• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Loudness compression, loudness wars.. What exactly it is and why is it happening?

krabapple

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
3,193
Likes
3,754
I've had no trouble enjoying this fine music since 1973, when I bought Yessongs with my allowance money. I certainly haven't found any of it 'unlistenable'....which is good as I've spent decades playing it over and over to learn parts.

There's vast amounts of music that isn't recorded like Steely Dan, that I enjoy immensely.

(I feel sorry for those who can't do that. )

Anyway, dynamics was never a problem. And SW's EQ 'fixes' have in some cases bloated the bass at the expense of treble (Relayer again..where did the snap go?). But it's more typically a matter of mix choices and levels, where SW falls short for me, not overall EQ.
 

Sal1950

Grand Contributor
The Chicago Crusher
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
14,155
Likes
16,838
Location
Central Fl
The other thing is, I find the gushing over SW's Yes work to often be inversely proportional to how well/long the gusher knows/loves the albums.
Well we all have our opinions but I find yours on this subject to be totally in the toilet.
I don't know how old you are or what the quality is of you multich hifi but it appears to me there is something completely in error with your evaluation. I'm 70 years old and been a Yes fan since their burst onto the FM radio scene.. Go over to one of the dedicated multich websites and your likely to get hung for your stated opinion. LOL @MRC01 has replied in a very even handed manner, I have to say I've heard folks criticize various pieces of Steven's work but have never heard anyone give his entire catalog of work for Yes in this manner.
Sounds more like a personal plate of sour grapes.
 

Robin L

Master Contributor
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
5,263
Likes
7,691
Location
1 mile east of Sleater Kinney Rd
It would be very nice if someone of you takes a little time and explain this loudness thing to the rest of us that don't really know what it refers to. :)
It means the artist/producer thought that limiting dynamic difference would make the music better in some way. It also means that "audiophiles" will complain about the results.
 

krabapple

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
3,193
Likes
3,754
Well we all have our opinions but I find yours on this subject to be totally in the toilet.
I don't know how old you are or what the quality is of you multich hifi but it appears to me there is something completely in error with your evaluation. I'm 70 years old and been a Yes fan since their burst onto the FM radio scene.. Go over to one of the dedicated multich websites and your likely to get hung for your stated opinion. LOL @MRC01 has replied in a very even handed manner, I have to say I've heard folks criticize various pieces of Steven's work but have never heard anyone give his entire catalog of work for Yes in this manner.
Sounds more like a personal plate of sour grapes.

Well I'm happy to broaden your experience, then.

My age? Figure it out. I've been a fan since 'Roundabout' was a single played on AM top 40 radio.

I've delved into their music and history pretty deeply since then.

I of course own all their albums and all of Wilson's remixes.

I've played their music in bands.

I run this website devoted to Yes's live performances.

I've seen them perform dozens of times. My first was the famous Roosevelt Stadium show in 1976.

You could say I'm a fan. You could say I know their work and recordings pretty well.

I'm also a longtime and current poster at QuadraphonicQuad...and have expressed the very same opinions there. It's a minority opinion but my point about the inverse rule is actually drawn from my experience there.

So, what exactly would I have 'sour grapes' about?

You sound like the type who tells himself skeptics of boutique audio must just be 'jealous'.
 

egellings

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 6, 2020
Messages
4,053
Likes
3,297
If I got it right, one of the reasons for compressing the dynamic range of sound was so that radio stations could push the modulation of the transmitters higher without worrying about doing an oops! and overmodulating the transmitter on peaks. This provided a large area of reception coverage, and advertisers paid more for that.
 

Don Hills

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
708
Likes
464
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
... and they reasoned that being the loudest station on the dial would capture more listeners as they tuned past. (Back when radios had tuning knobs.)
But the loudness problem started before that, with programmers' meetings where they auditioned new tracks to add to the playlist. Each track might only get 10 or 20 seconds to make an impact, so the louder it was the better.
 

