The loudness war refers to the increasing average volume of recorded music over the last 20-30 years or so (it's debatable exactly when the "war" started). The music industry has been steadily increasing the average volume of their releases; which include albums, radio broadcasts, singles, etc. A major reason why it happens is because the loudest track in a song rotation tends to draw the most attention from listeners, so there is a "survival of the fittest" effect in which record companies have incentive to produce louder music. This effect is bad for consumers because it lowers sound quality and encourages dangerous/unhealthy listening volumes.
So, why should you care about any of this? Well, first off there are health effects that you may or may not know about.
If you stand at a busy intersection, the sound of traffic can easily reach 80-90+ dB in volume, even inside a car. Now listen to your ipod/mp3 player. Can you clearly hear your music over the sound of traffic? If you can, then you are probably causing permanent, irreversible damage to your ears. If you listen to your music regularly at that volume, there is a high probability that you will need a hearing aid when you get older. But why don't all old people have hearing aids then? Because you are living in the first generation that suffers from this problem. Ipods/mp3 players are new, and the loudness war which encourages increasingly loud listening levels is new.
Second, if you care about music, you probably care at least a little bit about sound quality. A recorded album cannot get infinitely louder. CD quality recording offers about 90 dB of dynamic range, which basically means you can have a range of 90dB between the loudest sound and the quietest sound. 90 dB is more than enough for 99.99999% of music. Classical orchestras tend to have the widest dynamic ranges in music, but even the most dynamic pieces rarely exceed 40dBs of dynamic range.
However, a problem arises when you try to push all sounds (both quiet and loud) to higher volumes. You eventually hit the volume ceiling of the medium, which causes clipping (very bad distortion, not the "good" distortion that guitar amps/etc. use) unless you use a limiter/compressor. A limiter basically reduces the dynamic range of music (makes louder sounds quieter and/or quieter sounds louder).
Due to the loudness war, and the excessive overuse of limiters in the modern music industry, typical modern recordings often use only the highest 5dB of a CD's dynamic range (thats 5dBs of range on a medium that offers 90dB of range). That means a whisper can only be 5dB quieter than a drum snare; you can imagine how negatively this affects sound quality. Some artists still produce good recordings, but they are becoming increasingly rare, ESPECIALLY in the genres of rap, hiphop, and popular music.
Pretty sad when you think about it. So now, the next time you make fun of popular music (mainstream rap/pop/etc.) for being crappy, you'll have objective/scientific evidence that explains why it sucks
edit: Here is a good video explanation I just found
On September 03 2009 02:48 fanatacist wrote: One word: screamo.
Funny that you mention that. A lot of modern rap is actually recorded louder than 99% of screamo. Meaning if you set your music player at a certain volume, a mainstream rap CD would sound louder than many screamo CDs.
Some artists still produce good recordings, but they are becoming increasingly rare, ESPECIALLY in the genres of rap, hiphop, and popular music.
I do not agree with this. I do realize modern mixing is pumping alot of the stuff up, but knowing how to do it is really unique. There are a bazillion of talented guys with this trend that are awesome.
However you must also appreciate the fact that screamo is more often than not lacking in any sort of harmonic value in the vocals, is shrill and deafening, and is not much quieter than the typical hip hop track which actually focuses on the lower tones, with bass lines and such.
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.
Some artists still produce good recordings, but they are becoming increasingly rare, ESPECIALLY in the genres of rap, hiphop, and popular music.
I do not agree with this. I do realize modern mixing is pumping alot of the stuff up, but knowing how to do it is really unique. There are a bazillion of talented guys with this trend that are awesome.
I'm not sure you understand what I mean by "good recording"
Any "loud" song can be recorded and produced at a lower volume, which improves sound quality in an objective way. The listener can then choose to make that song 100% the same volume as the original "loud" version, only they have to increase the volume on their music player slightly.
You might think that compression doesn't hurt rap, but keep in mind that it DOES affect voices and drum beats. people hear the word distortion and think about "good" distortion like electric guitars or talkboxes (tpain/etc.), but that's not necessarily true. these things I am talking about (limiting/clipping/etc.) do NOT produce "good" distortion. There is very very little good that comes out of those effects other than allowing louder volumes.
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.
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.
There is nothing hugely wrong with mp3s. anything encoded at 256kbps or higher (or with a good VBR encoder) is essentially the same as lossless audio unless you have a very high end audio system. There may be some sibilance and/or rolloff in high frequencies, but average listeners can't tell
The kind of compression that mp3s create is "bad," but its nothing compared to stuff that some mastering engineers do in studios.
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.
