"the loudness war"

2nice

2nice

Active member
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war

i was just reading this on wikipedia about the "loudness" manipulations that go on for some records. lots of compression/limiting on the total mix, which i had been aware of (and which i approve of in some cases, such as punk rock)... but i was really surprised to learn that some people drive up their whole mix to the point of clipping on the CD. i thought that digital clipping is to be avoided (much more so than tape clipping), and that a good amount of headroom is appropriate even if everything has been squashed a lot.

rick rubin, in particular, seems to be a big offender, given how some of his audioslave, rhcp, johnny cash, and slipknot albums are listed as examples of extreme clipping. i guess that would explain the fuzzy distortion that pops out on those albums from time to time (its certainly something apart from distortion fx processors).
 
Last edited:
10, 12 years ago, I couldn't imagine compromising the sound of a recording just for the sake of sheer volume.

Now, I'm basically "forced" into it every single day, almost without exception.

It sucks. And to boot, it has almost nothing to do with the general listening public - Most of them are quite smart enough to know where the volume control is. It's a pissing match for the A&R guys and producers. The tracking guys don't want it, the mix engineers don't want it, the mastering guys certainly don't like it - It's the artists and their producers who are behind the push 90% of the time.

I really hope the industry gets over itself at some point soon so we can get on with making things sound *good* again...
 
MASSIVE Mastering said:
10, 12 years ago, I couldn't imagine compromising the sound of a recording just for the sake of sheer volume.

Now, I'm basically "forced" into it every single day, almost without exception.

It sucks. And to boot, it has almost nothing to do with the general listening public - Most of them are quite smart enough to know where the volume control is. It's a pissing match for the A&R guys and producers. The tracking guys don't want it, the mix engineers don't want it, the mastering guys certainly don't like it - It's the artists and their producers who are behind the push 90% of the time.

I really hope the industry gets over itself at some point soon so we can get on with making things sound *good* again...
Click to expand...


Just to play devil's advocate and to pose some questions and healthy debate, here...

what about this perspective on the situation:

Over time, production and mastering trends change. This is what defines a "current" sound.

There is no such thing as "better" or "worse"... only "different."

One person may think the trend toward a lighter compression and wider dynamic range as heard maybe 35 (or 10) years ago sounds "better" than what is commonly heard in todays music, but it is that heavy compression and push for more volume that is a big part of what defines "todays" sound.

There are many things that have changed over the years with regard to production. Changes that some may say are for the worse and some may say are for the better.

Pitch correcting vocals

quantizing performances

sampling

looping

scratching

plugins

emulations

digital recording

analogue synths

digital synths



I can listen to most songs and know, just from the "sound", what time period it was recorded in.

Depending on how these things are used, a song may sound "current" or "outdated"

whether you like or dislike some of these things, their use (or non-use) can make your music sound dated or current.

Somebody who grew up in a time with heavily compressed masters and super-loud tracks will most likely think that is what sounds best.

Somebody who grew up when "people", not "computers", played instruments-- will no doubt think "they don't make em like they used to" and "that's not music"

...but there is no such thing as "right" or "wrong" and no such thing as "good" or "bad" when it comes to art.

...all that exists are currently accepted trends in production and style.

In a world of necessity to be on the radio, or have a "pop" hit, or fit into a particular genré, what is important? Is the importance on having a sound that is in line with what is currently in vogue? Is it having a sound that demonstrates the widest dynamic range?


People will like whatever they like. Most likely, what they like will be whatever they are used to-- whatever they grew up with.

some people may long for the days when they'll make video games like Space Invaders and Pac Man again instead of all these "1st person shooter" games...

some people may long for the days when a car had room in the back seat so make out with your girl, and when tail fins were all the rage, instead of these slow moving compact hybrid cars...

some people may long for the days when "bands" played live music instead of the synthesizer-toting electronic artists...

some people may long for the days when singers "sang" instead of "yelled"...

some people may long for the days when women wore dresses instead of "trousers"...

some people may long for the days when dynamic range is what mattered in music instead of loudness...


But the fact is... times change... trends change... tastes change.

"Change" is always "different", but "different" is not necessarily "bad"... even if it is not what you are used to. And if heavily compressed, super-loud tracks are what people are asking for and are what the public is currently enjoying... then it can't be "bad"

(whether any particular person likes it or not is another story, but it is not definitively "bad")


It would be one thing if there were an isolated incidence of an over-compressed super-loud record that stood out and made you say with surprise "what the hell is that?!? that doesn't fit in with what is normal", but when everything is like that (and we are talking major popular records) then it is normal... and that "normal" is the new accepted "proper modern standard"


...at least until a hit song comes out that has a different standard... then that will be the new standard.

:)
 
Wow Dvyce that was a long post. I will have to come back and read it again.

But in the loudness wars it is not digital clipping, it is brickwall limiting. And that keeps converters from popping, but destroys the top end of wave forms.

It changes nice top end sine type looking waveforms into square waves at the brickwall.

From what I have seen of several studies done. They proved that this type of mastering, while loud, had initial high sales followed by a quick drop, while the ones that didn't, had steady long term sales.
 
Tim20 said:
From what I have seen of several studies done. They proved that this type of mastering, while loud, had initial high sales followed by a quick drop, while the ones that didn't, had steady long term sales.
Click to expand...

