Loudness War

[Sal1950]

I got the weekly email today from AudioStream and in it Michael Lavorgna posted a link to this article.
Help End The Loudness War, Please Sign This Petition.
http://www.audiostream.com/content/help-end-loudness-war#2QVZ4w7QFKeU1Jtf.97
Is this how we want to "End" the loudness wars, my encouraging streamers to normalize everything and compress the hell out of what little music there is that still contains any dynamics? All Loud All The Time
They even post a link to this AES paper on normalization to support their position.
http://www.aes.org/technical/documents/AESTD1004_1_15_10.pdf
IMHO all this does is encourage the major labels even more to smash the hell out of everything they release.
Help me, Am I missing something or is this just a total surrender to ever getting any dynamics back to music?

 

[amirm]

The idea of normalization is to have it be applied in the player, not in the content. That way it would be defeatable by the user. That is where the feature exists today except that the notion of nominal loudness is determined by the player, not any kind of standard.

I am in favor of what they are doing but only if it is defeatable as it should be. I saw nothing mentioned about that in the video.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Compression has been around for a long time. The Phil Spector "wall of sound" recordings were very compressed. "Born to Run" is very compressed. The volume wars are different, though. They are an attempt to make a track "louder" than the one before it on the radio or playlist, so it jumps out and demands attention. Naturally, that war escalated beyond reason pretty quickly. Normalizing tracks, at the master, not in the device, establishing some kind of standard of "loudness" would eliminate the incentive. A bad solution to a bad problem. A better solution, the only one, really, would be demand for recordings with a more natural dynamic range, followed by a series of profitable remasters aimed at that goal. I'm afraid, though, that will require more people with playback systems capable reproducing that dynamic range in their homes. As long as the overwhelming majority of users will be listening in their cars, on their phones and at home through small bluetooth speakers, that demand will be very small. The loudness wars, and the fact that there is no end in sight, are a result of the way people listen as much as they way music is produced. There is no easy fix.

Tim

 

[TBone]

Compression has been around for a long time. The Phil Spector "wall of sound" recordings were very compressed. "Born to Run" is very compressed. The volume wars are different, though. They are an attempt to make a track "louder" than the one before it on the radio or playlist, so it jumps out and demands attention. Naturally, that war escalated beyond reason pretty quickly. Normalizing tracks, at the master, not in the device, establishing some kind of standard of "loudness" would eliminate the incentive. A bad solution to a bad problem. A better solution, the only one, really, would be demand for recordings with a more natural dynamic range, followed by a series of profitable remasters aimed at that goal. I'm afraid, though, that will require more people with playback systems capable reproducing that dynamic range in their homes. As long as the overwhelming majority of users will be listening in their cars, on their phones and at home through small bluetooth speakers, that demand will be very small. The loudness wars, and the fact that there is no end in sight, are a result of the way people listen as much as they way music is produced. There is no easy fix.

I have no issue with compressed music for the masses ... but when compression is presented as "high-rez" or "audiophile" with higher prices to boot ...

The reality is that audiophiles have been purchasing/justifying overly compressed "audiophile" crap for some time, sold behind many a new marketing scheme / acronym insinuating even "greater", "Higher", resolution.

Personally, I consider compression/limiting the biggest sonic bottleneck concerning "audiophile" reproduction today, yet much of the audiophile community remains oblivious to the issue, and would much rather blather-on about why a particular format has inherited "glare" and how much less "dynamic" it is sounds in comparison ...

Fact is: Vinyl can prove considerably more dynamic compared to CD .... (geez, I wonder why?)
Adele 21 ...
CD: DR5/5/6/6/5/7/8/5/7/7/8
LP: DR11/10/9/12/12/13/10/11/13/12/10

 

[TBone]

The idea of normalization is to have it be applied in the player, not in the content. That way it would be defeatable by the user. That is where the feature exists today except that the notion of nominal loudness is determined by the player, not any kind of standard.

I am in favor of what they are doing but only if it is defeatable as it should be. I saw nothing mentioned about that in the video.

reminds me of ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReplayGain

 

[TBone]

I found this interesting ...

5. Peak Control

Peaks generally do not affect a loudness measurement, though they do affect perceived signal quality. A recording with high peak to loudness ratio (PLR) is often perceived as clearer and less fatiguing than one that has been excessively peak-limited.

In this discussion, “dB TP” refers to peak levels measured using a “true peak” meter according to ITU-R BS.1770-3, Annex 2. If the streamer chooses a lower target loudness than the recommended –16 LUFS (e.g. −18 LUFS), peak overloads are rarely an issue. Peak limiting is not normally required unless the incoming audio level must be increased to meet target loudness. Audio that has been attenuated to achieve the target loudness will have its peak level decreased by the same amount. Highly processed audio where original peak levels exceed 0 dB TP will not normally overload as the loudness would have to be greatly reduced to meet the target loudness. Incoming material that has been gently processed or is unprocessed will rarely exceed 0 dB TP.

