Dynamic Range

[Multicore]

About 10 years ago, when Tidal and other streaming platforms started using volume normalization, I was quite sure most record companies would start following that new standard when realizing their loud album releases didn't sound any louder anymore. I waited, and I'm still waiting for that to happen, but unfortunately, 10 years later, I have not seen any such effect. Not even a trend pointing in that direction when looking at the DR database or when analyzing tracks on my own.

I'll take your word for that.

Otoh I have seen several tutorials about mastering for streaming, e.g. YouTube, that give a basically similar picture. So the knowledge about that stuff is out there.

But of course the fact of loudness normalization in streaming platforms doesn't affect the other motives for popular music to be mixed and mastered for this zone

So I would think the next step could be a reeducation program for artists. If they start to imagine the possibilities of what they can accomplish aesthetically by moving back into the living room then they can insist on it. A lot of music production is financed by the artists so why not?

 

[Multicore]

The main problem with extensive limiting and compression is the ones applied to the final 2-channel mix, and that is likely what most people here are complaining about. At least I hope that's the thing most people here have a problem with.

I'm not so sure. I suspect the ethos of low dynamics goes deeper.

I recently watched all of Kenny Gioia's videos about compression in Reaper, trying to learn how to do it myself to acoustic guitar recording. The demos were all of compression applied to individual tracks in mixes. He frequently expressed the goal of obtaining even level within the track. On one example, a female vocal, I remember thinking "Leave her alone. It's better without. Make space for her in the mix instead." Now, I get it, Kenny was demonstrating compression so ok. But overall I really had the impression low-dynamic ethos is hegemonic affecting the whole production side. (We can at least be grateful that these days capture itself is typically linear and compression applied in mixing.)

 

[Chris A]

This excellent presentation on dynamic range, limiting, mastering by Alan Silverman was discussed here before and largely dismissed.

I started to laugh when that video got to 26:45. This is exactly what I was talking about, above.

I have to say that I'm a bit embarrassed for the guy doing most of the talking. I couldn't really imagine the cognitive dissonance of "first, do no harm" contrasted with "this is what makes a good mastering guy". That's a pretty deafening situation (pun intended). I know those guys (mastering guys) couldn't do anything about it during the height of the Loudness War practices about 15-20 years ago. The problems all reside at the record companies (and the folks that have fastened onto the "loudness war aesthetic"), none of which I can associate with the idea of "hi-fi".

I waited, and I'm still waiting for that to happen, but unfortunately, 10 years later, I have not seen any such effect. Not even a trend pointing in that direction when looking at the DR database or when analyzing tracks on my own.

This is that "organizational culture" that I was referring to. (If you want to read about organizational culture, I really recommend this source. This is something that basically everyone needs to know and understand.)

The circumstances being that the market rewards loudness by level maxing at the expense of dynamics.

It used to, I think. No longer is this such a straightforward association (looking at the YT video posted above that is discussing this). I think this kind of thinking is actually "walking around dead", in terms of what's obviously occurring with streaming music. The video was a good example of this.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

As far as SACD and the DSD format in general...I'm a format investor (about 200 discs thus far, i.e., insuring that multichannel DSD is going to the DACs , and not first being converted to PCM via PC-based electronics). My view of what I'm hearing that's different will probably upset a few readers here...

My view is that, since the mastering guys can't use their typical EQ and other analog filtering techniques (DSD doesn't allow this), what you are actually hearing that's different is that the phase fidelity of the produced music tracks is much more intact than with any music that uses typical PCM-based mastering processes that the mastering guys use.

If you've got a setup at home that preserves phase fidelity to the listener's ears (i.e., including control of nearfield early reflections via loudspeaker design/placement and in-room acoustic treatments), you can easily hear this difference, while those who have large phase growth in their loudspeakers' crossover networks or in the physical driver offsets within the loudspeaker can't really hear that difference.

YMMV.

Chris

 

[goat76]

I'll take your word for that.

Otoh I have seen several tutorials about mastering for streaming, e.g. YouTube, that give a basically similar picture. So the knowledge about that stuff is out there.

