News Flash: Louder records cause people to turn them down

[Mixerman]

Yes, that's right. You heard it here first folks.

Louder CDs cause listeners to turn the music down.

That's my theory anyway. and no, I have no scientific proof. I only have strong circumstantial evidence. Hint: That's why I called it a "theory."

Two months ago I responded to the Bob Lefsetz letter. Frankly, I don't know what the fuck he was talking about that prompted this. In actuallity, it was a reply by One Haven Music mook, Angelo Montrone that caused me to write this article. (Angelo was clearly arguing against loud CDs, and we must remember that a mook is a merely my name for any record company suit. Mook does not necessarily mean they are a clueless git, although I can understand why one might think that in most cases.)

Two days after I wrote this email (which goes out to thousands of music industry professionals in of all capacities), I recieved a message from a newspaper writer in Austin, who was putting together a big article on the subject of loudness. He wanted me to go on record under my real name. I declined, and the newspaper declined. Anyway, here's my repsponse, to a response, that I'm not putting up here. Believe me, you don't need the emails that prompted this particular rant. It's self-explanatory.

Bob,

Any dumb ass with a computer in his bedroom can obliterate the dynamic range with an L2 brick wall limiter to the point of distortion and clipping.


I would like to add to Angelo Montrone's missive on the loudness wars, as it's my area of expertise. As you know, I'm an LA recording engineer, mixer and producer. Here in LA, we have some of the greatest acoustic spaces and vintage consoles and gear in the world. We have access to high quality instruments of all kinds, and we have some of the best record makers in the world here. We even usually have decent budgets to take the time to make a superior product. Often times, we hand in a superior product, and then the labels take the work to a Mastering Engineer, specifically to obliterate any semblance of depth and sonic range and then crank up the high end in an effort to boost the apparent loudness.

Some people like to argue that only guys in lab coats are worried about sonics. A great song, a great lyric, a great performance. THAT'S what's important. And you know what? I agree. However, it’s sound that our brain is deciphering. And therefore sound affects the emotional impact of a song for us. This I can prove, albeit anecdotally. Just listen to any of your favorite old albums on vinyl and compare it to the same song from a CD. Then compare it to an MP3. In both cases, the emotional impact of the song is affected negatively. Why then are MP3s popular? Two reasons. They’re more convenient. But more importantly, people don’t listen to records like they used to.

When I was a kid, listening to a new album was an interactive experience. I sat in front of the speakers, dissected the liner notes and the lyrics. Sometimes I listened to the album several times in a row. I'm sure some kids still do that, but not like they used to. No, today, people use music as background noise.

Now, the problem with listening to dynamic music in many real-world situations, is you can't hear the low parts. Vacuum cleaners, the dishwasher, the power drill going across the street, the running toilet, the running faucet, baby's crying, the background noise is deafening. The only way to actually combat the background noise is by reducing the dynamic range (preferably within reason) In these situations one can either let the end user even the dynamic range with their wrist (turning the volume up and down) or one can use a brick wall limiter which flattens the peaks of the music, and makes them square. Literally.

If you think back to physics for a moment, (and I'm going to be way overly-simplistic in all technical information here) you'll remember the wave. I remember the instructor drew the wave on the chalkboard. It was kind of curved in nature. Smooth flowing up and down motion. Wavey! It should come as no surprise that sounds that produce smooth curvy waves are generally pleasant to the ear. Then our instructor drew a triangular wave. And he played us an example. Harsh, dude. But in using a severe brick wall limiter, one turns the more smooth flowing pleasant waves of a song and flattens them into what are essentially squares. This makes the music denser, and thus reduces the dynamic range. Well, guess what? Square waves with their sharp edges and corners. They're harsh too.

To make matters worse, as if there could be anything worse than edgy square waves, the labels want their CDs to play louder than other CDs in your turnstyle, or louder than other MP3s in your pod, and most importantly louder on radio than the last song (which is a myth), and so the Mastering Engineers (ME's) have pushed the output level of the music all the way to the digital ceiling. It used to be you came near that ceiling you turned into a pumpkin. Now we hit it as a matter of course. Unfortunately, when you get to the ceiling (and before) you're pretty much distorting. And not the good kind of distortion like from a guitar amp or from a vintage mic pre pushed hard (which it was designed for). We're talking harsh digital distortion and clipping. The harshest and most unmusical distortion there is. This means that technically a CD that is constantly playing at the digital ceiling is distorting at all times. Double whammy!

The most humorous part of all this, is the dumb ass I opened this email with, the one with a computer and an L2, he can fuck up a record just as well and just as easily as the most expensive ME out there. Yet the labels continue to throw $10,000 per album (it takes no more than 6 hours to master an album working slow) to MEs who are known for their "expertise" and willingness to make a record insanely loud and bright. And rather than put out a superior product, a product that the dumb ass with his computer couldn't possibly compete with, the labels have decided it would be best to bring the quality of their product down to that the lowest common denominator. Cool. Now everyone can do it!

To me, the most interesting question is this: Why did music become part of background noise? And I might suggest an answer, which is the point of this email. One of the benefits of insanely loud and bright records is, you can turn them way down and they'll cut through the background noise. So you see, there is a certain irony here (and I never confuse irony with coincidence).

Perhaps, in an effort to specifically cause the end user to listen music louder, perhaps, the labels are responsible for the widespread turning DOWN of music. Perhaps the loudness wars themselves are the reason that music has become background noise

Think about it. Take harsh, overdriven, music that can cut through any extraneous noise, of creatively uninventive music performed by bands as compliant as librarians; add in the equation uninteresting perfectly quantized productions with vocals placed perfectly in tune to the chromatic scale (which is VERY unmusical), and mixes that all sound like they were done by the same guy on the same console with the same gear, on the same week (which is often the case); I mean, let’s purposely go out and make a product that does not differentiate itself in any way whatsoever from any other product from any competitors. Given this scenario, what are people going to do?

Turn it up?

Mixerman

[otek]

Perhaps, in an effort to specifically cause the end user to listen music louder, perhaps, the labels are responsible for the widespread turning DOWN of music. Perhaps the loudness wars themselves are the reason that music has become background noise.

An excellent point.

