I thought other forum member may find this article in today's Times interesting:

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/ar ticle1878724.ece

I guess it confirms what most of us on here already know.

--------------------
Gary Walker

Bad link.

--------------------
So, let's just limit the crap out of it, and boost the high-mids. Like Mudvayne, only without the random noise loosely considered singing...

Quote The Chemist:

---

Bad link.

---

works fine for me...

--------------------
http://anotherfineday.bandcamp.com/ http://anotherfineday.co.uk http://apollomusic.co.uk

Very interesting read. It's amazing that overall volume levels have increased that much since the '80s. I have always noticed alot of today's mainstream Hip Hop to be mixed insanely loud, and have found myself getting fatigued and sleepy listening to it. Although, much of the production there is so minimal in most cases, that I guess people aren't really worried about it. I don't know if I agree with the comment about "Californication" being unlistenable though...

Quote tomafd:

---

Quote The Chemist:

---

Bad link.

---

works fine for me...

---

And for me.

It's good to see more mainstream discussion of this issue!


Martin

--------------------
YewTreeMagic

bad article!!

Sentiment may be right but the "facts" are utter rubbish! I guess the point still gets put across.
Oasis started in indeed......

--------------------
Battenburg to the power of 20 - said by Richie Royale in a moment of genius. 4pm. Wed 16th Nov 2011. Remember where you were....

well it's good that they are dedicating space to this, but the article is totally rubbish, imho...

--------------------
http://www.myspace.com/joystickmusicgreece

Come on, it's a good article. Most of the facts are OK, and it puts the point across really well. In my not so humble opinion.

--------------------
PA stuff on FB

This is pretty effective IMO:



And there's this bit of 'propaganda'



--------------------
Website / Music Lab Machines / Blog

I think the article is broadly correct. However, it does not emphasise the almost universal switch from vinyl and cassette to hard disk playback media, and the fact that mp3 coupled with ear-buds is probably not the best way to appreciate the subtleties of music.

When I was a kid, the coolest thing was to have a beat box with massive speakers that could capture all the frequencies. Today, kids seem more impressed with how many tracks they can cram into the smallest possible space. And if you're not going to (or can't, because of the inadequacies of the media) use digital technology to bring out the subtleties in the music, then you might as well use it to make the music as loud as you can given those limitations. And digital mastering does that perfectly.

Incidentally, the same thing has been happening with dvd movies. The dvd seems to be primed for the "dramatic" moments in the film. When the characters are speaking normally in the "quiet" moments of the film, you can't hear a thing, and have to turn the volume up real loud. Then, when the dramatic bits kick in it rattles the windows. Extremely anti-social is you live in a flat, or have thin walls!

I'd love to see a return to the grand old days of analogue mastering and to the production of tracks that cover the whole dynamic range, from silent to scream (and all the bits in between), but is that what the majority of consumers of modern music(ie kids) want?

Quote leslawrenson:

---

Incidentally, the same thing has been happening with dvd movies. The dvd seems to be primed for the "dramatic" moments in the film. When the characters are speaking normally in the "quiet" moments of the film, you can't hear a thing, and have to turn the volume up real loud. Then, when the dramatic bits kick in it rattles the windows. Extremely anti-social is you live in a flat, or have thin walls!

---

That's surely the opposite of the loudness wars, though? A wide dynamic range. The problem with modern mastering is that the loudest and quietest bits are often practically the same level.

I'd love it if records could go back to having 'whispering' quiet parts and 'screaming' loud sections!

Quote leslawrenson:

---

Incidentally, the same thing has been happening with dvd movies. The dvd seems to be primed for the "dramatic" moments in the film. When the characters are speaking normally in the "quiet" moments of the film, you can't hear a thing, and have to turn the volume up real loud. Then, when the dramatic bits kick in it rattles the windows. Extremely anti-social is you live in a flat, or have thin walls!

---

Absolutely - but ironically, the solution I found to this was to hook up an old (decommissioned for studio use) compressor / limiter between my DVD player and the TV Helped make DVD's understandable without riding the volume control though...

Quote nukegroup:

---

That's surely the opposite of the loudness wars, though? A wide dynamic range. The problem with modern mastering is that the loudest and quietest bits are often practically the same level.

I'd love it if records could go back to having 'whispering' quiet parts and 'screaming' loud sections!

---

That would be interesting, and something that I can imagine many audio enthusiasts would long for. However in my experience, the less "audio savvy" client tends to beleive that if the recording is not as loud as one of their purchased chart CD's then your service is not as high/professional quality.

I think many bands/artists also beleive that if their brand new demo does not sound as loud as the radio then again its not been mastered very well.

This is the thing that many less experiences people beleive that louder is better, when actually louder is just louder.

