r/audioengineering • u/cilantra_boy • 1d ago
Discussion Thoughts on the new Gaga Album? It might be the loudest out right now
The title sums it up. Musically it's great and all, but man those first three tracks are incredibly loud. Loaded "Disease" into Ableton and took a look with Youlean Loudness Meter, came out on a whopping -2 LUFS Integrated. I'm pretty new to the game, so I can't say this is untread ground or anything, but for comparison "Luther" by Kendrick Lamar sits around -7 LUFS Integrated. That's a big difference. Hats off to Serbhan Ghenea and Randy Merrill, they did a great job IMO.
51
u/PEACH_EATER_69 1d ago
Great album, great production - it's squashed for sure, I was surprised to hear such a crunchy album in 2025, very old school, but it matches the energy of the songs pretty appropriately
Loudness war threads are always just variations of "according to these numbers, you can't enjoy this record" - the rapturous response to the album says otherwise, millions and millions of fans clearly aren't turned off by the lack of dynamics and Gaga isn't writing music for, for lack of a better term, nerds
8
u/entiyaist 22h ago
Thatâs exactly the point imho.. some albums just need that loud and crunchy energy.
4
u/PEACH_EATER_69 21h ago
100%, when I'm sending a high energy pop/rock/metal track off for mastering I'm fully expecting to hear those converters screaming, it's part of the vibe
It's absolutely precious hearing do-nothingers preach about kiLLinG tHe dYnaMicS when I'm yet to hear a single client complaint about it in the real world
3
u/Donut-Farts 21h ago
I think in this case, the lack of dynamics are a feature not a bug. It allows you to generally appreciate the music while youâre driving or doing stuff around the house. You still get the full impression of the music while doing other stuff.
96
u/Anuthawon_1 1d ago
lol @ âhats offâ like they accomplished soemthing amazing with this. Reality is the rough mixes were likely around the same LUFS and Serban rolled his eyes and huffed and puffed through the mixes to match their loudness. His mixes are printed loud so that level gives Randy essentially no room to do anything other than rename the files.
Serban did a great job doing what he could at those levels but regardless -2 integrated is insane.
16
u/HiiiTriiibe 1d ago
I havenât listened to it tbh, but if they get away with it without creating ear fatigue then itâs all good by me
15
3
u/Dr--Prof Professional 22h ago
I recently found a trick to be able to listen to ear fatiguing albums without getting so much ear fatigue. Just lower the volume until the fatiguing decreases significantly, and/or add a little tiny bit of reverb.
It's ironic how, to be able to listen to loud masters without pain, I have to listen to them incredibly quiet.
7
u/HiiiTriiibe 17h ago
yea it really feels like weâve lost the plot here if we are going to those lengths, I have a theory that lufs are increasing at a rate proportional to the speed of hearing loss of industry engineers lol
43
46
u/PPLavagna 1d ago
I don't understand why loudness competition is a priority anymore when streaming services normalize.
22
u/Incrediblesunset 1d ago
Also Apple Music doesnât have âsound checkâ on by default so itâs not normalized for most people on that platform.
13
u/MitchRyan912 1d ago
Yes, it is on by default on iOS and macOS now.
Turning Sound Check off for this album actually makes it quieter.
9
u/bigmack9301 Assistant 1d ago
turning ON sound check makes it quieter.
2
u/MitchRyan912 23h ago
I can guarantee you that this album relies on Sound Check to turn it UP. Maybe thereâs something funky about Apple Music in macOS 15.4, but thatâs absolutely happening.
The first 3 tracks clock in around -20 LUFS* with Sound Check on, so it performs upward normalization to -16 LUFS when Sound Check is turned on.
- = I use the Audio Hijack app to insert AU plugins across the macOS system audio bus. I use FF Pro-L2 to measure the loudness levels.
2
u/bigmack9301 Assistant 23h ago
well iâm not saying youâre lying. i tested it and sound check makes it quieter for me. Do you have dolby atmos turned on? I do not.
2
u/MitchRyan912 23h ago
Yeah, it's the Atmos settings. Turning that off definitely plays a hard limited version of the song, that sounds like crap. No wonder Apple Music had Atmos on by default.