I for one do not want music to fill the cracks and fissures in the daily dirge. I want it to take center stage and be there for a reason.

Some time ago, I was having a coffee and a smoke with a good musician/songwriter friend. I broke out a couple of vinyl records - I believe one of them was "The Turn Of A Friendly Card" by The Alan Parsons Project - and kept them playing softly in the background. At some point during the conversation, both me and my friend fell silent and just.... listened. And I remember thinking, "damn, this sounds good!". The music was low enough to not disrupt even a soft conversation, yet the sounds had somehow managed to turn our attention away from our voices and to the music.

Now, old Alan Parsons albums may not be the pinnacle of recording magic in 2006, but aside from the fashion changes (which are really beside the point), they do preserve the sense of liveness, dynamics and musical "elbow room" - in music throughout history, from Gregorian Chants through Eric Satie to Miles Davis, that elusive space between the notes that always seemed to evoke something in the listener, and draw him or her into the music.

It's time we created an environment for ourselves with more of that elbow room.


- otek

[Goes211]

An excellent point.

I for one do not want music to fill the cracks and fissures in the daily dirge. I want it to take center stage and be there for a reason.

...

It's time we created an environment for ourselves with more of that elbow room.

- otek

Strongly in agreement with Otek and MM here.
Excellent points.
I can't STAND background music.
My wife, on the other hand, has no problem whatsoever with the radio on in the kitchen and the stereo on in the living room (playing different records).
AAAAAAARGH.
I'd rather have NO music than 'that noise' in the background.
We need to go back to actually listening to music.

[J.G.]

I hear THAT, Goes, like when Hub turns on the radio on the main floor, only to retire to the open-doored studio and work on new music. : / I never understood that, "turn on a radio and leave the room", deal.

I too much prefer the usually already abundant sounds of life.

I rarely sit down, (or sometimes get up and geeet down), to listen to meeeeeeeuuuuuuuuuuuuusic these days, but when I do, I DO and appreciate the quality of the sounds far beyond the quanity--Keeeerist, that's what damned volume buttons are for.

[malice]

I used to have a list of restaurant "without background music" back in the days.

No shit

Now I migrated to the country, because i couldn't find enough of them anyway.

I loved the "Good evening sir, what can I do for you ? - You can start by turning down this lousy tape of yours and give me a nice table for two" routine though.

malice

[Goes211]

You can start by turning down this lousy tape of yours and give me a nice table for two" routine though.

malice

:lol:

[Fulcrum]

"I worry that the guy who thought of Muzak might be thinking of something else." -- Lily Tomlin

Considering how far technology has come, Alan Parsons is Deep Magic From The Dawn Of Time. There's no way to simulate a mind like that, no matter how many plug-ins you have available to throw at your mix.

It is indeed the listening thing-- but we're not teaching our kids how to listen to music because our schools are too busy bumping up the athletic programs at the expense of the arts.

[J.G.]

but we're not teaching our kids how to listen to music because our schools are too busy bumping up the athletic programs at the expense of the arts.

Except for schools in places like Santa Monica (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,55836,00.html), where they've gone so far as to ban the game of 'Tag'...

*this demands an extra-large eyeballroll emoticon*

[malice]

"I worry that the guy who thought of Muzak might be thinking of something else." -- Lily Tomlin



may I borrow this as my new sigline, I'll take good care of it

:D


malice

[nobby]

I too, don't view music as intended for backround noise generally. There are times when I'm, say, wiring something and I might have the radio on to kill the otherwise dead silence. And if I hear something I really like, I'll stop and listen. That's really our purpose as I see it, to make a record good enough that it compells people to stop what they're doing and listen. Like when I'm in my car and I can't get out until the song is over.

I distinctly remember listening to vinyl records at my house as a teenager on my parents' livingroom stereo in the dark until the headphones hurt my ears (the only way to get the music loud -- in a good way -- without annoying my parents).



Think about it. Take harsh, overdriven, music that can cut through any extraneous noise, of creatively uninventive music performed by bands as compliant as librarians; add in the equation uninteresting perfectly quantized productions with vocals placed perfectly in tune to the chromatic scale (which is VERY unmusical), and mixes that all sound like they were done by the same guy on the same console with the same gear, on the same week (which is often the case); I mean, let’s purposely go out and make a product that does not differentiate itself in any way whatsoever from any other product from any competitors. Given this scenario, what are people going to do?

Turn it up?

Mixerman

Concisely put. I notice a lot of sound-alike bands, and just as I'm noticing the lack of creativity, my ears are getting fatigued by the steady harshness or the recording. If I go from listening to a song that has been mastered in a way that some of the dynamic range remains intact and go to a song that has been limited to shit, I immediately have to turn it down.

But, let's face it; this has sort of become the paradigm that the major labels seem to be adhering to, at least for the time being. And it seems to be working so...

Just like rewarding a dog with a doggy treat for crapping on the living room rug, you can expect more of the same.

[Fulcrum]

And that's another thing. Nobby, when you and I were that age, we didn't have the wealth of potential distractions that kids today have. All I had was the record player, so all I had to do was listen to it.

With today's wealth of Things To Do-- and the Internot is right up there on that list-- today's kids are like how Ahab the Arab discovers Fatima of the Seven Veils, the swingin'est, number one dancer in the Sultan's whole harem:

There she was, friends and neighbors, laying there in all her radiant beauty. Eating on a raisin... and a grape... and an apricot... and a pomegranate, a bowl of chitterlings, two bananas, three Hershey bars, and sipping on a ROC Co-Cola, listening to her transistor, watching the Grand Ole Opry, and reading M A D Magazine while she sung Does Your Chewing Gum Lose Its Flavor�.Music has to be loud just to compete. And if the chief criterion is loud, then the content doesn't really matter all that much, does it?

Now I'm fucking depressed.

[nobby]

With today's wealth of Things To Do-- and the Internot is right up there on that list-- today's kids are like how Ahab the Arab discovers Fatima of the Seven Veils, the swingin'est, number one dancer in the Sultan's whole harem:


"rings on her fingers and bells on her toes, and a bone in her nose HO HO"

We didn't have x boxes, but I lived near an amusement park. Of course, at some point you run out of change.