This is a huge exaggeration. Yes mp3s and digital distrubtion (amateur or otherwise) have allowed for greater market and audience reach for all levels of musicians, but you took it way too far.
i thought this thread was about that game where you and a friend yell "penis" or some other vulgarity louder and louder in a public place until one person gives up
Luckily for me I listen to mostly Black Metal and MDM / Tech Death. Unlucky for me, I listen to music quite loudly, but I enjoy it so I guess hearing aid here I come when I turn 70.
Anyways dB recording doesn't matter as much as how loud you listen to the music. If you record it at 120dB it won't matter if you play it on volume 1.
On September 03 2009 03:20 Hot_Bid wrote: i thought this thread was about that game where you and a friend yell "penis" or some other vulgarity louder and louder in a public place until one person gives up
That's what I've been doing in this thread. I thought that's what it was about?
On September 03 2009 03:20 Hot_Bid wrote: i thought this thread was about that game where you and a friend yell "penis" or some other vulgarity louder and louder in a public place until one person gives up
that reminds in 7th grade i did that with a few friends and we got in trouble
On September 03 2009 03:25 Aegraen wrote: Luckily for me I listen to mostly Black Metal and MDM / Tech Death. Unlucky for me, I listen to music quite loudly, but I enjoy it so I guess hearing aid here I come when I turn 70.
Anyways dB recording doesn't matter as much as how loud you listen to the music. If you record it at 120dB it won't matter if you play it on volume 1.
well that's my point... it does matter. you can't just pick a random volume and record at that volume. CDs have a set natural range. in order to make something louder, you have to compress the sound more and more (reduce sound quality more and more, to get louder sound).
"heavy" music doesn't have to be loud. Listen to rage against the machine's albums for reference. Their albums are among the most well recorded albums in history.
On September 03 2009 02:46 Wangsta wrote: Pretty sad when you think about it. So now, the next time you make fun of popular music (mainstream rap/pop/etc.) for being crappy, you'll have objective/scientific evidence that explains why it sucks
It's not limited to mainstream music though. In fact, my first introduction to the loudness war came from hearing Eddie Trunk bitch about how some of his favorite bands were taking part.
I think u can get better sound quality by recording at a higher volume, because u don´t need to amplify (and distort) the sound if u want to hear it very loud.
On September 03 2009 03:58 nicoaldo wrote: I think u can get better sound quality by recording at a higher volume, because u don´t need to amplify (and distort) the sound if u want to hear it very loud.
thats not really true (CDs, and most other modern mediums, are digital not analog)
I hate when dumbasses install huge speaker systems into their cars and drive around with their bass turned up tp deafening levels. If they want to enjoy their own music, that's cool, whatever. But do they really need to let the entire neighborhood know that they love soulja boy?
On September 03 2009 04:05 ghostWriter wrote: I hate when dumbasses install huge speaker systems into their cars and drive around with their bass turned up tp deafening levels. If they want to enjoy their own music, that's cool, whatever. But do they really need to let the entire neighborhood know that they love soulja boy?
I love blasting shit with my friends when the song is especially epic and we are baked. However we have taste so we enlighten the neighborhood to the wonders of Russian rap with a classical music beat, and Big Bang/Epik High.
On September 03 2009 04:05 ghostWriter wrote: I hate when dumbasses install huge speaker systems into their cars and drive around with their bass turned up tp deafening levels. If they want to enjoy their own music, that's cool, whatever. But do they really need to let the entire neighborhood know that they love soulja boy?
I love blasting shit with my friends when the song is especially epic and we are baked. However we have taste so we enlighten the neighborhood to the wonders of Russian rap with a classical music beat, and Big Bang/Epik High.
That's all good but what if someone just hates the genre. It's not like they can escape the deafening music.
On September 03 2009 04:05 ghostWriter wrote: I hate when dumbasses install huge speaker systems into their cars and drive around with their bass turned up tp deafening levels. If they want to enjoy their own music, that's cool, whatever. But do they really need to let the entire neighborhood know that they love soulja boy?
I love blasting shit with my friends when the song is especially epic and we are baked. However we have taste so we enlighten the neighborhood to the wonders of Russian rap with a classical music beat, and Big Bang/Epik High.
That's all good but what if someone just hates the genre. It's not like they can escape the deafening music.
Then they should have chosen where they lived more carefully by finding out if I live there first. End of story.
On September 03 2009 03:58 nicoaldo wrote: I think u can get better sound quality by recording at a higher volume, because u don´t need to amplify (and distort) the sound if u want to hear it very loud.
It doesn't matter what volume the CD is mastered at, it's the output volume of the amplifier/speakers that determines it's distortion. If your stereo is using 10 watts to produce 70dB in your car while playing a CD that's recorded very quiet, it's still going to use 10 watts to produce 70dB playing a loud CD. Yes, you'll set the volume knob differently but the result is the same amount of distortion from the stereo.