-6.3 LUFS with Sound check off, -17.6 with SoundCheck on. Ouch.... the crushed version is getting penalized by Sound Check, by nearly 2 LUFS! That explains why it sounds worse (sounds small, with weak bass) than other music that I'm listening to in the car.
1
u/chugahug 22h ago edited 20h ago
Atmos has a different, lower, LUFS standard than regular stereo
1
u/MitchRyan912 22h ago
Atmos version (Abracadabra):
- -15.7 LUFS-i with Sound Check ON
- -20 LUFS-i with Sound Check OFF
Yeah, itâs definitely a different standard, much lower if Apple asks for something around -20 LUFS with X amount of headroom.
2
u/chugahug 22h ago
The standard is -18 LUFS, anything above that will be rejected from Apple Music
→ More replies (0)1
u/Donut-Farts 21h ago
Yeah on my AV receiver as soon as you turn on Atmos you need to turn it up almost 18Db. Itâs crazy
1
u/MitchRyan912 23h ago
I only use AppleMusic streaming for playlists Iâve made for my kids, so Iâve never paid any attention to those settings. The DJ digital downloads I buy for spinning are decidedly NOT in Atmos format, so whatever the settings are⊠theyâre the defaults.
1
8
u/Incrediblesunset 1d ago
Because it still matters. You canât take the loudness out of a packed/well mixed track.
13
u/PPLavagna 1d ago
Why would I want to take the loudness out of a track? I just don't mix annoyingly loud to begin with. I get that people have creative reasons to be loud, but -2 is insane (and painful) to me, especially now that the loudness war is pretty much over.
15
u/Incrediblesunset 1d ago
Oh I agree -2 is excessive, but I assure you if you master your track at -14LUFS you will be disappointed.
7
u/HiiiTriiibe 1d ago
Yep, I shoot for between -7 and -8 with most of the artists I work with since hip hop has gotten quite loud
3
u/andreacaccese Professional 1d ago edited 8h ago
I do a lot of punk rock and settle between -7 / -6 except when clients ask for more (The last Blink-182 album sits at around -4 so that became a reference for a lot of ppl in the genre in terms of loudness)
1
u/HiiiTriiibe 16h ago
God damn! -4 is unhinged, I still havenât hear that project but now Iâm curious how it sounds
5
u/PPLavagna 1d ago
I definitely donât master tracks at -14. Unless itâs a version for vinyl of course. I donât master my tracks at all normally anyway, but if my guy went to -2, Iâd send it back like a bad bowl of soup.
Iâve been heading in the other direction toward more dynamic. My most common request for a revision is make it a little less loud, but he seems to have already started trending that way as well. Or maybe he just knows me that well. All I know is Iâm so happy to not have to make stuff super loud anymore
3
u/Songwritingvincent 1d ago
Yeah I was recently working with an artist and we got amazing masters back but when they asked me if I wanted anything differently I was like âhonestly theyâre actually a little loud for my tasteâ I think we were at -4/5 ish
1
u/PPLavagna 1d ago
Iâm right there at the moment. Waiting to hear the clientâs thoughts on the master, but my opinion was to have him do one with a little less limiting and a little less brightness, letting the snare and kick and center stuff stay a little fatter like it was before.
2
u/Songwritingvincent 1d ago
Interestingly the thing wasnât squashed and it honestly sounded pretty good, it just felt unnecessary if you know what I mean. I tested it myself and saw I could get fairly similar results without any comp or limiter absolutely squashing the signal, it felt within normal parameters, we had very good players on that session and the mixes had a lot of volume automation on them, so in a way we wanted to preserve that
1
u/Training_Repair4338 1d ago
unless, to your original point, it only reads as -14 because its peak level is under 0.
my point being that the conversation here is less about lufs than it is about dynamic range
2
2
u/Dr--Prof Professional 22h ago
And before that, the listener automatically "normalizes" with the Volume knob or +/- buttons.
1
u/PPLavagna 18h ago edited 18h ago
To be fair, with any disposable pop type music, one could reasonably assume that the average listener is too dumb to operate a volume knob or button.