Anyway, a good song performed well with good production is a different experience. There are 6 billion people on this planet and a large number of us are primarily into music above all other entertainment, regardless of the competition.

Coolio

[Bob Olhsson]

In the mid '60s the major labels actually enforced reasonable disk level standards while indie. labels such as Motown and Atlantic were generally pushing the pedal to the floor. The reason we pushed our levels at Motown was based on Berry Gordy's experience owning a record store.

Every store is offered more records than they have enough space to display and every distributor has more records they are expected to sell than they have time to pay attention to. Broadcasters are offered more titles to play than they have enough time to listen to. The same is true in the sales and promotion departments at the labels. The bottom-line is that every release must earn its own way because nobody can possibly afford to pay equal attention to each of their releases.

So how do you decide? Typically you play a bit of ten or fifteen songs and decide which go in "the pile" and which go in the trash. Sometimes this is done by an individual in their office. Often this is done in a sales, promotion or airplay meeting. Blistering cutting levels frequently gave us indies an edge against the moderate levels dictated by the majors.

Anybody who has sat in during one of these meetings is likely to be utterly paranoid of not having their pet project be at least as loud as the other recordings being considered.

Not a lot has changed today except for the fact that many contemporary recording contracts hand "creative control" over to the artist. The label often can only accept the master as-is or reject it altogether. Management companies and the artists themselves frequently are calling the shot on levels.

This article and more like it will be a big help.

[Pimp-X]

Like Mixerman, I remember buying LPs of my favorite bands back in the 80's - playing them over and over, scrutinizing the cover art the poring over the liner notes, absorbing every tiny detail. The best ones were the Iron Maiden album covers - Derek Riggs, whoa. Great stuff.

It's incredible to me, the difference between, say, the latest AFI record and Seventh Son Of A Seventh Son - one is brutally loud, not punchy and hard on the ears, the other is drastically quieter, but sounds amazing when you crank it.

Like other posters, I dislike music for background. I like to enjoy music by listening to it, actively.

[Smileyblue]

The only time I will put music on when other people are around is if they are there to LISTEN to it...not talk over the top of it.:grin:

I can't stand it when people don't respect the artist or their compositions enough to take the time to actually listen to the outpouring of emotion, effort and sheer enjoyment shared with them...Mad

It's just plain RUDE......

It's like some moron talking in a movie or worse still, talking on their cell phone during the movie or people who don't stay at the end of a movie and read the credits. Those people deserve Kudos. They worked their guts out to give you an enjoyable movie to watch.... Respect people, Respect.

Relating this back to Mixie's original post, this is also a matter of respect.

A lack of respect for the Mix Author's intentions by the label and the mastering engineers..... I mean there was obviously a reason why they chose said Mix AE for the project wasn't there???? They paid them a decent rate to mix the damned project, why then have the ME squash the shit out of it leaving very little if any of the Mix authors sonic integrity in place....

As Bob pointed out, the bands management and the artists themselves have alot of the say in what is done now, but this wasn't always the case. The damage was done before the artists had so much creative control. They are just following in the footsteps of those that came before, because it was already an industry standard.

I think alot of people have stopped buying music because they don't think they are getting what they paid for sonically anymore. At least the people from my generation anyway...

My friends used to call me up and say "hey I just got the new ------ record" you gotta come over and take a listen.... and that's what we would do.. be it driving around in the car or sitting in someone's lounge room.....NO TALKING JUST LISTENING....

My, how times have changed. No one is excited about new CD's anymore.

I agree with Mixie. Making things louder have caused people to turn them down and create background noise.

Like so many other things that the majors have done to kill the goose that laid the golden egg, this is yet another example of why our industry is in the shitter..

[Bob Olhsson]

... My, how times have changed. No one is excited about new CD's anymore.

I agree with Mixie. Making things louder have caused people to turn them down and create background noise....I know. What isn't discussed in forums speaks volumes. When engineers got together and talked 20 years ago it was almost never about how great some piece of gear was.

I also agree the big issue is respect however it is respect especially for the fans by the labels, managers and artists.

The hand-off of creative control actually started in the '70s. The labels loved it because it was an excuse to pay the artist less since they retained veto power before they made their big investment which was/is sales and promotion.

Another part of the problem is that a lot of successful artists aren't really into records passionately the way we are and only see them as a means to a promotional end. The frustrating thing is when I get a call from a prospective client who loved the way another of my clients insisted that I trash their CD.

[Spock]

A very interesting thread.

Background music drives me nuts, my mind tries to listen to it. The worst is if someone outside has a loud radio playing and you can just hear it with the doors and windows closed. I can't get to sleep, my mind will not shutdown.

One the other hand, a much louder non-musical sound is not a problem.

[J.G.]

One the other hand, a much louder non-musical sound is not a problem.

I dunno, I've been known to get on the ballistic-side if kept long enough under the spell of a yappin' Terrier off his meds.

...or skateboarders-----I can't even get started on that subject...

[jerryskid]

Strongly in agreement with Otek and MM here.
Excellent points.
I can't STAND background music.
My wife, on the other hand, has no problem whatsoever with the radio on in the kitchen and the stereo on in the living room (playing different records).
AAAAAAARGH.
I'd rather have NO music than 'that noise' in the background.
We need to go back to actually listening to music.


Unfortunately part of my job is to monitor 7 different radio stations all playing different stuff...you learn to live with the background noise and tend to tune it out...I do bring my ipod to work with me and that helps too.....

[Goes211]

Unfortunately part of my job is to monitor 7 different radio stations all playing different stuff...you learn to live with the background noise and tend to tune it out...I do bring my ipod to work with me and that helps too.....

Oh, hey...you know, I'm mixing TV commercials with a bunch of assclowns from the agency yapping behind my ears day in, day out. I agree you do learn to tune out stuff...but some part of the brain still receives all that info...and it's adding to the ear fatigue in a big way. It's like city people who don't hear the airplane noise anymore...it still adds to your stress level. So when it comes to enjoying music I like to be able to actually listen.
Coolio

[jerryskid]

You're right, Goes. It's amazing that I'm not paying attention to any one of the stations, but the second one isn't there, I hear it..so will hearing all this garble cause me to want to kill my parents ????

