From bobkatz at digido.com  Mon May  2 18:32:36 2022
From: bobkatz at digido.com (Bob Katz)
Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 12:32:36 -0400
Subject: [MLA] What would Spotify do
Message-ID: <51421509-10B9-4DB6-8D4D-A7F5DCCE4935@digido.com>

Hi guys. If given a file that?s -16.4 lufs with 0.0 dBTP would they turn it down a dB and call it a day? Or would they try upward norm towards -14 with peak limiting? 

I know  that Apple?s current practice would drop it to -17.4 with -1 dBTP. 

Best


Bob

My iPhone made me write this. Quotes only below this line. Nothing more to see here. 
----------------------------------------------------


From bobkatz at digido.com  Tue May  3 14:53:40 2022
From: bobkatz at digido.com (Bob Katz)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 08:53:40 -0400
Subject: [MLA] What would Spotify do
In-Reply-To: <BD6D95EF-E843-4274-A1FF-47F284062CA7@mastering-media.co.uk>
References: <BD6D95EF-E843-4274-A1FF-47F284062CA7@mastering-media.co.uk>
Message-ID: <D99FEEB2-543C-40CC-928E-4235E2C647FA@digido.com>

Thanks, Ian. That?s very helpful. What it means though, as far as Spotify is concerned, that a delivery with 0 dBTP and LUFS below -14 will not be attenuated. And if it?s just a few occasional peaks with no obvious overshoot in the AAC domain, it could be a good decision. However, I mastered this particular recording with a peak limiter and I?d say every song has at least some peaks to 0 dBTP. Its relatively ?low? LUFS reflects its rather wide LRA. 

But Apple will attenuate. It?s really the -14 target we have to try to get Spotify to lower. I think I?ll write the Spotify CE and ask if there?s any movement in that direction. Somehow I doubt it. 

Best 


Bob

My iPhone made me write this. Quotes only below this line. Nothing more to see here. 
----------------------------------------------------

> On May 3, 2022, at 6:10 AM, Ian Shepherd <ian at mastering-media.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> ?
> 
> Hi Bob,
> 
> On the default Normal and Quiet settings, based on my testing Spotify will leave the file at unity gain, peaking right up to 0 dBTP (or above, for files where that applies). They only take account of True Peak values when deciding how much positive gain to apply, which is always ?none" with Normal and Quiet selected.
> 
> If a subscriber chooses the Loud preference instead, as I understand it they will lift the level to -11 LUFS and add limiting to achieve this result, but only in playlist or shuffle. However since apparently only 17% of users change these preferences, and most probably simply disable normalization, I think the real-world impact of this is thankfully limited to a small number of users.
> 
> Hope that helps !
> 
> Ian
> 
> 
> ***
> Ian Shepherd
> Mastering Media Ltd - Audio Mastering, Blu-ray and DVD Excellence
> http://twitter.com/ianshepherd
> 
> Mastering Media Ltd,
> Kemp House, 152 City Road, London, EC1V 2NX
> Registered in England and Wales 
> Company No. 073500450
> 
> Tel. +44(0)1487 842498
> 
> 
>> On 2 May 2022, at 17:32, Bob Katz <bobkatz at digido.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi guys. If given a file that?s -16.4 lufs with 0.0 dBTP would they turn it down a dB and call it a day? Or would they try upward norm towards -14 with peak limiting? 
>> 
>> I know  that Apple?s current practice would drop it to -17.4 with -1 dBTP. 
>> 
>> Best
>> 
>> 
>> Bob
>> 
>> My iPhone made me write this. Quotes only below this line. Nothing more to see here. 
>> ----------------------------------------------------
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://grimmaudio.nl/pipermail/mla_grimmaudio.nl/attachments/20220503/2f2d428a/attachment.html>

From bobkatz at digido.com  Tue May  3 15:06:32 2022
From: bobkatz at digido.com (Bob Katz)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 09:06:32 -0400
Subject: [MLA] 95% normalized
In-Reply-To: <95B747F3-B849-4296-BE47-49B0E3247E2B@mastering-media.co.uk>
References: <95B747F3-B849-4296-BE47-49B0E3247E2B@mastering-media.co.uk>
Message-ID: <DFC5F5BF-52EF-4307-B1DC-DFEB721470C0@digido.com>

Dear Ian:  Well, I speed read your post and obviously did not get the nuance. 

I am rather prejudiced against You Tube because I find You Tube?s audio fidelity to be horrid and I don?t subscribe to Spotify. So I tend to avoid listening to platforms whose sound quality sucks. I flirted with Apple Music but MFIT was overrated. 

