When mastering Electronic Dance Music, can two limiters in the mastering chain create a more desirable sound than a single limiter?

Viktor Nilsson

Audio Technology, bachelor's level 2020

Luleå University of Technology Department of Arts, Communication and Education

Viktor Nilsson Luleå University of Technology 2020

Abstract

The loudness war has been a widely discussed topic for many years. Loudness normalization has begun to slow down the range of genres affected by this war, but Electronic Dance Music is one of the genres that is still affected. Because some genres are still in this war, there are still reasons to achieve a loud master while simultaneously trying to sound good. Claims have been made by different mastering engineers that using two limiters in a chain can create a more transparent loudness. To investigate the reliability of this claim, listening tests using different limiter configurations was performed. 12 trained listeners would give their subjective preference over one and two limiters in the master chain. The results showed no significant difference in subjective preference. However, the subjects were able to describe some attributes that made a distinction between the limiter configurations.

1 Viktor Nilsson Luleå University of Technology 2020

Table of Contents ABSTRACT ...... 1 1. INTRODUCTION...... 3 1.1 BACKGROUND ...... 3 1.1.1 Mastering ...... 3 1.1.2 Loudness ...... 3 1.1.3 The Loudness War...... 4 1.1.4 Concerns About the Loudness War ...... 5 1.1.5 Measuring Loudness and Standards ...... 5 1.1.6 Loudness Levels on Streaming Platforms ...... 6 1.1.7 Achieving loudness ...... 6 1.2 SCOPE OF RESEARCH ...... 7 1.2.1 Purpose ...... 7 2. METHOD ...... 8 2.1 AUDIO STIMULI ...... 8 2.1.1 Music ...... 8 2.1.2 Audio Stimuli Preparation and Equipment ...... 8 2.2 SUBJECTIVE DATA COLLECTION – LISTENING TESTS ...... 9 2.2.1 Equipment ...... 9 2.2.2 Procedure ...... 9 2.2.3 Listening Test ...... 10 2.2.4 Subjects and Questionnaire ...... 10 2.2.5 Data Analysis ...... 10 2.3 QUESTIONNAIRE ...... 11 3. RESULTS & ANALYSIS ...... 12 3.1 T-TESTS ...... 12 3.2 SUBJECTIVE PREFERENCE SCORE ...... 12 3.3 SUBJECTIVE ATTRIBUTES ...... 13 4. DISCUSSION ...... 14 4.1 RESULTS ...... 14 4.2 AUDIO STIMULI...... 14 4.3 EQUIPMENT...... 14 4.4 LISTENING TEST ...... 14 4.5 SUBJECTS ...... 15 5 SUMMARY ...... 16 5.1 CONCLUSION ...... 16 5.2 FUTURE RESEARCH ...... 16 REFERENCES ...... 17 APPENDICES ...... 19 APPENDIX A – LISTENING TEST INSTRUCTIONS ...... 19 APPENDIX B – QUESTIONNAIRE ...... 21 APPENDIX C – LISTENING TEST DATA ...... 23 APPENDIX D – QUESTIONNAIRE DATA...... 23

2 Viktor Nilsson Luleå University of Technology 2020

1. Introduction

Even though loudness normalization has been more established in the recent years, the loudness war is still relevant in some musical genres. Electronic Dance Music is one of the genres that is most affected. Because of this, there is still value to making loud music sound better. This paper is going to investigate if there is a difference when using one or two limiters on the master chain.

When mastering Electronic Dance Music, can two limiters in the mastering chain create a more desirable sound than a single limiter? Can chain limiting achieve a better perceived sound for the same amount of loudness than the single limiter?

1.1 Background

1.1.1 Mastering Mastering is the last step and finalization in audio production before the recording gets released in various formats on various platforms. This stage usually involves working with equalization, compression and limiting on a stereo mix. The goals when mastering is to make the record sound the best it can, while making sure the recording translates well to a variety of formats and playback systems. When mastering, small incremental improvements is made by using different kinds of tools to achieve the most polished sound. (Waddell, 2013; Katz, 2015)

Limiting essentially is compression with an extremely high ratio which is used to increase the level of the track to its maximum (Waddell, 2013). The limiter functions like a ceiling which nothing should exceed. If the goal is to maintain the most dynamics and depth possible from the unmastered mix, then no limiting is used. When the goal is to achieve maximum loudness, limiting is a very good tool to use.

According to Waddell limiters have, like compressors, their own character to the sound. It is important to identify if the limiter in use works well with other processes in the mastering chain, Waddell argues. The analog limiter has almost disappeared in most mastering studios today. This is because the digital limiter with high quality and a look-ahead feature is the standard in most studios. This look-ahead feature uses a time buffer in order to allow digital limiters to quickly react to a transient sound. (Waddell, 2013).