[Tim Halligan]

Oh, hey...you know, I'm mixing TV commercials with a bunch of assclowns from the agency yapping behind my ears day in, day out. I agree you do learn to tune out stuff...but some part of the brain still receives all that info...and it's adding to the ear fatigue in a big way.


Boy, I hear you on that one big-time. :lol:


Do you ever do the old "creep up the volume until they are screaming at each other, then stop the track while they yell at each other until they realise the track has stopped" trick?

Still cracks me up. :lol:

Cheers,
Tim

[J.G.]

Do you ever do the old "creep up the volume until they are screaming at each other, then stop the track while they yell at each other until they realise the track has stopped" trick?

THAT's performance art! very happy

[knightsy]

The only time I will put music on when other people are around is if they are there to LISTEN to it...not talk over the top of it.:grin:

I can't stand it when people don't respect the artist or their compositions enough to take the time to actually listen to the outpouring of emotion, effort and sheer enjoyment shared with them...Mad

It's just plain RUDE......

It's like some moron talking in a movie or worse still, talking on their cell phone during the movie or people who don't stay at the end of a movie and read the credits. Those people deserve Kudos. They worked their guts out to give you an enjoyable movie to watch.... Respect people, Respect.


Amen, SBG. I've felt that exact same way for a long time...

But I think most people just aren't as passionate about music as most of us on these audio boards are - I've had many a discussion with clowns who wanted Midnight Oil to "shut up about the politics" and "just play some good tunes" - how do you even communicate with someone like that, who has no idea why musicians make music?

[Tim Halligan]

I've had many a discussion with clowns who wanted Midnight Oil to "shut up about the politics" and "just play some good tunes" - how do you even communicate with someone like that, who has no idea why musicians make music?



Oops.

Was that me?

Redface


Cheers,
Tim

[knightsy]

Oops.

Was that me?

Redface


Actually I'd forgotten about you! Make that... 6 people I had that argument with.


But to stay vaguely on topic, it's interesting how aspiring musos quite often don't actually "listen" to music themselves - which is probably why 95% of bands can't write music.

[binaural turbine]

this topic brings a question to mind. The mention of Alan Parsons Turn Of A Friendly Card really took me back a few years. Loved that album. Used to listen to it on cassette dubbed from vinyl while driving around smokin...er, I digress.

On those new 'classic plus new stuff' format stations, how do they reconcile the old stuff, say Breathe by Pink Floyd with some new(er) stuff that was smashed to shit?

I've had times when I'd pull up in my driveway when a great song comes on, and sit there for the next 4 or 5 minutes listening to it. Now that I have a cd player in the car, that doesn't happen anymore. Note that I did not say the radio, because I am unable to listen to it anymore. Hence my question about the classic/newer stuff broadcast.

How are the new digital radio broadcasts? XM, Sirius? Are they pummelled to shit as well?

[Mixerpuppet]

I have to turn everything down....

To maybe expand on the psycology of Mixie's reference to just sitting and listening to albums for hours at a time, dissecting, transcribing and imagining being there.

The human mind for the most part likes the dreamlike state more than it does the reality of life. Albums used to induce that state by having space a little larger than life but not nearly as harsh or aggressive as reality.

The methods for being loud are the problem, not the loudness itself. Concerts and Club gigs are often significantly louder than what people would have going on their eyepod...

The same idea works for Film. Dream State works better than over saturated colors that hurt the eyes.

Because of the tools being used to make things louder as a whole (meaning missing any real dynamic variation) I can no longer sit and listen to anything for more than a few songs before my ears are fatigued. The radio is getting used less and less as well.

One thing I think bears discussing is the state of the consumer. Many of the kids I see nowadays use music as a method of blocking out chaos around them (masking society). As opposed to music lovers who are nearly fanatical about being able to hear the music without the background garbage.

What is the purpose of th emusic for the consumer?

[Goes211]

Boy, I hear you on that one big-time. :lol:

Do you ever do the old "creep up the volume until they are screaming at each other, then stop the track while they yell at each other until they realise the track has stopped" trick?

Still cracks me up. :lol:

Cheers,
Tim

New keyboard, monitor...coming up !
:lol:

thing of beauty.

[Bob Olhsson]

...What is the purpose of th emusic for the consumer?It's to provide something consumers can identify with like Starbucks on their coffee cup or Nike on their sneakers. Advertisers love it because it quantifies listeners leaving a paper trail for them to cover their a**es with when the product they are advertising flops.

The problem is that these aren't fans of the music. They are people making a statement about how cool they are.

[TSTW]

If i want background noise im partial to listening to 'five live' the BBC' sport and talk radio.

I try and Avoid current chart music after a day in the studio. To sound like a real snobby jerk classical is a nice treat and change.

[Johnny]

People always think it's weird that I don't listen to music very often. But I don't want to listen to something to which I won't give my full attention.

And, of course, there's not much new music which warrants my attention...

[bblackwood]

Lots of us have talked 'til we're blue in the face about this, but it's the mainstream media that's going to make people notice (and frankly, most people haven't noticed). The more press about this the better...

[ajcamlet]

He wanted me to go on record under my real name.

You have a real name? :D

[Pimp-X]

You have a real name? :D


See the FAQ :)

[magicchord]

In the mid '60s the major labels actually enforced reasonable disk level standards while indie. labels such as Motown and Atlantic were generally pushing the pedal to the floor...

Yeah, but the physics of the disc-cutting process for vinyl kept you from getting TOO loud; cutterheads couldn't follow a clipped wave, for instance.
Nowadays everything can be a square wave at 0dBfs, and it'll still play. No needle to fly off the record.

[Fulcrum]

Lots of us have talked 'til we're blue in the face about this, but it's the mainstream media that's going to make people notice (and frankly, most people haven't noticed). The more press about this the better...

Maybe it's time to resuscitate that discussion of the Mastering Mafia? Might be time to revisit that topic again until somebody hears us banging that gong.

That old thread was a good read.

[bblackwood]

Maybe it's time to resuscitate that discussion of the Mastering Mafia? Might be time to revisit that topic again until somebody hears us banging that gong.
I dunno, hard to know if it had much impact. And to be honest, while everything posted was truthful, the cat's out of the bag now. It doesn't matter who started it and while it does matter that some guys default to murderous levels, the fact is they get away with it because people sign off on it.

