It is Grammy Time and we take a look at the quality of the songs on the Grammy nominee CD.  If you look in the February archives on this site, you will find the results of the 2016, 2017, 2018 Grammy  Nominee CDs.  Below is the chart of the songs in the order that they appear on the CD.  There may be a slight increase in quality over the past 4 years, but nothing to get excited about.  As a reminder the best case numbers would be something like this...
LKFS -16 dB,True Peak -0.1 to -1.0 dB, Clipped Samples 0,DC Offset 0.000%,RMS difference 0 to 0.1 dB

You can zoom your browser(Ctrl +) if you have trouble reading the numbers.  The Dynamic Range is just for fun.  It is not an indicator of mastering except that the more you squash the music, the less dynamic range results.  Also just for fun, the next picture is a snapshot from the first track.  Another beautiful example of a mastering screw-up.

For your enjoyment, the songs as they look in the order they are on the CD.



​......................................................................................................................................................................................

Make Me Feel - Janelle Monae

I Like it - Cardi B

All The  Stars - Kendrick Lamar

God's Plan - Drake

The Middle - Zedd

Slow Burn - Kacey Musgraves

Rock Star - Post Malone

Best Part - H.E.R.

This Is America - Childish Gambino

The Joke - Brandi Carlile

Shallow - Lady Gaga, Bradley Cooper

God Is A Woman - Ariana Grande

Havana - Camila Cabello

Look What You Made Me Do - Taylor Swift

In My Blood - Shawn Mendes

I Don't Think About You - Kelly Clarkson

Beautiful Trauma - Pink

Say Something - Justin Timberlake

Girls Like You - Maroon 5

Fall In Line -  Christina Aguilar

Don't Go Breaking My Heart - Backstreet boys

There you have it.  If anything is not clear, let me know and I will be happy to explain it.

​To start off 2019, the number one slot in Billboard's top 100 is held by the song 'Without You' by Halsey. I was not going to consider it until I heard it and decided it was different enough from the mindless hip-hop that is usually in this spot, that it would be interesting to analyze. Here are the numbers...


LKFS/LUFS -10.1 dB
Clipped Samples Left 1
Clipped Samples Right 0
DC Offset -.008%, -012%
Dynamic Range 4.7 dB
RMS Level Left -8.57 dB
RMS Level Right -8.64 dB

As we have noted elsewhere on this website, all music (including music destined for vinyl) can fit into the 'LUFS -16 dB, True Peak -1 dB' box, whether it is folk, jazz, rock, classical, big band, singer-songwriter, world, etc. This we have determined by analyzing thousands of tracks from the last 100 years of recorded music. So anything beyond this 15 dB LUFS to peak difference can be said to be compressed in some way. Vinyl was and is a medium that compressed music slightly due to it's physical limitations. However, the music of today is compressed not because of limitations, but because of the misguided belief that it will sound louder and thus compete favorably with the other poorly mastered tracks and somehow result in more money in the pockets of those concerned. If 15 dB is the standard for well mastered music tracks, you can easily figure out how much the modern master is overcompressed. If a master comes in at -8 dB LUFS, then it is overcompressed by 8 dB. Since the very worst of mastering jobs results in a figure of about -6 dB, we can extrapolate a range of overcompression of about 10 dB. (-16 perfect, -6 dB horrible)
We can guess with considerable accuracy that -11 dB LUFS is halfway to horrible. In any case, this gives you a range to expect over compression just by the LUFS number.


The next problem is the clipped sample issue. If the sample peaks are not carefully and skillfully controlled to a level of -.1 to -1 dB, the result will be sample peaks that are digitally clipped (sawed off) by the digital converter that can not have any signal above 100% or 0 dB. The result of the clipped samples is easily seen in a good waveform analyzer, and the number of clipped samples is easily computed by a program such as Izotope's RX. Since the waveform is what determines the sound that eventually comes out of your speakers or headphones, the clipped samples will absolutely affect the quality of the sound as you hear it. You can go through the many examples on this website and see that virtually all of them have clipped samples and therefore unnecessarily compromised sound.


While we are remembering the reasons for the numbers, let's look at DC offset. DC offset is the degree to which the waveform is centered on the proper 0 axis. All music in the real world will have 0 DC offset, that is, it is exactly the same level on one side as the other. Electronic circuits from the microphone to the Digital to Analog Converters can introduce flaws in the circuit that result in a deviation from 0 of up to 1%. The deviation is usually small, but again it is something that affects the waveform and therefor the sound. It is easily fixed, and is certainly something that should be fixed before going out of a mastering facility. If you look at the DC offset of all of the tracks analyzed on this website, you will find that virtually all of them have an offset of some kind. Critical?..no...sloppy?..yes.