1.1.2 Loudness Limiters are used to control the loudness of a recording. Loudness can be described in macrodynamics and microdynamics. When referring to loudness over a long section or parts of a song, the term macrodynamics is often used. When referring to loudness with faster sounds, such as individual drum hits, with sharp transients and peaks, the term microdynamics is often used. While mastering, the mastering engineer needs to consider the amount of loudness the track should have, both in terms of macro- and microdynamics. The microdynamics and transient content in modern music are commonly reduced by compressors and limiters to increase the loudness of the track.

The loudness levels have been escalating for the past two decades. Compression leads to a decrease in perceived microdynamics, which in turn can negatively affect the subjective quality of the sound (Skovenborg, 2014). According to Waddell (2013), there is a risk when pushing for a loud master. It can cause severe distortion and cause a loss in sound quality if done to the extreme. Waddell argues

3 Viktor Nilsson Luleå University of Technology 2020 that when the loudness level is the highest possible without negatively affecting tone or dynamics of a recording, the mastering is performed best. Furthermore, he explains the benefit for a mastering engineer to have the skillset to produce loudness anywhere from ideal to extreme in order to satisfy the client.

According to Hjortkjær & Walther-Hansen (2014) there is a widespread belief that the rising use of dynamic range compression when mastering deteriorates sound quality in music. A listening test was conducted in a study by Hjortkjær et al. to investigate how normal hearing listeners evaluated popular music recordings in original versions and in remastered versions which had been dynamically compressed. This study found no significant preference for either the original masters or the remastered masters by normal hearing listeners. Only when the compression level (peak to average ratio) between original and remastered was over 8 dB did more than 70 % prefer the original version. When the compression level was close to the original most preferred the remastered versions. They did not find any correlation between the rated depth and the measured peak to average ratio of the different clips. The perceptual data this study gathered suggest that listeners are not as sensitive to high levels of compression than frequently claimed. Another study by Lalér (2012) shows similar results. Lalér conducted a listening test where subjects would listen to popular music which had been dynamically compressed and decide if the perceived audio quality was better or worse than the version which had not been as dynamically compressed. This study found no correlation between popular music with extreme compression and a decrease in perceived audio quality.

1.1.3 The Loudness War The loudness war is what has been pushing recordings to be as loud as possible. This war has been around since the days of vinyl records and jukeboxes. Because the early jukebox had a fixed playback level, the most dynamically compressed record got heard the best (Taylor, 2017). If you ask people to listen to the same track at two different volumes and ask which sounds better, they tend to choose the louder track. This is because more frequencies are audible. People associate higher loudness with a more intense listening experience. Katz found in a workshop that when you compress a track to be 1 dB louder than the more dynamic original, listeners will say that the original material sounds compressed, even though the opposite is the correct answer (Katz, 2009; Vickers, 2011). This phenomenon has led producers wanting their recordings to be louder than others to gain an edge (Waddell, 2013; Milner, 2009).

Most of the mastering engineers in a study (Aspegren, 2018) think that the use of loudness processing and hyper-compression is most common in electronic music genres and is less used in more acoustic genres. An engineer from the same study describes how a lot of people think that music with a lot of dynamics sounds like a demo recording. It has almost become fundamental to have little dynamic range in electronic music. In Aspegren's study a professional mastering engineer explained that this is common practice because it produces an even bass register, and everything glues together well.

Vickers (2011) argues that compression during the mastering stage can make the track more coherent while bringing out certain details in the mix. A lot of compression can also help a track to get heard in noisy environments, such as cars or planes. Neighbors or sleeping housemates might also benefit from compression, making tracks less dynamic, Vickers argues. With that said Vickers clarifies that tracks could be compressed further at the playback stage to save some dynamic range for other listeners.

4 Viktor Nilsson Luleå University of Technology 2020

1.1.4 Concerns About the Loudness War Contrary to what Aspegren (2018) found in his study, Milner (2009) describes how a lot of people think that hyper-compression may damage audio quality. They believe that the reduction of dynamics reduces the emotional power of music. Milner also describes how hyper-compression may cause listening fatigue, which in turn, can cause listeners to not listen repeatedly to the same track. According to Katz (2015) hyper-compression can make some tracks sound lifeless and boring.

Vickers (2011) argues that there would not be a competitive advantage to over-compress music in the first place if broadcasts or playback devices would impose a standard loudness with loudness normalization. This would, according to Vickers, remove the loudness benefit hyper-compression can achieve. Some mastering engineers think that the loudness war died when streaming services introduced loudness normalization (Aspegren, 2018). This might not be the case for music genres that is being played without loudness normalization at clubs and festivals by DJs (Fernandez, 2015).

