On September 03 2009 07:39 Dewis wrote: Seems like many don't actually get what this really is about. It's not about the volume the end-listener uses, but the dynamics in the music. When records are mastered as loud as possible, the tracks are run through a lot of compressors and limiters which eventually fuck up all the dynamics in music.
It's really funny if you listen to some band that has played for like 30 years. Use constant volume. Start listening to a song from the first album, then move on to the next album. At some point you'll see a drastic rise in the volume level.
Eh. I guess I never noticed since I listen to genre's that either have very crisp production, or very coarse unadultered rapage (Black Metal). If you don't enjoy the production value then simply don't buy the album or listen to the music. No one is forcing you to pirate or purchase the music, simply look for music that fits your taste (Trust me, there is music out there for everyone).
Besides, different production values at least in the music I listen to create a variance in the music that is appreciated...
Thats not true, a lot of good music also gets affected by the loudness war. To give you one example, one of my favorite bands of all time, the red hot chili peppers, had one of their best albums (californication) COMPLETELY raped by a studio engineer. its one of my favorite albums of all time, but its also one of the most poorly mastered albums ever, making it almost unlistenable on any remotely decent audio system (unless loud static, clipping, and sibilance don't bother you). there is literally no good recording of that album available on the market
I dont care if mainstream rap/pop/etc. goes to hell and becomes unlistenable, but I DO care when good bands get affected and are forced to release poorly recorded albums
A lot of people buy CDs because they offer better sound quality than mp3s. If CDs start to sound like compressed pieces of crap, then why bother spending money when mp3s sound the same (or possibly even better, since the high frequency compression can sometimes mask poor mastering)
Can you provide a way to compare?
compare the sound quality of vocals/drums/guitars to any radiohead or RATM album,
or, to a lesser extent, compare to an earlier redhotchilipeppers album (i.e. blood sugar sex magik)
On September 03 2009 07:39 Dewis wrote: Seems like many don't actually get what this really is about. It's not about the volume the end-listener uses, but the dynamics in the music. When records are mastered as loud as possible, the tracks are run through a lot of compressors and limiters which eventually fuck up all the dynamics in music.
It's really funny if you listen to some band that has played for like 30 years. Use constant volume. Start listening to a song from the first album, then move on to the next album. At some point you'll see a drastic rise in the volume level.
Eh. I guess I never noticed since I listen to genre's that either have very crisp production, or very coarse unadultered rapage (Black Metal). If you don't enjoy the production value then simply don't buy the album or listen to the music. No one is forcing you to pirate or purchase the music, simply look for music that fits your taste (Trust me, there is music out there for everyone).
Besides, different production values at least in the music I listen to create a variance in the music that is appreciated...
Thats not true, a lot of good music also gets affected by the loudness war. To give you one example, one of my favorite bands of all time, the red hot chili peppers, had one of their best albums (californication) COMPLETELY raped by a studio engineer. its one of my favorite albums of all time, but its also one of the most poorly mastered albums ever, making it almost unlistenable on any remotely decent audio system (unless loud static, clipping, and sibilance don't bother you). there is literally no good recording of that album available on the market
I dont care if mainstream rap/pop/etc. goes to hell and becomes unlistenable, but I DO care when good bands get affected and are forced to release poorly recorded albums
A lot of people buy CDs because they offer better sound quality than mp3s. If CDs start to sound like compressed pieces of crap, then why bother spending money when mp3s sound the same (or possibly even better, since the high frequency compression can sometimes mask poor mastering)
Can you provide a way to compare?
compare the sound quality of vocals/drums/guitars to any radiohead or RATM album,
or, to a lesser extent, compare to an earlier redhotchilipeppers album (i.e. blood sugar sex magik)
This is ridiculous. It's like asking someone to compare Burzum to Keep of Kalessin.
Not every band has the same production value, nor should they. It's what differentiates them even within the same genre. Frankly, I don't notice the "loudness" factor, but I guess that's because of my tastes. Red Hot Chili Peppers is pop music, by the way.
