“Audiophiles”: Oh Please…

Jonathan, I couldn’t disagree with you more. Criticism of the loudness war has nothing to do with audiophiles, luddites, old people, distortion, or bands wanting it or not. Seems like you’re kind of missing the point.

Some would say, “the louder the better”. But modern records aren’t actually getting louder, because listeners simply turn down the volume as the mastering engineers keep turning it up each year.

What happens instead, is the music simply becomes less dynamic, and the problem with that is it robs music of it’s emotional power. It’s really not better at all.

The practice of using brickwall limiting and soft-clipping has been perpetuated based on the mistaken belief that it makes these records have more impact and drives sales. Neither of these beliefs comes even close to being true.

Modern brickwall limited music is near impossible to enjoy the sound of (fall out boy… anyone). There’s no impact if the music sounds so bad it compels you to turn it down or off. The limited dynamics musically castrate these records. They’re void of emotion, drama, and power. All tension with no release. That’s not music… it’s noise. Sonic decisions based on economics are never well informed. They’re ignorant.

Not only is the music industry waking up to this obvious conclusion, but so is the mainstream press. There have been major articles criticizing it in rolling stone, chicago tribune, and many other national and international newspapers and magazines in recent months. This isn’t a bandwagon… it’s a groundswell.

I think you’re giving the music industry too much credit, if you see this as progress. Every person I know in the business (on all sides of the glass) are completely unwilling to defend the “loudness wars” sonically. The only defense anyone is willing to give is that “we have to do this because everybody else is doing it.” Which is the only reason bands ask for it. And clearly, unless you’re a lemming looking over the edge of a cliff, that’s not a very good reason.

And the argument that some people make, that consumers are in any way influenced to purchase music based on it’s “loudness” is clearly false. Sales have never been driven by the sound of records. As always, they’re driven by the music (fall out boy… anyone). People are buying these records in spite of how bad they sound. So, why not at least make them sound good, if we’re going to pay for them.

The ramifications are that today’s music sounds like crap (there’s wide spread agreement on this… even by 17 year olds) and sales are tanking. Clearly, the “loudness race” is not the source of the sales problem, but it sure as hell isn’t the solution.

Nearly everyone in the business has come to the conclusion that by making records a little bit louder each year that they passed the point of making it sound better a few years back. But since the change was so slight each year, they actually didn’t realize it until they went too far.

You may disagree with all of this and that’s totally cool. But you should understand the reasoning behind the widespread criticism. It’s based on the effect it is having on the music, not the effect it is having on the sound.

By Hal Keuntz on Feb 3, 2008

Thank you so much for a great comment!

Sure thing, and you’re welcome. I’m just trying to help you see the bigger picture as I see it, because in my view your analysis is incomplete.

It really doesn’t matter if the reasons to it are right or wrong. All evolution comes from a reason, whether it is “right” or “wrong”. Because that notion is relative. You missed the point a little.

I didn’t mention “right” or “wrong”. Aside from being relative, it’s irrelevant to this issue. This is not about absolutes.

Music is a creative act. It’s art. There is obviously no wrong or right in art.

Your argument about guitars and distortion is obscuring the issue, because you keep seeing this as an “evolution” or “progress”. Like Hendrix distorting the crap out of his guitar. That was progress. That was using a technology “wrong” to create something new that had never been heard. (Marshall was originally a bass amp, and Jimi used it because guitar amps back then couldn’t distort that heavily.)

You’re drawing a parallel between guitar distortion and distortion of music.

But this distortion is not being done for musical, sonic or artistic expression.

The point you’re missing is, none of the mastering engineers are doing this because they think it sounds good. Ask any of them, they will emphatically tell you that brickwall limited records don’t sound good or musical, and the ONLY reason they do it is because the clients ask for it (as you said).

But the clients don’t ask for it because they think it sounds good. They ask for it because everybody else is doing it. And herein lies the folly…

EVERYBODY is doing it because EVERYBODY ELSE is doing it.

Do you see the problem here?

No one is doing it because they actually want to.

If they were… THAT would be musical expression.

But they’re not.

This is commercial expression.

What the industry has done is sonically paint themselves into a corner. But all the while they were doing it, they didn’t notice how far they had gone. Then one day everybody looked around and realized. Oh crap… we’ve gone way too far with this thing.