Vickers (2011) brought forwards how a few studies have indicated that listening to loud music could cause hearing loss. These studies do not take much into consideration to which extent hyper- compression contributes to the hearing loss found in these studies and is still only speculative. Vickers argues that it’s difficult to prove, but it’s possible that hyper-compressed music can cause hearing damage over time. This might be caused by the lack of time for the ears to rest and recover. He continues by arguing that much is at stake and people, mainly teens and young, don’t give it much thought until the damage has already been done.

1.1.5 Measuring Loudness and Standards Mastering engineers measure the loudness levels as they work. Root-mean-square (RMS)/average meters does a decent job of measuring loudness but are still lacking, according to Waddell (2013). For measuring perceived loudness, the Loudness Units Full Scale (LUFS) meters are the most accurate. LUFS meters that include a display of recent levels are the most useful according to Waddell. The levels are short term (S) and loudness range (LRA). Waddell describes how most of the professional mastering engineers set the final levels by ear.

What makes LUFS meters special is that they take into consideration how humans perceive sounds. It does this by applying a K-weighted filter curve to the audio being measured, which essentially builds a bridge between objective measurement and subjective impression. Loudness K-weighted Full Scale (LKFS) and Loudness Units Full Scale (LUFS) are measuring loudness in the exact same way, using an RMS measurement combined with a K-weighted filter. One unit of LKFS is equal to one dB and one unit of LUFS is equal to one dB. The real difference is when the units are being used. The term LKFS is being used in the ITU BS.1770 and ATSC A/85 broadcast standard, which is used when mixing broadcasts, so the listeners get a comfortable listening level. The term LUFS is being used by The European Broadcast Union (EBU) and the EBU R128 broadcast standard. The broadcast standard for ITU BS. 1770 and ATSC is -24 LKFS. The broadcast standard for EBU R128 is -23 LUFS (TC Electronics, 2019). The engineers using these standards must consider these values as a reference, when mixing a broadcast, in order to get a stable loudness level between broadcasts.

The loudness standard for iTunes is -16 LUFS. For YouTube the loudness standard is -13 LUFS and - 14 LUFS for Spotify. YouTube and Spotify will automatically loudness normalize the audio so that the loudness for each track is their set LUFS level. Hofstadter (2016) argues that if you master according to iTunes standard you will because of this loudness normalization not need to worry about

5 Viktor Nilsson Luleå University of Technology 2020 the different standards over the different streaming platforms. The loudness target level when mastering CDs is generally -9 LUFS according to Berry (2017).

Berry (2017) describes how the club scene still is in the “wild west” when it comes to loudness standardization. He describes how tracks like Richie Hawtin’s “From my mind to yours” has a loudness level around -10 LUFS while Claude VonStroke has tracks around -6 LUFS. This has resulted to DJs being forced to level match each song using the gain knob. If this is not adjusted for each track, the loudest track will get an advantage (Berry, 2017).

1.1.6 Loudness Levels on Streaming Platforms Grimm (2019) analyzed 4.2 million albums on Tidal to figure out the optimum target level for loudness and loudness normalization. For this study Tidal gave Grimm the loudness level of all their tracks from their metadata catalog. When analyzing the data Grimm could determine how the loudness war has affected music since the 30’s. The loudness levels have trended upwards since the 30’s. The median in the 50’s was -16 LUFS, -13 LUFS in the 90’s and has gone up to -9 LUFS in the 2010’s. Only 13% of the albums measured in this study has a loudest track loudness lower than -14 LUFS, which is the loudness standard for Spotify.

One thing to consider when looking at these numbers is that there are more recent albums present in the catalog than old. This study showed different loudness levels for the different genres that was available through the metadata. For classical music, the median loudness was -16 LUFS. When measuring Jazz, the median loudness was -12 LUFS. For Pop music, the median loudness was -9 LUFS. This study also included a listening test where test subjects would select their preference for albums that had been loudness normalized for the whole album or by a track basis. The album loudness normalization by the whole album was preferred by 71% of the 38 subjects.

Grimm found that -14 LUFS was the optimum level for the loudest track of an album. This loudness normalization level will make 87% of all albums, on Tidal, to get properly loudness normalized. One of the genres that will mostly miss out on this loudness normalization is Classical music. The measurement from the metadata showed that Classical music albums have a loudest track at -16 LUFS or lower. After this study, Tidal decided to loudness normalize the loudest track of an album to -14 LUFS for mobile devices and -18 LUFS for stationary devices. According to Tidal the results of using loudness normalization were received good. They could see that 8% or their users turned loudness normalization off, which concluded that most people like the loudness normalization.