Dynamic range is first determined by the music itself. Classical music and movie soundtracks will have very wide dynamic range that can exceed 20 dB. Dance music and overcompressed rock music will have a very small dynamic range that can be as small as 1 dB. Everything else is in between. One of the problems associated with overcompressing for the purpose of electrical loudness, is that the dynamic range of the original performance or recording must be reduced. Since dynamics is one of the most important aspects of a performance or recording, the impact of the music is reduced by any overcompression. The more the overcompression, the more the music suffers as a result. The -16 dB range is sufficient for every style of music. Even though live performances can exceed the dynamic range that the -16 dB range requires, the music still has enough dynamic range to satisfy the most discriminating audience.


The last item that we analyze for this website is the balance of left and right channels. The smaller the difference, the better. This is especially true when most of the listening will be done with earbuds or headphones. I like to keep it within .01 dB. Again, critical?..no...sloppy?..yes.


Probably the most important aspect of mastering is the equalization of the track which determines how it will sound to the average listener in a wide variety of listening environments. It needs to sound good on earbuds, cheap headphones, expensive headphones, cheap loudspeakers, and expensive audiophile systems. Over the decades of recorded sound, we have figured out what sorts of compromises are needed to portray the performance accurately and also fit within the limitations of the medium. For instance, the 1812 Overture by Tchaikovsky is a work that calls for cannon fire in the final climax. That noise is so loud that it is not possible for recording mediums and loudspeakers to accurately reproduce. But we can approach the effect and not destroy our speakers by carefully tailoring the EQ to mimic the sound. A real cannon has a concussive impact below 20 Hz. Our speakers can not do that without lasting damage. So we have to cut off everything below 20 Hz to save our equipment. On the upper end of the frequency spectrum, live sounds can have frequencies from 50 to 100 kHz. But our ears cannot hear them and most of our equipment cannot play them, so it is not prudent to try to include them. Over the last century, the audible frequency spectrum is considered to be 20 to 20 kHz. All of reasonable music will fit into this range. Our equipment for reproducing and listening to music is also capable of handling this range. So the important range to consider is a maximum of 20 Hz to 20 kHz.
Average hearing range is actually less than that. Average hearing range is from 30 Hz to about 15 kHz. So that is much more important as a frequency spectrum to consider. Also, average listening equipment will struggle to reproduce sounds below 30 Hz and sounds above 15 kHz. If a speaker is struggling to reproduce a sound that is below 30 Hz, it will distort the sound and will often distort other frequencies as well. So trying to deliver frequencies beyond the ability of playback systems does not enhance the quality of the sound at all. What is important is the balance of the frequencies within that 30 Hz to 15 kHz window. That is what determines how the music sounds. That is what really separates the good from the bad.


We have demonstrated how sloppy mastering will adversely affect the quality of the sound. But EQ is the most important aspect of the mastering process. Fortunately, there are many sophisticated software tools that can aid us in figuring out what is good and bad EQ or frequency spectrum level. I have had the advantage of having access to thousands of masters and the most sophisticated of analysis software. However, you can do the same thing at home to a similar extent. A CD is identical to the 1630 master or digital file master and so is just as effective. You can use a good frequency analysis software tool to analyze each song or part of a song to see what the EQ curve looks like. You will see that in all of the tracks that I have analyzed on this site. After a while you will notice that all great sounding recordings have the same kind of curve. This is true of great recordings made in the 50s to great recordings made today. After becoming familiar with many great recordings, you will be able to spot problems in masters that are not as well done, and learn to hear the problems you see on the frequency spectrum analysis.


I have not gotten into this on this website because this is deep and complex. It is simple and above argument to show the numbers that result from simple analysis. The EQ curve is the most important factor that determines good mastering. I could go through and explain the problems in each of the masters analyzed here in the past 3 years, but that would take a lot of time and explanation. What I will say is that if you look at the EQ curves on these pages, they are all similar (that is good), but they all have bumps and cuts that the great masters of the past do not have (that is bad). If you study just the tracks that are on this website, you can learn an awful lot about proper EQ curves. If you listen to the track, try to identify the problems, then check the EQ and see where the curve correlates to the problem. The only thing left is to learn what good music sounds like. That is something that you have to determine for yourself. Not everyone will agree on everything. But there are standards that most everyone will agree on. And they are standards because they are so good.