EJ3

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 10, 2019
Messages
2,183
Likes
1,702
Location
James Island, SC
It would be very nice if someone of you takes a little time and explain this loudness thing to the rest of us that don't really know what it refers to. :)
I'll add this in: I also posted it somewhere else on this site, forgot where:
What's happened to CD?
17th January 2010 by Tim Jarman
Do you remember the first time you heard Compact Disc? Compared to the cheap record players and misadjusted tape decks that formed the bulk of the audio equipment in use up until the end of the 1980s it was a revelation, with its clean bright treble, absent background noise and the way that loud passages of music seemed to leap out of the loudspeakers.
One undeniable advantage that CD has over the various analogue audio formats is its dynamic range: the difference between the quietest possible sound that can be discerned above the medium’s natural background noise and the loudest sound that can be recorded without excessive distortion. CD can in theory manage 96dB, in comparison to the best cassettes at 70dB and LPs at around 50dB.
The dB (decibel) logarithmic scale is used by engineers to express the difference between two quantities that vary over a wide range. When discussing the magnitude of audio signals all that you have to remember is that the signal halves (or doubles) with every 6dB of change. The dB is a relative unit, so one needs a reference value to make any sense of it. In terms of CD players 0dB is the level at which all 16 bits in the digital code on the disc are at “1”, the highest value that can be represented and therefore the maximum output level of the DAC (digital to analogue converter) in the player. In CD terms, 0dB (strictly speaking 0dBfs, or “full scale”) is a “hard limit” that it is not possible to go beyond, in contrast the 0dB of a cassette recorder is an arbitrary signal level which long ago represented the point at which, with a certain type of tape, the amount of distortion present was 2%. With modern tapes and heads one can easily record beyond 0dB without generating 2% distortion. +4dB is not unusual when using metal tape and Bang & Olufsen’s own HX Pro recording system.
The way that distortion occurs is another difference between analogue and digital audio systems. An analogue system in theory suffers from less distortion the smaller the signal it has to handle. Factors such as noise and the non-linearity of some types of amplifier work against this simple rule, but it is still valid as a general case. Digital systems are the opposite, because the resolution of the system falls as fewer of the available bits are used to represent the signal. Thus it follows that distortion becomes worse, in fact performance improves the more the signal is expanded, right up until all the bits are at “1” when suddenly it becomes horrendous. So bad is this effect that for years CDs were recorded at a fraction of their maximum possible level, under the strict guidance of the few CD pressing organisations.
Initially the advice was that the bulk of the music should be at a level no higher than -18dBfs, that is, using only 13 of the 16 bits of digital capacity. The reason for this was to allow transients, like the crash of a cymbal or the snap of a snare drum, to be reproduced accurately and completely without distortion. The trade off was of course that the overall level of distortion present in the rest of the signal was worse than necessary, giving some early CDs their characteristic steely, edgy sound. The average level was soon revised upwards to -12dBfs, doubling the available digital resolution for the bulk of the programme content but still leaving a possible fourfold increase in signal level for the loud bits.
Under these rules, the best use was made of the strengths of the compact disc system, music was crisp and clear with brilliant, breathtaking transients which no other format could match. If you look at the specifications of an early Bang & Olufsen CD playing system like the Beosystem 5000 or 5500 you will find that even though the CD player and the cassette recorder are both line level sources the cassette recorder typically produces an output signal of around 500mV RMS at 0dB where as the CD player produces 2V RMS at 0dBfs. This is not an accident, it simply reflects the fact that most of the time the CD player should ideally be playing material that has an average level of -12dBfs, a quarter of the maximum value of 2V, which is of course 500mV. Therefore when changing between the two sources the listener would for most of the time hear no change in volume, a desirable state of affairs.
These rules prevailed for all of the time that CD was mainly a format used in large (and expensive) hi-fi systems owned and used by experienced listeners. However, as cheaper players, portables and in-car models appeared the CD went from being exclusively high-end to become a mass market product. The needs of the users of these new types of player are different to those of the serious audiophile, so the way in which CDs were made also started to change. It has long been known that people respond more favourably to music that is played loudly than to music which is soft. The non-linearity of the ear in the frequency domain plays a part in this, the listener’s perception to both the high and the low frequency extremes improves greatly with increasing sound level and a lot of what makes music interesting and satisfying can be found in these ranges. Of course any CD can be made to sound louder by simply turning the volume of the amplifier up, but there is a commercial (as opposed to a technical) advantage to be had if the discs themselves simply sound “louder” without having to do this. CDs with a compressed dynamic range can also sound clearer in car players where background noise would otherwise drown out the quieter parts of the music. The last thing a driver wants is to be startled by brief, shatteringly loud passages that suddenly rise above this level.
Remembering that the average level on a CD was set to record transient sounds accurately and that the maximum level that can be recorded on a CD is fixed at an absolute point that cannot be changed, obviously something had to give. The answer was to compress the transients and raise the average level of the rest of the music. This certainly gave a sound that was loud but the dynamic range of the signal is actually less. Unlike raising the volume control to make a quiet CD loud, there was no way that the listener at home could recover the lost information. Music without vivid transients is bland and dull, it’s difficult to put one’s finger on exactly what is wrong at first but it is instantly obvious that something is missing. Even this wasn’t enough in the quest for more volume; some producers pushed the level right up to 0dBfs and beyond. Of course with CD there is no beyond, the peaks in the music crashed into the 0dBfs barrier and could go no further so they became flat topped, loosing most of the information that had been contained within them and giving a harsh, distorted sound that could be really quite unpleasant to the serious listener.
Such practices were at their peak at around 1999 and although the majority of producers have pulled back from the brink there is still a great deal of processing that takes place when a CD is mastered in order to improve how the discs sound on cheap portables and car players. To those with high quality equipment this is a nuisance as it spoils the enjoyment of music that could be obtained if only the original standards were observed. Pop records aimed at teenagers tend to be the worst, although “digitally re-mastered” albums that appeal mostly to older listeners can be just as bad, often the earlier CD releases are preferable if you can find them. Amazingly, searching out old CDs is becoming increasingly popular among some of the hard core parts of the audiophile community. Classical music has been largely left alone by studio tricks and really benefits by CD’s huge dynamic range, a well produced disc played on one of the better Beosystems can still be an absolute joy.
The CD system is under pressure from those who profit from persuading you to regularly replace your equipment and everything you play on it with “the next big thing”. Even though one of the reasons given is the limited 16 bit resolution of what is now almost a 30 year old format, don’t believe a word of it. Try to hear CD at its best before you go the trouble and expense of buying all that music yet again.
 

