issues are not a failing of the new spec - if anything it's just a failing of how the spec has been rolled out/ or adopted by pros. Similar fuzziness has surrounded previous standards / innovations in audio for decades...

BTW - I'm not mixing very frequently - I mostly track voiceovers - so I'm quite happy for someone with more experience to point out why I'm wrong - in fact please do - I'd love to increase my understanding of the matter.

But I'd say that in my view it's totally possible to slam a mix for style purposes and still hit -23LUFS - One could deliver a square wave at -23LUFS if one wanted to - there's really little technical impediment to that mixing style. Again - If you're sat reading this and you're the guy that live mixes Later with Jools H or The Voice or something then I'm all ears - I think the people that run those gigs are hugely impressive in their work 

best,
Chris

** I'm pretty sure not sure everyone has implemented R128 in the way detailed in those UK broadcast specs, and I think in some regions it's not been implemented very well - or maybe wasn't at first.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Feb 7, 2014)

Well Chris, we'll have to see - the devil here is not only in the detail but in the implementation I guess. The paragraph you quoted about exemptions under "exceptional circumstances" maybe could give wriggle room for LE in particular if the LE guys got organised.

The scepticism out there is pretty overwhelming at the mo, based on the official info. While I neither mix Later nor The Voice, I do know those who do


----------



## Kaufmanmoon (Nov 9, 2015)

Great to find this thread. So do people have a preference on what metering plugin they use for this? Nugen seems to be the one people talk about. Sorry to bring this thread up Guy......arggghhhhhhh!

I've just been reading this thread
http://transom.org/2015/the-audio-producers-guide-to-loudness/


----------



## Anders Wall (Nov 9, 2015)

Vlzmusic said:


> Most negative remarks I hear come down to "-23 is too quiet!"


It may sound quieter at first but it actually transfers better when transmitted.
Over the last two years or so I've delivered mixes in lufs -23-ish (there's plusminus1dB).
I have never had to reach for the remote when a show of mine has been aired.
Now we just need to get the continuity announcers down, sorry, DOWN(!!!) to lufs -23.

Best,

Anders


----------



## Guy Rowland (Nov 10, 2015)

Ahh look, my old friend he loudness thread. A few more tales from the trenches....

All archive TV material in the happy days before Loudness peak ppm 6. New recorded shows have to conform to Loudness to meet the delivery spec, while live shows are still allowed to hit PPM 6. If you took a standard LE show mixed to 6 into a loudness meter - and many have - you'd need to reduce by approx 4db to meet spec. In other words - current recorded LE shows (also applies to conventional punchy mixes on reality shows etc) are 4db quieter than live or archive. Again, the results are obvious - more inexplicable level changes between programmes, the very thing it is meant to fix.

A friend of mine (poor thing) not in the industry asked why he was getting so much variation when listening to things on the same channel - so I told him. An exec producer complained that their previous series - made to PPM 6 and shown as a repeat before the new - sounded louder than the new. He's right - it did. That shiny expensive new show, sounding all quiet and ineffectual. Oh well.

I know that some high profile LE shows made purely for a domestic audience have indeed been given dispensation to mix to PPM 6 still. So the fudge, muddle and audio chaos continues.

And for composers - happily you can continue to ignore it.


----------



## vicontrolu (Nov 10, 2015)

Lets say you are asked to do a commercial (music + sound design + VO..everything) for a foreign country and you are not given any specifics about loudness. Would you go for a -23 LUFS file? Wouldnt it be bettert to render a normal (according to your taste) RMS file and let the guys doing the final render with the video trim the audio file as necessary?

I would be very afraid to deliver -23, then nobody else made anything and the resulting advert would be "too quiet" compared to some other. That would give you very few jobs back from the same people who contacted you.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Nov 10, 2015)

Somewhere in the delivery specs, something should be stipulated. Here's a terrifying but relatively succinct guide to the different global standards - http://www.tcelectronic.com/loudness/broadcast-standards/ . I'd definitely ask the question of the sales agent / broadcaster / whatever. If you really get no guidance whatsoever, then sod the lot of em and push it at much as you want and let them figure it out... plenty seem to. It's such a mess...


----------

