Another more modern and quick as hell way to volume-match is IzotopeRX, there's a batch-able loudness tool there with multiple loudness standards included, and an invisible safety limiter on top of it in case any annoying peaks manage to overshoot after loudness matching in batch.

But I still recommend the Har-Bal over that, it's cute, it's 1990, and it thoughtfully lets you do the loudness matching based on a selectable range of frequencies with a freehand gesture, so you can get a little bit more artistic with your album and balance it in different ways if needed.

 

I'll grab SPAN and have a look. By my metering, looking at the record level coming back in, and keeping the clip light off on the interface, then dropping ~-3 dB under that point, they all "sound" similar in volume already. I actually grew concerned after looking at some of the "hotdogs" of some commercial tracks. The advantage to metering this way, I think, is I gain more understanding of what I'm doing to a mix, and how that will affect the perceived loudness of the track. It's really past time for me to start learning more about the different loudness standards.

@Satai, I still plan on looking at Har-Bal2. More than a little curious about what exactly it does. There's a version 3 out, just not "otherwise" available. One thing I had been looking for in the past was a batch normalizer. When we were getting started, I recorded every practice with a Tascam DR-40, and then immediately after practice, burnt everyone a CD to listen to until next practice. Worth the effort if the band members will actually listen to it which my guys did. It got us more solid as a group in shorter time, I believe. One of the chief complaints was volume too low compared to other music they had. I always responded with "well, it's not a mastered, mixed track, just a practice room recording." It would have been nice to batch process quickly before burning a CD out.

 

My go to freebie LUFS meter:
http://youlean.co/

 

Yeah, great new metering tool and it's free. I knew I saw a good free LUFS meter somewhere...

 

Something new to keep in mind when ruining your work: http://productionadvice.co.uk/spotify-reduced-loudness/?awt_l=8X2JY&awt_m=3ZwsxFG8yiNU.YV

Cheers!

 

Not a freebie but on the sister site, Nugen MasterCheck also have LUFS metering (one that is a bit different : LKFS) + PLR (even more interesting new metering system that you probably already know) all this whitin a very simple brainworx/TT meter like interface, and a volume matching to reference target feature. With this meter + Bx meter I always know if I'm too hot regarding the target (it has YouTube, Spotify, Itunes... etc)

Usually a good dynamic but loud enough song aiming for streaming services has 8 PLR (see Ian Shepherd's infos on the site that you linked below) so you can never go wrong! Basically, this Nugen meter is a Ian Shepherd's Dynameter + TT meter combined + an LUFS type metering + "DR" Dynamic Range older reading, without the fancy visual history of Dynameter, but all the new more dynamics-friendly metering systems , which are winning the loudness war, are in it!

Important info, thanks a lot!

 

Last edited: May 23, 2017

The most important question is. Is your room properly treated? Doesn't matter if you're mixing with God's hands. Everything will be moot until you deal with standing waves, reverberation, and untamed resonance.

 

That is very good news indeed. Though there still is the bitter pill of how they transact with artists when it comes to payments and the such, any step in a positive direction is at least one step better than it without it.

 

Make two versions of the master: one limited to like 4-5dB of dynamics [meaning squashed like hell :hihi:] and one with 12-14dB of dynamics. Then equalise the loudness level of the squashed track with the loudness level of the dynamic track and play them to the client A/B-ing them frequently. If nothing else it will make them realise some things and maybe reconsider how loud their tracks should be... Tell them that Youtube, iTunes and Spotify is equalising the loudness of audio tracks in a similar way.

Similarly, you can use some well known squashed reference track and compare it to your dynamic master at the same level. What one realises doing that is mind-boggling and astonishing difference in the audio quality. Suddenly having the loudest, or rather "loudest", track out there loses its appeal.

Ian Shepherd's website is invaluable source of info on mastering and loudness, yes!

 

Last edited: May 23, 2017

That's good news. Appreciate that!

My room is still a work in progress as far as treatment goes. I've moved my desk out of the corner, just got a pair of Auralux pads to replace the homemade ones under my monitors, got some reflection treatment going on, etc. Still would like some bass traps and better reflection treatment, but have to wait until the future for those.
I do have a friend with a better treated room and better monitors that I will occasionally check my mixes in and take notes. This and checking on multiple systems helps. It's also training my ears what to look for in my own room, so to a degree, I'm learning my room.
These questions are more oriented towards future proofing my mixes as far as levels and such, but your advice is very pertinent.

 

I thought focusrite scarlet interfaces were just bad quality, until I invested in acoustic panels, diffusers and large bass traps. They don't have the best A/D conversion, yet with a properly treated room the differences between Scarlett and let's say UAD interfaces is nearly minuscule. Honestly it'll probably be the same way between stock plugins and the name brand popular stuff. Once you don't have to fight with your room, mixing becomes more accurate and efficient.

 

I was referring to Sotify being cheap and not paying enough, not to artists not wanting to pay for more dynamic masters

But it is solid advice to level match <thumbs up>