In the modern era, here are some examples of great music recordings...


1976 Eagles Greatest Hits
1979 Bob Dylan Slow Train Comin'
1980 Grover Washington Jr. Winelight
1982 Michael Jackson Thriller
1996 George Benson That's Right


There are many great sounding records out there, but they are still a minority in the universe of recorded music. The more you listen to good music, the quicker you will be able to recognize poorly mastered music. A fun practice is to take a song (such as any of the ones analyzed here in the past 3 years) and take it apart and see if you can fix all the flaws. Practice makes perfect.

For the last month of 2018 we will pick a brand new release from someone who has been around and making good music (as opposed to most of the older blog picks) for many years.  This is the first track released from the new album.  This is the iTunes version and the numbers look like this.

LKFS/LUFS                         -11.7 dB
Clipped Samples Left           0
Clipped Samples Right         0
DC Offset                          +.000%, +.000%
Dynamic Range              10.8 dB
RMS Level Left              -11.34 dB
RMS Level Right            -12.31 dB

The LUFS is -11.7 dB, which is not bad considering what we are used to seeing.   There are no clipped samples, which is a small miracle these days.  Also the DC Offset is 0, again a rarity these days.  The dynamic range is excellent for a modern recording. As far as the Left- Right balance, the left channel is 1 dB hotter than the right.  The EQ is not bad, so overall this is much better than the average mastering job out there.

​Here it is...(zoom your browser in to see the numbers)

This is almost perfect, so what would it look like if it was about perfect?  It would look like this...

This is very similar except you would see the following differences.

Keeping the LUFS the same, the true peak is a slightly safer -1.0 dB.
The left - right balance is 0 dB difference.
The dynamic range is actually better by .2 dB.
There are less phase rotation problems.
The EQ has a more solid bottom end (60 Hz) and less 'mud' (200 Hz).
The high end is bit clearer.
The sound is therefor better.
These are not big issues, but that is what Mastering is about...
​little issues that come together to make it sound better.

Michael Jackson's 'Thriller' is on the charts the last week in October for fairly obvious reasons.  So let's take a look at this version of remastering and see how it fares by the numbers.  Remember that this was a great recording, originally mastered properly and has been remastered many times to it's detriment.

LKFS/LUFS                      -9.7 dB
Clipped Samples Left       21
Clipped Samples Right     44
DC Offset        +.027%, +.040%
Dynamic Range              5.0 dB
RMS Level Left              -9.84 dB
RMS Level Right            -9.58 dB

Probably because of the constraints of the up to date level requirements for submission to Apple for the iTunes library, the numbers are completely different from the levels you would find on the 25th anniversary CD.  -9.7 dB is not bad for a current hit these days.  True peak level is +.2 dB, which will result in clipped samples.  Clipped samples, although not perfect, are certainly better than the average out there.  DC offset is off by a typical amount.  Left to right is only off by .26 dB.  EQ is good, although it does look like an EQ done by computer.  Fortunately, the music was so well produced that it is difficult to make it sound bad.  So it will still sound good, and will still put most recent music to shame.  Here is the picture.

This month we have a new release from Cher...Dancing Queen.  It consists of songs from the excellent pop group ABBA.    It is most interesting because it is produced by the ABBA themselves.  So the same team that made the originals 40 years ago, made this album.  The arrangements are virtually identical and that means that the music and the sound is excellent.  The main difference, aside from Cher's voice, is that the mastering job is a typical, squashed peaks, modern mastering job.

Here are the numbers...

LKFS/LUFS                      -7.5 dB
Clipped Samples Left   10,022
Clipped Samples Right   9,027
DC Offset        +.059%, +.057%
Dynamic Range              6.4 dB
RMS Level Left             -7.88 dB
RMS Level Right           -8.00 dB

So after all the effort went in to making a great album of great music (unlike most of the previous entries in this blog), we end up with a mastering job that has 19,000 clipped samples.  Also unnecessarily squashed to - 7.5 dB, with a remarkably high DC offset, even for modern mastering.  You would think that this would not be allowed to affect a good recording, but, unfortunately, this was not the case.  This album is different than most because it was an excellent recording until the mastering step, which is supposed to make it better, not worse.

​Here is the evidence...zoom your browser to see the details.