0
u/PEACH_EATER_69 21h ago
a) it's stylistic
b) radio is still very important to established pop acts like gaga
1
u/PPLavagna 18h ago
Radio normalizes by limiting even more, and always has. Radio slams the living shit out of it with companders and such, to the point that Californication actually got quieter when it went though their sausage grinder and they caught shit for it. Radio is actually who started the loudness way in earnest. Trying to be louder than the next station on the dial at the expense of quality. Someone in this thread said this Gaga song actually got quieter when they enabled sound check. I'm not surprised.
11
43
u/JunkyardSam 1d ago
It's ridiculously loud, fatiguing, a classic example of making something tiny in attempt to be giant -- and will probably be celebrated by billions of people.
When I was a kid I thought a louder CD was a sign of higher quality. That's how most people think... And it's gone on so long, a whole lot of people have never heard anything with even a moderate amount of dynamic range. Dynamic range is actually weird to them. Like giving a vegetable to a kid that only eats candy. Like, "Eww, yuck. What is that!?"
It's an uphill battle if you do this professionally. I see why people give in and just do what's asked for. I can't even imagine trying to explain to someone impatient, "But... But... But if you do an equal volume listening test you'll see it's so much better?" --- They just don't care. It's louder.
I'll be downvoted for this, because it's usually not spoken out loud... But everyone working in entertainment knows it even if they won't admit it. You're not making music, movies, games, whatever -- for literate people. It's all about the lowest common denominator, staying safely within the Overton Window, and giving people what they think they want. Or making them want it. And if they buy it or consume it? Then it's right. Even if it's pharmaceuticals they'd be better off without, addictable consumables that are slowly killing them, GMO produce loaded with cancer, injectables that will give them cancer and other issues later, or music smashed to a brick. It's the American Way. Fall in line and chastise the outcasts who dare criticize!!
In the end it's just not for me.
Luckily Ian Shepherd carries on in his little corner of the internet with Dynamic Range Day awards and people desperate for music that breathes can find really great stuff there, from the actual awards to the nominees.
Just recently I discovered the Billy Woods album "Maps" ... There's actual space in the music. Amazing.
But... Billy Woods has 249k listeners on Spotify and Lady Gaga has 116 million! To put that in perspective, she has 465 times more listeners. So I guess -2 LUFS or whatever is the right way to do it.
But I'm going to keep listening to Billy Woods...
24
u/pimpcaddywillis Professional 1d ago
Pop in an original master CD of Nevermind. Perfect.
Its gets LOUDER. Then comes down. Then kicks your ass again. Never fatiguing.
God for fucking bid.
Regardless, its a vibe now sometimes, its fine. Not even about loudness, as much as just that crushed brick vibe.
13
u/JunkyardSam 1d ago
I'll check it out if I can find the original mixes. I wish I kept all my old CDs... A lot of stuff is being 'remastered' and pushed to modern levels when the original was quieter.
It's funny, man... I came up listening to punk and metal, and it was considered loud. I still have my old MP3 rips so I did a quick check... Even "loud" bands like Destruction, Kreator, Anthrax, and Exodus were at -14 LUFS-I to -12 LUFS-I throughout the end of the 80s into the early 90s.
And then after that it just gets louder and louder. I always try to listen to the new Destruction albums and I just can't... But what's funny is that new Lady Gaga album makes the latest Destruction album sound dynamic in comparison. :D
In recent years I came to learn about PSR/PLR values and I find that really helpful for understanding dynamic range, particularly since I can measure without the loudness (whereas LUFS would require limiting.)
My love for a reasonable amount of dynamic range has led me to enjoying genres I normally wouldn't.
Another example is Mayer Hawthorne's For All Time album. It's not quiet by any means, but it's spacious and breathes. I love that.
I listen to music with Metric AB in the background, so I can compare what I hear with what the reading is. Assimilate by Skinny Puppy is another example -- it's from 1985 so of course it's on the quieter side, but it doesn't sound quiet. It's just not fatiguing, which I just love.
OMG, one more example, this time modern & with a link: Gesaffelstein & Pharrel "Blast Off" --- listen to how hard the BASS hits: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPTBaPZz27M
That song wouldn't be the same if it was smashed... So my take on Lady Gaga is her music would just be better if they didn't feel the need to smash it to oblivion. But I'm an old man yelling at clouds, no one cares.