On September 03 2009 02:58 the_enborfser wrote: The worst part of being a musician is knowing that anything you record is going to end up way over-compressed and in mp3 form... i hate mp3s so much
This is why Loseless was invented.
Granted a 6 minute song takes up like 70 MB but since a TB Harddrive is cheap as all get go nowadays I can't say that I mind.
As someone who works at musical production, I'll give a more in-depth analysis of this.
to a layman, you will play two songs, and they will generally say that the louder one sounds better. This is much more extreme with mp3 players, as the quality is degraded and headphones are used. Not only that, but in order to notice the more minute details, you have to hear at a rather high volume anyways (also the reason that commercials are usually annoyingly louder than any TV show).
BUT, if you raise the volume so the average volume of the tracks is equal, then to that same person, the one that isn't mixed/mastered to be loud tends to sound more organic and dramatic. This is the main reason why most film scores have lower volumes than music on CDs.
Generally speaking, if you create the music and take care of all the minute details in the sound, your mix will be rather loud anyways... Taking this to extremes is important for sales, because on MTV, Radio and iPods, louder to the layman is more impressive, and if you're song/track isn't as loud as the rest, casual listeners will just notice it less.
How do we know it goes too far sometimes?
The perfect example is Metallica - they released an album and a song on Guitar Hero around the same time. The Guitar Hero version sounds ridiculously more impressive because the entire album has been pumped in volume to such extremes that it's missing a lot of important subtleties, while the Guitar Hero version had to leave space for the effects of the game, and therefor was not nearly as forced.
Another important fact: listening to music that's been pumped to extreme levels becomes tiring to the ear after a while. You won't know why you're doing it, but after feeling really pumped about the first few songs you'll want a change of music, if not to turn it off completely... That initial rush of "wow this sounds BIG" just fades over time.
tl;dr
Loudness = better sales. So what if it's annoying sometimes?
On September 03 2009 07:39 Dewis wrote: Seems like many don't actually get what this really is about. It's not about the volume the end-listener uses, but the dynamics in the music. When records are mastered as loud as possible, the tracks are run through a lot of compressors and limiters which eventually fuck up all the dynamics in music.
It's really funny if you listen to some band that has played for like 30 years. Use constant volume. Start listening to a song from the first album, then move on to the next album. At some point you'll see a drastic rise in the volume level.
Eh. I guess I never noticed since I listen to genre's that either have very crisp production, or very coarse unadultered rapage (Black Metal). If you don't enjoy the production value then simply don't buy the album or listen to the music. No one is forcing you to pirate or purchase the music, simply look for music that fits your taste (Trust me, there is music out there for everyone).
Besides, different production values at least in the music I listen to create a variance in the music that is appreciated...
Thats not true, a lot of good music also gets affected by the loudness war. To give you one example, one of my favorite bands of all time, the red hot chili peppers, had one of their best albums (californication) COMPLETELY raped by a studio engineer. its one of my favorite albums of all time, but its also one of the most poorly mastered albums ever, making it almost unlistenable on any remotely decent audio system (unless loud static, clipping, and sibilance don't bother you). there is literally no good recording of that album available on the market
I dont care if mainstream rap/pop/etc. goes to hell and becomes unlistenable, but I DO care when good bands get affected and are forced to release poorly recorded albums
A lot of people buy CDs because they offer better sound quality than mp3s. If CDs start to sound like compressed pieces of crap, then why bother spending money when mp3s sound the same (or possibly even better, since the high frequency compression can sometimes mask poor mastering)
Can you provide a way to compare?
compare the sound quality of vocals/drums/guitars to any radiohead or RATM album,
or, to a lesser extent, compare to an earlier redhotchilipeppers album (i.e. blood sugar sex magik)
This is ridiculous. It's like asking someone to compare Burzum to Keep of Kalessin.