On September 03 2009 04:05 ghostWriter wrote: I hate when dumbasses install huge speaker systems into their cars and drive around with their bass turned up tp deafening levels. If they want to enjoy their own music, that's cool, whatever. But do they really need to let the entire neighborhood know that they love soulja boy?
I love blasting shit with my friends when the song is especially epic and we are baked. However we have taste so we enlighten the neighborhood to the wonders of Russian rap with a classical music beat, and Big Bang/Epik High.
That's all good but what if someone just hates the genre. It's not like they can escape the deafening music.
Then they should have chosen where they lived more carefully by finding out if I live there first. End of story.
haha w/e.
On topic, i'm wondering what will happen when the producing companies finally hit a peak on music quality at that loudness? Will they resort to other forms of music formats? And how is the .aac format in comparison to .mp3?
On September 03 2009 03:20 Hot_Bid wrote: i thought this thread was about that game where you and a friend yell "penis" or some other vulgarity louder and louder in a public place until one person gives up
I don't have the ear to hear the difference, but I have noticed that I continually need to turn my ipod down when I listen to newer and newer releases...
It's annoying to make a playlist that has songs that are MUCH louder than the rest since it causes me to constantly reach for the volume controls or get my ears raped.
It seems some of you people don't even know what the thread is about, it's about keeping the quality of the sound, not that some people like to listen to their music very loud in the neighborhood, ffs.
Btw I completely agree, the sound engineers need to put a stop to this shit, and people need to understand the difference between quality and loudness. I myself have a lot of friends who really believe the louder tracks have better quality :/
On September 03 2009 03:20 Hot_Bid wrote: i thought this thread was about that game where you and a friend yell "penis" or some other vulgarity louder and louder in a public place until one person gives up
I don't know where you grew up but in my elementary school we just called that "playing penis".
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.
If you search around Steve Albini has a lot written about why he doesn't produce for big labels anymore and this is one of the things he is very opinionated about.
(also dewis is right anyone talking about volume is missing the mark - that wiki article doesn't do a very good job of explaining what its actually showing)
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...
as an EDM fan i have to say though that the loudness and the hard compression has done wonders for my music taste. But then im refering to it from a sound FX point of view, so perhaps im missing the point.
a couple of you guys really need to read the OP before responding...
again, you cannot just pick a random volume and master a record to that volume. there is a MAXIMUM loudness that you cannot exceed on CDs (or anything else, for that matter). 16-bit audio (aka cd quality) gives you a maximum of roughly 90dB of range. at very max, the quietest sound can be 90dB quieter than the loudest sound.
these "loudness war" supporters are mastering CDs by making the loudest sounds on a CD the maximum possible volume (of that 90dB range). This is fine, however, they don't stop there. They are making the quieter sounds louder too. That's where the problem is.
How can you make the quieter sounds louder if the loudest sound is already at the maximum volume? Well, the only way you can do that is to reduce the difference between the loudest sound and the quietest sound. You do it by compressing the dynamic range of the music with a limiter/compressor. When you do this, it alters the actual sound waveform that is recorded in a studio. Your audio system and speakers CANNOT undo this change, it is a permanent loss of sound quality. However, if they master the same CD quieter and avoid compression, you can just turn up the volume on your speakers and enjoy the song with much less loss of sound quality
of course, you might point out that 24-bit audio is slowly gaining popularity. 24-bit audio does not give you better sound quality than 16-bit audio (this is mathematically provable). However, it does give you a wider dynamic range (i think its 140dB, I dont remember the exact number), which means the difference between the quietest and loudest sounds can be bigger.
but thats not a good solution either. if we allow this trend to continue, you can literally reach a point where music is loud enough to cause hearing damage even if you set your ipod/mp3 player to the lowest possible volume.
there is absolutely no reason why the loudness war should exist. it doesnt do ANY good whatsoever
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.
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)
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)
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?
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?
well what is good about screamo that other genres dont already do better?
On September 03 2009 03:20 Hot_Bid wrote: i thought this thread was about that game where you and a friend yell "penis" or some other vulgarity louder and louder in a public place until one person gives up
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.
Funny, I find myself technically agreeing with almost everything wangsta says on this thread, but the way he says it.. almost makes me think otherwise.
In a comment to the loudness war, Steven Wilson put a message on the record sleeve that reads as follows: "Please note that this record may not be mastered as loudly as some of the other records in your collection. This is in order to retain the dynamic range and subtlety of the music. Please, use your volume knob." Subsequent releases Fear of a Blank Planet and Nil Recurring are mastered at even lower levels, preserving more of their original dynamic range.
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?
well what is good about screamo that other genres dont already do better?
Just going to throw this part out here, here it comes:
On September 03 2009 09:50 Aegraen wrote: 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.
Watch the video in the OP. Some of the examples used in the video are DM bands like Terrorizer, Napalm Death, and Necrophagist.