1.1.7 Achieving loudness According to Katz (2015), the most important thing when achieving loudness is how you make it loud, not how loud you make it. Waddell (2013) describes different ways of achieving loudness. One way is to use a compressor before the limiter. This will make the master louder but can take away from the tonality of the recording. Another way to achieve loudness is to use digital limiting. Digital limiters have a major advantage to analog limiters because they can have a look-ahead feature which allows them to quickly react to transients in the recording. Waddell describes how many digital limiters in series can achieve a more transparent loudness. The idea is to use several limiters in different stages, where every limiter takes a little bit off the top to achieve loudness (Waddell, 2013). Using two limiters in a chain with 1.5 dB gain reduction can sound louder and punchier than the same limiter with a 3 dB gain reduction (Computer Music, 2012). The author has been in contact with a few mastering engineers who believe this to be true as well.

6 Viktor Nilsson Luleå University of Technology 2020

This idea can also be applied to compressors, which is called serial compression. The purpose could be to combine the characters of different compressors in order to achieve a certain sound. Different compressors have different strengths and weaknesses, which could benefit the master. Waddell (2013) describes a common technique where one compressor focuses on microdynamic processing while another one focuses on macrodynamic processing.

Another technique to achieve loudness is to use clipping created through a high-quality analog to digital converter (A/D converter). In this case, the A/D converter is acting like a limiter and can achieve loudness by raising the input level through the converter. This method is not used by some mastering engineers because the quality of modern digital limiters. This still qualifies as a common technique by mastering engineers. (Waddell, 2013)

Some things to consider when reaching for loudness is the equal loudness contours. These contours suggest that our human perception of different frequencies is not equal through the whole spectrum. The most sensitive area for our ears is around 3 kHz. If an equalizer is boosted in this area, it will raise the perceived loudness of the track. Cuts below 3 kHz can also raise the perceived loudness. If this area is boosted, a limiter can be set to a higher loudness without clipping. Waddell (2013) argues that this approach can cause ear fatigue for the listener and must be used with caution. It will go a long way to adjust the EQ very slightly by the 3 kHz region.

Some mastering engineers argue that in order to achieve loudness, the whole production, from recording to mixing, need to hold a certain level of quality and have had focus on loudness from the beginning. This is needed so the track still sounds good while being hyper-compressed (Aspegren, 2018). The potential for loudness in some recordings is higher than others just from the mix and production (Waddell, 2013). These recordings could be hyper-compressed and degraded when using different loudness techniques, and still sound better than others just because loudness was in mind from the conception of producing the track.

1.2 Scope of Research

1.2.1 Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate if two limiters could outperform using only a single limiter on the master channel. If two limiters in a chain can achieve the same loudness and sound better than using a single limiter, then the recording could be pushed to be even louder and still sound as good as using only a single limiter.

7 Viktor Nilsson Luleå University of Technology 2020

2. Method

To collect the quantitative data for this study, a listening test was conducted. The subjects rated their preference for either a single limiter or a two limiter configuration. To collect the qualitative data for this study, the subjects described the stimuli using their own subjective words and attributes. After the listening test, a questionnaire was given to the subjects to get a better understanding of who the subjects were.

2.1 Audio Stimuli

2.1.1 Music Three unmastered Electronic Dance Music (EDM) songs were selected. These songs were provided by the music producers of the songs in 44.1 kHz, 24-bit WAV. These songs did not have a limiter on the master chain and the peak value was -6 dBFS. These songs were selected because no mastering had been done previously and they were available to the author.

Table 2.1 – Selected Songs/Audio Stimuli Song/Audio Stimuli Artist Genre 2face (Vinil Remix) Lucas Estrada & PAWL EDM Young Ones (RudeLies Remix) Avenza ft. Johnning EDM I've Always Known Fred Chase ft. Qasro EDM

2.1.2 Audio Stimuli Preparation and Equipment Digital Audio Workstation (DAW): FL Studio Producer Edition v20.6.2 [build 1549] – 64Bit. Limiter: Classic Master Limiter v.2.6.3.1549 (Kjaerhus Audio) Loudness Meter: Orban Loudness Meter v.2.9.6

Excerpts of the songs were cut to be around 20 seconds, containing the build and the climax of the song. Vocals and were included in each stimulus. The timing of these excerpts was selected to have as much variation as possible in each stimulus.

Classic Master Limiter by Kjaerhus Audio was used because of its simplicity and easy access. Classic Master Limiter has been used by producers like Avicii, Afrojack, Noisia and Cazzette (Equipboard, 2013). This limiter only has one parameter, which is the threshold. There was less choices to consider when using this kind of limiter, comparing to a limiter with many parameters. Using a more advanced limiter would make it harder to determine what the important parameters are. Classic Master Limiter has an Auto Gain Function which automatically gains the levels to hit 0 dBFS when the threshold allows. This limiter does not have a True Peak Limiting setting. Using a 10 kHz sine wave, the author measured the attack time to be around 3 ms and the release time to be around 160 ms. This was the same when using both a single and a double limiter configuration.

Before the songs were applied to the different limiter configurations, they were all peak normalized to 0 dBFS. The threshold for the stimuli using a single limiter was -12 dB. The threshold for the stimuli using two limiters in a chain was -6 dB for each limiter.

