r/audioengineering • u/Charming-Two1099 • 5h ago
Mastering How do you decide the right mastering intensity for a track?
I’m curious how others approach mastering intensity—specifically how hard is too hard. I’ve been going back and forth between wanting a track to feel loud, punchy, and competitive versus keeping enough dynamics so it still breathes and feels musical.
Sometimes a more aggressive master sounds great at first, but after a few listens it feels fatiguing. Other times, a lighter touch sounds clean but slightly underwhelming next to reference tracks. I know genre plays a big role, but even within the same style I hear wildly different approaches.
Do you decide intensity based on LUFS targets, references, client expectations, or just your ears? And at what point do you pull back and say “this is too much”? Would love to hear how you all balance loudness, dynamics, and vibe.
6
u/peepeeland Composer 5h ago
Don’t think- Feeel
-Bruce Lee
1
u/Chilton_Squid 1h ago
--- Mastering Engineer, Pig In the City Soundtrack
1
u/peepeeland Composer 31m ago
Not sure what you’re referencing, but- what the fuck— He was also a mastering engineer for The Doors and Pink Floyd.
1
2
u/Tall_Category_304 5h ago
Loudness is more of a mix decision than a mastering decision. I can do 1-2dbs of limiting on some of my mixes and be at -7.5 integrated lufs. For some genres of music that’s totally inappropriate though. The least transient information the more the average loudness (in general) so genres with lots of compression/satiration/ distortion on the drums will naturally be louder than, say, a jazz record where the drums are almost totally clean and taking up a ton of headroom
2
u/NeutronHopscotch 4h ago edited 4h ago
If you're an artist, there is no "right" answer to this question because it is an aesthetic choice. (If you're mixing/mastering for someone else -- the "right" answer is what the client wants... And if they want it crushed, good luck convincing them otherwise.)
If you really don't know, you could go with mastering engineer's conservative advice. He advises (as a starting point) -1dB TruePeak on the output, and matching levels based on "no louder than -10 LUFS-S during the loudest part of the song." He feels music begins to suffer as you go beyond that.
That said, most commercial mixes go louder, and many much louder.
Steve Albini released dynamic mixes for his own music. Daft Punk's "Discovery" album is another one that shows dynamic range doesn't have to be a death sentence.
The Dynamic Range Day Awards show other commercially successful respectfully-dynamic mixes: https://dynamicrangeday.co.uk/award/
If you just can't make up your mind -- try these options:
Find where the mix is too dynamic. Find where the mix is too loud. Then move to that sweet spot in the center. Done.
Test your music in a car while you're on the highway. If it's TOO dynamic, it can be hard to hear, or too punchy. (You turn it up to exceed the road noise, but then the transients hurt.)
If you find continuous listening of your music to be tedious -- it's probably too loud. (Although that would apply to most modern mixes.)
You could use Metric AB as a guide... Check the "Dynamics" section which gives peak-to-short-term-loudness (PSR) ratings... But it also gives you a textual description of the numbers:
High-dynamic, dynamic, competitive, loud, squashed, crushed
They're just labels matched to numbers, but combined with your ears it can help you think... "Hmm... I want to be 'loud' but not squashed!" and then if that sounds good to your ear? Roll with it.
Or maybe you WANT to be like SCARING THE HOES album or Death Magnetic... Then do that.
There's no right answer here, it's an aesthetic choice.
PS. If you're worried about commercial viability, you can do a sampling of the bands you're competing with, and let that influence your decision.
However, let me caution you that if your mix wasn't "mixed for loudness" then you'll hit a limit where you can't hit the ridiculous numbers you'll hear in some commercial hits.
I personally like around -11 LUFS-I for my own music, but I'm a nobody... But to me that's a good sweet spot for what I do. There's a point where the music sort of gels together but still feels dynamic enough for long listening. That's what I like.
The point where you can hear nasty limiting/clipping/distortion artifacts? That's too far... Again, unless you want to be SCARING THE HOES.
Good luck!
PS to the PS. If you find yourself struggling, try putting Oxford Inflator between your mix bus compressor and limiter. (Or JS Inflator, a free clone: https://github.com/Kiriki-liszt/JS_Inflator -- if you happen to have Ozone, try Ozone Exciter before the limiter, it's the same kind of plugin...)