I know some bands make their records sound like crap on purpose. Obviously, the Loudness War doesn't affect them as much. The problem with the War is that it basically sacrifices dynamic range, clarity, and overall character in favor of higher volume. Lower dynamic range also gives the artists LESS room to play around with their production style. You'll see what Wangsta means when you watch the vid.
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?
well what is good about screamo that other genres dont already do better?
Just going to throw this part out here, here it comes:
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?
well what is good about screamo that other genres dont already do better?
Just going to throw this part out here, here it comes:
So who gives a fuck what you think, what I think, what anyone thinks of it. If people like the sound of it, then who gives a fuck, let them listen. I myself am more of an Indie guy, but depending on the mood, I sometimes prefer PHC. Reason being that I enjoy the sound of screaming. How are other genres "better" at that? I like something between Death Metal screaming/growling and regular singing. It feels more comfortable for me to listen to.
I still don't have an answer for what makes it absolutely fail, just you prancing in acting like a typical elitist douchebag and not really saying much at all.
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?
well what is good about screamo that other genres dont already do better?
Just going to throw this part out here, here it comes:
So who gives a fuck what you think, what I think, what anyone thinks of it. If people like the sound of it, then who gives a fuck, let them listen. I myself am more of an Indie guy, but depending on the mood, I sometimes prefer PHC. Reason being that I enjoy the sound of screaming. How are other genres "better" at that? I like something between Death Metal screaming/growling and regular singing. It feels more comfortable for me to listen to.
I still don't have an answer for what makes it absolutely fail, just you prancing in acting like a typical elitist douchebag and not really saying much at all.
lets see
-typical boring rock harmony -feeble girl screams compared to some styles of metal -no skill or virtuosity in any of their playing -copycat songwriting
how about you tell me some good points about it via pm, other than the inability to stay in key, because this is getting off topic
On September 03 2009 16:17 CharlieMurphy wrote: Solution: buy vinyl instead of CDs. Then get some kind of converter to transfer it to your computer/ipod.
not everything is released in vinyl, vinyl can suffer from bad mastering too, etc etc etc
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.
Loooooooooool, The Mars Volta is mainstream pop lololol
I actually kind of agreed with you, very many RHCP are pop rock in my opinion, some were more funk, some alternative, but some are pretty popish - but I still like them cause they are just much much better than all these silly pop bands who use the same melodies over and over again.
But Mars Volta? Lolol, they made some of the un-mainstream-friendly albums/songs ever. So a 10 minute song that starts with 3 minutes of weird atmospheric noises on the radio is mainstream nowadays?? Ah, I see... if that's mainstream than Children Of Bodom sure as hell is the pinnacle of fucking sell out
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.
Yeah it's totally ridiculous, its like comparing apples and bananas, its like comparing...
Oh wait, he asked you to compare RHCP to.... ... .. RHCP can't be that ridiculous then huh?
On September 03 2009 03:20 Hot_Bid wrote: i thought this thread was about that game where you and a friend yell "penis" or some other vulgarity louder and louder in a public place until one person gives up
I'm sorry but this is awesome lol
oh the awkwardness
Anyways, I never really thought about a loudness war tbh and I don't really care. I'm not sure I even get the problem at hand but w/e I'm hung over
Btw children of bodom obviously turned to shit after Hatecrew deathroll, RHCP are one of the worst bands ever and screamo can kiss my ass.
Oh btw. something that I find much worse than this loudness issue is loudness in concerts. Most concerts are waaaay to fucking loud, sometimes I can barely hear anything over all the fucking noise... so sad...
On September 03 2009 20:17 7mk wrote: Oh btw. something that I find much worse than this loudness issue is loudness in concerts. Most concerts are waaaay to fucking loud, sometimes I can barely hear anything over all the fucking noise... so sad...
Really? I'm finding it to be the exact opposite recently. All these new regulations have meant that venues over here just aren't allowed to pump up their volume like they used to.
On topic - Yeah, the loudness war is a sad one, and one for which digital technology is partly to blame.
On September 03 2009 20:17 7mk wrote: Oh btw. something that I find much worse than this loudness issue is loudness in concerts. Most concerts are waaaay to fucking loud, sometimes I can barely hear anything over all the fucking noise... so sad...
Yeah I thought about too and I totally agree. Alot of times when I went to concerts with metal bands I can hardly hear shit, except for bass. It's fucking ridiculous.
The best concert I've probably been to was Blind Guardian. They weren't that loud and the music sounded amazing, you could hear every noted played.
On September 03 2009 20:17 7mk wrote: Oh btw. something that I find much worse than this loudness issue is loudness in concerts. Most concerts are waaaay to fucking loud, sometimes I can barely hear anything over all the fucking noise... so sad...
Really? I'm finding it to be the exact opposite recently. All these new regulations have meant that venues over here just aren't allowed to pump up their volume like they used to.