8 Viktor Nilsson Luleå University of Technology 2020

Orban Loudness Meter was used to make sure that the different songs had the same loudness level. Orban Loudness Meter has a feature where it can analyze a track and get the values for BS.1770 Integrated Loudness, LRA, True Peak Level, etc. After the Integrated loudness level of the whole excerpt was analyzed, the DAW was used to compensate the Integrated loudness level. This was in order to get the different songs to have the same loudness level. The different limiter configurations were not loudness compensated to each other. When the tracks were analyzed in Orban Loudness Meter the Integrated loudness levels for each song were around -7 LUFS, see table 2.2.

The different limiter configurations were not normalized to compensate for the True Peak levels being above 0 dBTP. This was to be able to hear the perceivable effects and artifacts when pushing the limiter to the extreme. Some modern EDM mastering engineers do not take True Peak into consideration when mastering a track. When streaming Kygo, Avicii, Sandro Cavazza – Forever Yours (2020) from Spotify, without loudness normalization, the highest measured True Peak level in Orban Loudness Meter was +2 dBTP.

Table 2.2 – Measured loudness values BS.1770 Integrated Highest Reconstructed Reconstructed Song/Audio Stimuli Condition Loudness (LUFS) Peak Level (dBFS) Peaks Above 0 dBFS Song 1 Single limiter -7.1 1.9 671 2face (Vinil Remix) Two limiters -7.3 1.9 632 Song 2 Single limiter -6.8 1.7 490 Young Ones (RudeLies Remix) Two limiters -6.9 1.7 471 Song 3 Single limiter -6.7 1.7 81 I've Always Known Two limiters -6.9 1.6 74

2.2 Subjective Data Collection – Listening Tests

2.2.1 Equipment Hardware: Desktop Computer Interface: Roland Rubix22 USB Audio Interface Monitors: Two Klein+Hummel O410 Three-way Active Loudspeaker Subwoofers: Two Klein+Hummel O870 Active Studio Subwoofers

Software: OS: Windows 10 Listening test program: Audio Research Lab – STEP (Subjective Training and Evaluation Program) version 2.00

2.2.2 Procedure The subjective data collection consisted of three steps: 1. The instructions were explained by the author 2. The subjects performed the listening test 3. The subjects answered a questionnaire

9 Viktor Nilsson Luleå University of Technology 2020

2.2.3 Listening Test The listening test consisted of 6 trials, where each trial presented two stimuli, A and B. The stimuli were either prepared with a single limiter or two limiters. These conditions were randomized for each trial. The order of the trials was not randomized. The subjects listened to each song two times. The subjects rated their subjective preference of the different stimuli. Using STEP configured to Two- comparison forced-choice test, using no reference with a 5-point grading scale, the subjects were able to grade their answers. The subjects were able to adjust the output volume, at their own will, using the Windows 10 interface. During the test, the subjects could write down what their subjective assessment between the stimuli were, see Appendix A. The subjects would give terms to describe the different stimuli in order to see if there were a correlation of the differences.

Table 2.3 - Two-comparison forced-choice, 5-point grading scale 2.0 - A is much better than B 1.0 - A is better than B 0.0 - A is the same as B -1.0 - B is better than A -2.0 - B is much better than A

2.2.4 Subjects and Questionnaire The 12 subjects that participated in the listening test were audio technology students, which are considered to be trained listeners. The subjects consisted of 10 males and 2 females in the age range between 19 and 26. After the listening test, the subjects filled in a questionnaire which regarded demographics, which genre of music they regularly listen to and whether they normally use loudness normalization when streaming music. The questionnaire was made in order to get a better understanding of who the test subjects were. For the full questionnaire, see Appendix B.

2.2.5 Data Analysis In order to test if the data collected had any statistical significance a one-sample t-test was performed. No post-screening procedure was performed on the data because of the subjective nature of the test. The data was visualized in graphs and charts in order to get a comprehensible overview of the results.

10 Viktor Nilsson Luleå University of Technology 2020

2.3 Questionnaire

Figure 2.1 shows how the subjects work with audio at the moment, where the all of them works with audio as part of their education. Figure 2.2 shows how many years the subjects have worked with audio, where the majority have worked 3-5 years.

How do you work with audio How long have you worked right now? with audio? 14 12 0% 12 25% 10 33%

8

6 5

4 42% 2 0 Less than a year 1-2 Years 0 Hobby Education Professionally 3-5 Years Over 5 Years

Figure 2.1 – How the subjects work with audio Figure 2.2 – Time spent working with audio

Figure 2.3 shows what kind of music the subjects listen to, where 7 out of 12 subjects listen to EDM regularly. Figure 2.4 shows if the subjects use loudness normalization when streaming music. Half of them do not know, 25 % do not use it, 17 % use it and 8 % use it sometimes.

