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

[Sal1950]

Thank you Blumlein, EJ3 and Earlevel for your explanations.
I stopped listening music at home during the last 9 years because of the poor quality level of the sources (I.e. : lack of dynamic).

Ouch, you really hurt no one but yourself with that response. I've been as loud a opponent to the loudness wars as anyone but there is a lot more to quality reproduction than DR. The worst of the compression is going on with the music genre where the artists and production/engineering folks demand it. Heavy Metal, Grunge, Dance/Club, Rap, HipHop, etc; productions would never get out of the studio until it met the demands of the final release judges and that is LOUD.
OTOH we have all kinds of music coming out that sounds awesome. CD's and HDR recordings that far exceed the SOTA of just 10 or 15 years ago.. Independent labels making purist recordings of Classical, Jazz, Big Band along with remasters of the glory days of rock and progressive rock. Not to mention what looks to be a rebirth of multich music with the current excitement that's being stirred by the Atmos, Auro, and Sony3D Immersive coding.
Then we have places like ASR that's showing the HiFi market that extreme SOTA playback gear can be purchased for peanuts. You can put together source and preamp/amps for minimal investment with only a really good pair of speakers possibly straining your wallet. This just might be the really glory days of audio. "The futures so bright I gotta wear shades".

 

[valerianf]

"The futures so bright I gotta wear shades"
I fully agree: HD streaming services using Dolby Atmos will change the way that music is recorded.
It is already a long time that movie sound tracks are recorded in multi channels 24/96.

In this epidemic time I am dreaming of live concert music videos recorded similar to the movies!
May my dream becomes true one day.

 

[RichB]

Ouch, you really hurt no one but yourself with that response. I've been as loud a opponent to the loudness wars as anyone but there is a lot more to quality reproduction than DR. The worst of the compression is going on with the music genre where the artists and production/engineering folks demand it. Heavy Metal, Grunge, Dance/Club, Rap, HipHop, etc; productions would never get out of the studio until it met the demands of the final release judges and that is LOUD.
OTOH we have all kinds of music coming out that sounds awesome. CD's and HDR recordings that far exceed the SOTA of just 10 or 15 years ago.. Independent labels making purist recordings of Classical, Jazz, Big Band along with remasters of the glory days of rock and progressive rock. Not to mention what looks to be a rebirth of multich music with the current excitement that's being stirred by the Atmos, Auro, and Sony3D Immersive coding.
Then we have places like ASR that's showing the HiFi market that extreme SOTA playback gear can be purchased for peanuts. You can put together source and preamp/amps for minimal investment with only a really good pair of speakers possibly straining your wallet. This just might be the really glory days of audio. "The futures so bright I gotta wear shades".

2.0 with encoded Atmos is an interesting option that plays well on both systems.

- Rich

 

[Sal1950]

I fully agree: HD streaming services using Dolby Atmos will change the way that music is recorded.

From your lips to Gods ear. If only these dang streamers would stop making us jump through hoops and purchase extra propriatary gear to get the Atmos stream working..

 

[RichB]

From your lips to Gods ear. If only these dang streamers would stop making us jump through hoops and purchase extra propriatary gear to get the Atmos stream working..

What is needed is for the new Atmos processors allow for Atmos streaming, especially from Roon.
If Atmos could be layered on 2.0 as metadata, there could be a single source.

- Rich

 

[valerianf]

My understanding is that Amazon music HD is providing Atmos audio.
My amplifier is too old also it only decodes DD+ in 2.0
Sound quality is excellent.
Streaming device is the new Fire TV 4k stick.

 

[EJ3]

2.0 with encoded Atmos is an interesting option that plays well on both systems.

- Rich

Never thought about Atmos with 2.0. Then again both my main & other room systems are 2.2 (below 80 Hz goes to a pair of stereo subs at the mercy of 800 watts each @ 2 Ohms). Then again, streaming is not a possibility for me (lack of stable signal). Cell phone is a maybe proposition, as in: if you are standing on the deck in the right spot, at the right time of day and holding your tongue just right, maybe you'll be able to complete a call.

 

[krabapple]

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.

As with some other 'classic rock' chestnuts, there have been a half dozen or so CD versions of the original mix since CDs were invented, all with different masterings.

