A LUFS and tonal analysis of top-charting rock and alternative songs
Discover how today's Billboard-charting rock and alt hits stack up in LUFS, tonal balance, and more through analysis of mix techniques and mastering trends.
Continuing our run of analysis articles where we look at level and tonal balance trends in top-performing commercial releases, we’re looking at some music from the rock and alternative charts. It’s easy to think of rock and alternative as being inherently loud, with full-on arrangements of electric guitars, hard-hitting drums, growling basses, and the like, so how does that translate to measured level and tonal balance?
To investigate, I turned to the Hot Rock and Alternative Songs Billboard chart. While many of the numbers aligned with my expectations, what surprised me were the songs that landed at the top of the “Rock and Alternative” chart. Maybe I’m just showing my age with what I expect to hear when I think of rock and alternative, but regardless, there are some good lessons to be learned here.
Follow along with this tutorial using
RX 11 Advanced
What are we analyzing?
The music for this analysis came from Billboard’s Hot Rock and Alternative Songs chart for the week of July 12, 2025, using a similar set of criteria as prior articles.
I wanted to balance analyzing a fair number of songs with being able to offer some individualized reflection on each. To do this I came up with the following criterion: analyze songs that are in the top five, or have peaked at number five, or higher. This left me with nine songs, all of which I’ve written at least a little something about below, along with providing some vital credits, stats, and images showing a short-term LUFS trace and the tonal balance average of the full song.
Song analysis process
There are a few common questions people have when they read one of my analysis articles, so let’s cover those up front:
What sources were used for analysis? For each of these songs, I purchased and downloaded the lossless, high resolution – when available – file from the Qobuz store. This ensures that no streaming codecs or other hiccups get in the way. In a few, rare instances when a title isn’t available on the Qobuz store I will stream the lossless version from Apple, at the native sample rate, with loudness normalization turned off.
Do the numbers include any normalization? No. All analysis is done at the full, mastered level. That said, music discovery trends tell us that something like 85% of casual listeners listen with normalization turned on. So, just because something is mastered “loud” doesn’t mean that’s how people will experience it next to something “less loud.” In fact, in a predominantly loudness normalized playback world, I would argue that raw LUFS measurements tell us more about density than they do “loudeness” – but that’s an article for another time.
What about Atmos? Don’t those need to be at -18 LUFSi? Yes, the loudest Atmos mix on an album needs to not exceed -18 LUFS, integrated. In fact, in some cases where both Atmos and stereo mixes of a song exist, we have an unusual and interesting opportunity to compare more and less dynamic versions of a song. For this analysis though, only stereo versions were used.
So, in short, this analysis uses downloaded lossless files with no normalization – or any other processing – applied.That means they are as close to what the mastering engineer was listening to as we can get!
The music
If you’d like to listen along to the songs as you read, here’s a playlist with all songs, in order. Let’s get into it!
1. “Birds Of A Feather” by Billie Eilish
Producer: FINNEAS
Mixing: Jon Castelli, Aron Forbes, Brad Lauchert
Mastering: Dale Becker
Short-term LUFS and spectrum of “Birds Of A Feather”
True Peak: -0.36 dBTP
Sample Peak: -0.57 dBFS
Int. Loudness: -9.3 LUFS
Loudness Range: 4.7 LU
Overall I really enjoy the sound of HIT ME HARD AND SOFT, the album this song is taken from. In particular, “Birds Of A Feather” gives us an interesting example of how level and crest factor can affect punch and clarity.
As I’ve noted before, there’s some grit and saturation at points in this song, particularly during the loudest moments in the choruses. Compare the sound of the drums during sections starting at 1:00 or 2:30 with the same basic drum sound in the intro and outro. That’s a great example of how increasing average level up against limiting and clipping impacts the sound and feel of microdynamics.
Tonally, I also find the slightly recessed midrange to be interesting here. While it results in a master that maybe doesn’t feel quite as loud as it otherwise could, it also helps keep some focus on the beefy kick and sparkly top end.