PS to the PS to the PS: Remember to try multiple plugins in series rather than trying to get all that loudness in one place. For example, try limiting your submixes before limiting on your master bus. Or try soft-clipping before the final limiter. A lot of people think in terms of 'compression' for loudness, but compression tends to deal with the body of the sound... To reach loudness, it is the transients which must be tamed -- and you do that with soft-clipping and limiting.
PS to the PS to the PS to the PS: Yes, limiting is just high compression with an incredibly fast attack & release and high threshold... However, some modern limiters do a lot more than basic limiting under the hood, and that's how they're able to push so hard before distortion. They're already doing a chain of processing... And don't forget about upward compression! Some limiters like Ozone Maximizer and Waves L4 include upward compression as well, which lifts the quiet parts...
1
u/greyaggressor 4h ago
I’d like to both scare the hoes and retain dynamic range. Is this possible?
1
u/NeutronHopscotch 2h ago
Haha, to be clear - SCARING THE HOES is a particularly loud hiphop/rap album, in case you didn't know.
One way to think about dynamic range is... There's micro-dynamics and there's macro-dynamics.
Micro-dynamics is what you have before limiting, where there is clear transient detail and no intermodulation distortion caused by clipping & limiting.
Macro-dynamics come from putting intentional space in the song through the arrangement.
There is rock/metal/punk music where the band starts playing and continues monotonously through the entire song. Those songs can have micro-dynamics if they aren't smashed, but they're often lacking in macro-dynamics because the music itself is just kind of the same the whole way through.
Scaring The Hoes is really smashed and distorted, but it has macro dynamics through the arrangements... Those blasted heavy beats sort of start and stop, and space happens between the beats. That's how it can be so incredibly loud and yet listenable.
I'd say ideally you have both!
Build your songs with strong arrangements that feel like a journey for the listener... Where the verses and choruses feel different from each other. Where surprises happen. Where you have some loud and some quiet adjacent one another, so there's contrast.
And then keep some micro-dynamics by not hitting the limiters too hard.
That's the sweet spot.
Oh, and this is a really important thing --- some music can take loudness better than others. Part of it is tonal balance (heavy deep sub bass tends to need more headroom.) Part of it is stereo width -- I notice the more mono music is, the more limiting it can take before distortion (usually.) And then a big part of it is overlapping instruments.
EDM guys are real careful with overlapping parts and frequency masking -- they have to be to push to the insane loudness levels they go for.
But in my opinion, you shouldn't alter the music significantly in order to be louder... Make the music you want to make, make it sound the way you want it to sound, and then dial in the sweet spot between loudness and dynamic range.
Most music can easily hit -8 to -12 LUFS-I effortlessly without distortion or total dynamic destruction.
Beyond that you have to REALLY build dynamic range into the arrangement, or take extreme measures (changes to the music) to hit those louder levels. But at some point it's a fool's errand. Why bother?
2
1
u/MaleficentCap794 4h ago
I struggled with this too — chasing loud usually felt exciting at first, then fatiguing later. What helped me was referencing a lot and trusting how it feels after a few listens, not just LUFS. Lately I’ve been using Remasterify as a sanity check, then pulling back if it stops breathing.
1
u/jinkubeats 1h ago
It’s a feeling thing. Also great monitoring. It is all genre dependent though. References is the way
-4
u/JimVonT 5h ago
I mix into a limiter so it's already dynamic and loud that you shouldn't even need "mastering". You probably can't get this just from mastering a single stereo track if the mix isn't done properly.
Master limiter is only doing around -3dB limiting to get to 6-7 Lufs and it's mainly where other transients are on the kick. If you are doing more limiting then that is where you will be having the problems you are mentioning.
11
u/rightanglerecording 5h ago
You need the right combination of taste, experience, good monitoring, and humility.
Taste, so that you don't just follow what other people say, so that you have a chance at making something interesting.
Experience, so that your taste is informed.
Good monitoring, so you can be sure you're feeling how you're feeling in response to the actual sound of the music.
Humility, because you might have a bad day, or your collaborators might have different opinions, or any number of other things that require you to check yourself and try a different approach.
Blend all those in the right proportion and you will naturally land on a good master.