On topic - Yeah, the loudness war is a sad one, and one for which digital technology is partly to blame.
What new regulations? Unfortunately I'm not very in touch with news, were theye EU-wide or just in the UK?
My last concert was machinehead/slipknot (yeah, a pop concert) a few months ago, when machinehead played it was still ok, already quite loud but then slipknot (unfortunately main act) played and they turned it up soooooo much more. It was ridiculous. I don't get how anybody who didnt have something to cover their ears didn't get permanent tinitus
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
That's not really the format's fault. You can create mp3s with very high bitrates and extremely good quality. It depends a lot on the people who compress the music.
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.
Loooooooooool, The Mars Volta is mainstream pop lololol
I actually kind of agreed with you, very many RHCP are pop rock in my opinion, some were more funk, some alternative, but some are pretty popish - but I still like them cause they are just much much better than all these silly pop bands who use the same melodies over and over again.
But Mars Volta? Lolol, they made some of the un-mainstream-friendly albums/songs ever. So a 10 minute song that starts with 3 minutes of weird atmospheric noises on the radio is mainstream nowadays?? Ah, I see... if that's mainstream than Children Of Bodom sure as hell is the pinnacle of fucking sell out
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.
Yeah it's totally ridiculous, its like comparing apples and bananas, its like comparing...
Oh wait, he asked you to compare RHCP to.... ... .. RHCP can't be that ridiculous then huh?
It's no different than say Early Dimmu compared to later Dimmu. Bands change their production throughout their life.
Lower recording volume doesn't necessarily mean better clarity. Anyways, I'll watch the video then comment. I'm just challenging the notion that "every" band, or many bands are raising their volume levels purposefully creating worst musicianship for the sole purpose of "selling more records". Frankly, I'm waiting for the research to back this assertion up. Hell, listen to power metal they have the best production of any genre and the music is pretty loud. Case in point:
Ok, so i listened to RHCP Californication Regular Album on 128 KBPS. Then i listened to the Unmastered (supposedly fuckinfantasticaly better version) of RHCP Californication on 192 KBPS and my conclusions are:
They sound the SAME.
I didnt hear no noticeable difference except for the (annoying) fact that the normal album is way louder. Besides that i didnt perceive any differences in ranges or depth or anything.
Still just a preliminar test. Gonna try it later with headphones (good).
It is also my opinion that 99 percent of bands are pretty damn clueless about what they are doing..both musically and artistically. With neither artistic integrity and credo, it is not surprising that they allow (or simply are ignorant that) such distorted, rubbish-sounding records get published.
Most gamers don't really care though as they often have some horrible headset (yeah, the sound quality on high-end headsets sucks) and cheap phones and often poorly ripped & over compressed music.
It's definitely awful but it's such old news by now, and most of the music I listen to isn't any mainstream poppy stuff that's getting mutilated by this - but when I pop on the few artists / albums that are, I cringe inside, it's noticable and really off-putting
If any of you are head-fiers, I'm Luminette over at www.head-fi.org :'o
On September 04 2009 10:55 phosphorylation wrote: It is also my opinion that 99 percent of bands are pretty damn clueless about what they are doing..both musically and artistically. With neither artistic integrity and credo, it is not surprising that they allow (or simply are ignorant that) such distorted, rubbish-sounding records get published.
this has nothing to do with a band's musical or artistic talent.
some people are screaming 'old news' but i think this is one of the most interesting wikipedia articles (or articles about any topic in general) that i have read in a while...
On September 09 2009 13:03 phosphorylation wrote: i know try reading my post again
round 2....
On September 04 2009 10:55 phosphorylation wrote: It is also my opinion that 99 percent of bands are pretty damn clueless about what they are doing..both musically and artistically. With neither artistic integrity and credo...
has nothing to do with record publication.
ie: you said "since, A, thus B", to which i responded "A does not cause B"; which then "you know".
for ppl who have trouble visualising what all this 'dynamic range' and 'dynamic range compression' stuff means (its not like data compression by information reduction, its something different, so dont blame your MP3/OGG/whatever codecs but rather the digital mastering involved in production)
/begin textwall
looks like that
|a--------------------b| a=minimum possible loudness b=maximum possible loudness
now lets say there is a loudest(L) and most quiet(Q) sound in the recording, this will look something like that
|a--Q-----------L----b|
so if you now play this and turn up down the volume this shape WILL STAY THE SAME, when you put down the volume your most quiet(Q) sound will be lowered by the same percentage as your loudest(L) sound, thus KEEPING THE RELATIONS INTACT
example given
you turn your volume up to 50 dB (b=50 dB now) |a--Q-----------L----b| the relative distance of your most quiet(Q) and loudest(L) sound to the maximum stays the same, even if you turn down volume to 30 dB all the volume is turned down by a PERCENTAGE equally, so the shape stays |a--Q-----------L----b| with the only difference that b=30 dB now.
