Am I working with levels that are too low?

I'd rather not say. Two are well known major league mastering engineers, one was the Aria online mastering service.

Believe it or not, the Aria masters were closest to levels that matched what I was using as a benchmark.

Well, that’s somewhat what I was wondering: was a conversation had at all or was it just like, “here’s what you get.”

What are your references? What era? What masters? Waves L1 came out in 1992 and the limiter and clipper wars have been going on ever since.

Peter Gabriel - Shock The Monkey - 1982, -17.4 LUFS, 17.6 peak to loudness ratio. Glorious, crank-able rock with impact.

Those are limited and clipped. Waves L1 and clipped for the Lyle Lovett. Ryan Adams is crushed with something.

I think -20dB+ was probably common in the 80s? As the mastered versions only get them up to -17dB. I bet the un mastered mixes sounded incredible on full range

I can hear it on the Ryan Adams track for sure. I just like how it was mixed and arranged more than the mastering. It is kinda crunchy. Nathaniel Kunkel recorded the Lyle Lovett album with custom made Massenberg compression. It won album of the year. Whatever they did on that one is good enough for me. The Knopfler track is my go to when I need to compare bass level.

Thanks for that Bossanova! I figured the "Two" was just slammed up, I mainly like the arrangement, the L&R acoustics, and the tone of the piano taking a huge space, bass level, etc. I try to get some of that weight, but not as the expense of dynamics. It's a bit tricky. I also use Road to Ensenada as a guide to vocal tone. There's some sibilance there, but I like big upfront vocals and that track really does it for me.

Online I've begun listening to Chris Stapleton's "Starting Over" as a reference. That's the clarity and volume I hope for on youtube that I haven't been able to achieve on my meager home system when compared to the studio's firepower and engineering expertise on that track. I wonder what the level on that is.. hmm..

Chris stapleton could sing a song about a Wendy's Cheeseburger and make it sound popular... in fact, he probably should. ;-D

The big things I hear are that the bass and low mids have been very well controlled at the mix/recording level so that the energy is focused in the telephonic/articulation frequencies, which is making everything sound “louder” and clearer even with the wider, less compressed Peak ratios. To be honest it does sound quieter than other modern releases to me, but I consider that a good thing. (My personal taste in mastering stops somewhere around the early 90s, modern dynamic releases excepted.) It breathes more like Harvest era Neil Young without the same level of vintage coloration, but with that more modern (multiband?) low end and midrange sculpting.

My experience has been that digital is the exact opposite of analog thinking. In analog, we were always trying for as high a level as we could get away with because noise was the enemy. In digital, it's always best to error on the low side and only bring it up at the end.

I bumbled into this when I was helping a friend with his new 001. His stuff recorded peaking to -20 sounded better than the stuff I was getting to master that had been mixed on an SSL. My conclusion was that the analog stages of most converters must be utter crap. You need look no further than at the analog section of pro tape machines to see the difference.

I was waiting for you to weigh in Bob My contributions are limited to what I've picked up from DIY analysis and mastering over the years, and absorbing what generous folks like you and Bob Katz have written about it.

Knowing that the Digi 001 was very early in the interface game, have you found that recording at a higher level in digital world has gotten any better, or have you still of the opinion that -20, -12, etc, is the safer bet and just add gain ITB later?