You can’t find one person in the business who will tell you this is good for the music. Or that it sounds good. (At least I can’t.) NO ONE thinks it’s good for the music.

The ONLY reason anyone will give you is that it can help you get noticed. Or at least that’s what they thought it would do…

Have you listened to fall out boy? I can guarantee you that the band doesn’t even think their own record sounds good. It is crushed to within an inch of it’s life. But they mistakenly believed that it was necessary for them to make it that loud to compete with everybody else (who were doing it because THEY had to compete with everybody else (who were doing it because THEY…))

If you try to listen to the fob record loudly, you can barely get through a song. It actually hurts. Let alone listen to three in a row. That doesn’t help sales. That record’s success is absolutely not based on it’s fidelity or lack of. You know as well as I do, it’s selling because kids love the band, music and lyrics. Same as it ever was.

This is not progress or evolution.

It’s an industry chasing it’s tail.

I fully understand what you’re saying. And I can agree at a certain level. What you’re missing is, most people nowadays might think less dynamics is bad and it’s just noise, but younger generations either don’t care or got so used to it that they now love it!

No they don’t. I talk to kids about this all the time. They think records today sound like crap. Why do you think they’re buying vinyl? Why do you think they’re buying albums from the 60s, 70s and 80s? Ask them. Two of the reasons they’ll tell you is that they like the music and it sounds better.

Just type the title of that rolling stone article into google. You’ll find a ton of kids discussing it. Or go to the RS website and read the comments for the article. When the symptoms of brickwall limiting are pointed out to kids, they immediately realize why they think records sound so bad these days.

Hi-Fidelity exists when it’s requested. If there is no commercial demand for it, a trend might start… in the opposite direction.

Again, you keep coming back to hi-fi.

You’re really missing the point. This is not about people digging classical music, or any other hairsplitting audiophile voodoo. This is a core musical issue. This music doesn’t FEEL good. It’s about the homogenization of music’s emotions into an unrelenting stream of…

NOW! NOW! NOW! NOW! NOW! NOW!

After awhile it just wears you down. Dynamics are a fundamental building block of the musical vocabulary for a reason. That is where A LOT of the emotions are.

Eliminating them is emotionally crippling to the music. The dynamics were there in the original performances, but they are all flattened out by the end of the process. The emotions are turned into cartoon versions of themselves. Hollow and fake.

And the kids are realizing this.

You see this as some kind of audiophile backlash. You’re out of step with the times. The audiophiles were screaming about the loudness war 20 years ago.

This has reached critical mass within the music industry. Why do you think it’s spilling out into the mainstream media?

You do realize, that technically this trend doesn’t really have much room left to go? The avg rms of music today is -5 dB. There is not much dynamic room left after that. So, the industry has already realized they have to reverse the trend. Consumers are realizing right now the trend needs to be reversed. And indie artists (who always set the trends in music) are already abandoning the practice.

Why do you think they’re releasing records on vinyl? Because vinyl inherently cannot be brickwall limited. The needle will jump right out of the groove. Literally. I’m not kidding. Vinyl is much more dynamic and the artists know their label can’t make them crush it. It’s simply physically impossible.

And incase you think I’m some kind of vinyl luddite, let me assure you… I can’t stand vinyl. But I do love records that have emotion and power. Records that I can turn up and enjoy loudly. And the indie scene has a lot of them.

The tide is turning as we type.

Because that’s all it is. A trend. Eventually this war is understood and mastering will be more forgiving on the dynamics. I don’t believe this will go on indefinitely. I believe it’s a phase, just like so many phases we had in music and other arts.

As I said above, we’re about 5 dB from going any further. So, you’re right. It would be impossible for it to continue.

The post-Inquisition period in England brought dissonance that today is considered just awful sounding, because of discordance of ups and downs in the variable scale runs. It was a phase. They loved those horrible sounding harmonies at the time! If you review your music & art history, you’ll find there is a pattern.

You keep making analogies that you think are parallel, but they simply aren’t.

There is no one who is doing this for a creative reason. I defy you to find even one. I’ve tried. I can’t. No one will tell me they are doing this because they want to. EVERYONE tells me they are doing this, because they have to.

The loudness wars is just another example of people saying “that’s not music, it’s noise. And whoever thinks this is right, is ignorant”. That has been happening for CENTURIES! And you just said it again… Coincidence? You just sounded like my mom talking about rock guitar distortion.