SO WHATS THAT DYNAMIC RANGE COMPRESSION/LOUDNESS WAR THINGY?
|a--Q-----------L----b| original recording
|a--------------Q---Lb| example for loudness war
not only were the loudness levels of both Q and L heightenend, BUT the DYNAMIC RANGE, that is the whole range from the most quiet(Q) to the loudest(L) sound of the recording, was REDUCED (through use of a dynamic range compressor)
and that means the post-mastered dynamic-range-compressed track DOESNT SOUND like the ORIGINAL, NEITHER CAN THE DYNAMIC RANGE COMPRESSION BE UNDONE BY SIMPLE ADJUSTING OF VOLUME.
that means: you have a new shape that has less possible information in it (due to its sounds not being able to have the original range of loudness differences) and the variety of loudness a musician can use as stylistic tool to create certain moods/effects/whatever is hampered.
conclusion: an artist can and should, of course, use dynamic range compression to his liking, BUT IT SUCKS WHEN SOMEBODY ELSE FORCES DYNAMIC RANGE COMPRESSION ON A RELEASE IF ITS NOT THE ARTISTS INTENTION AND THEREBY DESTROYS HIS WORK OF ART(thats what professional music industry does, to assure ppl always hear the music initially at maximum loudness to produce alertness in the costumer-to-be)
/end textwall, hope the extensive use of capslock doesnt offend anyone
They did this shit to TV as well. When i was young they never had that shit on TV, or it wasn't noticeable. But now the commercials are like sound-blasting loud and the show itself goes to a whisper. So I would have to mute the tv or turn down the volume every single time a commercial goes off.
I didn't notice this in music a lot, cause i don't listen to full albums.
On September 04 2009 02:06 Aegraen wrote: Hell, listen to power metal they have the best production of any genre and the music is pretty loud. Case in point:
You telling me this has poor sound quality because it was produced at a higher dB?
No, but I'd tell you it has poor sound quality because Celesty is a terrible power metal band .
<troll>Listen to DragonForce, they're so technically proficient!</troll>
There is definitely power metal with great production values (some Gamma Ray albums come to mind), but there's no doubt that they suffer from volume issues as well.
wasn't there a blog about this like a week ago? i remember some guy saying that he was going to stop compressing/boosting his music's volume because of sound quality.
/nods to the mention of the loudness at concerts also being a big issue. I stopped going to them because of this - last act I saw was an infected mushroom show back in august of 2007.
On September 03 2009 20:28 7mk wrote: My last concert was machinehead/slipknot (yeah, a pop concert) a few months ago, when machinehead played it was still ok, already quite loud but then slipknot (unfortunately main act) played and they turned it up soooooo much more. It was ridiculous. I don't get how anybody who didnt have something to cover their ears didn't get permanent tinitus
Obviously you went to the concert, so you know how loud it was, but other factors to take into account are things like poor venue acoustics and badly selected/low-quality/mismatched PA equipment.
Resonances and harmonics created by a poor acoustic environment or poor equipment could be behind a lot of the ear fatigue, rather than the volume itself.
Great post and info, I remember my parents telling me this after hearing about it in 9 o clock Korean news and youngsters were getting partially deaf much earlier.
1. you never hear the music with the recorded volume, you change your own volume control according to your preference 2. in the digital age I expect all music to be normalized. normalization means that you scale the volume exactly so that the loudest part has the highest possible value (if you have trouble understanding this imagine an image where you increase the brightness until the brightest pixel has exactly 255 (highest 8 bit value) in one component (red, green oder blue))
P.S.: Ok I have to correct myself after reading all the details. Only using the highest 5 db by using compressors and limiters is so stupid that I didn't imaging someone could do this :-) I mean is it really true that the loudest track gets the most attention? I prefer the best sounding one :-)
Actually, the real problem seems to be the ipod and specifically the 'shuffle' feature. When tracks are played next to each other, record labels are afraid their tracks sound softer than their neighbours.
I'm not sure how I feel about this honestly... It seems like it can be taken too far in either direction.
I've downloaded several high quality FLAC files with high dynamic range that were simply intolerable, because the high-pitched and louder than normal snare treble hurts the ears. There are honestly times where the reduced quality and "blending" affect can make some albums sound better, and made me delete the higher quality tracks in favor of my older mp3's.
Then again, I don't listen to much modern music, I'm a huge classic rock fan. Modern pop does sound very muddled to me, and there is a HUGE volume difference between my oldest tracks and my newest tracks on my ipod. I have to isolate the quieter/older songs and manually raise their default volume to create uniformity and prevent myself from going deaf after switching from an old to a new track.