Not every band has the same production value, nor should they. It's what differentiates them even within the same genre. Frankly, I don't notice the "loudness" factor, but I guess that's because of my tastes. Red Hot Chili Peppers is pop music, by the way.
no its not ridiculous.
this has nothing to do with budget. mastering too loud is like an artist spending money to REDUCE sound quality. except in reality, the artist often opposes the idea, but the record labels do it anyway because the whole loudness crap
and i have no idea how you can possibly classify red hot chili peppers as "pop." theyre about as far away from pop as possible
On September 03 2009 07:39 Dewis wrote: Seems like many don't actually get what this really is about. It's not about the volume the end-listener uses, but the dynamics in the music. When records are mastered as loud as possible, the tracks are run through a lot of compressors and limiters which eventually fuck up all the dynamics in music.
It's really funny if you listen to some band that has played for like 30 years. Use constant volume. Start listening to a song from the first album, then move on to the next album. At some point you'll see a drastic rise in the volume level.
Eh. I guess I never noticed since I listen to genre's that either have very crisp production, or very coarse unadultered rapage (Black Metal). If you don't enjoy the production value then simply don't buy the album or listen to the music. No one is forcing you to pirate or purchase the music, simply look for music that fits your taste (Trust me, there is music out there for everyone).
Besides, different production values at least in the music I listen to create a variance in the music that is appreciated...
Thats not true, a lot of good music also gets affected by the loudness war. To give you one example, one of my favorite bands of all time, the red hot chili peppers, had one of their best albums (californication) COMPLETELY raped by a studio engineer. its one of my favorite albums of all time, but its also one of the most poorly mastered albums ever, making it almost unlistenable on any remotely decent audio system (unless loud static, clipping, and sibilance don't bother you). there is literally no good recording of that album available on the market
I dont care if mainstream rap/pop/etc. goes to hell and becomes unlistenable, but I DO care when good bands get affected and are forced to release poorly recorded albums
A lot of people buy CDs because they offer better sound quality than mp3s. If CDs start to sound like compressed pieces of crap, then why bother spending money when mp3s sound the same (or possibly even better, since the high frequency compression can sometimes mask poor mastering)
Can you provide a way to compare?
compare the sound quality of vocals/drums/guitars to any radiohead or RATM album,
or, to a lesser extent, compare to an earlier redhotchilipeppers album (i.e. blood sugar sex magik)
This is ridiculous. It's like asking someone to compare Burzum to Keep of Kalessin.
Not every band has the same production value, nor should they. It's what differentiates them even within the same genre. Frankly, I don't notice the "loudness" factor, but I guess that's because of my tastes. Red Hot Chili Peppers is pop music, by the way.
no its not ridiculous.
this has nothing to do with budget. mastering too loud is like an artist spending money to REDUCE sound quality. except in reality, the artist often opposes the idea, but the record labels do it anyway because the whole loudness crap
and i have no idea how you can possibly classify red hot chili peppers as "pop." theyre about as far away from pop as possible
I classify just about everything that is mainstream as pop. Easily digestable, mass produced...mainstream, yeah pretty much pop.
And yes, it is ridiculous. It's not about budget, its about the style of production. I'm glad you know exactly how the members of Red Hot Chili Peppers feel. To be honest I feel your beef is with the other instruments drowning out, say the Bass guitar for example. This isn't to do with "loudness" rather than a lack of focus on the backdrop of the music. This has been the case forever. Some bands forego this and focus on say, the lead guitar, some focus on the drums, etc. That's why I said each band has different production values, find the band that best suits you.
It's like complaining about Children of Bodom synths overshadowing the bass guitar...Ridiculous, because the band isn't about the bass guitar.
On September 03 2009 07:39 Dewis wrote: Seems like many don't actually get what this really is about. It's not about the volume the end-listener uses, but the dynamics in the music. When records are mastered as loud as possible, the tracks are run through a lot of compressors and limiters which eventually fuck up all the dynamics in music.