Nope.

That is not what I said. I said it was ignorant to make sonic decisions based on economics. Do you disagree with that? Engineers work to make records sound great. And there is broad spectrum of great. Rezner to Krall. I like them all. (fob too… they just don’t sound so great.) But does it make sense to make records sound a certain way ONLY for an economic reason?

We’re talking about music. Not tires.

Make musical decisions based on the music. Make sonic decisions based on the sound. But don’t make either based on the money. That will move you away from music and towards “product.”

Again, this is not about fidelity.

It’s about an industry that has gone too far with an effect. They now realize this and they are slowy backing out of the corner… trying not to get paint on their shoes.

Or egg on their face.

They know they’ve gone too far. They all get it. They just don’t know how to back out. But the first step to solving a problem is identifying it. Which they have. They’ll work it out.

The indie scene has already.

I’m not saying it’s a progress, I’m saying ideas change, for commercial, musical or convenience reasons.

This is not about convenience or music. But I agree with you on one thing. What got us to this point was exclusively commercial reasons.

Sound quality does influence record sales, and if something’s wrong they’ll have to make adjustments to stop their own demise.

IF?

So, you think these records sound good?

Come on… you’re kidding. Right?

And please give me one example of sound quality influencing sales.

I’ll give you thousands of records widely agreed upon to sound utterly horrific… that sold millions.

Records have always sold for the music first.

EVERYthing else is secondary.

I don’t disagree with you. I just think you missed the bigger picture. And that’s what this article was for You’re not wrong. You just could be more right… And we’re artists. We’re always trying to learn more and improve. Right?

What bigger picture?

You’re right I missed it. If you mean this trend exists because it’s consumer driven, you’re mistaken. Consumers for the most part had no idea this was happening until very recently. If you mean it’s artist driven, you’re kinda right.

But the most important point is that it’s NOT artistically driven.

In reality, it’s entirely industry driven. It has been for the entire 50 years it has been going on. It started back in the early sixties with motown, atlantic, and all the other labels of the era competing with each other to have the hottest record.

But what always kept the practice in check was vinyl. The dynamics that vinyl was capable of reproducing were pretty damn musical. But digital can reproduce pink noise at 0 dBfs. There is nothing else after that. End of the dynamic line.

As the industry continued to creep up the volume, they also continued to wither away the dynamics. And because CDs allowed unlimited volume (before zero) and brickwall limiters allowed zero dynamics, things kept “progressing” (I use the term loosely) — a half a dB here, a half a dB there — until we got where we are today.

Zero nuance. Zero shading. Zero subtlety. Zero depth. Zero air. Zero space.

Just flat fat brick songs. Musical wrecking balls. An aural assault. On. Off. Song over.

Which might be cool… if it wasn’t all eleven songs on every album I buy. After awhile you just have turn it off. Anything for some oxygen please.

I love music. I love the music on these records. I hate it that they make we want to NOT listen to them. But what’s to love in these emotionally barren music sledgehammers?

Now it’s time to step back off the edge of this sonic cliff.

Which we are essentially doing by having this conversation.

And yes, we can always learn and improve. That’s why I’m posting this… to help you understand the fallacy of the practice.

I hope it’s helping. I’m not trying to berate you. I’m tying to hip you to the circular logic that got us here. You don’t want to follow it. It won’t do you one bit of good. If crushing your record was the key to record sales, how do you explain all the crushed records that you’ve never heard and never will?

Everybody crushes their record, but only 5% of them ever turn a profit. So, crushing a record has NOTHING to do with sales.

It’s the music, music, music.

PS: I hope you don’t stop reading the blog! We want to keep making people happy, making them think and be fascinated with the audio world we all love.

Sure, I’ll keep reading your blog.

I’m just trying to get you to think too.

In my own defense, if a “re-mastered” edition of an old album comes out, I usually prefer the new version…

Just fyi, the remastered albums can’t come close to being as loud as modern releases. If they crushed them to modern levels they would simply not musically resemble the original record. The loudest they usually get is about 6 dB quieter than records today. And therefore also 6 dB more dynamic.

They might be louder than they were before. They might be brighter, or have more bass. But they just can’t make them as loud as my chemical romance, because it would really sound horrible. The level they are making them is a fairly reasonable and musical level.