That?s why Apple has just improved its lossy service to be able to stream at either 44.1 or 48. The 48k material will be reductions Apple will perform from high res that was submitted. I haven?t done the shootout but I suspect that AAC at 48k will be an audible improvement over 44


Bob

My iPhone made me write this. Quotes only below this line. Nothing more to see here. 
----------------------------------------------------

> On May 3, 2022, at 5:53 AM, Ian Shepherd <ian at mastering-media.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> ?
> 
> Hi Bob,
> 
> Ah OK, I see we have crossed wires. The 2 billion users number is YouTube?s own reported figure for the number of people who consume music on their video platform. In other words I?m not comparing YouTube users with music streaming service users, I?m comparing YouTube users who use it to listen to music ! And that?s the whole point of my post. No-one is taking YouTube into account and they absolutely should. The number of users watching and listening to music on the YT video platform swamps the dedicated streaming services.
> 
> This rings true for me - when I hear about new music I usually go to YouTube first. Partly because I?m interested in the stats for nerds but mostly because it?s almost always the first hit when I Google for anything. That first reason is obviously specific to me, but I think the second one is universal and really important. We all know that ease-of-use is what drives most people?s behaviour online, and if you get to see the artist you?re curious about as well as hear them, why not click on YT first ? (And then when you?re there the algorithm helpfully auto-plays other stuff you might like, so there?s not much reason to leave?)
> 
> Hopefully my post makes this important distinction clear, but your question makes me realise you haven?t read the actual post, and that?s a problem because if you didn?t read it, many others won?t have either ! And my image didn?t make this detail clear, so I?ve updated it to try and add this context.
> 
> (Also since you ask, my diagram is to scale, including the smaller circle which represents the dedicated music streaming services, so as you can see even there over 50% is normalised by default, and this will only increase over time because of Apple?s change)
> 
> And thanks for the kind clarification about my ?marketing? of the topic, I appreciate it. I always try and make the information I ?sell? something real and important, it?s really important to me ?
> 
> Ian
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On 29 Apr 2022, at 21:58, Bob Katz <bobkatz at digido.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 4/29/22 7:03 AM, Ian Shepherd wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Bob,
>>>> Ian: I for one appreciate your incredible enthusiasm on your blog. 
>>>> 
>>> Thanks - I think...
>>>> Well.....    using YouTube as justification for what is ultimately an estimated uni-dimensional statistical value doesn't impress me.
>>>> 
>>> Can you say more about this ? The two different sources in the blog post I link to show both show the total reported number of streaming service users is (was in Q1 2021) about 500 million, and YouTube reported that 2 billion of their users consume music on the platform. So that?s a ballpark of 80% normalization as a minimum, in terms of where people are exposed to new music. (Which is the key - once someone has decided they like something they?ll do so regardless of the loudness)
>>> 
>>> So yes there is going to be plenty of inaccuracy in those figures, but the bottom line is that YouTube vastly outweighs the dedicated music platforms. And since YouTube is entirely normalized, that makes all the quibbling about default settings, users who disable it and the actual number of users on each particular service kind of irrelevant, doesn?t it ? I mean the ?real? number might be 90% or even as low as 80% perhaps but that?s still a massive proportion.
>>> 
>>> Or have I missed something and made an embarrassing error ?
>> 
>> Not embarrassing. But I don't get how you are counting in what is largely a video streaming service.... I can see musicians completely ignoring YouTube. They want to know what Spotify and Apple are doing. And yes, since they are normalized (with Apple slowly getting there).. you've made your point. But statistically I would NOT include YouTube in a percentage of MUSIC streaming services. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>>> What impresses me is your marketing ability. I am so tempted to tell people that Ian Shepherd says that music platforms are already 95% normalized! 
>>>> 
>>>> 9 out of 10 doctors say so, too!
>>>> 
>>> I think that?s an unfair comparison, ?9 out of 10 doctors? is a deliberately manipulated figure, the numbers I?ve used are a genuine attempt to compare how many listeners are on each service.
>>>> At least we are moving forward and thanks for the article. 
>>>> 
>>> Do you know the phrase ?damned with faint praise? ? I regularly get comments from major-name mastering engineers telling me everything I say about this topic is nonsense, so if all I?m doing is a great sales job on something that is actually flawed logic, maybe I won?t bother ?
>>> 
>>> Ian
>> 
>> I really mean what I said, you're doing a great job! And yes, you're practicing the best kind of marketing: putting a good face on the current situation. That is marketing....  on behalf of and for the benefit of us critical music producers. I just don't think it's fair to create a % number of MUSIC streaming. I think to be fair you must not include YouTube in your statistic. YouTube videos are often amateur productions with amateur soundtracks, and they must be accompanied by video. What's the % if you don't include Youtube?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Bob
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> 
>> 
>> If you want good sound on your album, come to
>> Bob Katz 407-831-0233 DIGITAL DOMAIN MASTERING STUDIO
>> Author: Mastering Audio
>> Digital Domain Website
>> 
>> No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However a large number
>> of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://grimmaudio.nl/pipermail/mla_grimmaudio.nl/attachments/20220503/bd139e83/attachment-0001.html>