It's really funny if you listen to some band that has played for like 30 years. Use constant volume. Start listening to a song from the first album, then move on to the next album. At some point you'll see a drastic rise in the volume level.
Eh. I guess I never noticed since I listen to genre's that either have very crisp production, or very coarse unadultered rapage (Black Metal). If you don't enjoy the production value then simply don't buy the album or listen to the music. No one is forcing you to pirate or purchase the music, simply look for music that fits your taste (Trust me, there is music out there for everyone).
Besides, different production values at least in the music I listen to create a variance in the music that is appreciated...
Thats not true, a lot of good music also gets affected by the loudness war. To give you one example, one of my favorite bands of all time, the red hot chili peppers, had one of their best albums (californication) COMPLETELY raped by a studio engineer. its one of my favorite albums of all time, but its also one of the most poorly mastered albums ever, making it almost unlistenable on any remotely decent audio system (unless loud static, clipping, and sibilance don't bother you). there is literally no good recording of that album available on the market
I dont care if mainstream rap/pop/etc. goes to hell and becomes unlistenable, but I DO care when good bands get affected and are forced to release poorly recorded albums
A lot of people buy CDs because they offer better sound quality than mp3s. If CDs start to sound like compressed pieces of crap, then why bother spending money when mp3s sound the same (or possibly even better, since the high frequency compression can sometimes mask poor mastering)
Can you provide a way to compare?
compare the sound quality of vocals/drums/guitars to any radiohead or RATM album,
or, to a lesser extent, compare to an earlier redhotchilipeppers album (i.e. blood sugar sex magik)
This is ridiculous. It's like asking someone to compare Burzum to Keep of Kalessin.
Not every band has the same production value, nor should they. It's what differentiates them even within the same genre. Frankly, I don't notice the "loudness" factor, but I guess that's because of my tastes. Red Hot Chili Peppers is pop music, by the way.
no its not ridiculous.
this has nothing to do with budget. mastering too loud is like an artist spending money to REDUCE sound quality. except in reality, the artist often opposes the idea, but the record labels do it anyway because the whole loudness crap
and i have no idea how you can possibly classify red hot chili peppers as "pop." theyre about as far away from pop as possible
I classify just about everything that is mainstream as pop. Easily digestable, mass produced...mainstream, yeah pretty much pop.
And yes, it is ridiculous. It's not about budget, its about the style of production. I'm glad you know exactly how the members of Red Hot Chili Peppers feel. To be honest I feel your beef is with the other instruments drowning out, say the Bass guitar for example. This isn't to do with "loudness" rather than a lack of focus on the backdrop of the music. This has been the case forever. Some bands forego this and focus on say, the lead guitar, some focus on the drums, etc. That's why I said each band has different production values, find the band that best suits you.
It's like complaining about Children of Bodom synths overshadowing the bass guitar...Ridiculous, because the band isn't about the bass guitar.
your definition of pop is ridiculous. using your definition, are you saying that pink floyd, metallica, tupac, etc. should all be considered pop? theyre just as "mainstream" as RHCP
and no, its not about an instrument drowning out. its about there being extremely audible STATIC in anthony's voice (I mean literally static) and ridiculous sibilance in drum snares that makes their "cd quality" album sound like something off the radio.
there is NOTHING wrong with making an album louder. there IS something wrong when you try to push volume PAST the maximum possible volume, and achieve that goal by using processes that degrade sound quality
heres a quote from the wikipedia page for californication
The album received criticism for what Tim Anderson of The Guardian called "excessive compression and distortion" in the process of digital mastering.[34] Stylus Magazine labeled it as one of the victims of the loudness war and commented that it suffered from digital clipping so much that "even non-audiophile consumers complained about it"
On September 03 2009 07:39 Dewis wrote: Seems like many don't actually get what this really is about. It's not about the volume the end-listener uses, but the dynamics in the music. When records are mastered as loud as possible, the tracks are run through a lot of compressors and limiters which eventually fuck up all the dynamics in music.
