"Loudness war"
-
I am so sick of clipping on albums. Yeah, that's great, make the album louder by mastering at such a high volume that it clips. 16 bits is actually quite a large dynamic range, guys, USE IT. We have our own fscking volume control. Everyone from Metallica to KT Tunstall does it. It's ridiculous. How can the sound engineers live with themselves? Can they actually be proud of this crap? Do they master in 24 bit and then just clip at 16 bits instead of rescaling? Could they be that stupid? Probably. If you actually listen to something that uses the full dynamic range a CD has to offer, it's quite impressive. My old Les Miserables full symphonic recording is a good example, as is Roger Waters' Amused to Death. I used to scoff when people claimed vinyl sounded better than CD's; well, on newer stuff it probably does. Ironic.
-
I am so sick of clipping on albums. Yeah, that's great, make the album louder by mastering at such a high volume that it clips. 16 bits is actually quite a large dynamic range, guys, USE IT. We have our own fscking volume control. Everyone from Metallica to KT Tunstall does it. It's ridiculous. How can the sound engineers live with themselves? Can they actually be proud of this crap? Do they master in 24 bit and then just clip at 16 bits instead of rescaling? Could they be that stupid? Probably. If you actually listen to something that uses the full dynamic range a CD has to offer, it's quite impressive. My old Les Miserables full symphonic recording is a good example, as is Roger Waters' Amused to Death. I used to scoff when people claimed vinyl sounded better than CD's; well, on newer stuff it probably does. Ironic.
it's not really about absolute volume, it's about compression. sound engineers, looking for that trendy loud sound, compress the overall signal and then amplify the result so that everything is loud, all the time. every sound, regardless of how loud it was when recorded, gets pumped to the same volume as everything else. it reduces the overall dynamic range of the music because everything is always right up against the maximum volume level (or, sometimes over, if the engineer is sloppy). and yes, it sucks.
-
it's not really about absolute volume, it's about compression. sound engineers, looking for that trendy loud sound, compress the overall signal and then amplify the result so that everything is loud, all the time. every sound, regardless of how loud it was when recorded, gets pumped to the same volume as everything else. it reduces the overall dynamic range of the music because everything is always right up against the maximum volume level (or, sometimes over, if the engineer is sloppy). and yes, it sucks.
Chris Losinger wrote:
it's not really about absolute volume, it's about compression. sound engineers, looking for that trendy loud sound, compress the overall signal and then amplify the result so that everything is loud, all the time.
I never thought the compressed sound was the goal here, as that's just dumb (not that I don't believe you). I figured it was the byproduct of trying to be louder than the other tracks in our collection. Not that that goal makes any more sense. I have actually swapped speakers and headphones to figure out if I had equipment going bad; that's how unforgivably terrible it sounds. One of the more infamous examples from recent years was Metallica's Death Magnetic. They released that on vinyl as well; did it sound as bad as the CD? (Grabbing the Guitar Hero tracks made a huge improvement.)
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
it's not really about absolute volume, it's about compression. sound engineers, looking for that trendy loud sound, compress the overall signal and then amplify the result so that everything is loud, all the time.
I never thought the compressed sound was the goal here, as that's just dumb (not that I don't believe you). I figured it was the byproduct of trying to be louder than the other tracks in our collection. Not that that goal makes any more sense. I have actually swapped speakers and headphones to figure out if I had equipment going bad; that's how unforgivably terrible it sounds. One of the more infamous examples from recent years was Metallica's Death Magnetic. They released that on vinyl as well; did it sound as bad as the CD? (Grabbing the Guitar Hero tracks made a huge improvement.)
David Kentley wrote:
I figured it was the byproduct of trying to be louder than the other tracks in our collection.
yeah, that's the goal. but obviously there's only so much dynamic range to be exploited. so they use heavy compression to increase the perceived volume. instead of little spikes of peak volume here and there, you get a constant barrage of peak volume. in effect, the average volume goes up.
-
I am so sick of clipping on albums. Yeah, that's great, make the album louder by mastering at such a high volume that it clips. 16 bits is actually quite a large dynamic range, guys, USE IT. We have our own fscking volume control. Everyone from Metallica to KT Tunstall does it. It's ridiculous. How can the sound engineers live with themselves? Can they actually be proud of this crap? Do they master in 24 bit and then just clip at 16 bits instead of rescaling? Could they be that stupid? Probably. If you actually listen to something that uses the full dynamic range a CD has to offer, it's quite impressive. My old Les Miserables full symphonic recording is a good example, as is Roger Waters' Amused to Death. I used to scoff when people claimed vinyl sounded better than CD's; well, on newer stuff it probably does. Ironic.
-
David Kentley wrote:
I figured it was the byproduct of trying to be louder than the other tracks in our collection.
yeah, that's the goal. but obviously there's only so much dynamic range to be exploited. so they use heavy compression to increase the perceived volume. instead of little spikes of peak volume here and there, you get a constant barrage of peak volume. in effect, the average volume goes up.