From gatewaybob at mac.com  Mon May  9 17:41:11 2022
From: gatewaybob at mac.com (Robert Ludwig)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2022 11:41:11 -0400
Subject: [MLA] review in the March 1968 HiFi/Stereo Review Magazine of The
 Beatles: Magical Mystery Tour
Message-ID: <31C841D3-E86F-46D0-BFD7-307CAE782C3B@mac.com>

Dear  friends,

Sorry for he mass email, I came across this Rex Reed review in the March 1968 HiFi/Stereo Review Magazine of The Beatles: Magical Mystery Tour and I wanted to share it with you.
It starts with "Performance: Repulsive? and goes downhill from there.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://grimmaudio.nl/pipermail/mla_grimmaudio.nl/attachments/20220509/e119e991/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: MagicalMysteryTour HiFi-StereoRview Mar68.jpeg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 371498 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://grimmaudio.nl/pipermail/mla_grimmaudio.nl/attachments/20220509/e119e991/attachment-0001.jpeg>

From eelco at grimmaudio.com  Tue May 10 00:07:36 2022
From: eelco at grimmaudio.com (Grimm | Eelco)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2022 00:07:36 +0200
Subject: [MLA] review in the March 1968 HiFi/Stereo Review Magazine of
 The Beatles: Magical Mystery Tour
In-Reply-To: <31C841D3-E86F-46D0-BFD7-307CAE782C3B@mac.com>
References: <31C841D3-E86F-46D0-BFD7-307CAE782C3B@mac.com>
Message-ID: <D2AFE78F-72C4-4826-8D6D-25A9A365E018@grimmaudio.com>

Hi Bob,

Wow, that's totally hilarious! I couldn?t stop laughing. Thanks for sharing!

Cheers,
Eelco

PS "I am the Walrus" is my favorite Beatles song :-)

> On 9 May 2022, at 17:41, Robert Ludwig <gatewaybob at mac.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear  friends,
> 
> Sorry for he mass email, I came across this Rex Reed review in the March 1968 HiFi/Stereo Review Magazine of The Beatles: Magical Mystery Tour and I wanted to share it with you.
> It starts with "Performance: Repulsive? and goes downhill from there.
> 
> 
> <MagicalMysteryTour HiFi-StereoRview Mar68.jpeg>
> _______________________________________________
> MLA mailing list
> MLA at grimmaudio.nl
> http://grimmaudio.nl/mailman/listinfo/mla_grimmaudio.nl



From ian at mastering-media.co.uk  Thu May 12 13:07:27 2022
From: ian at mastering-media.co.uk (Ian Shepherd)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2022 12:07:27 +0100
Subject: [MLA] review in the March 1968 HiFi/Stereo Review Magazine of
 The Beatles: Magical Mystery Tour
In-Reply-To: <31C841D3-E86F-46D0-BFD7-307CAE782C3B@mac.com>
References: <31C841D3-E86F-46D0-BFD7-307CAE782C3B@mac.com>
Message-ID: <9B4579E3-F7A0-445C-BA6E-34B2A8745D62@mastering-media.co.uk>


Hi Bob,

This is amazing, you?re welcome to send me things like this any time you like ?

Ian



> On 9 May 2022, at 16:41, Robert Ludwig <gatewaybob at mac.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear  friends,
> 
> Sorry for he mass email, I came across this Rex Reed review in the March 1968 HiFi/Stereo Review Magazine of The Beatles: Magical Mystery Tour and I wanted to share it with you.
> It starts with "Performance: Repulsive? and goes downhill from there.
> 
> 
> <MagicalMysteryTour HiFi-StereoRview Mar68.jpeg>
> _______________________________________________
> MLA mailing list
> MLA at grimmaudio.nl
> http://grimmaudio.nl/mailman/listinfo/mla_grimmaudio.nl