 

[krabapple]

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.
.
.
.
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.

Steven Wilson's Tarkus remix is weak. You and I aren't the only ones to find it so. ...there's also this guy ;>

 

[RichB]

Steven Wilson's Tarkus remix is weak. You and I aren't the only ones to find it so. ...there's also this guy ;>

Are there before and after DR ratings that provide some metrics for Steven Wilson's work?

- Rich

 

[earlevel]

Are there before and after DR ratings that provide some metrics for Steven Wilson's work?

You can go to the DR database, put in artist (if needed), album, click twice on Year to sort descending order to make it easier. In some cases his name is listed so you can hilight with a Find in your browser, otherwise you may need his remix discography handy. For example: Aqualung

 

[krabapple]

You can go to the DR database, put in artist (if needed), album, click twice on Year to sort descending order to make it easier. In some cases his name is listed so you can hilight with a Find in your browser, otherwise you may need his remix discography handy. For example: Aqualung

There are multiple masterings of Tarkus. Which is 'baseline' to compare to Wilson's remix?

And what is the aim? If for example, Eddy Offord applied (analog) compression to the Hammond organ part during his mix and SW didn't...what would a DR reading even mean for quality?

Also, beware standard 'DR' measures. This paper presents a new method that might work better:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1312.0538.pdf

the section comparing 3 masterings of a Pink Floyd track is especially interesting

 

[earlevel]

And what is the aim? If for example, Eddy Offord applied (analog) compression to the Hammond organ part during his mix and SW didn't...what would a DR reading even mean for quality?

The bottom line is that it doesn't really tell you anything about quality. But it does tell the mastering engineer something very important: What to expect from streaming services, how they will adjust the volume on their end.

And that does end up meaning something for the listener. Without this loudness adjustment, there would be significant incentive to crush the music—even if it otherwise reduces the quality of the recording. But with loudness compensation, the worst offenders actually pay a penalty and get turned down. Now, if the music is crushed because it sounds good that way, there is no real harm in turning it down just a little. But if it's only crushed in order to gain a loudness benefit over others, that incentive is reduced significantly.

So, looking at DR db, you can't say one mix sounds better than another, but it's interesting to see the progression.

FWIW: When digitizing an album of my old prog rock band recently, my old bandmate (now recording engineer) did a little remastering to the files after I cleaned up the pops and fixed a few edits. There is a passage in a song where everything fades down and the guitar starts gently picking a chord change pattern. My friend brought up the guitar level. I had to disagree—this won't get played on the radio, no one will tune out, what is the purpose of suddenly increasing the apparent size of the guitar in the mix? He agreed and brought it down, but that is the sort of knee-jerk choices that get made when you're used to "making it loud" all the time. It's a lot more effective to have the guitar tippy-toe back into the room (then the organ, drums, and we're back to full-on as the vocal comes in), the original intension.

 

[rdenney]

Yes, but then leave the compressed music for the car, subway and near-to-hammer listening and give the choice to the listener what kind of music dynamic manipulation he wants to listen.

Yes. In the photographic world, we make a distinction between "correcting" and "targeting" when scanning photographic film (or when making digital photos). I make a scan, or pull up an image in RAW, and then make it look consistent with my artistic intentions in Photoshop, using a wide color gamut and bit depth. That becomes my "master". Then, I target it for display. I rescale or resample it for different prints sizes or display mechanisms, sharpen at the viewing resolution, and make adjustments for the limited color gamut of the display medium.

If I buy something for presentation on the highest-resolution "display" device, I want it targeted to preserve the full capabilities of that device. If I then need to display it on a device with a narrower gamut or resolution, I have the raw materials to do so. So, given me a boom box with "megabass" and compression built into the playback, or a car stereo with DSP to gain-ride the signal to keep it louder than the high ambient noise, or even let the FM station do the same to keep the signal above the noise. But provide the highest resolution and dynamic range possible on the vinyl album, CD, or download file.

Tools to make the necessary compromises for suboptimal listening environments should be made by the listening equipment, not by the recording equipment.