Anyhow, sorry to carry on.
6
u/pimpcaddywillis Professional 1d ago
Ya I can appreciate all of it as long as its good:). But, ya, nothing like some space.
5
u/MitchRyan912 1d ago
I'm hearing a weird mix of loud moments but with dynamics on this GaGa album so far, and I'm not sure if there's some sort of massive difference between what the OP has (guessing a CD or a purchased audio file) versus what I'm hearing on Apple Music streaming. There's quiet parts, and then BOOM it gets really loud.
On top of that, the meters seem to confirm that, with an LRA of 7-9, which is significantly wider than most of the house/techno music that I listen to. But the LUFS-i that I'm measuring isn't hitting ANYWHERE near -2 LUFS, even with Sound Check off. With those loud passages in short bursts in each track, I don't see how any of the tracks on this album could possibly but as loud as -2 LUFS-i?
5
u/pimpcaddywillis Professional 1d ago
Ya I actually just checked. Its not that crushed. I noticed some dynamics but overall pretty flat and 2-D at first listen.
0
u/fecal_doodoo 1d ago
Turn apples default normalizer off, apparently.
2
u/MitchRyan912 1d ago
Sound Check turns this album UP though. The streaming files are more like -20 to -22 LUFS.
I wonder if Apple is deliberately lowering volumes in their files to encourage more people to use Sound Check, or at least get people to stop turning it off?
4
u/EllisMichaels 1d ago
I listened to it yesterday for the first time in MANY years, actually. My son messaged me to say "Hey dad, did you know today's the day Kurt killed himself?" That, in and of itself, was a trip (having my SON tell ME about Nirvana haha). But he inspired me to listen to some Nirvana and I dug out Nevermind and In Utero. Both very different, but I love them both. But I agree about Nevermind. Was it overproduced? Eh, maybe a liittle bit. But it sounds sooooo good compared to almost everything I hear nowadays.
2
u/birdington1 6h ago
This is exactly the point people are missing. Pushing things into the limiter creates a vibe and thatâs all there is to it.
No one blinks an eyelid for driving preamps hard to achieve saturation, or god forbid add distortion to a guitar. Itâs literally doing the exact same thing as pushing a whole mix into a limiter.
I doubt Gagaâs engineer really gave 2 shits about intentionally trying to make âthe loudest mix everâ.
7
u/TFFPrisoner 1d ago
At the same time, the best selling albums of all time are all quite dynamic. Pink Floyd, Michael Jackson, Eagles and so on continue to attract listeners despite not being squashed. And in terms of more recent artists, Steven Wilson isn't doing badly with his balanced approach to dynamics.
5
u/Ill-Elevator2828 1d ago
Those records arenât best selling because of the mix though. If they were made today theyâd be squashed to Hell. People still listen to them because of nostalgia and hey, itâs great music. But a younger audience would definitely say things like âwow this sounds oldâ when they hear it.
In the 80s I bet people like us were all saying âugh, everything is so cold sounding with these new fangled devices and synthesizers⊠and everything has a drum machine, it sounds so robotic!â but now we covet that sound.
The mix just isnât that important to normal people, as long as it isnât so bad that itâs unlistenable. If itâs very loud, theyâll say âwoah turn it down!â And if itâs a quiet mix theyâll say âoh I need to turn this upâ and be done with it.
2
u/JunkyardSam 18h ago
You're right -- the average person either likes the music or they don't, and isn't obsessed with loudness war/dynamic range stuff... And like I said, it obviously isn't hurting Lady Gaga's numbers!
But... Since it doesn't matter, why not leave some dynamic range in the music? We're talking about songs pushed to -3 LUFS. It's not "a little loud" -- it's "the whole mix is built around squashing every bit of life out of the music."
It is akin to someone writing with all caps and no spaces between the words.
But... There's an issue of sonic literacy here. It is proven that if people are educated about this issue, most prefer a dynamic mix over a completely squashed one when compared at equal volumes. (Ian Shepherd has covered the studies in detail in his Mastering Show podcast.)