So, that explains why you might like the sound of them. For the most part, I do too.

By Hal Keuntz on Feb 3, 2008

You don’t get it.

You are the only person I have ever heard argue that this sounds good. Seriously. And it seems like I can’t get you to even say that. I’m convinced you’re debating these points, because you enjoy being contrary. Not out of a deep seated belief that sonically this is a good thing.

Again, both you and that mixer are doing this based on circular logic. You’re caught in a feedback loop. It makes your records sound better compared to other records at the same level. That’s all.

But take your mixes before and after they’re brickwall limited, and compare them to each other at matched volumes. In other words, turn the brickwall limited mixes down the same amount it was limited. Generally about 6 dB. And compare those to each other. That is the only fair comparison.

The most recent 6 dB of dynamics that was eliminated over the last ten years or so has nothing to do with any of the things you said.

No one has to change the volume knob on their stereos with an album at an avg rms of -11 or -12 dB.

We’re not talking dynamics between sections of a song. What’s been eliminated in recent years is the space between the notes. The microdynamics. This is the air, space, depth and dimension of the sound.

Please name one mastering engineer that says an avg rms of -5 or -6 dB sounds good and improves the music.

And please answer this question… does the fob infinity album sound good to you?

By Hal Keuntz on Feb 4, 2008

Hal, Jonthan doesn’t appear to have an open mind here. I wanted you to know that your post weren’t for naught, they really made *me* think. Thank you.

Jonathan - you need to step back and read and digest what he’s said. He’s presented his case clearly, your responses are nit-picky and not convincing.

By millifoo on Feb 8, 2008

I think the new Fallout Boy album sounds good.

I also think mix engineers have become pretty savvy at creating punch and clarity in today’s heavy limited music.

And its still very possible to mix dynamics into the songs, you just have to adjust your ways a bit. Successful mix engineers these days mix knowing that the song is going to be crushed to high hell, so obviously its important to mix with some sort of limiting, as to get a feel for what mastering will do.

Now, I agree a bit of clarity, warmth and punch is lost - but sonically the records coming out these days take full advantage of the sound spectrum, and they do so very well - MUCH better than records of the past.

By the way, I’m 20, and I’m and engineer by trade and I a musician by profession, so I face both sides of the story. Oh, and Hal, I have not heard one kid ever complain of the sound quality on new records; I’ve ONLY heard complaints about the quietness of old records. I’m not sure which kids your talking to, but I socialize with hundreds of kids on an almost daily basis when on tour, and a good amount in the studio, and this is a rock-solid opinion from everyone I’ve spoken to. I think you should give Jonathan a bit more credit here.

I think we can all agree both sides have their ups and downs, but while I think we may back off the limiting a bit, music is never going back to the days of -11 or -12 dB.

Corey

By Corey on Feb 12, 2008

Again… name ONE mastering engineer that says an avg rms of -5 or -6 dB sounds good.

By Hal Keuntz on Feb 12, 2008

Why do I need to name a mastering engineer to qualify my opinion that I THINK IT SOUNDS GOOD? Besides, any mastering engineer I list, you wouldn’t know anyways so what good would it do?

You changed your opinion anyways, before you were saying all the kids didn’t like it, and now you are into the 0.001% of the population known as mastering engineers. If the populace likes it (and they are the ones buying/stealing it), then give it to them!

Corey

By Corey on Feb 12, 2008

I wouldn’t know them? Why would you assume that?

I might know them personally.

My point is that you can’t find one. Every ME I know hates doing this. They only do it at the request of their clients. And they say, their clients aren’t doing it because they think it sounds good or it is good for the music, they’re only requesting it because they want it to be as loud as everyone else.

You don’t see the fallacy here?

The dog chasing it’s tail effect?

MEs are the ones doing this. And they’re doing under protest. That’s why it makes perfect sense to ask the ones doing it they’re opinion. They are considered to have the best ears in the business. They should know.

———————–

Let me put it to you this way.

When using an eq, compressor, or processing of any kind, there is always a point where an engineer, producer or artist realizes it’s too much, and they back it off to find the setting that works for the music.

Considering that records get less dynamic every year, and records currently have a dynamic window of about 10 dB, at what point do you believe the industry should stop decreasing the dynamic range?