But of course the fact of loudness normalization in streaming platforms doesn't affect the other motives for popular music to be mixed and mastered for this zone

View attachment 525662

So I would think the next step could be a reeducation program for artists. If they start to imagine the possibilities of what they can accomplish aesthetically by moving back into the living room then they can insist on it. A lot of music production is financed by the artists so why not?

With all the noise-cancelling headphones out there, I think we can argue against the necessity of reduced dynamics for "iPod" listening, and to an extent, for "in-flight entertainment" as well, since many of us probably use our own noise-cancelling headphones for that as well. I would also think that the interior of new cars has better noise-reducing isolation, and maybe some of them already use some sort of noise-cancellation, but I have no idea about that last thing.

Anyway, I see fewer and fewer reasons for dynamic limitation in music, but the record companies don't seem to care much about that.

 

[mhardy6647]

Anyway, I see fewer and fewer reasons for dynamic limitation in music, but the record companies don't seem to care much about that.

that's a big 10-4.

 

[levimax]

Anyway, I see fewer and fewer reasons for dynamic limitation in music, but the record companies don't seem to care much about that.

After 30+ years of hearing nothing but compressed music many people think dynamic music sounds "weak and boring" or something like that. Compressed music also is a lot less demanding to playback so tends to sound better on less performant systems. The record companies want to sell more units and when viewed in that light their decisions make sense unfortunately.

 

[olieb]

Anyway, I see fewer and fewer reasons for dynamic limitation in music, but the record companies don't seem to care much about that.

I don't think that (technical) limitations are/were a reason for what is going on. That is just a rationalisation.
When I saw the diagram with the point where modern mainstream is (pink), that became clear.

Limitations might explain, if mainstream would converge somewhere in the red zone, but that is not what happens.
The convergence is outside of all technical or environmental reasons.
Obviously the mainstream consumer-listener does not want dynamic, not at all. Probably because it is a nuisance.
He/she wants spectrum, beat, maybe harmonics, texture and timbre (but all this only in a narrow range, too), but not dynamics. Consistent loudness rulez, in the club, in the car, in the background, ... .
It's about easy listening - the world is an elevator.

 

[mhardy6647]

It's about easy listening - the world is an elevator.

Not according to War.

 

[Multicore]

Obviously the mainstream listener does not want dynamic, not at all. Probably because it is a nuisance.
He/she wants spectrum, beat, maybe harmonics, texture and timbre (but all this only in a narrow range, too), but not dynamics. Consistent loudness rulez, in the club, in the car, in the background, ... .
It's about easy listening - the world is an elevator.

Well, yes. I'm not sure I'd use those words but I can work with it. The key, I think, is the mainstream listener.

Why does what the mainstream listener concern us? Why optimize music that has little to do with the mainstream listener the same way? What does pop music have to do with me?

Idk but I'll reiterate points I already made. 1) The low-dynamic mindset is hegemonic in production. 2) Arists that own their own recordings (they are many) can, if they want to, escape it. 3) Creative aesthetic use of dynamics can be differentiating and empowering.

 

[olieb]

Why does what the mainstream listener concern us?

Well, I might quote someone.

There are niche markets in which this pressure is less but niche markets don't usually drive trends.

+1

1) The low-dynamic mindset is hegemonic in production.

I totally agree. All I am saying is, that there is a reason. You cannot easily replace this mindset with something else.
And the influence of the hegemonial mainstream is strong. Niche markets might make themselves free, but that is not easy.
It can work, if there is enough distance (i.e.classical) or if the setting creates a significantly different expectation/preference (movie theatres).

 

[Chris A]

Obviously the mainstream consumer-listener does not want dynamic, not at all. Probably because it is a nuisance.
He/she wants spectrum, beat, maybe harmonics, texture and timbre (but all this only in a narrow range, too), but not dynamics.

This is the antithesis of "hi-fi", I might point out.

Why do so many people still go to live (acoustic) musical events? I know a whole bunch of people that support and pay good money for this--most people, in point of fact.

I guess the bottom line is: I don't really believe that your first quoted sentence, above, is correct. I think the real problem is the lack of ability of typical audio listening devices used by these folks to reproduce anything like hi-fi reproduction.

So users have been acclimatized to listening to zero dynamic range music over their lifespans, and just accept the fact that it sounds nothing like "the real thing".