It's pop music, though. It isn't challenging anyone's beliefs, or educating anyone about anything. It's designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator. To reach the widest possible number of people, period. Like a McDonald's hamburger. In the end, all that matters is that it generates money -- and if it does, then whatever they are doing is correct.
You'll notice, though, that in audiophile circles they share playlists with each other for music with a hint of dynamic range. Again, as awareness increases -- most prefer dynamic range because in the end we're talking about something objective here... And it has been pushed to a truly ridiculous extreme.
But... The average consumer is kind of ridiculous, so it works. I was criticized for being condescending, but this is just a fact. Look up literacy rates in this country. Go to any Wal-Mart and look around. I don't know where you are, but I'm not in a country of really sharp, bright people that are knowledgeable about anything. So they'll consume whatever you throw at them if it's advertised well. They fill their bodies with complete garbage, swell up like balloons, and then take multiple prescriptions to try to fix what they are doing to themselves. Most people are gross, uneducated and dumb as a paper bag.
These aren't people with any kind of awareness or knowledge about anything, so when you say "people just don't care" --- you're right. But that's the nature of "lowest common denominator." And when you follow it, everything turns to trash. It leads to places like porn, toilet humor, TikTok video shorts, YouTube garbage, and squashed mixes. (Haha!)
4
u/lazernyypapa 1d ago
Didn't expect to hear Billy Woods mentioned here in comparison to Lady Gaga, but he's my favourite artist right now so it's a nice surprise. Willy Green's mixing and mastering on everything from woods and his label Backwoodz is great. Never too squashed but lively and full of texture. Actually a lot of current underground hip hop sounds great and is mastered to a reasonable level, for example anything produced by The Alchemist. The album he produced for woods' group Armand Hammer, Haram, sounds incredible.
1
1
u/PEACH_EATER_69 21h ago
Condescending, sanctimonious bollocks that would be better suited on a forum in the 2000s
but I'm afraid it'll go down all too well here
3
11
u/Tall_Category_304 1d ago
Man the one song that I heard sounds like shit haha. I almost thought about posting about it here. Like Jesus Christ
5
u/DanaAdalaide 1d ago
tunebat.com is pretty good it shows loudness it got -3db https://tunebat.com/Info/Disease-Lady-Gaga/0T3Hw3kPj9T2E4UoaSXmfn
2
u/_prof_professorson_ 1d ago
so how is db reading different than lufs? Because there are some songs with surprisingly high DB readings on there, that aren't even close to that in lufs (Back to Black by Amy Winehouse and Wake Up by Arcade Fire were the ones I checked)
2
4
u/MitchRyan912 1d ago
Weird. I'm listening to Apple Music's stream, and it indeed sounds quite loud, but... overall it's oddly dynamic, somehow. Watching the LRA range of Disease (track 1) showing 9.5 seems like the antithesis of crushed.
With Sound Check off, the LUFS-i level is showing -17.1 LUFS, with the first 60 seconds clocking in around -21 LUFS-i. That's an unexpected result.
5
u/MitchRyan912 1d ago
WTH... apparently they've made the files very quiet for Apple Music, as turning on Sound Check actually turns the level UP. Very unusual.
Abracadabra barely gets to -16 LUFS-i until the end of the song, then it shoots up to -15.7 LUFS-i by the very end. It's actually quieter with Sound Check off.
2
u/rightanglerecording 1d ago
Are you perhaps hearing the Dolby Atmos version? That would be -18(ish) before being rendered binaurally, should sum up to -16(ish) or a little higher after rendering.
Or, if not, you're likely hearing an alternate stereo master specifically prepped to be level matched with the Atmos version.
2
u/MitchRyan912 23h ago
Itâs entirely possible, but I was messing around with those settings to check that, and I wasnât hearing any obvious difference.
I had asked Ian Shepard, during his âDynamic Range Dayâ livestream last year, if he ever thought the day would come that separate masters would be provided, a dynamic one for streaming services and a crushed one for digital downloads/physical media? I had the thought it my head that such a thing could be done with separate masters, much like there were album versions, radio versions, and extended/12â versions of a single song decades ago.