One problem now tho is, how are we ever going to go back? I cant imagine many mainstream artists actually choosing to purposfully have their CD mastered with a larger dynamic range and a lower perceived loudness. Because of this beleif that if it isnt as loud as the next CD on the shelf then it isnt as well made.

--------------------
Dale Davies
www.theaudiocafe.co.uk

Quote daledavies:

---

This is the thing that many less experiences people believe that louder is better, when actually louder is just louder.

---

No - more like perceived louder is actually more compressed and driven into digital clipping - you lose all the quality of the music to make it sound that bit louder - yuk.

Quote daledavies:

---

I cant imagine many mainstream artists actually choosing to purposefully have their CD mastered with a larger dynamic range and a lower perceived loudness. Because of this belief that if it isn't as loud as the next CD on the shelf then it isn't as well made.

---

I don't agree - when they see that loud is actually cr*p sound - and that it sounds even worse when converted to MP3, then the tide may turn - I certainly hope so.

--------------------
John - Sound-Link ProAudio
President - Federation Internationale des Chasseurs de Sons

Quote John Willett:

---

No - more like perceived louder is actually more compressed and driven into digital clipping - you lose all the quality of the music to make it sound that bit louder - yuk.

---

Sorry isnt loudness percieved volume? Why does the sound have to be driven into digital clipping, to my understanding arent compressors and limiters are used to to increase the perceived volume without clipping?

Your right tho, "yuk" is definately what you get if you dont do this sparingly!

Quote John Willett:

---

I don't agree - when they see that loud is actually cr*p sound - and that it sounds even worse when converted to MP3, then the tide may turn - I certainly hope so.

---

Well it cant get much worse thats for sure, perhapse a shift towards a higher fidelity will be the only way to go, whether or not this will include mixing with a higher dynamic range we can only hope.

--------------------
Dale Davies
www.theaudiocafe.co.uk

Just picking up on a point made earlier in this thread - Now, I'm not by any means an enemy of mp3 and the iPod revolution - I spend a lot of time on trains and my iPod is a life improving device that gives me access to my entire musical collection, even though it fits in my pocket with enough room spare for a couple more!

My big gripe is on 'in the ear headphones' - I utterly detest them. I hate using them myself (never do - throw them straight in the bin when I got my first iPod), and I hate to think people are listening to music that I've mastered through these awful things. Apart from the 2 or 3 'specialist' sets available (ie.. the Bose or TLA ones that slot quite deep into the ear meaning Bass freqs are better maintained), the majority of in the ear headphones take a good 20-60% off the low end of any track, and if they work their way out of your ear a little (which they tend do), the upper mids boost in a nasty, harsh way - it's unbelieveable the level of degradation that people will accept to have these bloody things in their ears!

I use a small, compact, foldable pair of 'over the head' Panasonic headphones - they are superb - generally great sound and frequencey representation, and because they fold up, they only take up a shade more space than nasty in ear headphones do. They're marvelous - I'm on my 3rd set as I wear them hard and granted they won't last as long as in the ear headphones but at least your music will sound fairly close to how it should. And the aforementioned Panasonic headphones are only around £7 on eBay !

There's no excuse - please throw away your 'in the ear' headphones, especially the Apple ones which I find worst!

Ahhh, I feel much better for that rant!.

--------------------
David
www.village-mastering.co.uk

I do exactly the same thing! I hate those in-ear things.

I've got myself a foldable pair of Sennheisers. Far, far better.

i read that article on my degree course, reallly interesting and extremly true. It's up to us to bring it down!

--------------------
www.stablehousestudios.co.uk

I totally agree but... Could I just throw a spanner in the works? I don't listen to much classical music these days (do to more concerts than listen to cds) I actually wish classical engineers used a little compression, because quiet passages on CD sound so bad. I think CDs were just specced too early, but I don't see high def formats making much of an inroad into the market.

--------------------
Daniel Davis
Edinburgh Recording Studio Windmill Sound

Why do the quiet bits sound bad? Surely they just sound quieter?

Can't see anything wrong with that, if that's what the composer wanted.

One unfortunate error in the article, which I've seen in quite a few places recently, is that the author seems to think that compression of audio and compression of data to make mp3s are the same thing. It says that records are 'further compressed' into mp3 format, and suggests that offering higher-quality mp3 formats somehow improves matters.

Maybe one way out of the loudness war would be for manufacturers to start providing audio compression on CD and mp3 players - most of them have digital eq on them so it wouldn't be much of an extra step to add a limiter.

--------------------
http://youngdavid.net

What's the solution to the loudness war though?

How do you retain dynamics and subtle nuance in your music whilst still having a radio mix that cuts it in the mainstream?