The artists are going to have to demand the change.

[ella]

It's to provide something consumers can identify with like Starbucks on their coffee cup or Nike on their sneakers. Advertisers love it because it quantifies listeners leaving a paper trail for them to cover their a**es with when the product they are advertising flops.

The problem is that these aren't fans of the music. They are people making a statement about how cool they are.

Yes..

Although I understand that practically every genre has had an accompanying 'look', I still blame disco. By making music and 'the look' inseparable on a massive scale, music became another accessory. People no longer attended a musical event, they in essence became the event complete with wardrobe and a personal soundtrack. As more products were successfully incorporated, music was further devalued. Nowadays it seems like it's mostly a looped brand identifier, and apparently the loudest colours and most ultra-hyped advertising ensures consumer branding.

[Bob Olhsson]

For sure Disco was a major turning point but I think it was mostly a matter of too many local clubs and high schools cheaping out than anything else.

Fashion has always been a big part of the market however we seem to have allowed everything other than fashion to die.

[oudplayer]

I don't see disco being particularly different than other types of dance music (there have been dance record DJs since the 1930s, and wax cylinder DJs (WCJ?s) before that - just read about some WCJs in Istanbul in the first decade of the 20th c.). This just created a small cult of mega-collector consumer-DJs who mediated other people's music experiences.

However, the move of a lot of people's work and leisure to the internet, and the function of mp3s as providing a long-term soundtrack to this work has created a situation where people spend many hours a day listening to music and very little of it is focused (and all of it is low-fidelity).

[oudplayer]

People always think it's weird that I don't listen to music very often. But I don't want to listen to something to which I won't give my full attention.

I try to listen to as few recordings as I can get away with and be very selective about what I do hear. I'm a happier, if slightly more neurotic, person for it.

[invisibl]

Shouldnt Records in the title bee changed to MP3's now??

Or is it just a degeneric term??

[Bob Olhsson]

I don't see disco being particularly different than other types of dance music ...There's a big difference. It was the end of live musical performances for an audience that was dancing in a lot of the US and Europe.

[jerryskid]

Shouldnt Records in the title bee changed to MP3's now??

Or is it just a degeneric term??

It's a record of your songs....like a prison record....:grin:

[Mixerman]

Loudness wars have been going on for man, many years, as evidenced by Bob's post about Motown.

I was working with Bull Botrell a few years back, and he was talking about the ELO album that he did, in which the meters only moved when the song started, and when the song ended. That was in the late 70's.

There is an optimal level for records. Unfortunately, that optimal level can only be determined by the program. In other words, there is no standard optimal level. Further, that optimal level is completely subjective.

Beyond the optimal level to the lower end of the spectrum, we require sound isolated listening environments. Beyond the opitmal level to the louder end, and the music goes through serious degradation, no matter what the medium.

Clipping a CD, is degradating the music. This isn't about sound. This is about drawing the listener in. Now, granted, there is some music that is designed to agitate. Trent Reznor is an example of a guy that uses excessive clipping to his advantage. However, it's not random. When there is clipping in Trent's music, it's for a reason.

There is no good reason to make the large majority of music so agitating. Loud, distorted, and bright music is agitating. If the goal is to make someone feel sad or happy for that matter, but it's delivered in an agitating package, well it's not going to be nearly as effective as it should be.

Imagine "Feelings" as a loud, bright distorted record. Okay, bad example. That's an agitating song in it's own right, and probably deserves succh treatement.

Imagine "We Are the World" as a loud, bright, distorted record. Erm . . .

"I'm a little bit O Country"?

No....

"Heartbeat" performed by Don Johnson?

"Party all the Time"?

Never mind.

Mixerman

[meLoCo_go]

Don't know if I have much to add... But I'd like to comment the "music as background" thing. That's the thing I 100% agree and it always bugged me why the music is treated that way. And I also guess that way too many things went away as "background"... Even the communication with other people....

Personaly I think that today many people (including me) are information addicts. There are so many irritants for vision, hearing and thinking that when you somehow isolated or you try to concentrate on (can I say) single sourse of brain stimulation you feel uncomfortable... It is tough to just sit down and listen to some music after you have a day of internet, radios around, TVs etc. etc.

I think that spoils your ability to fully devote yourself to one thing.

Also... I probably wrong but with internet it's just too much music around... Everybody have a channel to promote themself which is a good/bad thing for me. Too many bands too give each one a good listen....

Not much on loudness anyway)))

[TSTW]

I have a question to everyone: Are you sat at your CPU' and listening to music?

I am. Is that to say im listening to background music as i type? I'm certainly enjoying it, but as has been stated im not paying 100% attention to it.

[bunnerabb]

Well...

Yeah.

but to sort of address what Bob said, people want to get over that noise floor on jukeboxes, too.

I do an average of 270 shows a year in a joint where 500 hooting, hammered touristas can get the ambient floor up to about 88 dBA.

No shit.

Our break music is an old Wurlitzer with a CD rig that I tapped out to the console. We have everything from Jimmy Buffet to Mudvayne on this motherfucker and I am constantly being asked to either bump it up or turn it down when we go from -7 dB RMS to about -.02 RMS.

What I think would be nice is just set a fucking limit. digital already did that for us so let's step away from the ledge and set a standard and if your CD is 2 dB RMS lower or higher, it gets binned and the ME gets a size ten leather enema.

[Unfcknblvbl]

Loudness wars have been going on for man, many years, as evidenced by Bob's post about Motown.


So...who do we blame for the loudness wars/disappearing act of stereo? In other words, which record/artist/label started the trend? Can we trace the history (so as to learn from it)?

[eagan]

..........

The problem is that these aren't fans of the music. They are people making a statement about how cool they are.

A slight tangent to the main subject, but related, and what Bob said there is worth focusing on again for a second.

There's a major insight in that, about a lot of what is wrong with the present state of music. All sorts of bad stuff ties right in with this phenomenon of "music as herd following fashion accessory".

(Just one little example of the truth of Bob's statement: Consider the strange phenomenon of people having crappy little recordings on their fucking cell phones. I mean, is this supposed to seriously be a way of listening to music?!