He didnât think that would ever happen, but maybe thatâs changed from a year ago? Coming from a DJâs standpoint, where techno/house tracks crushed between -6 and -8 LUFS-i can be fatiguing to listen to, I would welcome a DJ master and a dynamic streaming master.
1
u/rightanglerecording 22h ago
It's not a regular thing, no. And most likely even if there is a separate master, it's not actually more dynamic, just the same louder file turned down after the fact.
1
u/MitchRyan912 22h ago
Itâs definitely a different file, or the Atmos processing results in a much different result.
The Atmos version is clearly NOT hard limited. There are moments (choruses) where the Atmos version gets louder, by a full LUFS if not 2. I should do a screen recording of how dynamic it is (visually, in Pro-L2). The LRA values are significantly wider than the non-Atmos versions.
2
u/rightanglerecording 22h ago
Yes, sorry, I was unclear.
The Atmos mix will be a very different file. It's a whole different mix in a different format. The Atmos spec requires a maximum of -18 integrated LUFS, it'll be inherently more dynamic.
Whatever stereo master is level-matched to it, when you switch Spatial off, is most likely just the loud master turned down.
1
u/MitchRyan912 21h ago
Itâs possible you were clear in the first place, but I donât quite get Atmos yet. This is an interesting discussion to learn from, as Iâve had zero need to know about or do anything with Atmos files.
Iâm pretty much only concerned about standard stereo files for house/techno music, and I doubt that Atmos is coming to the DJ world anytime soon. That said, Iâm curious to figure out whatâs different and what they might be doing to achieve more dynamic Atmos mixes while still fitting into Appleâs normalization scheme.
I did notice the stereo correlation meter flipped from peaking in the positive range to the negative range with Atmos on during the choruses. That was⊠odd.
2
u/rightanglerecording 21h ago
Atmos can be more dynamic because you literally *can't* push it super loud.
Apple will reject the file if it's above -18 LUFS.
Done well, a good Atmos mix can also integrate well with Apple Spatial's binauralization, and can seem louder/bigger on headphones compared to a level-matched stereo master.
I wouldn't expect a stereo correlation meter to provide useful readings on binaural playback.
3
u/xpercipio Hobbyist 1d ago
Prolly sounds great in a starbucks. I wish gaga would work with musicians I liked, I like her sound and signal but don't care for the Taylor swift pop music.
2
u/POLOSPORTSMAN92 1d ago
I wonder if Serban used the secret newer "One Knob" plugin that Make Believe audio has been talking about
2
u/ponderosa33 1d ago
I only listened to the first few tracks of the album and they all sounded like demos to me, just really poorly mixed
0
u/manic_andthe_apostle 1d ago
Why canât one of the most famous artists around find a good mix engineer?
2
u/ThatWasNotEasy10 1d ago
To me from her interviews it sounded like she did a lot of the engineering on this album herself with her fiancé. As much as I hate to say it, stick to vocals and instruments girl, lmao
3
1
u/ThatWasNotEasy10 1d ago
I find it interesting you say this, because production-wise itâs my least favourite Gaga album. I find it really bad actually lmao. All the life has been sucked out of the dynamics. Disease could be a really great song with tons of punch, but everything has been brickwalled so hard it sounds so flat.
1
u/isaacwaldron 1d ago edited 1d ago
Is it all sub bass in Disease? It sounds much quieter on my crappy Bluetooth speaker for mix checks than my usual 138-ish trance tracks that run around -7 integrated.
EDIT: on my crappy Bluetooth speaker đ€Ł
1
u/PEACH_EATER_69 21h ago
yeah I suspect the sub is a big part of the picture overall
people seem to just read the meter, then take to reddit to do the "why no dynamics this is terrible what happened to good albums like nevermind" routine without even bothering to listen to the actual record in any depth
1
u/birdington1 6h ago
How people arenât grasping this is wild lol. Almost like no one in this thread has any actual real world experience dealing with audio.
Any time you have a powerful sub bass it will absolutely cook your LUFS. If anyone bothered to break the production down theyâd notice the vocals are actually quieter than usual for a modern standards, and there is a minimal amount of other high or low-mid frequency elements. Mix sounds kick, snare and sub heavy which is just the style they were likely going for, not because they cared about hitting -2.