Since 2015 I have analyzed current top ten  hits in this space.  Since the metrics of what a 'hit' is has changed over the decades, I feel that the Billboard list is completely meaningless.  It has been meaningless for many years, but I was using it as an example that the simple mind could relate to.
So I will no longer take examples from the Billboard top 100, but rather pick new releases of real music that does not depend on the nonsense of social media.  Yesterday, Paul McCartney released his 17th album and this is one of the most popular tracks on the album.  So let's see how it looks by the numbers.

LKFS/LUFS                         -7.2 dB
Clipped Samples Left           2
Clipped Samples Right         0
DC Offset                 -0.004%, -0.009%
Dynamic Range                 5.2 dB
RMS level left                  -6.68 dB
RMS level right                -6.78 dB

LKFS is squashed to -7.2, but there are worse examples out there.
Clipped Samples, not 0, but as they go these days, not bad at all.
Dynamic Range is good. 
DC offset is not 0, but is average these days.
RMS level left and right is within .10 dB.
EQ is not bad at all.
True Peak is +0.1dB

Song is a typical example of a 'dynamics squashed' modern mastering job.
And that is a pity, since it is a well crafted pop song by someone who has
made great songs long before the current convention of no dynamics mastering.
​Here is the picture, zoom in if you want to see the numbers.

This month we will look at #3 on Billboard's top 100 chart.  It is 'Girls Like You' by Maroon 5.
Musically it is much better than usual and the mastering job is also better than usual, thanks to being mastered for iTunes. (MFIT) 
The numbers are here.

LKFS/LUFS                      -10.1 dB
Clipped Samples Left           1
Clipped Samples Right         2
DC Offset       +0.005%, +0.004%
Dynamic Range                 7.0 dB
RMS level left                  -9.21 dB
RMS level right                -9.00 dB

LKFS is about average for the genre.
Clipped Samples, not 0, but as they go these days, not bad at all.
Dynamic Range is good.
DC offset is not 0, but is average.
RMS level left and right is within .21dB.
EQ is not bad.
True Peak is +0.1dB

Song is well constructed and has a good balance of levels between louder and softer.
​Here is the picture, zoom in if you want to see the numbers.

For July we again pick a number one on the Billboard chart.  This is ' I Like It' from Cardi B.
It attempts to follow the outline of the mega-hit 'Despacito', although with less talent and craftsmanship.  

The numbers are below.

LKFS/LUFS                      -8.5 dB
Clipped Samples Left     10893
Clipped Samples Right    10522
DC Offset     -0.018%, -0.022%
Dynamic Range             4.3 dB
RMS level left               -7.82 dB
RMS level right             -7.93 dB

LKFS is about average for the genre.
Clipped Samples, 21,415 total. Do I hear laughter out loud?
Dynamic Range is average, DC offset is not optimal, but is what we come to expect.
RMS level left and right is within .11dB, not bad for something made these days.
EQ is not bad.
Maybe we should have a competition for 'Most Clipped Samples'.  This one would be a
definite contender.

This is halfway through the year and this piece of crap has been number one and two the past week.
The mastering job is crap but so is the artist, the song, the recording, the mixing, the video, the message, etc., so it all matches.  Just another indication of how far the American culture has devolved.  

Here are the numbers.

LKFS/LUFS                      -7.5 dB
Clipped Samples Left       3676
Clipped Samples Right     3193
DC Offset     +0.023%, +0.025%
Dynamic Range            11.6 dB
RMS level left               -5.90 dB
RMS level right             -6.11 dB

LKFS is about average for the genre.
Clipped Samples, 6,869 total.
Dynamic Range is good, DC offset is not optimal, but is what we come to expect.
RMS level left and right is within .21dB.
EQ is OK, with problems in the bass (distortion, etc.).

All in all, a song not worth talking about.


Following is the full picture.  Zoom your browser to see the numbers.
​

For May 2018 we will take a quick look at #3 on Billboard's hot 100.  This is Ariana Grande's 'No Tears Left To Cry'.  The numbers as follows.

LKFS/LUFS               -9.0 dB
Clipped Samples Left   1
Clipped Samples Right 3
DC Offset  -0.045%, -0.039%
Dynamic Range     6.2 dB
RMS level left         -7.93
RMS level right      -7.95

LKFS is about what we have come to expect these days.
Clipped Samples, although not perfect, are much better than average.
Dynamic Range is good, DC offset is not optimal, but is what we expect.
RMS level left and right is very even.
EQ is OK, with some minor flaws.

All in all, a better than average mastering job in today's market.

Following is the full picture.  Zoom your browser to see the numbers.