levimax

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 28, 2018
Messages
2,385
Likes
3,512
Location
San Diego
Well we all have our opinions but I find yours on this subject to be totally in the toilet.
I don't know how old you are or what the quality is of you multich hifi but it appears to me there is something completely in error with your evaluation. I'm 70 years old and been a Yes fan since their burst onto the FM radio scene.. Go over to one of the dedicated multich websites and your likely to get hung for your stated opinion. LOL @MRC01 has replied in a very even handed manner, I have to say I've heard folks criticize various pieces of Steven's work but have never heard anyone give his entire catalog of work for Yes in this manner.
Sounds more like a personal plate of sour grapes.

The original Yes Album CD is not that great, the first pressing promo copy I have sounds better and is my favorite "original version" .... Steve Wilson's remix is also nice but it is a different animal.
 

Attachments

  • yes songs.jpg
    yes songs.jpg
    751.1 KB · Views: 92
Last edited:

earlevel

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Nov 18, 2020
Messages
550
Likes
779
PS: Steven Wilson. He's remixed several old rock albums and every one sounds fantastic, much better than the originals.
Steven Wilson is one of the bright spots in modern music on many levels (I grew up playing in a '70s prog band, have seen his current band twice, of course listened to Porcupine Tree, first, his influence on Opeth, etc.).

I haven't pored over his remixes, haven't even heard many of them, and never the surrounds. But I'll have to get picky and differ with "every one sounds fantastic"—of course, this is my point of view, not saying you are wrong.

Particularly, he has a monumental gaffe in the Tarkus remix that makes it unlistenable for me. Now, I know he has said he doesn't love ELP and won't remix any more of them, it's clear he's not really connected so that's no doubt the reason for the goof. Nevertheless, he took on the job, and I've read an interview where he notes the importance of not changing features of the originals when remixing, knowing how badly it will affect the hardcore fans (and, I am a keyboard player—I wanted to be in a band after seen him live). So he does deserve this bit of criticism.

Stones of years—right at 4:00 in Tarkus, specifically, eight ascending piano chords (last four joined with "ah")...rings out in a triumphant C major chord...<grimace>...over a Hammond solo in C minor.