Rick "who read the whole thread and didn't see that point until the quoted post" Denney

 

[EJ3]

2.0 with encoded Atmos is an interesting option that plays well on both systems.

- Rich

I run 2.2 (running my pre-out in to an analog parametric that sends 80 Hz & down to my stereo sub amp 800 wats RMS @ 2 Ohms into my pair of 2 Ohm Subs). The rest is sent to a pair of bridged amps running as 1.5 Kw RMS each into 4 Ohms. One of my sources is an oppo UPD-205.

 

[MRC01]

Steven Wilson's Tarkus remix is weak. You and I aren't the only ones to find it so. ...there's also this guy ;>

Wilson's remixes of ELP's first 2 albums are my least favorites. They do sound better than the regular CD, but not by much, and that's a very low bar. The original album has poor sonics even by rock standards, edgy with emphasized mids & treble. Wilson's remixes tame the excessive brightness and extend the bass, but only a bit and not enough. The vocal sibilance on their first album is painfully horrid, like some half-deaf engineer turned the treble up to 11. These are good albums that deserved better sound quality. However, it seems that Wilson's remixes cost about the same as the normal CDs. If you already have these CDs, the Wilson remixes aren't worth buying. But if you don't and you want them, I find the Wilson remix is a no-brainer over the originals.

That's in contrast to Wilson's remixes of Yes' first 5 albums, which are fantastic. I always found the sonics of the originals sorely lacking, virtually unlistenable, which is a shame because they're great albums. Wilson's remixes are not only night-day better, but among the best sounding rock albums I've heard. Finally, those albums have the excellent sonics they always deserved. All rock music recordings should sound that good!

 

[Sal1950]

The original album has poor sonics even by rock standards, edgy with emphasized mids & treble. Wilson's remixes tame the excessive brightness and extend the bass, but only a bit and not enough. The vocal sibilance on their first album is painfully horrid, like some half-deaf engineer turned the treble up to 11.

I don't disagree but there is the old adage, garbage in, garbage out. Sometimes there's only so much you can do with a recording. How much could he have dialed back the treble before all life disappeared from the recording? We have no idea how the channels were laid out and what else was mixed in with the vocal track he had that would have been affected by a heavy hand on that tracks EQ? I highly respect Steven's ear and mixing talent and will give him the benefit of doubt that he did the best he could with what he had to work with.
YMMV

 

[krabapple]

Wilson's remixes of ELP's first 2 albums are my least favorites. They do sound better than the regular CD, but not by much, and that's a very low bar.

The original album has poor sonics even by rock standards, edgy with emphasized mids & treble. Wilson's remixes tame the excessive brightness and extend the bass, but only a bit and not enough. The vocal sibilance on their first album is painfully horrid, like some half-deaf engineer turned the treble up to 11. These are good albums that deserved better sound quality. However, it seems that Wilson's remixes cost about the same as the normal CDs. If you already have these CDs, the Wilson remixes aren't worth buying. But if you don't and you want them, I find the Wilson remix is a no-brainer over the originals.

I couldn't are less about Wilson's stereo remixes, which is what you see to be talking about here. I find Eddy Offord's mixes pretty iconic. They exist in a variety of masterings on CD. .

That's in contrast to Wilson's remixes of Yes' first 5 albums, which are fantastic. I always found the sonics of the originals sorely lacking, virtually unlistenable, which is a shame because they're great albums. Wilson's remixes are not only night-day better, but among the best sounding rock albums I've heard. Finally, those albums have the excellent sonics they always deserved. All rock music recordings should sound that good!

Meh. (And you mean Yes albums 3 through 7) What he did to Relayer in particular , is really not good.

 

[Sal1950]

I find Eddy Offord's mixes pretty iconic. They exist in a variety of masterings on CD. .

Funny, his work has been redone by 3 or 4 others trying to improve on the weaknesses in them, with SW being the best yet.

What he did to Relayer in particular , is really not good.

Relayer was one of, if not the, weakest of the Yes albums being done after Wakemans exit from the band. About the only thing that made it really interesting to listen to was Steven's 2014 5.1 mix.

 

[brimble]

Can the people who don't like the Steven Wilson remixes of the Yes albums please recommend the best remasters to listen to instead? Thank you!