It's really funny if you listen to some band that has played for like 30 years. Use constant volume. Start listening to a song from the first album, then move on to the next album. At some point you'll see a drastic rise in the volume level.
Eh. I guess I never noticed since I listen to genre's that either have very crisp production, or very coarse unadultered rapage (Black Metal). If you don't enjoy the production value then simply don't buy the album or listen to the music. No one is forcing you to pirate or purchase the music, simply look for music that fits your taste (Trust me, there is music out there for everyone).
Besides, different production values at least in the music I listen to create a variance in the music that is appreciated...
Thats not true, a lot of good music also gets affected by the loudness war. To give you one example, one of my favorite bands of all time, the red hot chili peppers, had one of their best albums (californication) COMPLETELY raped by a studio engineer. its one of my favorite albums of all time, but its also one of the most poorly mastered albums ever, making it almost unlistenable on any remotely decent audio system (unless loud static, clipping, and sibilance don't bother you). there is literally no good recording of that album available on the market
I dont care if mainstream rap/pop/etc. goes to hell and becomes unlistenable, but I DO care when good bands get affected and are forced to release poorly recorded albums
A lot of people buy CDs because they offer better sound quality than mp3s. If CDs start to sound like compressed pieces of crap, then why bother spending money when mp3s sound the same (or possibly even better, since the high frequency compression can sometimes mask poor mastering)
Can you provide a way to compare?
compare the sound quality of vocals/drums/guitars to any radiohead or RATM album,
or, to a lesser extent, compare to an earlier redhotchilipeppers album (i.e. blood sugar sex magik)
This is ridiculous. It's like asking someone to compare Burzum to Keep of Kalessin.
Not every band has the same production value, nor should they. It's what differentiates them even within the same genre. Frankly, I don't notice the "loudness" factor, but I guess that's because of my tastes. Red Hot Chili Peppers is pop music, by the way.
no its not ridiculous.
this has nothing to do with budget. mastering too loud is like an artist spending money to REDUCE sound quality. except in reality, the artist often opposes the idea, but the record labels do it anyway because the whole loudness crap
and i have no idea how you can possibly classify red hot chili peppers as "pop." theyre about as far away from pop as possible
I classify just about everything that is mainstream as pop. Easily digestable, mass produced...mainstream, yeah pretty much pop.
And yes, it is ridiculous. It's not about budget, its about the style of production. I'm glad you know exactly how the members of Red Hot Chili Peppers feel. To be honest I feel your beef is with the other instruments drowning out, say the Bass guitar for example. This isn't to do with "loudness" rather than a lack of focus on the backdrop of the music. This has been the case forever. Some bands forego this and focus on say, the lead guitar, some focus on the drums, etc. That's why I said each band has different production values, find the band that best suits you.
It's like complaining about Children of Bodom synths overshadowing the bass guitar...Ridiculous, because the band isn't about the bass guitar.
your definition of pop is ridiculous. using your definition, are you saying that pink floyd, metallica, tupac, etc. should all be considered pop? theyre just as "mainstream" as RHCP
and no, its not about an instrument drowning out. its about there being extremely audible STATIC in anthony's voice (I mean literally static) and ridiculous sibilance in drum snares that makes their "cd quality" album sound like something off the radio.
there is NOTHING wrong with making an album louder. there IS something wrong when you try to push volume PAST the maximum possible volume, and achieve that goal by using processes that degrade sound quality
How do you know that isn't what they intended? Not every band, every genre, strives to achieve crisp production values. You seem to very much enjoy that album as referenced before, and even saying that every album has this, yet, it's one of your favorites. What does that tell you?
If you don't enjoy the music, simply don't buy it. Not every band uses distortion in their production. Find one that has production values that fit your tastes..Frankly, I don't see the problem here, maybe that is because my tastes are in a realm where we understand the difference between production value and its effect on the music, creating distinctly different tones and moods.