I'm guessing the original was tracked up to that point, then the remainder of that section was worked out and recorded—anyway, in the original mix, that chord isn't in the mix, pulled down by a fader move. Anyway, couldn't listen further after that. Funny I haven't seen anyone else complain about it, but it's nails-on-chalkboard to me. o_O
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,690
Likes
37,416
I'll add this in: I also posted it somewhere else on this site, forgot where:
What's happened to CD?
17th January 2010 by Tim Jarman
Do you remember the first time you heard Compact Disc? Compared to the cheap record players and misadjusted tape decks that formed the bulk of the audio equipment in use up until the end of the 1980s it was a revelation, with its clean bright treble, absent background noise and the way that loud passages of music seemed to leap out of the loudspeakers.
One undeniable advantage that CD has over the various analogue audio formats is its dynamic range: the difference between the quietest possible sound that can be discerned above the medium’s natural background noise and the loudest sound that can be recorded without excessive distortion. CD can in theory manage 96dB, in comparison to the best cassettes at 70dB and LPs at around 50dB.
The dB (decibel) logarithmic scale is used by engineers to express the difference between two quantities that vary over a wide range. When discussing the magnitude of audio signals all that you have to remember is that the signal halves (or doubles) with every 6dB of change. The dB is a relative unit, so one needs a reference value to make any sense of it. In terms of CD players 0dB is the level at which all 16 bits in the digital code on the disc are at “1”, the highest value that can be represented and therefore the maximum output level of the DAC (digital to analogue converter) in the player. In CD terms, 0dB (strictly speaking 0dBfs, or “full scale”) is a “hard limit” that it is not possible to go beyond, in contrast the 0dB of a cassette recorder is an arbitrary signal level which long ago represented the point at which, with a certain type of tape, the amount of distortion present was 2%. With modern tapes and heads one can easily record beyond 0dB without generating 2% distortion. +4dB is not unusual when using metal tape and Bang & Olufsen’s own HX Pro recording system.
The way that distortion occurs is another difference between analogue and digital audio systems. An analogue system in theory suffers from less distortion the smaller the signal it has to handle. Factors such as noise and the non-linearity of some types of amplifier work against this simple rule, but it is still valid as a general case. Digital systems are the opposite, because the resolution of the system falls as fewer of the available bits are used to represent the signal. Thus it follows that distortion becomes worse, in fact performance improves the more the signal is expanded, right up until all the bits are at “1” when suddenly it becomes horrendous. So bad is this effect that for years CDs were recorded at a fraction of their maximum possible level, under the strict guidance of the few CD pressing organisations.
Initially the advice was that the bulk of the music should be at a level no higher than -18dBfs, that is, using only 13 of the 16 bits of digital capacity. The reason for this was to allow transients, like the crash of a cymbal or the snap of a snare drum, to be reproduced accurately and completely without distortion. The trade off was of course that the overall level of distortion present in the rest of the signal was worse than necessary, giving some early CDs their characteristic steely, edgy sound. The average level was soon revised upwards to -12dBfs, doubling the available digital resolution for the bulk of the programme content but still leaving a possible fourfold increase in signal level for the loud bits.
Under these rules, the best use was made of the strengths of the compact disc system, music was crisp and clear with brilliant, breathtaking transients which no other format could match. If you look at the specifications of an early Bang & Olufsen CD playing system like the Beosystem 5000 or 5500 you will find that even though the CD player and the cassette recorder are both line level sources the cassette recorder typically produces an output signal of around 500mV RMS at 0dB where as the CD player produces 2V RMS at 0dBfs. This is not an accident, it simply reflects the fact that most of the time the CD player should ideally be playing material that has an average level of -12dBfs, a quarter of the maximum value of 2V, which is of course 500mV. Therefore when changing between the two sources the listener would for most of the time hear no change in volume, a desirable state of affairs.
These rules prevailed for all of the time that CD was mainly a format used in large (and expensive) hi-fi systems owned and used by experienced listeners. However, as cheaper players, portables and in-car models appeared the CD went from being exclusively high-end to become a mass market product. The needs of the users of these new types of player are different to those of the serious audiophile, so the way in which CDs were made also started to change. It has long been known that people respond more favourably to music that is played loudly than to music which is soft. The non-linearity of the ear in the frequency domain plays a part in this, the listener’s perception to both the high and the low frequency extremes improves greatly with increasing sound level and a lot of what makes music interesting and satisfying can be found in these ranges. Of course any CD can be made to sound louder by simply turning the volume of the amplifier up, but there is a commercial (as opposed to a technical) advantage to be had if the discs themselves simply sound “louder” without having to do this. CDs with a compressed dynamic range can also sound clearer in car players where background noise would otherwise drown out the quieter parts of the music. The last thing a driver wants is to be startled by brief, shatteringly loud passages that suddenly rise above this level.
Remembering that the average level on a CD was set to record transient sounds accurately and that the maximum level that can be recorded on a CD is fixed at an absolute point that cannot be changed, obviously something had to give. The answer was to compress the transients and raise the average level of the rest of the music. This certainly gave a sound that was loud but the dynamic range of the signal is actually less. Unlike raising the volume control to make a quiet CD loud, there was no way that the listener at home could recover the lost information. Music without vivid transients is bland and dull, it’s difficult to put one’s finger on exactly what is wrong at first but it is instantly obvious that something is missing. Even this wasn’t enough in the quest for more volume; some producers pushed the level right up to 0dBfs and beyond. Of course with CD there is no beyond, the peaks in the music crashed into the 0dBfs barrier and could go no further so they became flat topped, loosing most of the information that had been contained within them and giving a harsh, distorted sound that could be really quite unpleasant to the serious listener.
Such practices were at their peak at around 1999 and although the majority of producers have pulled back from the brink there is still a great deal of processing that takes place when a CD is mastered in order to improve how the discs sound on cheap portables and car players. To those with high quality equipment this is a nuisance as it spoils the enjoyment of music that could be obtained if only the original standards were observed. Pop records aimed at teenagers tend to be the worst, although “digitally re-mastered” albums that appeal mostly to older listeners can be just as bad, often the earlier CD releases are preferable if you can find them. Amazingly, searching out old CDs is becoming increasingly popular among some of the hard core parts of the audiophile community. Classical music has been largely left alone by studio tricks and really benefits by CD’s huge dynamic range, a well produced disc played on one of the better Beosystems can still be an absolute joy.
The CD system is under pressure from those who profit from persuading you to regularly replace your equipment and everything you play on it with “the next big thing”. Even though one of the reasons given is the limited 16 bit resolution of what is now almost a 30 year old format, don’t believe a word of it. Try to hear CD at its best before you go the trouble and expense of buying all that music yet again.