The first part of the video does a good job showing the differences from compression, but the second part of the video doesn't. You are simply drawn to the louder track. If they played the tracks at the same volume it would better illustrate the actual dynamic differences instead of just the different volume. That's probably why many people will reach the conclusion of kirdie above.
On September 09 2011 00:43 Lucidity wrote: The post above made me cry a little.
I blame you and your fellow teen friends for making the record companies do this!
If all you're after is volume, then turn up the volume of your speakers. gg? The problem with the loudness war is that the range is removed...
To be fair, how many people - outside of 'audiophiles' - know enough about music to say anything other than "it sounds the same to me"? How many people have spent the time in concert and in studio to know when the sound of a cymbal, or bass, or whatever, is accurate? Probably very little, because they haven't been trained or haven't cared to notice. More probably, they've been trained not to notice.
I love mp3's for the fact that I can bring them anywhere, but I hate their audio fidelity. I hate vinyl for the bulk, but I love the audio fidelity.
The problem, I think, is that the 'consumer' has been told that audio equipment should be relatively cheap; that music should be easily accessible, etc. The system is built to sell records, not to sound the best it can.
On September 09 2011 00:48 theSAiNT wrote: Actually, the real problem seems to be the ipod and specifically the 'shuffle' feature. When tracks are played next to each other, record labels are afraid their tracks sound softer than their neighbours.
I don't think it is just the record labels. If I have music playing in the background, I don't want to fiddle with the volume every time the song changes. I DON'T want to have to turn my tv up when there is whispering and then down again when the guns start firing.
On September 09 2011 00:48 theSAiNT wrote: Actually, the real problem seems to be the ipod and specifically the 'shuffle' feature. When tracks are played next to each other, record labels are afraid their tracks sound softer than their neighbours.
I don't think it is just the record labels. If I have music playing in the background, I don't want to fiddle with the volume every time the song changes. I DON'T want to have to turn my tv up when there is whispering and then down again when the guns start firing.
If you have to do that then the sound engineers fucked up (A notable example of this in my experience is Breaking Bad). Obviously the range can't be too high (in music), but what they're doing nowadays is going overboard.
I feel sorry for people that can hear this kind of volume compression, or can hear the difference between mp3 and lossless. It just means they are forced to buy expensive equipment and search for versions of tracks that sometimes don't exist just to get the same experience that 'normal' people have.
On September 09 2011 00:43 Lucidity wrote: The post above made me cry a little.
I blame you and your fellow teen friends for making the record companies do this!
If all you're after is volume, then turn up the volume of your speakers. gg? The problem with the loudness war is that the range is removed...
To be fair, how many people - outside of 'audiophiles' - know enough about music to say anything other than "it sounds the same to me"?
It doesn't take an audiophile or some pretentious music quality nerd to notice a difference between say...
Dark Side of the Moon and Death Magnetic or Californication (RHCP)
I'm not talking music styles, instrument tones and effects or genres or whatever. I mean the dynamics range between loud and soft. You can blast Dark Side (within limits of your stereo) and it sounds great no matter what. Blast any modern brickwalled album and it is physically tiring and painful to listen to. Especially when it starts clipping all over the place, it sounds incredibly bad for guitar oriented music with lots of soloing.
The system is built to sell records, not to sound the best it can.
Dark side has no problems making sales even to this day.
It's funny, I have been thinking about this since I noticed that the more modern the songs are in my music collection, the louder they sound compared to the older ones when I have my computer at a set volume.
I have always been assuming it was the download quality but now I know.
I remember hearing that Katy Perry's albums are recorder 'hotter' than megadeth. Can't remember source.
I'm somewhat of an audiophile, not the most insane, but I do rip cds in lossless codec and dropped $250 on my headphones. I'm always amazed at how much more dynamic my old jazz cds--and even classic rock cds--sound, compared to recently released music.
The tendency to compress and amplify music to the limit of our current physical medium (the cd) is hurting music, in my opinion. A smaller dynamic range means less expressive music: King Crimson's "21st Century Schizoid Man" features a larger change in sound amplitude than anything off of Justice's "Cross."
It's also frustrating as a musician to work so hard on dynamic control and nuance, all to have it washed away in the 'mastering' process, where the sound engineer is just going to smash it all into a ~5-7dB range anyway. As a drummer, dynamic subtleties are part of what separate good from great. I want my ghost notes to add feel and depth (even if the average listener will never hear/notice them), and I want my rimshots to ring loudly. Modern sound-engineering habits make this more difficult.
On September 09 2011 02:28 Daimai wrote: It's funny, I have been thinking about this since I noticed that the more modern the songs are in my music collection, the louder they sound compared to the older ones when I have my computer at a set volume.
I have always been assuming it was the download quality but now I know.
It can even be both of those factors contributing. Could even be your computer soundcard and the speakers you are using as well. But those are much more subtle.