Chris

 

[levimax]

Not according to War.

This song is a good example of older popular music that has a quite dynamic mastering, or at least the original version of it did.

 

[Chris A]

This song is a good example of older popular music that has a quite dynamic mastering, or at least the original version of it did.

My TT Offline Meter measurement, or actually the foobar2000 version of it, says it's 14 (dB).

 

[JRowland]

This song is a good example of older popular music that has a quite dynamic mastering, or at least the original version of it did.

I love my original LP, the Dolby Atmos mix is excellent as well in my opinion anyway.

 

[OHtaru]

Times have changed. Producers now insist on low dynamic range not for the sake of loudness anymore. They claim it has evolved into a timbral aesthetic. This kind of sound is denser and more aggressive. It also offers other advantages, such as quiet passages remaining clear and audible in noisy environments. A path dependence has thus formed, since everyone does it and no one is willing to break the mold, even though platforms like Spotify and YouTube have imposed loudness limits.

 

[Chris A]

In all fairness, I think the issue distills down to the fact that there are a lot of people that buy music that don't really care about fidelity. Largely, this forum isn't really concerned with that demographic, even though recorded music sales or streaming fees might indicate a need that translates into large income streams. I don't think that's a core issue with the present group. (YMMV.)

And to imply that one demographic doesn't matter (i.e., the hi-fi crowd) and the other one does (the "lo-fi" crowd), I think is like the tin-eared businessman that sees one market segment only and winds up walking away from significant business over the longer haul. It's not only short-sighted--it's ultimately self-defeating. Good businessmen find a way to address both market segments simultaneously...and profitably. Fortunately, that's easy nowadays with the ability of the sales and streaming platforms to accommodate multiple versions of music almost without added cost.

Just go to the grocery store and look at all the different versions of products that used to include only one product--and the costs associated with multiple physical products is orders of magnitude higher to support than music downloads/streams.

And I'm pretty sure that most of the guys doing the mastering actually do want higher fidelity. Just listen to Mr. Silverman talk: he's addressing the record company culture head-on that wants everything as loud as possible--by saying clearly that isn't possible to achieve anymore (at least for the streaming marketplace--which has largely displaced physical media channels).

Chris

 

[levimax]

I love my original LP, the Dolby Atmos mix is excellent as well in my opinion anyway.

I just listened to my copy and it makes me sad for my favorite hobby that something from 1972 can sound this good and how little progress and even some regression that has occured over the last 54 years on recording quality. I would be curious to hear the impression of someone that has never heard this album and listens to primarily modern compressed music on how this album recording quality sounds to them. The version up on Qobuz at least is still quite dynamic. Hopefully Atmos will be the way forward.

 

[Multicore]

This is the antithesis of "hi-fi", I might point out.

Perhaps. So what?

Commercial recordings. Music. Hifi. Three entirely different things that touch each other in very limited ways.

Then try adding artistic value as a fourth if you are feeling confident.

 

[Chris A]

Perhaps. So what?

3. What is the mission of ASR?

In a nutshell, bringing more objective and provable data to the discussion of what makes the best audio equipment and playback environment. While other forums are free-form discussions where any direction goes, at ASR we are anchored by sound engineering and what research tells us. Reviews for example have as their cornerstone, extensive measurements that are not subject to bias and whim of a reviewer. Such data is interpreted as to audibility of impairments and contribution to listener preference...

7. Do I have to be technical to participate in ASR?

...But please be mindful of bringing ideas to ASR that are not grounded in proper audio science and engineering as it will be met with pushback. Nothing wrong with saying you like the sound of this and that gear. But insisting that such an experience overrides what we are about, is going to get you a lot of flak. You will be asked to provide sound evidence and if you can’t, you will get crunched in the gears of ASR.

Instead, lay low and take the opportunity to truly learn the technology and science behind it. Watch the many tutorials on data in the reviews and then express a contrarian view. We can then have a good discussion.

The above quotes don't sound like forum participants are buying the best gear--only to play music that is obviously and predominantly low quality...does it? Hi-fi matters.

Chris

 

[Multicore]

Hi-fi matters.

I agree.

But to most commercial music business people, other things matter more.

The more sophisticated our understanding of this tyranny, the better our chance of emancipation.