No. Observation of people clearly indicates it's about nothing more than gathering with your little buddies at school or work or wherever and showing them "hey, check out what I got on my phone now" to demonstrate that you're a conforming member of the herd.)


JLE

[Mixerpuppet]

So its a matter of whether the cow enjoys the grass and chews slowly verses the Consumer of the Big Mac which swallows it without really tasting it...

I'm reminded of Penguins....

Such a strange interdependancy...

[Bob Olhsson]

Imagine if most of the world had forgotten what steak tastes like because McDonalds-clones had become the only food you could get a loan to build a resturant for. That's kind of where we're at.

[bunnerabb]

Would the forensics make smashed records any less pertinent to marketing mooks and AEs?

That's like going back and trying to figure out where the wheels went off the pavement while the wreck is burning 500' away, IMHO.

Just get some standards.

[TSTW]

"music as herd following fashion accessory".


This has been happening for years..... hundreds of years.


(Just one little example of the truth of Bob's statement: Consider the strange phenomenon of people having crappy little recordings on their fucking cell phones. I mean, is this supposed to seriously be a way of listening to music?!


Something i have never understood. I was exiting a supermarket earlier and a dude was listening to a hip hop track on his mobile phone, walking along, with the phone to his ear, much like the stereotypical ghettoblaster on shoulder routine.


gathering with your little buddies at school or work or wherever and showing them "hey, check out what I got on my phone now" to demonstrate that you're a conforming member of the herd.)


Peer pressure is a terrible thing. If you find it the sheep will come

[Cosmic Pig]

You'd think the radio stations would be the ones to bitch about it. After they get through slamming an already slammed tune it sounds like shit. At the main rock station here in Vancouver the kick is dropping the level so audibly there's a hole after the hit in half the tunes and the highs are ripping from the double slam.

A tune I'd recorded and mastered got some fairly steady airplay at a small station in rural New Brunswick a few years back. I couldn't understand why my tune always sounded better than the other commercial tunes. Considering the gear I have it shouldn't have no matter how great my skills. Then I realized mine wasn't slammed, if anything it was a bit low.

You'd think radio would want the non-slammed so they can slam the commercials...

Imagine if most of the world had forgotten what steak tastes like because McDonalds-clones had become the only food you could get a loan to build a resturant for. That's kind of where we're at.

Ezzackly. The question is what top do about it. The key would be education to the masses. If having a killer sound system is cool then making non mashed tunes cool shouldn't be too hard. If there's anybody who makes money off music being negatively affected by L2 abuse there's your funding.

Cos.

[volthause]

I'm still one of those "kids" that likes to sit in front of the speakers with a new cd and listen and read the liner notes and such.

[Bob Olhsson]

You'd think the radio stations would be the ones to bitch about it. They are! It's all driven by paranoia.

[chrisj]

Actually, loud peaks is good and consistently loud sound is good for listening enjoyment and sales- but it's about PEAK energy. What people do these days is all RMS energy. It makes things very limp. The idea is to have the RMS loudness really emphasising the volume accents, kickdrum, whatever, but have the rest of the track more open so there's a contrast. People will accept this even when they're expecting superloud, as long as they don't actually want the sound to be flat featureless Muzak.

[Pimp-X]

... Ok.

[Bob Olhsson]

...The question is what to do about it. ..That's why we're here, to find answers and have a blast doing it!

I got into sound because the kid around the block's dad was into it. It's a matter of what people experience.

Hype and advertising only sell people on the idea that it's "cool." The thing that draws people into sound is a visceral experience of music messing with their minds and bodies.

[jerryskid]

Not only is the music smashed as they send it out on the air, most stations (at least the last 2 I worked for) are useing mp4's for their music library so it's smashed twice as much....If I played a real CD these days, I'd probably blow up someones radio....

[Bob Olhsson]

It's worse than that.

Stations get e-mailed a 44.1 MP3 and convert to 48k MPEG or else subscribe to a service that provides the MPEG files for their server. Then it gets reprocessed, maybe taken out to analog and then crunched once again for the studio to transmitter link at which point it gets converted to 32kHz., fed into the Optimod and in some cases hit again to feed a digital transmitter. And now that consumer electronics manufacturers are too cheap to use pots, the listener's radio uses a dsp chip to provide loudness compensation, eq the speakers and digitally compress out those nasty volume variations.

Is it any wonder people are talking seriously about listening to music on cell phones?

Oh ya, and where's Mix, all the the music reviewers, the Recording Academy, the AES and all the so-called "pro audio" manufacturers? Obviously all they care about is selling ads and more gear while the next generation ignores recorded music because all they've ever been exposed to is a distorted mess.

[chrisj]

But there's also the potential for other things- for instance, I'm thinking about recent work in Class D amps. It's possible to get integrated amp chips that are fairly high-powered for ICs but they don't sound like anybody's previous IC designs- the word 'tripath' comes to mind?

That means a variety of things. One, incredible profit margins on high ender crap (I have some Channel Islands amps that are sort of that way, though they do have huge toroidal power transformers). Two, better DIY options. But three, it becomes possible to produce REALLY decent sounding very cheap stereo amps... a cheap switch mode power supply, the class D chip, and badabing.

Then you use it to drive an Auratone- just kidding, but there are a lot of ways to make really sweet sounding speakers if you don't insist on going super full range, and you could follow up the amp design with one of those single-driver speakers and trade off bright and boom for the ability to have really lush, natural mids.

If you do all that you WILL hear a big difference between crap recordings and sweet recordings, and it's very easy to do all that. I think what needs to happen is a sort of 'Volkswagen Beetle of good sound', a powered speaker people can run off CD players or walkmen or whatever, that would be amazing and very musical- like the Tivoli for FM radio. I don't think there's any chance you'll see great sounding FM radio anytime soon, but the software for amazing sounding home music playback is out there- decades of CDs.

Hell, you could tie the Class D concept driving 'auratones' together with the sketchy but interesting filterless DAC idea people keep trying- have the speaker intentionally roll off before 20K anyway, and you'd have the Nyquist filtering taken care of very nicely.