And who has ever been listening to their music and thought, "Man, I wish this sounded louder, but I just don't want to deal with that confusing volume knob." Protip: if you can't get your music loud enough, invest in an 11. Or you've already done enough damage.
-
And you know what? It's just going to get worse. The latest trend in mixing boards at music shows this year were mixers with built-in compression. Now engineers don't even need to lay out the cash for a discrete compressor or other effects module.
Vark111 wrote:
The latest trend in mixing boards at music shows this year were mixers with built-in compression.
Who wants this? Where is the demand? IT MAKES NO SENSE. Yeah, this is my pet peeve of the day. Meanwhile, my movie collection could use some (audio dynamic range) compression. I'm so sick of turning up the volume so I can hear dialog, only to dive for the remote so I don't wake up the neighborhood when something explodes. If I had a sound isolated home theater room, I'd love it; hopefully some day. But for now, geez. There must be some middle ground.
-
And who has ever been listening to their music and thought, "Man, I wish this sounded louder, but I just don't want to deal with that confusing volume knob." Protip: if you can't get your music loud enough, invest in an 11. Or you've already done enough damage.
David Kentley wrote:
Protip: if you can't get your music loud enough, invest in an 11. Or you've already done enough damage.
I think you've got yourself a great signature. Now use it. ;)
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
-
Vark111 wrote:
The latest trend in mixing boards at music shows this year were mixers with built-in compression.
Who wants this? Where is the demand? IT MAKES NO SENSE. Yeah, this is my pet peeve of the day. Meanwhile, my movie collection could use some (audio dynamic range) compression. I'm so sick of turning up the volume so I can hear dialog, only to dive for the remote so I don't wake up the neighborhood when something explodes. If I had a sound isolated home theater room, I'd love it; hopefully some day. But for now, geez. There must be some middle ground.
I can take a whack at this, being an occasional semi-pro live and studio sound engineer. Built-in compression is a good thing in live sound. It stops things like unannounced guitar cord disconnection, power cycling, feedback and plosives on the mic (P-popping) from destroying your amps, or more likely your speakers. These things happen at EVERY SHOW because band members and roadies can't be bothered to give you a signal.. they just reach down and CRACKLE POP WHINE there goes your audience's ears. You also see compression built into some amplifiers and speaker management systems. It's a no-brainer - you want it as a live engineer. Now in the studio: Rest assured, recording engineers would NEVER use onboard compression for a studio project. The outboard compressors they use cost thousands of dollars and perform entirely different functions from your live-sound spike management compressors. Those are different types of compressor too. Check out the 1176, LA-2A, and Fairchild 670, for example. Some of these are meant to maintain an "average" volume level while mastering an entire album, so the entire album is at a consistent volume and you're not fiddling with the knob while you listen. I do agree, though, that people are abusing multiband compression in the studio in order to maximize the amount of sound per unit time. Now that we have metering hardware and software that can show us what we're doing, it's awfully tempting to throw more hardware at it and squash all those levels into the yellow. It totally destroys the fine nuances of the music, and as a big fan of jazz and classical and classic rock - it ruins the experience! Hope that helps quell your rage somehow!
-
I am so sick of clipping on albums. Yeah, that's great, make the album louder by mastering at such a high volume that it clips. 16 bits is actually quite a large dynamic range, guys, USE IT. We have our own fscking volume control. Everyone from Metallica to KT Tunstall does it. It's ridiculous. How can the sound engineers live with themselves? Can they actually be proud of this crap? Do they master in 24 bit and then just clip at 16 bits instead of rescaling? Could they be that stupid? Probably. If you actually listen to something that uses the full dynamic range a CD has to offer, it's quite impressive. My old Les Miserables full symphonic recording is a good example, as is Roger Waters' Amused to Death. I used to scoff when people claimed vinyl sounded better than CD's; well, on newer stuff it probably does. Ironic.
Trying to keep separate threads of conversation separate :)
David Kentley wrote:
Do they master in 24 bit and then just clip at 16 bits instead of rescaling?
Usually, everything is mixed at 24- or 32-bit floating point internally. Then it's mixed down via some sort of dithering to 16 bits. It's also mixed at a higher sample rate than you can put on a CD - typically 48 KHz is the lowest sample rate you'll find in a digital studio; some run at 96/24 or higher. Software like Pro Tools HD[^] downsamples at very high quality, so you're hearing other problems caused by poor audio engineers. The bit depth shouldn't be used to say "here is a maximum volume". They should be used to provide finer control within the range from 0.0 to 1.0. Kind of like with images: 16-bit versus 24-bit images, where you can tell the difference in the gradations. Same concept with sound. DACs don't like being pushed hard. There's generally supposed to be a -3 dB ceiling when you master a CD, but people don't always follow that rule, and then you can get horrendous artifacting when that hits your CD player. The loudness wars are over, the consumer lost... With the MP3 compression algorithm ruining everything nowadays, how will anyone be able to tell something ever sounded good anyway?