Which Genres do you Do you use loudness normally listen to? normalization when 9 streaming music? 8 7 6 17% 5 4 50% 3 25% 2 1 8% 0

Yes No Sometimes Don't know

Figure 2.3 – Music genres the subjects listen to Figure 2.4 – If the subjects use normalization

11 Viktor Nilsson Luleå University of Technology 2020

3. Results & Analysis

3.1 T-Tests

Table 3.1 shows the two tailed, one sample t-tests, where none of the songs resulted in statistical significance. This means that the null hypothesis, H0, could not be rejected. The average of the subject’s two trials for each song was calculated in order to calculate the T- Tests. This was not done when analyzing the subjective preference score.

Table 3.1 – One sample, two tailed T-Tests Degrees of Standard Standard Statistical Songs freedom Mean Error Deviation P-Value α Significance 1 11 0.125 0.13933 0.4826536 0.38885 0.05 No 2 11 0.083333 0.192996 0.6685579 0.67424 0.05 No 3 11 0.25 0.16855 0.5838742 0.16609 0.05 No Combined 35 0.152778 0.09516 0.5709571 0.11737 0.05 No

3.2 Subjective Preference Score

When looking at the results, a positive score implies that the subject preferred a single limiter and a negative score implies that the subject preferred two limiters. Figure 3.1 – 3.4 shows how most of the trials resulted in a grade where the subjects did not prefer either one or two limiters. Figure 3.2 shows that the majority of the trials in song 2 resulted in a grade where the listeners preferred a single limiter. Figure 3.4 shows how, when all songs are combined, the majority of the trials prefer neither of the limiter configurations but there is a slight trend to prefer the single limiter configuration.

Song 1 Song 2 8 9 20 13 10 7 7 10 4 5

Trials 0 0 Trials 0 0 0 0 -2 -1 0 1 2 -2 -1 0 1 2 Score Score

Figure 3.1 - 2face (Vinil Remix) score Figure 3.2 - Young Ones (RudeLies Remix) score

Song 3 All songs combined 15 36 20 40 22 6 13 10 0 2 1 20 0 1 Trials 0 Trials 0 -2 -1 0 1 2 -2 -1 0 1 2 Score Score

Figure 3.3 - I've Always Known score Figure 3.4 – All songs combined score

12 Viktor Nilsson Luleå University of Technology 2020

3.3 Subjective Attributes

Table 3.2 shows the subjective attributes the subjects described to each limiter configuration. With the single limiter configuration, the subjects described 23 positive and 3 negative attributes. With the two-limiter configuration, the subjects described 8 positive and 4 negative attributes.

Table 3.2 – Subjective attributes described by the subjects Single Limiter Two Limiters Attribute Times + / - Attribute Times + / - Depth 8 Depth 6 Fuller 3 + Fuller 1 + More depth 2 + More depth 1 + More spacious 1 + More spacious 1 + Not as hollow 1 + Hollow 1 - Wider 1 + Wider 1 + More sound in the middle of the signal 1 - Bass 7 Bass 2 Difference in the bass 2 + Muddy bass 1 - More bass 2 + Lacked clarity in the bass 1 - More sub bass 2 + Pressure in the bass 1 + Tonality 6 Tonality 1

Clearer vocals 2 + Clearer 1 + Clearer 1 + More low-mid 1 + More treble 1 + Harsh treble 1 - Dynamics 3 Dynamics 3 Over-compressed 2 - Less compressed 1 + More dynamic 1 + More dynamic 2 + Other 2 Other 0 More done 2 + Positive Attributes 23 Positive Attributes 8 Negative Attributes 3 Negative Attributes 4

13 Viktor Nilsson Luleå University of Technology 2020

4. Discussion

4.1 Results In all songs, no statistical significance was found about the subjective preference of the different limiter configurations. When looking at the combined data for all the songs, there is a slight trend to prefer the single limiter configuration over the two-limiter configuration. This might be because of the 0.2 LUFS difference between the stimuli, see table 2.2.

Even though no statistical significance was found about the subjective preference of the different limiter configurations, the subjective attributes still gives a reasonably consistent description about the subjective differences. With the single limiter configuration, the subjects described 23 positive and 3 negative attributes. With the two-limiter configuration, the subjects described 8 positive and 4 negative attributes. There was some correlation between the answers describing the single limiter configuration versus the two-limiter configuration. This is where the single limiter configuration was described 7 times to have positive attributes about the bass. At the same time the two-limiter configuration was only described with negative attributes, about the bass, 2 times. The single limiter configuration was described, 2 times, to be over compressed. The two-limiter configuration was described, 3 times, to be more dynamic and less compressed. This might suggest that single limiter is more compressed, and two limiters are more dynamic and less compressed. One thing to consider is that the single limiter configuration was also described, one time, to be more dynamic. This result might lead to a mastering engineer using two limiters instead of one to achieve a more dynamic sound.

