| Author |
Topic: The Loudness Wars |
Bobby Lee
From:
Cloverdale, California, USA
|
|
|
 |
Mark van Allen
From:
Watkinsville, Ga. USA
|
Posted 2 Oct 2006 8:50 am |
|
This is one of the things that drives creative record producers and mastering engineers nuts.
Like so much else today, it really is about competition at the expense of quality or art.
quote:
As one employee at a local record store put it, "When we put in older CDs into the CD changer to play in the store, you can't even hear them."
Can't you turn it up?
"Not really," he said. "Because then the newer CDs would be incredibly loud at the new volume. So we don't even play older CDs in the store that often."
|
|
|
|
Robert Leaman
From:
Murphy, North Carolina, USA
|
Posted 2 Oct 2006 11:32 am
|
|
| Record companies aren't the only ones that practice this. After I connected the XLR output on my NV1000 to my Session 400, the six string man conceded (510 watts). It was worth it to watch his face. |
|
|
|
Ray Minich
From:
Bradford, Pa. Frozen Tundra
|
Posted 2 Oct 2006 1:01 pm
|
|
| I guess that 90 dB dynamic range as the difference between the softest and the loudest passage kinda blows right by them. They look at is as a 90 dB bucket that must always be full... |
|
|
|
James Cann
From:
Phoenix, AZ
|
Posted 2 Oct 2006 3:28 pm
|
|
Well, no surprise here.
Compare it to any concert, where you'll hear the same 'sound brick' every time, and, for the matter, see that same brick in stage presentation/setting, wardrobe, age range of performers, quality and nature of songs written, etc., etc.,
. . . and were that not enough, isn't the Nashville/Grand Old Opry/music/songwriting scene the same: a grand, overdone, self-important (and self-destructive, though it doesn't know it) vanilla shake? |
|
|
|
Leslie Ehrlich
From:
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
|
Posted 2 Oct 2006 9:43 pm
|
|
| I blame it on the punk and nu-metal bands that have assaulted the airwaves over the past fifteen years. They are the true masters of 'loud'. |
|
|
|
Per Berner
From:
Skovde, Sweden
|
Posted 3 Oct 2006 5:39 am
|
|
I absolutely refuse to listen to commercial radio stations these days. Partly because the music is cr@p and the DJ's are dimwits, but mainly because of their extreme abuse of compression. It makes all those already over-compressed pop tunes sound even more awful.
If I switch over from music on SR (the Swedish public broadcasting network, whose non-pop channels use only very subtle compression) to a commercial station, the sudden (perceived) raised sound level is deafening, though both stations transmit at equal maximum output.
So in my car, I stick to either talk radio or "airy" acoustic music from the CD-changer. A bit of Mozart is all it takes. Or Don Williams.
------------------
´75 Emmons p/p D10 8+4, ca '72 AWH Custom D10 8+3, Hybrid Zum coming soon, Peavey Nashville 1000
[This message was edited by Per Berner on 03 October 2006 at 06:40 AM.] |
|
|
|
Steinar Gregertsen
From:
Arendal, Norway, R.I.P.
|
Posted 3 Oct 2006 5:49 am
|
|
I have written a whole lot about this in other threads in here, so I'll only add that my two major concerns about this is:
1 - a whole music generation is raised to believe this is what music is supposed to sound like, which means they miss one of the most important elements of music - the dynamics.
2 - as mentioned in the article, it says a lot about how music is 'consumed' these days, it's a backing track for other activities and has to fight with the everyday noise. There's not necessarily anything wrong with that in itself, but when it's the main source for musical information there's something seriously wrong. Music as an artform and a way to express deeper emotions may be limited to a small niche audience in the future, and that tells a sad story about the culture we live in.
Steinar
------------------
"Play to express, not to impress"
www.gregertsen.com
Southern Moon Northern Lights
[This message was edited by Steinar Gregertsen on 03 October 2006 at 06:50 AM.] |
|
|
|
Brad Sarno
From:
St. Louis, MO USA
|
Posted 3 Oct 2006 10:35 am
|
|
Leslie said:
"I blame it on the punk and nu-metal bands that have assaulted the airwaves over the past fifteen years. They are the true masters of 'loud'."
I'd have to disagree. The real culprits in the industry that have lead the trend are in all markets of pop music, and actually some of the very worst perpetrators are in the modern country genre. From Britney to Chesney, the modern trend has been to push it to the absolute limits of loudness without noticable distortion. Then add that to the heavy radio compression, and it's all so in-your-face that it's simply fatiguing to listen to. If you actually compared albums, you'd probably be surprised to see that many metal and hard rock bands aren't nearly as guilty as what comes out of Nashville for the country market. Lot's of rock bands still have an older school mentality that understands that rock music needs impact and dynamics to be effective, thus they don't compress all the energy out of the music. The result is an album that will have loud moments, but will generally play softer. The key is that it makes the listener simpy turn it up and then the dynamics come thru. For most modern loud stuff, it's simply annoying to sit thru more than 2 or 3 songs. Being on 10 doesn't mean much if it never dips below 8.