...

Perhaps some Audiophiles can relate to the above (bold) statement, since listening fatigue often happens, personally, with continued compression/limited/loudness, irrespective of format.

 

[Sal1950]

Compression has been around for a long time. The Phil Spector "wall of sound" recordings were very compressed. "Born to Run" is very compressed.
Tim

Ah but on one hand we have the 1980s BTR CD releases at DR13 and the 2014 remaster 24/96 HDA release at DR8
http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=&album=born+to+run
If possible what I would like to see is a set compression ratio that could be undone at the users end with the push of a button that reversed the process exactly. Won't happen.
I know I'm fighting a hopeless battle but when they post this idea as a "End The Loudness Wars" solution it just raises my hackles. This normalization won't do a damn thing to encourage the labels to release more dynamic music, just the opposite I fear.
The call the current crop of classic rock remasters on HDTracks, etc, "Audiophile Recordings"?

 

[RayDunzl]

If possible what I would like to see is a set compression ratio that could be undone at the users end with the push of a button that reversed the process exactly.

Compression applied to the final mix might be amenable to that, but I would think it is applied 'here and there' in a multitrack mix.

 

[amirm]

A bit more background on this, while we can all agree that compression is "bad," one argument that is hard to get over is the person listening to a playlist of many tracks withe source (phone, iPod) is not at their disposal to keep messing with the volume. The effort behind this then to provide that feature without the manipulation being in the content.

 

[Thomas savage]

Well, I think the dynamic range should be on the product along with the other supposed fidelity information. The problem of this compression is it imparts a bland meaningless quality to the music.. Much like having ice cream every day or indeed over indulging in anything. Things lose their meaning, perspective and contrast is everything.

This is as true in life as it is in music and our enjoyment of reproduced music in the home.

You won't stop this at source, not enough people object to it, mass market music is made for.. The masses. MP3 n ear buds and they love the compression. My Sony MP3 player is ace, it sound good for what it is but and its a big but it's not hifi.

 

[Sal1950]

Bottom line is it just pisses me off to spend $20 for a HDA download only to find the file is more suited to MP3's and FM radio broadcasting. LOL

 

[Thomas savage]

Bottom line is it just pisses me off to spend $20 for a HDA download only to find the file is more suited to MP3's and FM radio broadcasting. LOL

I agree, it's false labelling.

I will join you

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I have no issue with compressed music for the masses ... but when compression is presented as "high-rez" or "audiophile" with higher prices to boot ...

The reality is that audiophiles have been purchasing/justifying overly compressed "audiophile" crap for some time, sold behind many a new marketing scheme / acronym insinuating even "greater", "Higher", resolution.

Personally, I consider compression/limiting the biggest sonic bottleneck concerning "audiophile" reproduction today, yet much of the audiophile community remains oblivious to the issue, and would much rather blather-on about why a particular format has inherited "glare" and how much less "dynamic" it is sounds in comparison ...

Fact is: Vinyl can prove considerably more dynamic compared to CD .... (geez, I wonder why?)
Adele 21 ...
CD: DR5/5/6/6/5/7/8/5/7/7/8
LP: DR11/10/9/12/12/13/10/11/13/12/10

I agree. It is a much bigger bottleneck than 16/44.1, which very few of us can even hear, no matter how many of us imagine that we do. The problem is the masses drive the market. Until there is a mass-market demand for uncompressed music, it won't be offered on anything but audiophile releases, which will, by definition, be very limited. People with influence and attention - Neil Young comes to mind - should be railing against compressed masters instead of promoting hi-rez. And Ray, yes, compression is used "here and there" as well as during mastering. You don't want to undo the "here and there." It's a very valuable tool in production good recordings, and even live performance. Lots of guitar players have a compressor in their signal chain.

Tim

 

[TBone]

A bit more background on this, while we can all agree that compression is "bad," one argument that is hard to get over is the person listening to a playlist of many tracks withe source (phone, iPod) is not at their disposal to keep messing with the volume. The effort behind this then to provide that feature without the manipulation being in the content.

I'm not certain all compression is "bad" ... some engineers, even proponents of the Loudness War issues, often consider the early pressings, many with higher DR values, inferior to the more compressed remasters. Ian Shepperd, for instance, has stated that early Beatles CD's sound(*) inferior.