I remember listening to a compilation of Sly and The Family Stone's hits...All the tracks sounded pretty loud although this may have been down to the 'digitally enhanced' mastering.

Those guys made interesting use of the stereo field though

Edited by IK (17/10/07 02:59 PM)

Quote David / Village:

---

There's no excuse - please throw away your 'in the ear' headphones, especially the Apple ones which I find worst!

Ahhh, I feel much better for that rant!.

---

Well I haven't thrown them away, but I have never actually used them. I bought some Sennheiser In Ear jobbies which I really like. I can't wear the Apple style In Ear ones as they are really uncomfortable, bu the deep in ear ones I find are really comfy.

Thought of using headphones, but the whole idea of ipods is their compactness.

I have some seneiser in ears to and they are great for the money circa £30, bottom end is quite coloured but very listenable.

I agree that the loudness war has gone to far, its clear when you crank some chilli peppers tracks the highs are so piercing it's uncomfortable for my delicate ears.

The problem is when a client is in the studio they naturally want to compete with perceived loudness of other artists and often artists with very minimal arrangement/ultra-heavy limiting and compression.

I always try to get the midrange of my recordings just right as I find in reality this goes further to helping it cut through on the radio, tv and boom box type systems than extreme limiting.

--------------------
Pro Tools HD3 Studio www.alt-mu.co.uk

I recently mixed and mastered a 14 track hip-hop / R&B album, and after running all the tracks through Wavelab it was averaging -10db (original mixes were -16db).

The record company rejected it - its too quiet. Now the client wants me to compress and limit the remaining life out of it, as the label have said they need an average of -6db!!! At the moment there is dynamic between the vocals and beat, and a really nice smooth sound. I hate to think what the new -6db is going to sound like - am putting that task off until Monday.

Crazy thing is the artist loves the way it sounds right now, but has had to tow the line of his record co.

Did anyone attend the MPG loudness wars event at Alchemy Soho and can give us a report?
Couldn't get in myself - already full.

Quote CrunchyPunch:

---

Did anyone attend the MPG loudness wars event at Alchemy Soho and can give us a report?
Couldn't get in myself - already full.

---

I was there, and it was very interesting indeed. No concrete solutions, but a lot of interesting stories. If anyone thinks that the top guys are immune from the effects of the loudness war, think again -- Tony Platt, Mick Glossop, Ray Staff, and Tim Young all had tales to tell...

The most oft-repeated message of the evening was this: always deliver a mix to the mastering engineer without buss processing, even if it's important to the sound. By all means deliver a processed version as well as a guide, but they simply can't do anything with a file which has no dynamics. I'd thought that this was fairly obvious, personally, but apparently not to a lot of musicians.

--------------------
Mixing Secrets for the Small Studio
A complete mixing method based around the techniques of the world's most famous producers.

I didn't get the volume part in the video.

When you increase or reduce the volume aren't the dynamics meant to stay the same,or is it a compressor type algorithm?

When I got my last album mastered, the engineer mistook my instructions to mean make the damned thing as loud as humanly possible. it sounded aweful. I got him to start again from scratch. Sounded much better 2nd time around.

Stece

--------------------
www.hauntedhouserecords.co.uk

Quote Music Manic:

---

I didn't get the volume part in the video.

When you increase or reduce the volume aren't the dynamics meant to stay the same,or is it a compressor type algorithm?

---

Is this relating to standard playback system, in that when you turn up the volume your average hi-fi will compress the audio anyway?

Those last two posts just show some of the problem, a lack of understanding to the meaning of dynamics, and 'loud'.

Dynamics is the contrast between louder and softer . So a drum hit will be punchier if the musical level is quieter before the hit. In other words, the hit has room to go 'bang'!

And in this world of dumb 'loudness' wars, any use of the phrase 'as loud as possible' is pure madness!!!

--------------------
PA stuff on FB

Quote CrunchyPunch:

---

Quote Music Manic:

---

I didn't get the volume part in the video.

When you increase or reduce the volume aren't the dynamics meant to stay the same,or is it a compressor type algorithm?

---

Is this relating to standard playback system, in that when you turn up the volume your average hi-fi will compress the audio anyway?

---

No CP I was talking about the loudness option programs like, Cubase,Logic etc have to increase the audio object's sound level.

In the video above he shows that he peaks are lost which means it's a type of compressor.

When you noramlise an audio recording aren't the dynamics meant to stay the same theoretically?

When something is made to sound louder,as we're talking about here it's the RMS level that's dealt with.
This just makes the dynamics smaller,more fatiguing and less musical overall.

Was just wondering what he was using in the video.

Thanks

Quote Guy Johnson:

---

Those last two posts just show some of the problem, a lack of understanding to the meaning of dynamics, and 'loud'.