2. “Too Sweet” by Hozier
Producers: Chakra, Pete G, A. Hozier-Byrne, Bekon
Mixing: Andrew Scheps
Mastering: Greg Calbi, Steve Fallone
Short-term LUFS and spectrum of “Too Sweet”
True Peak: 0.01 dBTP
Sample Peak: -0.14 dBFS
Int. Loudness: -8.2 LUFS
Loudness Range: 4.1 LU
This is a really interesting song to follow-up “Birds Of A Feather” with for a few reasons. First, it has a more pronounced midrange that helps enhance the feeling of drive, grit, and edginess. Certainly, it still retains a fullness and body to the sound – and I would expect nothing less from Scheps and Calbi – but the slight midrange push – at least compared to our previous song – gives it a different attitude.
Second, we once again have a contrast in punchiness and attack between verses and choruses, but this time in the opposite way. The verses feature a kick that often sits under, or just behind the bass and guitar and a slightly subdued snare. Come the choruses though, the drums brighten up and get punchier!
I see this as a beautiful harmony between mixing and mastering. Certainly, Andrew Scheps did some underlying mix work to create this contrast, but Greg Calbi is picked up on and enhanced it with a gentle level ride of about +0.4 dB during the choruses to get everything to step forward just a touch.
3. “Stargazing” by Myles Smith
Producer: Peter Fenn
Mixing: Michael Freeman
Mastering: Joe LaPorta
Short-term LUFS and spectrum of “Stargazing”
True Peak: 1.11 dBTP
Sample Peak: -0.10 dBFS
Int. Loudness: -6.8 LUFS
Loudness Range: 4.8 LU
If you’re looking for an example of lots of compression, density, width, and saturation, this just might be it. It’s not everyone’s cup of tea, and it’s certainly not right for every song, but in certain genres or idioms these days, it seems to be the go-to sound.
Of tonal note, listen for the slight dip around 4.5kHz to help prevent things from getting too brash or strident with so much saturation happening. Also check out the kick on beat 4 right before 1:58 where the maximum True Peak level occurs. Is it just me, or does it fold back on itself and feel a little more flat than other kicks surrounding it?
4. “Undressed” by sombr
Producers: Tony Berg, Sombr
Mixing: Will Maclellan
Mastering: Luca Pretolesi
Short-term LUFS and spectrum of “Undressed”
True Peak: -0.14 dBTP
Sample Peak: -0.20 dBFS
Int. Loudness: -6.3 LUFS
Loudness Range: 4.3 LU
Next up we have the first of two entries from sombr. With different mix engineers – Will Maclellan and Rich Costey – but the same mastering engineer – Luca Pretolesi – these next two give us an interesting basis for comparison.
To start, “Undressed” gives us another interesting perspective on density, but one that contrasts nicely against “Stargazing.” With a slightly recessed kick, and a tight, controlled snare, I would certainly consider this master to have a high degree of density.
Yet, despite having a slightly lower LRA than “Stargazing,” it feels to me like it has slightly more compelling macrodynamics and depth. Some of this is attributable to not every bit of low-level detail being pushed right up front.
5. “Back To Friends” by sombr
Producer: Sombr
Mixing: Rich Costey
Mastering: Luca Pretolesi
Short-term LUFS and spectrum of “Back To Friends”
True Peak: 0.00 dBTP
Sample Peak: -0.20 dBFS
Int. Loudness: -5.1 LUFS
Loudness Range: 4.5 LU
Comparatively, “Back To Friends” strikes a bit of a middle ground between “Undressed” and “Stargazing.” It has that similar patina of fuzzy saturation – bordering on all out distortion – over everything, but still manages to retain a little more depth than “Stargazing.”
6. “Messy” by Lola Young
Producers: Carter Lang, Monsune, manuka., Solomonophonic
Mixing: Nathan Phillips
Mastering: Dale Becker
Short-term LUFS and spectrum of “Messy”
True Peak: 0.64 dBTP
Sample Peak: -0.30 dBFS
Int. Loudness: -8.3 LUFS
Loudness Range: 6.2 LU
This just might be my favorite sounding song of our group today. Tonally there are some commonalities with “Birds Of A Feather,” perhaps hinting at some of Dale Becker’s aesthetic mastering preferences. The drums and bass feel nice and round and warm while still having a nice degree of control.
On the dynamic front, the macrodynamic contrast is enough to take the listener on a nice journey without ever feeling strained or overly pushed. There’s also a nice depth to everything, while the width modulates in an exciting way between the verses and choruses without ever feeling unnaturally or overly wide.