Sounds like revisionist history to me.
 

Wombat

Master Contributor
Joined
Nov 5, 2017
Messages
6,722
Likes
6,463
Location
Australia
You have all got it wrong. The loudness war was created to compensate for the deteriorating hearing of Baby-Boomers - consumers, performers and recordists. It gets worse as they get older.
smash.gif


Edit for clarity: + :facepalm:
 
Last edited:

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,690
Likes
37,416
You have all got it wrong. The loudness war was created to compensate for the deteriorating hearing of Baby-Boomers - consumers, performers and recordists. It gets worse as they get older. View attachment 96566
Ever do any recording on reel to reel without any noise reduction?
If you don't use some compression, you'll lose lots of the music.

Ever try to listen to music in a car at highway speeds?
If you don't use some compression, you'll lose lots of the music.

Ever try to listen to ear buds while operating a jack hammer or operating loud machinery?
You can use lots of compression, and what's left still isn't music.

I've read that the instantaneous dynamic range of human hearing is about 60 db. It seems listening to speech like say in an interview or hearing lectures in a class you need about 50 db dynamic range to comfortably understand everything. You apparently can get by with a little less on music at maybe 40 db dynamic range. But the extra 10-20 db can be appreciated if the listening environment is favorable.

Given all that, it seems to me that tastefully done restricting dynamic range to 50 db can work almost as well as can be heard. Music done with 40-60 db dynamic range can sound actually better than music with greater dynamic range. And better than if there is less dynamic range. If you don't have 50 db of dynamic range to work with in the playback environment you'll forever be constrained on quality. Much more than that actually doesn't help very much.
 

Wombat

Master Contributor
Joined
Nov 5, 2017
Messages
6,722
Likes
6,463
Location
Australia
Ever do any recording on reel to reel without any noise reduction?
If you don't use some compression, you'll lose lots of the music.

Ever try to listen to music in a car at highway speeds?
If you don't use some compression, you'll lose lots of the music.

Ever try to listen to ear buds while operating a jack hammer or operating loud machinery?
You can use lots of compression, and what's left still isn't music.

I've read that the instantaneous dynamic range of human hearing is about 60 db. It seems listening to speech like say in an interview or hearing lectures in a class you need about 50 db dynamic range to comfortably understand everything. You apparently can get by with a little less on music at maybe 40 db dynamic range. But the extra 10-20 db can be appreciated if the listening environment is favorable.

Given all that, it seems to me that tastefully done restricting dynamic range to 50 db can work almost as well as can be heard. Music done with 40-60 db dynamic range can sound actually better than music with greater dynamic range. And better than if there is less dynamic range. If you don't have 50 db of dynamic range to work with in the playback environment you'll forever be constrained on quality. Much more than that actually doesn't help very much.