One thing to consider when looking at the results is that many of the subjects had done many listening tests in the same day. This may have caused some ear fatigue, which could have impacted the answers. Another thing to consider is the small sample size used.

4.2 Audio Stimuli The reason Electronic Dance Music (EDM) was used in this paper was because of its still ongoing loudness war. This genre is one of the most affected genres. Even though all the songs were Electronic Dance Music, there was still difference in tempo, key and instrumentation between the songs, which gained some validity. The songs all had male vocals which could have impacted the results.

4.3 Equipment The studio that was used in the listening test was used because of it being the best acoustically treated room for mastering, available for students, in Luleå University of Technology in Piteå. The Klein+Hummel loudspeakers that was used are good for detailed monitoring which was essential for a listening test like this.

4.4 Listening Test The choice of using the Two-comparison forced-choice method with a 5-point grading scale was used so the listeners could deal with small differences. A 7-point grading scale would perhaps have been even better. This is because of the subjects could have felt that a bigger scale would make it easier to grade small differences. This might also have helped to see if there was a statistical significance in the subjective preference.

14 Viktor Nilsson Luleå University of Technology 2020

4.5 Subjects To be able to distinguish the small differences predicted by the author, trained listeners was preferred. The subject pool were audio technology students from Luleå University of Technology, where 75 % had 3 or more years of experience working with audio. 7 out of 12 subjects usually listens to EDM music which could have made it easier for them to distinguish a difference.

15 Viktor Nilsson Luleå University of Technology 2020

5 Summary

5.1 Conclusion This study tested subjective preference for single limiter against two limiters on the mastering chain in Electronic Dance Music (EDM). The results found no statistical difference, indicating that the subjects did not prefer one configuration over the other in these comparisons. When looking at the attributes described for the different limiter configurations by the subjects, the single limiter configuration could be described as containing more bass and being less dynamic than the two-limiter configuration.

5.2 Future Research When researching this topic in the future, researchers could explore how other parameters of a limiter could impact the sound. Perhaps parameters like attack time and release time could be explored when combining two limiter configurations in the same master chain. A larger subject pool would also be beneficial when comparing these small differences.

16 Viktor Nilsson Luleå University of Technology 2020

References

Aspegren, E. (2018). Mastering Engineers, Loudness and Hyper-Compression: A survey about practises, application goals and ideas about how they impact quality. Bachelor Thesis, Luleå University of Technology, Piteå, Sweden. Retrieved from http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:ltu:diva-69322

Berry, S. (2017, February 12). How Loudness Standards Relate To EDM And Club Music Production. Retrieved from https://ask.audio/articles/how-loudness-standards-relate-to-edm-and-club-music- production

Music, C. (2012, January 11). 13 pro mastering tips. Retrieved from https://www.musicradar.com/tuition/tech/13-pro-mastering-tips-523509

Fernandez, S. (2017, December 3). The Loudness War: When Too Loud Isn’t Loud Enough! Retrieved from http://www.gremlinradio.com/the-loudness-war-when-too-loud-isnt-loud-enough/

Grimm, E. (2019). Analyzing Loudness Aspects of 4.2 Million Musical Albums in Search of an Optimal Loudness Target for Music Streaming. Presented at the 147th AES convention, Utrecht, Netherlands.

Hofstadter, R. (2016, April 22). Loudness War – How loud it too loud. Retrieved from: https://www.producerspot.com/loudness-war-how-loud-is-too-loud

Hjortkjær, J., & Walther-Hansen, M. (2014). Perceptual Effects of Dynamic Range Compression in Popular Music Recordings. Journal of Audio Engineering Society, 62, 37-41. Retrieved from: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=17084

Katz, B. (2015). Mastering Audio: the art and the science, 3rd edition. Burlington, MA: Focal Press.

Katz, B. (2009). Turn It Down! Consequences of the Ever-Escalating Loudness Wars. Workshop W20, AES 127th Convention, New York, NY, 2009 October 12.

Lalér, J. (2012). Perceived Sound Quality of Dynamic Range Reduced and Loudness Normalized Popular Music. Bachelor Thesis, Luleå University of Technology, Piteå, Sweden. Retrieved from: http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:ltu:diva-50538

Milner, G. (2009). Perfecting Sound Forever: An Aural History of Recorded Music, New York: Faber and Faber, Inc., 2009.

Skovenborg, E. (2014). Measures of Microdynamics. Paper presented at the 137th AES Convention, Los Angeles, USA.