-
I am so sick of clipping on albums. Yeah, that's great, make the album louder by mastering at such a high volume that it clips. 16 bits is actually quite a large dynamic range, guys, USE IT. We have our own fscking volume control. Everyone from Metallica to KT Tunstall does it. It's ridiculous. How can the sound engineers live with themselves? Can they actually be proud of this crap? Do they master in 24 bit and then just clip at 16 bits instead of rescaling? Could they be that stupid? Probably. If you actually listen to something that uses the full dynamic range a CD has to offer, it's quite impressive. My old Les Miserables full symphonic recording is a good example, as is Roger Waters' Amused to Death. I used to scoff when people claimed vinyl sounded better than CD's; well, on newer stuff it probably does. Ironic.
Hi David, This is the best article on loudness I've ever read. http://www.chicagomasteringservice.com/loudness.html[^] This is the work of Bob Weston, a Chicago engineer, bassist for the band Shellac, and someone I've had the pleasure of playing poker with. In my city, these are the guys you have master your album if you care about sound.
"I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours. " — Hunter S. Thompson
-
Trying to keep separate threads of conversation separate :)
David Kentley wrote:
Do they master in 24 bit and then just clip at 16 bits instead of rescaling?
Usually, everything is mixed at 24- or 32-bit floating point internally. Then it's mixed down via some sort of dithering to 16 bits. It's also mixed at a higher sample rate than you can put on a CD - typically 48 KHz is the lowest sample rate you'll find in a digital studio; some run at 96/24 or higher. Software like Pro Tools HD[^] downsamples at very high quality, so you're hearing other problems caused by poor audio engineers. The bit depth shouldn't be used to say "here is a maximum volume". They should be used to provide finer control within the range from 0.0 to 1.0. Kind of like with images: 16-bit versus 24-bit images, where you can tell the difference in the gradations. Same concept with sound. DACs don't like being pushed hard. There's generally supposed to be a -3 dB ceiling when you master a CD, but people don't always follow that rule, and then you can get horrendous artifacting when that hits your CD player. The loudness wars are over, the consumer lost... With the MP3 compression algorithm ruining everything nowadays, how will anyone be able to tell something ever sounded good anyway?
djdanlib wrote:
With the MP3 compression algorithm ruining everything nowadays,
What about DAB with what is in effect MP2 compression, then? That's what we are stuck with in the UK. :mad: :mad: :mad: And to give more "choice", the number of stations that are crammed into each multiplex tends towards infinity and so the bit rate available to each tends towards zero. Nobody has yet explained to me how having no stations that are fit for serious listening (as distinct from 'heard' as wallpaper) gives more choice. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
djdanlib wrote:
how will anyone be able to tell something ever sounded good anyway?
They can't. I read recently that many young people actually think compressed MP3 sounds more 'correct' than the original. [I wish I could provide a quote - I know not whether this came from hearsay or proper research, but it seems credible].
-
djdanlib wrote:
With the MP3 compression algorithm ruining everything nowadays,
What about DAB with what is in effect MP2 compression, then? That's what we are stuck with in the UK. :mad: :mad: :mad: And to give more "choice", the number of stations that are crammed into each multiplex tends towards infinity and so the bit rate available to each tends towards zero. Nobody has yet explained to me how having no stations that are fit for serious listening (as distinct from 'heard' as wallpaper) gives more choice. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
djdanlib wrote:
how will anyone be able to tell something ever sounded good anyway?
They can't. I read recently that many young people actually think compressed MP3 sounds more 'correct' than the original. [I wish I could provide a quote - I know not whether this came from hearsay or proper research, but it seems credible].
BarrRobot wrote:
djdanlib wrote:
how will anyone be able to tell something ever sounded good anyway?
They can't. I read recently that many young people actually think compressed MP3 sounds more 'correct' than the original. [I wish I could provide a quote - I know not whether this came from hearsay or proper research, but it seems credible].
They do. [edit: I meant to say "they do think that way"] The thing is, that's what they've always heard, so they expect it to sound that way. If you grew up on vinyls, which honestly had plenty of their own imperfections, you probably prefer that sound to the "cold, digital sound of a CD" right? It comes down to what the customers want and they want to cram a million songs into their cell phones so they can irritate everyone at the bus stop. That started with the good ol' days of Napster and RealPlayer, etc, where you'd rip CDs at the lowest possible bitrate so you could (a) encode mp3s faster because systems were sloooow and (b) share mp3s faster over dialup. No joke, people still rip at 112 Kbps and expect me to play it. I've had people come up to me at a DJ gig and request a song off their iPod. I'll be in the middle of the booking process, and have them look disdainfully at me for not wanting them to email me their Limewire-downloaded mp3s to play at their wedding. Sorry, I always build a PA system with sufficient fidelity to notice the artifacts, and I believe in proper licensing and royalties, and... rant rant rant...