The best way to describe it is older albums sound smooth because they aren't brickwalled.
Some points of clarification that I think the video left out that might confuse beginners. - there is a maximum dynamic range for digital audio. The loudness at each sample in time of cd audio is encoded using 16 bits (2^16 possible "loudnesses"). - compression refers to the reduction of dynamic range of the audio, such that the loudness swing of a particular song can be shifted upwards (made louder as a whole) within this 16 bit range. Compression doesn't refer to an information encoding scheme to reduce the size of an audio file.
I remember when i first payed attention to actual sound quality on Califinication after reading that artticle a few years ago and it was surprising lol
On September 09 2011 03:22 ChibiSage wrote: I remember when i first payed attention to actual sound quality on Califinication after reading that artticle a few years ago and it was surprising lol
Upon reading about this I finally discovered why that's one of my least favorite rhcp albums. If you listen to albums released before it they are incredibly more dynamic, which is a good thing.
On September 09 2011 02:17 Soleron wrote: I feel sorry for people that can hear this kind of volume compression, or can hear the difference between mp3 and lossless. It just means they are forced to buy expensive equipment and search for versions of tracks that sometimes don't exist just to get the same experience that 'normal' people have.
HAHAHAHHAHAA :DDDD!
I'm sorry, that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Since when is good hearing/a trained ear a bad thing? It's kind of like watching starcraft and being able to tell the difference between a bad player and a good player - you won't have a clue which is which unless you've played starcraft. When I listen to music I can argue why the stuff I listen to is so much better than what 90% of the world listens to. Ever since I started making music the thrill and vibes I get from listening to it has amplified exponentially. I'm sorry for people that can't listen to the nuances that exist in all forms of music.
I totally thought the same as Hot_Bid, had no idea what this thread was about : P Really surprised, I was aware of the effect of increasing the volume on ads. Preempting the market and recording 90Db tone in 3 minute chunks. it will be my opus!
if your doing a test you need to turn the amplitude of the loud one down dont increase the amplitude of the quiet one unless your system has a lot of headroom - which it probably wont have unless you spent a lot of cash
On September 09 2011 02:17 Soleron wrote: I feel sorry for people that can hear this kind of volume compression, or can hear the difference between mp3 and lossless. It just means they are forced to buy expensive equipment and search for versions of tracks that sometimes don't exist just to get the same experience that 'normal' people have.
HAHAHAHHAHAA :DDDD!
I'm sorry, that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Since when is good hearing/a trained ear a bad thing? It's kind of like watching starcraft and being able to tell the difference between a bad player and a good player - you won't have a clue which is which unless you've played starcraft. When I listen to music I can argue why the stuff I listen to is so much better than what 90% of the world listens to. Ever since I started making music the thrill and vibes I get from listening to it has amplified exponentially. I'm sorry for people that can't listen to the nuances that exist in all forms of music.
Apparently never heard the phrase 'Ignorance is bliss'?
OMG. i read some comments say thats is the enginers fault for the loudness way T_T". No, most A&R people for record companies will choose band A over Band B if band A is louder. Thats the problem.
Weather it sounds better or not is all very subjective.Todays Loudness standards are much higher then they were 20 years ago and thats not going away because most people, artist and bands don't care.
To be honest, this should have been over by now. I'm lucky in that I don't really listen to anything too popular (well, apart from Radiohead, where you can somewhat hear this effect), but it's really jarring for audiophiles and sound engineers alike.
Reducing the difference between loud and soft, like the video above explains, simply means that you are removing loud entirely. It means you have no room to surprise, which basically means your music sounds flat and boring.
When you raise levels so close to the peak, this is what you're doing. You're reducing the difference between loud and soft, you are removing loud from your musical vocabulary.
I have songs that depend entirely on this in some parts. Like the "Be quiet, big boys don't cry" from 10cc's "I'm Not in Love" as a good, rather well-known example. Or you know that part where Coldplay's "Fix You" goes into the really repetitive (but epic) guitar riff? That's where you can hear that it's too loud - that has too little impact. If that song had been mastered at -10dB it would have blown my mother-f-ing socks off. It sounds so monotonous compared to if it had more room to breathe than it does now...It could have been, well, good!
The ones to blame? Radio basically. They're the bane to a lot of things about sound but this might be the worst - the radio stations could have simply normalised everything, but they seem to either not do that or not do it well enough. I think "Parachutes" by Coldplay is a good example of how the volume level shifts back and forth a lot.
Anyway, I agree completely. Modern music is being made less epic feeling, being made like less of an adventure, because of a pressure to make things louder. It needs to end. Now.
EPT
Unlucky for me, I listen to music quite loudly, but I enjoy it so I guess hearing aid here I come when I turn 70. 
![[image loading]](http://i44.tinypic.com/w6sj0o.jpg)
.