Yes, I consider them pop, just like Mars Volta and all the rest. There are so many bands that are like RHCP, mass produced. Pop isn't only confined to the Britney Spears of the world. Also, I'm going to PM you a song and I want you to tell me if "loudness war" plays a factor. Just to give you an idea how the production value dictates the direction the band wants to go in. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that it's a negative on the whole and that it somehow is going to end up in a society of deaf mutes, or hearing aid dependants because there is still something called the volume knob.
On September 03 2009 10:12 gameguard wrote: just ignore anything aegraen says.
His just not so subtly saying "the music i listen to is better then yours."
That's not what I'm saying at all. Music is music, no better than the rest, as each person has different tastes. I'm sure people would be rolling their eyes at some of my taste
I'm saying that not having crisp production values doesn't mean there is something inherently wrong there. Some bands, some albums, seek to not have perfect production on purpose to create different moods and tones. It's ridiculous to see this is a wholly negative aspect.
its good i started biking to class now so i really dont use my ipod anymore. i use to turn the volume pretty high up so that i couldnt hear traffic or my friends who saw me on campus :p
On September 03 2009 07:39 Dewis wrote: Seems like many don't actually get what this really is about. It's not about the volume the end-listener uses, but the dynamics in the music. When records are mastered as loud as possible, the tracks are run through a lot of compressors and limiters which eventually fuck up all the dynamics in music.
It's really funny if you listen to some band that has played for like 30 years. Use constant volume. Start listening to a song from the first album, then move on to the next album. At some point you'll see a drastic rise in the volume level.
I noticed this recently too. I downloaded songs from 80s/90s and they are all quiet as fuck compared to the new mp3s. This is really annoying when listening to a playlist because you have to constantly aadjust the volume. I ended up using some program to raise the overall dB lvls. You can only do like +3 or +6 dB without causing distortion due to that cap your talking about.
This is sooooo annoying. I'm way too lazy to manually adjust all the volumes. I wish they'd keep the avg volume the same for all recordings, standardize it that would be so much better on an mp3 player. I had to turn down all the bars on the equalizer just to get it to a reasonably low volume for most of the music I have =/
On September 03 2009 03:04 fanatacist wrote: MP3s have progressed the distribution of music beyond any former boundaries available to both professional and amateur musicians. Life without MP3s would be a life without exposure, a life without options, a life without motivation to push forward and record that next song that might be a sleeper hit. Higher quality sound rates of MP3 manage to capture many of the original sounds unless you incorporate dog whistles and million watt sub woofers into your musical range, which would be both ridiculous and hilarious for anyone in your presence.
So now that anybody who can pick up a guitar a play a few chords can now write 'music'. Yeah, thanks for that progressed distribution oh glorious MP3. And MP3's don't come close to matching an original recording. Try listening to classical music in MP3 form and then listen to the same track off of a CD, even at high bit rates it will never come close to matching the original audio... and both will never come close to the live experience.
Ever since music existed a person could pick up an instrument and write music. Big innovations in sound engineering and the psychology behind sound have been made because of this.
More exposure means more musicians which means more music, sure this lowers the percentage of good music to mediocre or bad music, but ultimately it creates more good music, you just have to look harder to find it, there are SO much more good songs and musicians in the past 1-20 (i guess you could even say 30) years than previously. I feel overwhelmed by how much good music there is to listen to now. Even a musical cripple can accidentally stumble onto a great beat or catchy song.
On September 03 2009 10:24 krazymunky wrote: its good i started biking to class now so i really dont use my ipod anymore. i use to turn the volume pretty high up so that i couldnt hear traffic or my friends who saw me on campus :p
On September 03 2009 10:44 snorlax wrote: hence why screamo absolutely fails, death metal used to sound decent despite it not being to my taste but now its all about volume
What exactly is it that makes screamo absolutely fail?
EPT