For the last 20 years we’ve lost about 1 dB of dynamic range each year. At some point there is nowhere left to go and it will clearly be destructive to the music.

So, where do you think that point is?

By Hal Keuntz on Feb 12, 2008

I’m not totally disagreeing with you. Read my posts, I agree that there are negatives. And as I’ve said, I think we’ve pretty much reached the edge, I don’t think we’ll push much hotter than what the current standard is (-5/-6 dB).

But you were saying that kids and musicians didn’t like the sound. I’m telling you that’s wrong. Sure ME’s may not like it, and I’m sure quite a few bands would want it backed off a bit, but in general, loud is good, compression is the current sound, and it works.

I don’t see why you’re arguing with me, I’m not really opposing anything you’ve said other than the whole “kids/musicians think limiting sounds bad.”

So let me put it you this way:

Yes, limiting has its downfalls, and we’ve definitely reached a point where we can’t go much further. Currently trends dictate that limiting will start backing off a bit, especially since Indie is dominating the market right now.

So what is there left to argue?

I agree with you on 70% of your points. I just happen to be of the opinion that I like the sound of the new Fallout Boy album, and I know A LOT of kids and bands that also dig the sound of a hard compressed record.

By Corey on Feb 12, 2008

Jonathan,

This is without a doubt one of the best things i have read with regards to this subject.

I understand the points you are trying to make.

Count this blog added to my list of places to visit. It has a lot to offer.

By Dan on Feb 13, 2008

Great conversation. Really.

70% is an excellent start… so, let’s just argue the remaining 30. :)

About -11 or -12…

You say, “music is never going back to the days of -11 or -12 dB” as if we’re talking about the level of a michael buble, josh groban, or james taylor album. But that’s not what I’m talking about. Those records are very mellow and quiet with an avg rms more like -17 to -22 dB.

An avg rms of -11 or -12 dB is a pretty damn loud and heavily compressed record.

For example, these albums are about that loud:

metallica - black album
def leppard - hysteria
gnr - appetite for destruction
gnr - use your illusion
nirvana - nevermind
aerosmith - pump
stp - core
u2 - achtung baby
soundgarden - superunknown
nin - broken
pearl jam - ten
rage against the machine - ratm
megadeth - countdown to extinction
beastie boys - licensed to ill
smashing pumpkins - siamese dream
black crowes - money maker
tool - ænima

These are very powerful, aggressive, and screaming loud records. They’re extremely hard compressed, hitting you square in the chest with massive impact. They have depth, space and size. Most importantly, these records sound amazing and are anything but fatiguing to listen to.

There is nothing the least bit wimpy about an avg rms of -11 or -12 dB.

The impact and power of these records comes from the dynamic space around the drums. In contrast, on more recent records, as the spaces between the drum hits get louder, the less impact the drums are actually able to have. Because, as the avg rms creeps up, the drums have nowhere to go but get pushed down into the guitars and bass. This of course means the record is louder, but in response listeners turn these records down.

The result is the impact of the record is actually lessened. Not increased.

About compression vs limiting…

I know you’re an engineer and I don’t mean to insult you, but I’d like to point out that compression (which you keep mentioning) and brickwall limiting (which I’m talking about) are not at all the same thing. They may both be dynamic range processing, but they don’t sound the same, and don’t have the same affect on the music.

While I’m criticizing the overuse of brickwall limiting on modern records, your response is to defend the creative use of compression. But you and I are on the same page about compression.

Compression has been used creatively in record making for over 50 years. Brickwall limiting is a new technology that came along in the mid 90’s. If that seems like a coincidence, let me assure you, it is not. That is exactly when this trend of decreasing dynamics turned from using musical compression to employing less-musical brickwall limiitng.

Take any of the pre-brickwall limiting era records I listed above, and listen to them side by side next to fob infinity or any other modern rock record, without moving the volume knob the modern record will sound much bigger and more powerful.

Then make the same comparison with the volume adjusted to compensate for the louder record, just like music fans do to louder records. They turn them down to a comfortable listening level. Basically, turn the modern record down about 6 dB. Now, listen to them side by side at your normal listening level, and tell me which sounds bigger and more powerful.

I’d be curious to hear your opinion on this. Really.

About the kids…

I’m not sure what kids you’ve been talking to and what questions you’ve been asking them, but just to share some insight on who I’ve been talking to, these kids are not engineers or musicians, they’re just music fans.