Taylor, W. R. (2017). Hyper-Compression in Music Production; Agency, Structure and The Myth That ’Louder Is Better’. Journal on the Art of Record Production, 11. Retrieved from: https://www.arpjournal.com/asarpwp/hyper-compression-in-music-production-agency-structure-and- the-myth-that-louder-is-better/

17 Viktor Nilsson Luleå University of Technology 2020

TC Electronics. (2019). Loudness Explained. Retrieved from: https://www.tcelectronic.com/brand/tcelectronic/loudness-explained

Vickers, E. (2011). The Loudness War: Do Louder, Hypercompressed Recordings Sell Better? Journal of Audio Engineering Society, 59, 346-351. Retrieved from: http://www.aes.org/e- lib/browse.cfm?elib=15934

Vickers, E. (2010). The Loudness War: Background, Speculation, and Recommendations. Paper presented at the 129th AES Convention, Santa Clara, CA, USA. Retrieved from: http://www.aes.org/e- lib/browse.cfm?elib=15598

Waddell, G. (2013). Complete audio mastering: Practical techniques. New York: McGraw Hill.

18 Viktor Nilsson Luleå University of Technology 2020

Appendices

Appendix A – Listening Test Instructions

Instruktioner – Svenska

Om du föredrog A eller B på de olika låtarna, motivera och beskriv skillnaderna. Det är viktigt att ange A eller B i din beskrivning. (Om det är samma svar på olika låtar kan du skriva -”- med den bokstav du tänkt)

Låt 1:

______

______

______

Låt 2:

______

______

______

Låt 3:

______

______

19 Viktor Nilsson Luleå University of Technology 2020

Instructions – English

If you preferred A or B on the different songs, motivate and describe the differences. It is important to write A or B in your description. (If you have the same answer for the different songs you can write -”- with the letter you preferred.)

Song 1:

______

______

______

Song 2:

______

______

______

Song 3:

______

______

______

20 Viktor Nilsson Luleå University of Technology 2020

Appendix B – Questionnaire

Frågeformulär - Swedish

Ålder:

Kön:

Hur arbetar du med ljud just nu? (Du kan svara flera alternativ)

Hobby Utbildning Professionellt

Hur länge har du arbetat med ljud? (Hobby, utbildning och professionellt sammantaget)

Mindre än 1 år 1 till 2 år 3 till 5 år Över 5 år

Vilka musikgenrer brukar du oftast lyssna på? (Du kan fylla flera alternativ)

Rock Elektronisk Dans Musik Hårdrock Pop Metal Jazz House Klassisk Musik Hip Hop Reggae Andra:

Brukar du ha på normalisering när du lyssnar på musik? (t.ex. på Spotify)

Ja Nej Ibland Vet ej

21 Viktor Nilsson Luleå University of Technology 2020

Questionnaire - English

Age:

Gender:

How do you work with audio at the moment? (You can answer more than one option)

Hobby Education Professionally

How long have you worked with audio? (Hobby, education and professionally combined)

Less than a year 1-2 years 3-5 years Over 5 years

Which genres do you normally listen to? (You can answer more than one option)

Rock Electronic Dance Music Hardrock Pop Metal Jazz House Classical Music Hip Hop Reggae Others:

Do you usually have normalization on when streaming music? (ex. on Spotify)

Yes No Sometimes Don’t Know

22 Viktor Nilsson Luleå University of Technology 2020

Appendix C – Listening Test Data

Song Song Song Subject Song 1.1 Song 1.2 2.1 Song 2.2 3.1 3.2 Average 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0.333333 2 -1 -1 0 0 0 0 -0.33333 3 1 -1 -1 -1 0 2 0 4 0 0 -1 1 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 -1 0 6 0 0 -1 1 0 0 0 7 1 0 -1 -1 1 1 0.166667 8 1 1 1 0 0 -1 0.333333 9 -1 1 1 1 0 0 0.333333 10 0 0 1 1 1 1 0.666667 11 1 0 0 -1 1 1 0.333333 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Average 0.166667 0.083333 0 0.166667 0.25 0.25 0.152778

Appendix D – Questionnaire Data

Work with sound Subject atm How long Genres 1 Education 3-5 years Rock, Hip Hop, EDM, Pop, Jazz 2 Hobby, Education 1-2 years Rock, Hardrock, Metal, Hip Hop, EDM, Pop Over 5 3 Hobby, Education years House, Pop, CCM, EDM 4 Education 1-2 years Folk music, EDM Over 5 5 Education years House, EDM, Pop, Funk, Disco 6 Education 1-2 years Rock, Pop, Jazz, Classical, Indie 7 Education 3-5 years Jazz Over 5 8 Hobby, Education years Rock, Metal, Hip Hop 9 Education 3-5 years Rock, Hip Hop, Pop, Jazz, Other 10 Hobby, Education 3-5 years Rock, Hardrock 11 Hobby, Education 3-5 years Rock, Hardrock, Metal, House, EDM, Jazz, Fusion Over 5 12 Education years Rock, EDM, Pop, Classical

23