Overall, this manages to walk the line of balancing a modern, tight aesthetic with a classic, almost 70s inspired sound, and I love the result.
Here's a bit more about Dale Becker from iZotope:
7. “No One Noticed” by The Marias
Producers: Josh Conway, Gianluca Buccellati, Maria Zardoya
Mixing: Neal H. Pogue
Mastering: Joe LaPorta
Short-term LUFS and spectrum of “No One Noticed”
True Peak: 0.42 dBTP
Sample Peak: -0.10 dBFS
Int. Loudness: -8.9 LUFS
Loudness Range: 9.4 LU
With some extended sections with no drums, this is an interesting one from an arrangement perspective. However, that’s not what I want to focus on.
What “pops” out to me here is all the little mouth clicks, ticks, and… pops. Often we may spend a lot of time during mastering using a tool like RX to clean those up and remove or at least reduce them in level. Sometimes, though, they can add to the sense of intimacy, and when they do we need to be careful not to strip that away. When in doubt, confer with the producer, artist, or mixer!
8. “Wildflower” by Billie Eilish
Producers: FINNEAS
Mixing: Jon Castelli, Aron Forbes, Brad Lauchert
Mastering: Dale Becker
Short-term LUFS and spectrum of “Wildflower”
True Peak: -0.45 dBTP
Sample Peak: -0.58 dBFS
Int. Loudness: -11.9 LUFS
Loudness Range: 17.0 LU
If you’re looking for an example of how to balance the huge macrodynamic range sometimes found in contemporary songwriting, this song provides a great example.
First and foremost, a good, balanced tonal approach will go a long way. What’s more, while there’s no way to know for sure how much automation was used here, I often find myself using a high degree of level automation, in particular, while mastering songs with arrangements like this. Gentle, careful rides to balance enough dynamic contrast to maintain the desired energy arc, without simultaneously risking losing softer sections – especially in louder playback environments – can be a time-consuming, but wholly worthwhile endeavour.
9. “Liar” by Jelly Roll
Producer: Zach Crowell
Mixing: Jeff Braun
Mastering: Andrew Mendelson
Short-term LUFS and spectrum of “Liar”
True Peak: -0.13 dBTP
Sample Peak: -0.30 dBFS
Int. Loudness: -7.7 LUFS
Loudness Range: 6.1 LU
If you were a fan of “Stargazing,” this might be another good reference for you, particularly if you’re looking for something with just a little less saturation, and a punchier bottom end.
However, I think there’s also a bit of a cautionary tale embedded in this master. Listen to the vocal level between the choruses and verses. To my ear, the vocal actually sounds a touch quieter during the choruses, which ends up making the verses jump forward a bit. This is something I refer to as a dynamic inversion, where moments that are meant to sound softer end up sounding louder than the loud sections.
This is hardly the worst example of this that I’ve heard, but it’s worth keeping an ear out for!
Meta-analysis and reflection
If we do a little level comparison of these nine songs against our 2024 trends, we find – perhaps unsurprisingly at this point – that we continue to fall right in the same areas. While our maximum and minimum integrated LUFS values are both a little higher and lower, respectively, the average is still within 0.2 LU.
| 2024 Trends | Hot Rock and Alternative | |
| Avg LUFS, Int | -8.3, ±1 | -8.1 |
| Max LUFS, Int | -6.0 | -5.1 |
| Min LUFS, Int | -11.1 | -11.9 |
| Avg LUFS, S-T | -6.1, ±0.99 | -5.3 |
| Max LUFS, S-T | -3.6 | -3.3 |
| Min LUFS, S-T | -7.8 | -6.8 |
| Avg LRA | 5.5, ±1.5 | 4.8 |
| Max LRA | 10.8 | 17.0 |
| Min LRA | 1.4 | 4.1 |
To me, this continues to indicate that even in genres where high perceived loudness is perhaps expected, we have a high degree of freedom of choice when it comes to density, level, and micro- and macro-dynamics.
So that’s it for today, but keep an eye out for more analyses down the road, and be sure to let us know over on Instagram if there are any particular charts, genres, or songs you’d like to see analyzed.