They tell me they had noticed that music kept getting louder and louder each year, and in the last few years they’ve also noticed they can’t listen to their newer albums very many times without wanting to skip ahead to the next song, or just turn them off altogether. Even though they really like these artists, they tell me they just don’t enjoy listening to their records. And they didn’t understand why.

But when they learned about the loudness war from various articles and that youtube movie. They tell me it all makes sense to them, because they’ve never felt this way about older music.

If you don’t believe me just read the comments here on the rs website that regular music fans have been making in response to that rolling stone article I mentioned above. It’s incredibly eye opening. Not everybody agrees, but it is very suprising how many regular music fans feel this way. Many more than I would have expected.

It’s interesting to see music fans coming to terms with something they’d been feeling for awhile, but didn’t understand. And now they do. Some of them are literally coming to this realization as they’re typing their comments.

About complaints of quietness…

Again, I don’t mean to insult you, but you do realize that “complaints about the quietness of old records” most probably aren’t sonic criticisms, they’re instead complaints of convenience.

These kids are complaining that they have to turn the volume up on older records compared to their newer records, and they find this annoying. Which I totally undersatnd. But this is not the same thing as saying that older records sound bad.

What would happen if you ask these kids to turn the volume up on the older records? What do they think of the sound then? None of the kids I’ve spoken with believe records from the early 90’s sound bad. They’re simply quieter.

But as I’m trying to point out, that quietness is what gives engineers like yourself the headroom to give impact and power to your work. Really.

By Hal Keuntz on Feb 15, 2008

Alright, lets move the agreement meter to 90%.

About compression verses limiting - I guess I’m just lumping them in the same category since, at least in my experience, a multiband is used in conjuction with the limiter - and really does most of the “limiting” with the limiter merely boosting and clipping off any stray peaks left over. So for me, these levels are reached mostly through compression, and only slightly through limiting. Again, though, that is just my experience, and I’m no ME.

While I do agree that all those albums you mentioned are great, I still don’t think we’ll ever return to songs averaging -11 or -12 dB. That’s just my opinion, but I stand by it. Now, if it does swing that far, then great, it makes all of our jobs that much easier, because, as you’ve mentioned, giving power to drums in the -5 dB region is not an easy task.

The kids…well, I mean these are kids that come out to our shows, and to music shows in general. Most of them aren’t versed in recording theory, music theory, or anything of that sort. I don’t really what more to say here, this again is just my experience, and it differs from yours. While the article you link is definitely a good sign, its such a small portion of listeners that its hard to even credit. I’m definitely glad to see kids coming to terms with things though.

Agreed on your ‘complaints of quietness’ - but we live in a lazy age (a disgustingly lazy age at that). But besides that, there is a certain adrenaline boost when you hear a distorted signal of audio, we witness this all the time in live concert settings where BE’s crank the kick drum into audible distortion in the low end. The subs hit harder, and the kids get more into it. The trained ear can hear the driver distorting, but at the level the music is at, the kids simply don’t hear it. They just feel the bass, and like it. Same thing in car stereo’s - modern hip hop distorts the low end terribly, but kids turn it up, loud. It gives them that rush that only low end can.

I guess my point with that is while turning up the volume can make the song louder, it still doesn’t infuse it with that, well, over compressed (or limited) sound that today’s music thrives on. I can’t what a hip hop song would sound like if it wasn’t constantly clipping - just doesn’t seem like it would sound right…

I’m not saying that -5 sounds better than -11 or -15 or whatever. I am simply stating that I don’t think it sounds bad. It may lack punch in certain areas, but it creates a different punch in a different area.

By Corey on Feb 15, 2008

How far do I want to take this? It’s a conversation. You don’t want people to have a conversation on your blog. That’s cool. I understand.

By Hal Keuntz on Feb 15, 2008

Wow…

By Hal Keuntz on Feb 15, 2008

I have no hard feelings here either way.

I just think we all have strong opinions on the subject matter, and are pretty much set in our ways. Hal, I respect that you detest brickwall limiting - and definitely agree that it can be damaging to music. In return I just ask that you respect my feelings towards the subject (which I think you do).

With subjects like this, there is no good answer, because its so hard to spot progress over pollution. In 10 or 20 years, we’ll see where the world takes us.