(* IIRC, he claimed you had to have hearing issues if you thought otherwise. )

Yet, to date, every person who has since heard my orig.CD of Abbey Road - on my system - would tell a different tale. IMO, it's not even remotely close, esp in terms of which pressing sounds "alive" vs "radio".

Interestingly, Steve Hoffman, who doesn't much appreciate the TT DR rating system, (IIRC) claimed his DCC process (w/tubes) limits dynamics by about ~2db, in trade, to achieve a "better" overall sound. I can't disagree, when I play his DCC releases, the entire character of my system tilts tube'ish (positively speaking) and they sound quite dynamic. Yet, post DCC, his AF(HDCD no peak extended) releases, which don't have the same tube type sound, sound more compressed.

I very much respect both SH and Ian work + opinions, but I certainly don't agree with 'em regarding compression, on an absolute level. Ian regards DR8 as being sufficient, I certainly don't.

But that's neither here nor there, because for one reason or another, many consider the higher early pressings w/>DR values too "thin" and/or lacking in bass. Yet, in my system, they sing/impact beautifully, and just as important, I rarely get fatigued listening to 'em as compared to the far more tiring compressed versions.

Yet, since -all that- resides within my small audiophile universe/room, I'm often left wondering if others preferences, in such matters, are entirely system/environment related?

 

[RayDunzl]

foobar has a plugin to read files and create entries for the Dynamic Range Database.

My next little Scientific Experiment will be to take a CD and find the DR of a track, then play it and record the track via microphone, and see what the DR of that turns out to be.

Or does everybody do that already and I just missed it?

 

[TBone]

lotta luv 4 foobar ... never heard anyone mention -that- experiment, interesting ...

 

[TBone]

My next little Scientific Experiment ...

...

 

[Sal1950]

I'm not certain all compression is "bad" ... some engineers, even proponents of the Loudness War issues, often consider the early pressings, many with higher DR values, inferior to the more compressed remasters. Ian Shepperd, for instance, has stated that early Beatles CD's sound(*) inferior.

(* IIRC, he claimed you had to have hearing issues if you thought otherwise. )

Yet, to date, every person who has since heard my orig.CD of Abbey Road - on my system - would tell a different tale. IMO, it's not even remotely close, esp in terms of which pressing sounds "alive" vs "radio".

Interestingly, Steve Hoffman, who doesn't much appreciate the TT DR rating system, (IIRC) claimed his DCC process (w/tubes) limits dynamics by about ~2db, in trade, to achieve a "better" overall sound. I can't disagree, when I play his DCC releases, the entire character of my system tilts tube'ish (positively speaking) and they sound quite dynamic. Yet, post DCC, his AF(HDCD no peak extended) releases, which don't have the same tube type sound, sound more compressed.

I very much respect both SH and Ian work + opinions, but I certainly don't agree with 'em regarding compression, on an absolute level. Ian regards DR8 as being sufficient, I certainly don't.

But that's neither here nor there, because for one reason or another, many consider the higher early pressings w/>DR values too "thin" and/or lacking in bass. Yet, in my system, they sing/impact beautifully, and just as important, I rarely get fatigued listening to 'em as compared to the far more tiring compressed versions.

Yet, since -all that- resides within my small audiophile universe/room, I'm often left wondering if others preferences, in such matters, are entirely system/environment related?

The compression statement is kind of like sex. Not all sex is good, I've been with some chicks that, OH I guess I won't go there. LOL

I don't own any of Hoffmans classic rock reissues but a 2db loss to gain a notable improvement in the general mastering would be a small but worthwild tradeoff.
The Steven Wilson remasters all measure about DR13 or 14 and pretty much reflect the numbers from the original CD's on the few I own both.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

There is much more to remastering than compression, particularly The Beatles remasters, which are not overly compressed. I have all three versions - the original CDs, the stereo remasters and the mono remasters. The originals are not the "best" IMO.

Tim

 

[Thomas savage]

The compression statement is kind of like sex. Not all sex is good, I've been with some chicks that, OH I guess I won't go there. LOL

I don't own any of Hoffmans classic rock reissues but a 2db loss to gain a notable improvement in the general mastering would be a small but worthwild tradeoff.
The Steven Wilson remasters all measure about DR13 or 14 and pretty much reflect the numbers from the original CD's on the few I own both.

don't go there again it's a two way street though unlike the compression argument.

Going into the subjective area for a moment, I find there is natural dynamics and there is hyper, over blowen dynamics.. System dependent so all things are not equal, plus a lot of guys like fake dynamics. So the compression might be ok, depends how it's used like all things. I am sure you can go too far and ruin the perspective in regard to the whole musical presentation.

It's the bland problem, same with the modern pop vocal gymnastics. You lose meaning, I need a few hazelnuts with my chocolate.