This is because loud tracks are considered more pleasing but then make us tired very fast. That's why you can't listen to a whole Lil John cd like you can Bubba Sparxxx. If you like those folk. Lil John is mastered for the one play club banger and Bubba is mastered so that your ears won't get tired after 3 min. of play. BTW this is less true with Bubba's new cd but still true.
 
Yeah, sorry I didn't elaborate. I was typing fast.

The tiredness comes from the distortion of the waveforms, which causes subliminal ear fatigue.

The aural exciter does about the same thing.
 
ill echo john,
im forced into clipping my AD or using my L2 heavily daily.
even those who come aware of the issues, saying they want quality and no volume mostly end up needing it driven hard.

the one very big point of distinction ref clipping everyone needs to be aware of is that clipping in mastering and in mixing is very very different.

when mixing and recording you want to be no where near clipping. you want clean audio to work with.

clipping in the mastering environment is both done very critically and in a controlled fashion but perhaps more importantly. theres nothing comes after it other than dithering.

if you clip in mixing any artifacts introduced, even slightly get multiplied at each stage, emphasised via processing etc and end up all over the place.
this makes it
 
I see Dvyce's point, although I still feel that volume is unrelated... All of those things - Emulation, virtual instruments, quantization, pitch correction - All are like "steroids" (for lack of a better term) of recording. Meaning, they allow a weakling to lift 400 pounds.

But volume... That's where the steroids turn the mix into a snarling beast. I don't think anyone would argue that getting a mix to it's "potential" volume is a good thing. Punch, clarity, it's all good.

After that, it's intentionally damaging and adding distortion just for the sake of sheer volume.

I don't think I've ever done a volume-compensated A/B for a client and actually had them choose the louder one - ever. The "punchy" one that was sitting where it was supposed to, sure. But the one that's got 3 or 4dB of extra boost just to make it as loud as the new Penis Envy album, never.
 
i wish that was the case more here.

its easy enough in most cases to manage to demonstrate that K-8 is something they dont really need/want to be at succefully but for many artists, the work sounds so much better at either K-14 or K-12 but its just too much of a stretch for them to let it stay there. flock mentality can be a very strong pull not just in music but in every aspect of life so it shouldnt be a surprise realistically.

they come in with a "screw loud we want dynamic" thought. you give them something sounding great at a good level (and def not quiet) and almost to a man they end up wanting it pushed further.

im not talking about the difference between totally cracking and already on the edge but between exactly where it should be and pushed a bit past this.
the first situation is pretty obvious to all that its gone way too far but the second is much subtler and more often enountered. for many they just hear the extra oomph or take the conscious decision that it makes them happier in their own mind with their products chances
 
MASSIVE Mastering said:
I see Dvyce's point, although I still feel that volume is unrelated... All of those things - Emulation, virtual instruments, quantization, pitch correction - All are like "steroids" (for lack of a better term) of recording. Meaning, they allow a weakling to lift 400 pounds.

But volume... That's where the steroids turn the mix into a snarling beast. I don't think anyone would argue that getting a mix to it's "potential" volume is a good thing. Punch, clarity, it's all good.

After that, it's intentionally damaging and adding distortion just for the sake of sheer volume.
Click to expand...


I don't mention those things to necessarily "compare" them to mastering styles...

And I don't mention them to give examples of things you can do thanks to technological innovations.

I just mention it to say that things that there are trends that come and go that "define the times"

For example, I can maybe say "scratching? sounds like a mid 1990's song"

Or I can say that I think real analogue synths sound "better" than "virtual analogue"... but if you want to sound like <artist x> from 2002, then "VA" is the sound.

Or I can say that I like tube Marshall amps, but if you want to sound like 1999 metal, you should use solid state Randall's.

Or how a guitar solo in your song may date your song to a particular time period.

Or that "cher" vocal effect puts you in a particular time period.

Or having 20 minute long songs puts you into a particular time period.

Or sampling movie quotes puts you in a certain time period.

Or how sampling the way Public Enemy did puts you in a different time frame from sampling the way Kanye West does.

Or rapping in the way Eminem does puts you in a different timeframe than rapping in the way RUM DMC does or Bone Thugs does.

Or having rock songs with big booming drums and tight distortion on the guitars puts you in a different time frame than dry drums and dirty loose guitars.

...AND, in that same way, having songs mastered in a particular manner will put your music into a particular time frame.


...it is not about technology... it is just about usage and trends in style.
 
i know one thing, altoug sometimes the songs are great, i hardly can stand a lot of overcompressed music. 50 cent or lil john just hurt my ears due to overcompressing. I'll prefer 70's music way higher than most top 40's of today, due to the overcompressing.

you hear it very good in the music of sean paul and shaggy (i'm a dancehallhead if you didn't know that yet). I've you buy the original 7" singles from jamaica, they sound way better than the atlantic maxi's or cd's made for the US Mainstream, even if they are the same song. Mainly cause jamaicans don't overcompress. Their music is build, mixed and mastered to be played on heavy , mostly horn driven soundsystems, not for radio.
 
We can all prose it up all day lonhg but it comes down to bad education...that's all.

You have musicians kicking the gains, producers (ahem so called) kicking up the gains and using punishing compression on every damn track, then the mastering engineers are forced into the same vein because the client insists on it and then..guess what....the boradcast station notch it up even more.

Bad education and too many people accomodating this and not having the balls to say 'enough!'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top