By Corey on Feb 15, 2008

Jesus !!, I’m amazed to read the last comments.

I agree 100 % with Hal , and Jonathan what the hell are you thinking ?, You don’t want people discussing things here, then you should’ve close this blog, you can’t support any of your badly exposed toughts, your point of view is really limited, and I am not your grandmother, I swear.

By Newcomer on Mar 5, 2008

Brotha Grand, if you keep having multiple personalities you’ll end in the birds cage.

just my 2 cents.

Mr. Doe

By John Doe on Mar 21, 2008

it’s funny to know that people seem to love the illusion that louder is better, but it’s just an illusion people! If it’s not loud enough, there is something called like a volume-knob :p

By MR AUDITORY ILLUSION on May 2, 2008

I don’t want to offend anyone but this Corey-Jonathan Grand guy must be plain hearingly challenged - or have an unmusically numb nervous system, if he is able to perceive these squashed, smashed, dynamics deprived modern sonic crap as superior to the beautiful sounding dynamic, exciting, colorful recordings from the late the 70s and the 80s, mastered with full dynamics.
I agree with Hal on all but the one point, and that’s remasters. There are very few remasters today that sound superior to the original masters - they just sound louder. Original CD masters from the 80’s and early 90’s almost always sound closer to the record, with better dynamics etc. than the remasters. And some remasters sound plain horrible, and are as squashed as any “modern” crap they put out today. Of course, there are some great sounding remasters - like the Deep Purple - Burn (30th Anniversary Edition) or Deep Purple - Machine Head (1972 - 25th Anniversay). They indeed do sound perfect - great AD transfers, and dynamics completely intact. Interestingly enough, these reissues contain also new remixed versions of tracks, and these remixed versions sound like shit compared to the original 70’s mixes. All the punch and the excitement is gone, gone, gone. So much about the progress in mixing……
Heck, even the Dire Straits original masters from the 80’s sound superior ( better dynamics, better bass, more organic-less processed sound etc) to the remasters from the 90’s - and Dire Straits are conmsidered “an audiophile band”. I’ve read on Steve Hoffman forum that Led Zeppelin CD masters from 80’s are highly sought after, cause they sound best - closest to the sound of the vinyl., etc, etc…

P.S. Hal please keep spreading the word-
-you’re expressing the crucial points very eloquently, and in a way that most people who don’t have technical background can understand, and in that respect your contribution is invaluable.

By Davor on May 7, 2008

Brilliant post here, but as much as i love my IPOD it was this that started the craze a little, i know it was louder before that but..why? well people complaining there ipod tracks are diffrent volumes AND then wanting a good sounding mp3?? how well make it louder and slammed and then yeah sorted..but no screwed even more.cant belive people pay for 128kbps files off itunes a 3.8mb file when the original is 45mb ?? does not compute.
I’m just mastering my bands album and im like umm shall i do it at 8.0 db or shall i drop it in fear of noone liking it cuz it wont fit???
I mean what do you seriously do.

By LN on Jun 20, 2008

As a professional mastering engineer I’ve seen this issue debated on many forums. I believe that both points are well made. The loudness wars are not something new as many would lead you to believe, they have been happening probably since the first wax cylinder was cut.

During the 60’s labels wanted their single in the jukebox to stand out (i.e. loud). Competition on the radio also is a reason why labels wanted their records to stand out along with compilation CDs. As mentioned is was the limitation of technology and the distribution meduim (vinyl)that prevented levels from reaching those of today.

In addition albums have gotten louder not only due to digital limiting and other technology but because certain types of music have gotten more aggressive.

Does it sound better? Well this is totally a subjective issue as can be seem from the debate above. In some cases where the music is extremely aggressive it may be part of the “sound”. I can’t really say that Death Metal sounds better at -20 RMS levels than -6. Music in these sort of genres aren’t know for their subtlety. OTOH for Jazz, Acoustic, and other types of music that demand dynamics these levels seems totally out of context.

Anyway in summary the loudness wars aren’t a recent fad, it’s existed for far more than all of these rants have been going on. Maybe it has finally reached it’s limit that people are willing to tolerate and we’ll see an trend downward or maybe we’ve reached the final “standard level” for CD. In either case there are certainly other issues in modern audio production that deserve to be discussed. I think that we’ve beaten this dead horse enough.

By Tom Volpicelli on Aug 6, 2008