*g* now I'm imagining a nice little unit that looks like an old 80s giant boombox- CD player in the top, perhaps a remote, all the electronics handled by the filterless DAC into the Class D chip, and two 'auratone' type speakers built into it. You could have your CD-based music to bathe in and carry it around with you :D talk about a good mix check...

Rather than babble about this more I'll just shut up and start sketching out designs...

[conejito]

Louder CDs cause listeners to turn the music down.

That's absolutely true, at least in my experience.

There have been many times when I've been forced to turn it down when listening to a recently-mastered CD. The fatigue they cause to the ears is literally numbing, physically as well as psychologically. I've even been tempted to try re-mastering with an expander. Yeesh.

Addressing the question of how music became background noise, I think it's because of our modern multimedia culture. Back in the '70s, we didn't have MTV or fancy video game consoles. Aside from its incidental use in TV, film, and restaurants, music was genuinely a medium unto itself. You bought a new LP, slapped it on the turntable, put the headphones on and immersed yourself, without wondering what the video looked like.

Then came MTV, video games, and our modern multimedia culture. Suddenly, music started to take a back seat to the visuals. Rather than asking if your friend had heard the new single from your favorite band, you'd ask if he'd seen the video. Remember "Thriller"? People weren't talking about the song - they were talking about the video.

Don't believe the hype.

Nowadays, in mass culture, music is a marketing tool more than an art form - it's a selling point, a soundtrack to a new video game, a free ringtone for your cell phone. I don't know what to do about it - I don't know if anything can be done about it.

On a positive note, I do think there's plenty of good-sounding, well-written and well-performed independent music available these days. It just takes some hunting and luck to find it.

[CaptainHook]

I don't know what to do about it - I don't know if anything can be done about it.


I think this is the most important part to all of this.
We've heard everyone talk about what is wrong before.

What can be done?
If anything?

What can "artists"/"musicians" do?
What can the engineers/recordists etc do?
What can joe bloggs avid music listener do?

Is making a stand or boycotting etc really gonna do anything?

I hear from record company peeps saying that they are moving completely to digital soon and will stop CD's. I hope the people i deal with are bigger idiots than i originally thought, and are wrong about that.

Digital Album art doesn't appeal to me much at the moment.
Although it would open up possibilities in terms of 3d art, animated cover art, etc
But does that mean access to only mp3's and AAC's?
(AAC's i can deal with for the most part...)

Or is leading the topic this way just another venture into a turd stinking thread of rampant hollow predictions?

That's why we're here, to find answers and have a blast doing it!

And it's an honour! :)

My concern is, that for people that only know the sound of
distorted mess, it is truly their preference to hear 'music'
this way. Even if you showed them what music is like without it,
they may actually still prefer the sound of what they're used to.

So 'educating' the masses by stating their preference is wrong,
seems futile to me.
Exposing them to how music sounded in the past, may not work
either if they're still hearing "modern sound" more, and finding
that the "norm".

Okay, i'm starting to drivel.

[malice]

I think everyone should start fighting the system, from artists to producers, AE, ME.

More and more I can impose a reasonable loudness to the records I produce.

I even have te help of mooks that actually have ears and start to ask the ME not to squash music like gonzos.

Artists can also refuse the loudness war.

It's a work in progress

malice

[conejito]

That's a sound plan, Malice. And, ideally, it could work.

What's the missing link here?

I think we need to focus on education of the masses.

They need to be taught how clipping distortion and ear fatigue makes music less enjoyable.

If we can't get through to the end-user, the listener, to communicate to them exactly what the problem is, they will never realize there is a problem.

[Bob Olhsson]

Remember that the level wars are driven by paranoia of not being loud enough. It might well take paranoia of being too loud to turn it around.

I've thought about turning "no peak limiting" into a desirable feature although I'm not sure more hype is the answer to hype. The first Paul Butterfield Blues Band record had instructions on the jacket to turn it up.

Maybe some words like: "This is a high resolution recording. You can experience the full visceral impact of the performance by turning the volume up."

[Grapestomper]

I've thought about turning "no peak limiting" into a desirable feature...

Hmm, that really might work.

I'd stick with the simple "no peak limiting" statement... keep it simple.

We bottle and release wines labled as "unfined and unfiltered", which in a way is like the oenological version of your disclaimer. My observation is that while the words are meaningless to most of the consumers, they still reasure them. If nothing else they say "don't worry, it's supposed to be like this."

When people DO ask, that provides an oppertunity to explain why you might not want to have your wine run through a 5 micron filter... that the act of filtration is detrimental to the wine.

These folks, often eager to pass around their newfound "wine knowlege", then go out and pass the word to their friends.


Things might work in a simillar way for "audio filtration".

$.02
Mike

[volthause]

The unwashed and uneducated masses always ask me, "How come when I put your album in my CD player, I always have to turn it up?" They always have the same look of disappointment on their face, as if I had just given them The AIDS. As if mine is an inferior product.

Educate, educate, educate. There is no other way.

[bunnerabb]

Maybe some words like: "This is a high resolution recording. You can experience the full visceral impact of the performance by turning the volume up."

Brilliant.

Make it a feature.

[magicchord]

A VISCERAL RECORDING
TURN IT UP

Thumbsup

[chrisj]

A couple years back I was trying to push the phrase "High Contrast" for that purpose. Dunno how well it worked, but it's still a good angle to work. Who the hell wants washed-out music? Wouldn't you want contrast, to turn up the contrast and make everything more vivid and impactful? Call it high contrast.

Of course if you just make boring music with big volume swells, it's useless. What I've seen suggests that it's important to keep peak activity hammering away constantly- but the RMS goes from really low to really high. Isolated elements like kickdrum should be real fat, but that is heard against a more open-sounding background...

For what it's worth the stuff sells like hotcakes, forever- think Rumours, or Boston's first album.

[dwoz]

I hear from record company peeps saying that they are moving completely to digital soon and will stop CD's. I hope the people i deal with are bigger idiots than i originally thought, and are wrong about that.


can I use this for a sig?

dwoz

[CaptainHook]

dwoz ~ i'm sure there's better quotes on these boards from those more eloquent than me, but i'd be flattered.
----------

I think some people with giant balls, and the rep and power will need to get the ball rolling. It's a little too easy to just put your head down and get back to work as usual, partly out of fear that the initial effort will result in less work until people 'come round' to the idea.