Iâm working a production right now thatâs around -3, and itâs just barely hitting -1 gain reduction on the limiter. Again, sub bass heavy song with minimal production.
1
u/yatootpechersk 20h ago
Whenever I see the words âloudness warâ I instantly get Search and Destroy in my head.
Oh great. I just scared my pet rabbit.
1
1
u/BitchesEnRegalia 1d ago
Imagine thinking as if these record are just not thrown together to be loudest on incredibly short deadlines where 25 people are credited and where they know their audience does not give a shit. Might as well be done by AI. I would not take a Gaga album seriously on the production side of things not even as if it was the last remaining reference on the planet. Same with most mainstream popstar garbage.
2
u/PEACH_EATER_69 21h ago
One of the most significant pop artists of the last couple decades, with cutting-edge highly influential production on her first couple records in particular
You're literally just talking complete bullshit about something you're evidently out of touch on
The audio community is so culturally stunted it blows my mind sometimes
1
u/BitchesEnRegalia 18h ago
I am sure the people behind it are absolute pros. However we cannot deny the reality of these peopleâs work, which in the end sums up to make some executives happy and they pass the product around between 30 people as if it were a hot potato to complete in a matter of days.
In the end, as harsh as it may sound, If it sounds like shit, it is shit. And that is the case for 90% of mainstream pop acts productions. Which with the amount of money and resources they have is really not excusable.
For reference, Peter Gabriel latest album is a masterclass in mixing, and is still plenty loud. Also, from an actual relevant artist of the last 50 years, I would add.
1
1
1
u/6bRoCkLaNdErS9 16h ago
So someone please enlighten me because from what Iâve read Spotify wants -14, and if you give them that then they wonât touch it, but if you give them louder or quieter they will do whatever it takes to get it to -14 is this correct? How did you see it was -2? Buy the actual single off iTunes or whatever the hell itâs called these days?
1
u/AudioGuy720 Professional 7h ago
Dynamic Range Database is the answer: https://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list/1/year/desc?artist=lady%20gaga
You can master to Spotify but it may not suit the song/EP/album. I personally aim for -10 LUFS and if the musician/whoever is paying the bill wants it more compressed (I don't like using the word "louder" in this context) then I still have some wiggle room.
1
u/birdington1 6h ago
Thatâs absolutely not correct. If that was the case then almost no modern song on the planet would exist on Spotify.
Most tracks are going to be around -10 to -7 LUFS. Thatâs the point where your mix will just start touching the limiter (thatâs literally what limiters are for).
The âSpotify needs -14 LUFSâ itâs a completely mistranslated statement and donât know how itâs become so widespread. All it means is that Spotify will just turn the volume of your track down to -14 if itâs louder (or if quieter it will turn it up).
The only time LUFS requirements applies ever is for Radio, TV and Cinema broadcast outputs as they will not touch the files and need everything to be levelled consistently.
0
u/blueboy-jaee 17h ago
yâall are weak asf. disease bangs and iâve never felt the fatigue once. full gas pedal
-20
u/Perpetual_Poultry 1d ago
Have to disagree, it's probably not great musically if it's that loud.
22
u/whytakemyusername 1d ago
Does loudness correlate with musicianship now?
3
u/SoftMushyStool 1d ago
I still donât get the concept behind louder is better whatsoever , itâs like priority Z in terms of music enjoyment
4
u/whytakemyusername 1d ago
It used to relate to the radio. If yours was louder it would stand out more
4
u/SoftMushyStool 1d ago
Ok but nowadays why? Iâll never forgive Metallica for Death Magneticâs production. đ
1
u/dangayle 1d ago
You not listen to AirPods on a busy bus or train? Quiet mixes are useless in that context
3
u/Perpetual_Poultry 1d ago
The performance is hurt when you take all the dynamics away to make it that loud.
0
u/whytakemyusername 1d ago
The performance is still the performance. The mix / the recording may be hurt, but the performance remains the same, however it is mixed.
3
u/Perpetual_Poultry 1d ago
Sure, my point is simply that making something that loud is not in the best interest of the music.
6
342
u/Dan_Worrall 1d ago
Amateurs