Brad
|
|
|
|
erik
|
Posted 3 Oct 2006 4:02 pm
|
|
Dynamics are good to a point. I'd rather hear compressed bass and drums than constant level changes. I have a unique reaction to transients which kind of hits me like riding over the backside of a bump in the road where you get the willies for an instant. This is one reason I can not listen to Classical/Symphony music, however I don't get this reaction to Baroque or other early music.
Last edited by erik on 27 Aug 2007 11:06 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
Steinar Gregertsen
From:
Arendal, Norway, R.I.P.
|
Posted 4 Oct 2006 1:19 am
|
|
| Quote: |
| I'd rather hear compressed bass and drums than constant level changes. |
Yeah I know what you mean, but the "loudness" thing is about compressing the whole stereo mix in postproduction, in order to pump up the volume.
What you get then is a waveform that looks like a brick and sounds just as musical.
Steinar
------------------
"Play to express, not to impress"
www.gregertsen.com
Southern Moon Northern Lights
|
|
|
|
Per Berner
From:
Skovde, Sweden
|
Posted 4 Oct 2006 1:21 am
|
|
A little compression is actually desirable in some cases - but just that little tiny bit.
I wouldn't want to play my Telecaster without it - it takes the sharpest edges off the bite and adds some much needed sustain.
But if I crank up the compressor, everything sounds the same regardless of how I hold the pick, how I attack the strings, etc. That's no good at all.
------------------
´75 Emmons p/p D10 8+4, ca '72 AWH Custom D10 8+3, Hybrid Zum coming soon, Peavey Nashville 1000
|
|
|
|
Matt Dawson
From:
Luxembourg, Europe
|
Posted 4 Oct 2006 3:43 am
|
|
Lowell George from Little Feat used to put slide guitar through TWO mxr dynacomp compressors in series for that super-compressed sound ...but that was one instrument not the whole mix.
Matt |
|
|
|
Brad Sarno
From:
St. Louis, MO USA
|
Posted 4 Oct 2006 5:25 am
|
|
Yea, everything we hear is compressed to some degree. Always has been, for decades. It's not a compressed vs. not-compressed argument. It's about the abuse of the tools. Mixes always get compressed in mastering, except for perhaps some esoteric audiophile purist recordings. This loudness thing happened when digital peak limiters came on the scene. They can "look ahead" at oncoming peaks and then roundly compress them as they go by. This allows for the possibility of extremely loud levels, previously impossible to achieve. It's the abuse of this modern digital peak limiting that is at the heart of the loudness race. It's very seductive when you first hear the energetic result of slamming a digital peak limiter, but the overall effect is actually bad. The first minute or so of hearing it is impressive, but after a few minutes or a few songs, the effect on the listener is more exhausting. Music needs dynamics so that loud means something, like in a crescendo. If it's always equally loud, like today's music, then that breath and drama is gone. The listener is just getting pummelled. The only real plus that I can see to heavily peak limited (loud) music is that when driving in a car, the music never drops below the road noise making you reach for the volume knob. Radio broadcasting does this already, but if you're playing a CD or an iPod in your car, this loudness thing has this affect. Actually, some modern car stereos offer compression now so your CD's or iPod can sound more like radio.
Brad
|
|
|
|
Per Berner
From:
Skovde, Sweden
|
Posted 4 Oct 2006 6:51 am
|
|
The sound system in my previous car had a vehicle speed sensing automatic volume control function, which also sensed the output from the CDs for a very crude kind of compression. If I listened to really dynamic classical music, the volume would move up and down, which due to the built-in volume sensitive loudness function also changed the eq all the time. Extremely annoying, and impossible to shut off. Now I have I-Drive instead, which can drive you totally mad for completely different reasons...
------------------
´75 Emmons p/p D10 8+4, ca '72 AWH Custom D10 8+3, Hybrid Zum coming soon, Peavey Nashville 1000
|
|
|
|
Eric Jaeger
From:
Oakland, California, USA
|
Posted 4 Oct 2006 3:46 pm
|
|
Yah, but in the end if someone thinks: 1) it's possible, and 2) it'll make $$$, they'll do it.
As to kids not knowing any better, I'll bet our parents said the same thing about us (was Iron Butterfly THAT bad  ? ). But I also think H.L. Mencken said no one ever lost money betting on the stupidity of the American people (not that I'd limit that to "American").
-eric |
|
|
|