Dynamics is the contrast between louder and softer . So a drum hit will be punchier if the musical level is quieter before the hit. In other words, the hit has room to go 'bang'!

And in this world of dumb 'loudness' wars, any use of the phrase 'as loud as possible' is pure madness!!!

---

Not necessarily; a drum can sound punchier if you increase it's attack level comparative to the rest of the DSR.

Loudness can mean two things:

increasing amplitude
increasing RMS.

The second one will always be louder than the first.

(Sorry if this has been highlighted before).
I go the new Elbow album today and upon reading the liner notes i read this statement. "To preserve the excitement, emotion and dynamics of the original performances this record is intentionally quieter than some. For full enjoyment simply Turn Me UP! (www.turnmeup.org).

Bravo i say! I always loved this band, i like that they care. The Site is worth a look too...interesting!

Quote Music Manic:

---

Quote CrunchyPunch:

---

Quote Music Manic:

---

I didn't get the volume part in the video.

When you increase or reduce the volume aren't the dynamics meant to stay the same,or is it a compressor type algorithm?

---

Is this relating to standard playback system, in that when you turn up the volume your average hi-fi will compress the audio anyway?

---

No CP I was talking about the loudness option programs like, Cubase,Logic etc have to increase the audio object's sound level.

In the video above he shows that he peaks are lost which means it's a type of compressor.

When you noramlise an audio recording aren't the dynamics meant to stay the same theoretically?

When something is made to sound louder,as we're talking about here it's the RMS level that's dealt with.
This just makes the dynamics smaller,more fatiguing and less musical overall.

Was just wondering what he was using in the video.

Thanks

---

Sorry, thought you were talking about a video at the seminar and not the youtube stream above.
Its certainly not a function of any DAW that I am familiar with but perhaps some kind of virtualisation to help explain what happens to the audio.

I don't know about you but a percieved loudness does give the perception that you are listening to loud music like say at a gig.
The ear does actually have an inbuilt compression system when it encounters loud music and is akin to the compression/limiting techniques used in mastering. At least having a loud master gives the impression of being somewhere loud without having to turn it up. Obviously this isn't beneficial for every kind of music but certainly the kids who listen to rock/pop/rap/dance are going to enjoy the inyerfaceness of it.
Of course, there are limits and no one what to listen to a breathless piece of squash but in turn too much dynamics can sound really crap where all the interesting and melodic detail is swimming somewhere around the noise floor.
Aswell, I know if I turned up the volume on the example given in that youtube video above then I could be faced with some very severe hearing damage - that 'gunshot' snare comes in way too loud! In fact the most deaf people in the world are an eskimo people who listen to nothing all day waiting for a seal to swim by a hole in the ice and then.... BANG! the seal is dead, but so is another ear hair.

Edited by CrunchyPunch (20/03/08 10:42 AM)

I see some positive in the future, in terms of digital compression to mp3 anyway; generally memory doubles every year, as far as I know it has been doing so for many years and its not expected to slow down any time soon. So ipods and mp3s should continue to get bigger and bigger in terms of storage space and so be capable of holding larger uncompressed files such as wavs. Im no expert but I can see mp3s as being a thing of the past in 10 years time.

fingers crossed.

Quote [AudiosyncratiK]:

---

Im no expert but I can see mp3s as being a thing of the past in 10 years time.

fingers crossed.

---

I hope it's sooner.

This is really awesome to see this issue finally make it to a mainstream source! I produce the music for the band I'm currently in and I cannot stand to wring out every last drop of dynamic thats in our music. It's one of my goals as a part of this band to make our first album compression free. I'm not sure if the listeners will think it 'sounds good' at first, but if they enjoy the attitude and composition of our music enough, they'll turn up the volume for themselves.

My opinion is it's all about marketing. At the moment there's no attempt to advise the general public that their product is sub-standard and due to the ignorance of the issue the problem continues. It's all about the marketing these days wouldn't you agree? I can see 'super-dynamic' being used to give less compressed material a positive spin (as it should be!) in much the same way as omega 3 is used to sell fish fingers etc! The problem we run into is that the 'war' will continue if not everyone participates. My suggestion is this: release 2 versions of the material - one marketed for listening with background noise and one without. So your ipod earbud wearing brigade can still have their cr@ppy media through cr@ppy medium and then go home, stick the higher bit/sample rate less compressed version on their hifi and hopefully get an incite into what they're missing. I don't imagine this being a huge extra expense on behalf of the labels?

H

Its a tough one because I can bet you that the vast majority of the 'I like to listen to songs on my phone' public will barely notice a difference and so it would be just us and a few others wanting the dynamics.

What I mean is at the moment there isnt enough demand for the record label to sell two versions. Then again someone (a label) could also set the standard, how long does it take to do some compression and or limiting?