Edit post: Added :facepalm:

NB.
Thankfully, R-R was just an expensive novelty to me for HiFi.

I used a small DBX thingy when recording car tapes.

When I concentrate on a task I don't listen to music, earbuds or otherwise - mindfulness?
 
Last edited:

EJ3

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 10, 2019
Messages
2,183
Likes
1,702
Location
James Island, SC
Sounds like revisionist history to me.
Hmm, the publish date was January 17, 2010. What were they revising at that point in time? I was onboard ships overseas 90% of my life between Dec 2001 & May 2018, so I, in fact, am clueless about what was going on in audio during that time frame.
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,690
Likes
37,416
Hmm, the publish date was January 17, 2010. What were they revising at that point in time? I was onboard ships overseas 90% of my life between Dec 2001 & May 2018, so I, in fact, am clueless about what was going on in audio during that time frame.
What I meant by re-visionist history is the written explanation of how and why the compression levels changed was written years after the fact. And didn't really describe what happened. It described someone's constructed story about what happened over a couple decades. In that sense it misinforms.
 

EJ3

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 10, 2019
Messages
2,183
Likes
1,702
Location
James Island, SC
What I meant by re-visionist history is the written explanation of how and why the compression levels changed was written years after the fact. And didn't really describe what happened. It described someone's constructed story about what happened over a couple decades. In that sense it misinforms.
OK. I obtained my 3rd class radiotelephone license in my senior year of high school (1975.) I had my own local radio show for a while & then was hired as a weekend news & DJ person, which I did while delving into other things during the week. And designing sound re-enforcement systems for nighclubs, running sound for local, regional & sometimes national bands, voicing radio commercials & other related things through 1985 at which time I pretty much left the audio scene for other endeavors. So where does someone like me or others who are curious look to find out the real info about what happened?
 

earlevel

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Nov 18, 2020
Messages
550
Likes
779
I don't have time to read the whole thread (sorry!), but just some quick comments. And this is just my understanding, and don't have time for nuance. But basically recording engineers (and especially at the mastering stage) want to make their music stand out. As little as a dB difference can make the same mix appear to sound better. It seemed to have really went to extremes with CDs, where you have an absolute limit on peak output. On LPs you have various tradeoffs (recording time versus loudness and bass, etc.), and it's harder to switch between LPs instantly compared with a CD changer, and even more so when CD were ripped to iPods, etc.

Streaming music has become a different story, as music services want a consistent experience, and adjust individually songs up and down. An excessively compressed song will be adjusted down so it's maximum is no where near full scale, in order to get its apparent loudness in line. That means a tune mastered with the "maximum loudness" objective will not only have little dynamic range due to that practice, but it's also get punished by turning it down.

That means that there is no longer such a great incentive to crush the music. So there has been a movement to restore a reasonable degree of dynamics so engineers don't suck the life out of everything. A lot to be said here, but basically check into my friend Ian Shepherd's blog posts and youtube videos. He holds an annual streaming online Dynamic Range Day. LUFS are used to measure the perceived loudness and dynamic range of a song, and there is a huge list online of songs and their LUFS values. (Gotta run, can't think of it off the top of my head, but I'll try to add when I get back.)
 
Last edited:

EJ3

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 10, 2019
Messages
2,183
Likes
1,702
Location
James Island, SC
Forgot to mention There is no streaming in my setup, as where I normally am there is no cell or cable signal to accomplish that. I have a SONY W500CDR to record my vinyl to CD but need an ADC (still figuring out which one & now, with not working, the choices narrow) then I need to record my CD's to a computer. Everything will be on SSD's or on thumb drives eventually. But dynamic range is very important to me.
 

Sal1950

Grand Contributor
The Chicago Crusher
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
14,155
Likes
16,838
Location
Central Fl
I'm also a longtime and current poster at QuadraphonicQuad...and have expressed the very same opinions there. It's a minority opinion but my point about the inverse rule is actually drawn from my experience there.
I'd say your opinion is in the "extreme minority" there. And your comment on "the inverse rule" is always the retort of people who's opinions are in a large minority, "we are smarter and know more than people who disagree with us" LOL, Baloney.
I see from your site you are a major fan-boy of Yes, maybe that explains your slanted opinion of Stevens remastering?
BTW, lot's of good info on your site but it could use a little polish, it's in fairly crude condition as is,
Just sayin.
 
Top Bottom