[Bob Olhsson]

I don't think packaged goods are going away anytime soon.

They just need to be well worth owning in order to compete with cheap or free digital files. That means better packaging, better sound and no filler. It's the difference between a '50s pop album and a '70s pop album.

[chrisj]

Random playlists won't always win as far as listening enjoyment. The whole iPod model, where you can have a totally scattershot playlist, is a sort of innovation but it's only one way to listen to music, either actively or passively. It's easier to turn to that if you have a lot of crap CDs with one good song on each, but if you had actual good CDs there are times when it would be rewarding to just put the thing on and play it...

Hence the way I keep harping on existing software- many people would accept the idea of playing, say, DSotM through from end to end. As for convenience, it's just as convenient to let the CD dictate your playlist. The catch is that you have to have a seriously good album and a good sequence to make that desirable- and this usually (always?) means you can't do the whole thing in your basement or let the tracking engineer mix, master and sequence it. Most likely there are additional people who could be brought in to argue points like sequencing, there are plenty of MEs happy to obsess over details of inter-track timing, etc.

A CD is not like a painting, it's more like a Hollywood movie. There's a quality level you can get to when you bring in a lot of specialists to attend to aspects of the production that aren't obvious. It's that quality level that would encourage better respect for recorded music.

[jerryskid]

I can't even begin to think about listening to , say "Abbey Road" or "Rubber Soul", out of sequence..... and what about stuff like "Tommy" and "Jesus Christ Superstar" ??? Unthinkable !!!!

[Bob Olhsson]

...A CD is not like a painting, it's more like a Hollywood movie...It isn't even like that because a record is intended to be listened to repeatedly.

Otherwise what's the point in owning it?

[Pimp-X]

Those who know me, know I have both an eclectic taste in music, and at times, terrible taste in music. But then, I listen to music that makes me happy, not anyone else. So the following could be construed as some kind of admission, that it may be, but fuck you, it's my brain and I'll abuse it with Phil Collins if I choose. :lol:

Anyway, last night I was listening to parts of the Invisible Touch album. Initially, I was interested to hear Land of Confusion again so I could get a decent A/B on how much Disturbed destroyed the song, and they actually didn't slaughter it as badly as they could've.

Anyway, point is, immediately afterwards I decided to listen to Jimmy Eat World - Futures.

I knocked over 7/8ths empty (phew) glass of a nice South Australian red wine as I lunged for the masters.

Talk about a viscious sonic butchery. The kind of butchery where you leave with the beef fillet strapped around your face. Damn, that was loud. And by such stark comparison, lacking in any decent dynamics.

Was quite the stunning demonstration. I may use it on others, although it could be deemed a form of torture to use Invisible Touch... :lol:

[graveleye]

first post on the fresh hotness of the new forum - nice to be back....but..

...this is a little like beating a dead horse isn't it? I mean, they're not going to back off the loudness campaign are they? I don't want to give the street sweepers any more work after the parade, but you cant put the poop back in the pony. Square waves are now industry standard arent they?

[Goes211]

first post on the fresh hotness of the new forum - nice to be back....but..

...this is a little like beating a dead horse isn't it? I mean, they're not going to back off the loudness campaign are they? I don't want to give the street sweepers any more work after the parade, but you cant put the poop back in the pony. Square waves are now industry standard arent they?

That's why we should start the 'dynamics are back' campaign. As long as the artists don't put their foot down it's not going to change.

[graveleye]

That's why we should start the 'dynamics are back' campaign. As long as the artists don't put their foot down it's not going to change.

I have the same idea Goes (good to talk to you again BTW), but arent we pathetic idealists though even considering battling the big machine despite the obvious flaws in their ways.

Friends, I'm small time. I work my own way, have my day job, but I still record acts from time to time in my humble basement for a mad-money here and there. Just like MM says any asshole with a computer in his basement can crush and mangle any song, so comes the artists with their brainwashed request: "Can you make it louder?"

"Of course I can you dummy, but do you really want that which we lovingly slaved over for the past several weeks to sound crappy just like everyone elses?"

"YES!"

OK, so out comes the brickwall... lets do a little a/b... now which sounds better hmmm? Do you like this (LOUD)? Or do you like this (dynamic)?

You can guess the answer every damn time.

I feel unfortunatly, that the brainwashing is complete. The masses now prefer suck to shine.

[Bob Olhsson]

...I feel unfortunatly, that the brainwashing is complete. The masses now prefer suck to shine.The "masses" are buying mostly catalog and used records. Average major label new title sales have been in the toilet for nearly ten years.

The deep dark secret is that square waves really aren't selling records. That's not to say there aren't significant other reasons people aren't buying many new titles but there is no evidence it helps sales and plenty that distortion reduces the amount of time people will listen to the radio.

And what we're talking about here is a loss of balls and not "dynamics."

[G. Hoffman]

One point which has kind of been overlooked so far is this: what drives the Loudness wars?

I think we can all agree that it isn't sonic quality, and it certainly isn't driving record sales. So what is it?

Several years back, I went on Berklee's spring break trip to Nashville. Being Berklee, they got a lot of fairly important people to come and talk to us, including the then president of Sony Nashville (I can't remember his name). He spoke to us about a lot of things, but one of the things was country radio. He said that most country albums these days don't have many ballads on them. The reason, he said, was that country radio stations won't play ballads anymore, because they have a tendency to evoke strong feeling in people. For every person who loves a song and turns up the radio when it comes on, there will be another person who hates it and changes the station. Radio stations, therefore, would much prefer to play music that no one cares about, because if you care about it you won't bother to change the station, and will therefore hear the commercials.

Radio doesn't want good or great music. They don't want shitty music - they want mediocre music, which is exactly what they get. Nothing that is offensively bad to an average listener (and no one on this board is an average listener), but nothing that is in any way good either.

I'm not at all convinced that a similar thing isn't going on with the loudness wars. I think Mixerman is right; loud music causes people to turn the radio down. But note, I said DOWN, not OFF. If you are listening to it quietly, you will not bother to notice that it sucks, and you will still be listening when the commercials come on, and even if you are not hearing those commercials consciously, you will still be influenced by them.

As has been pointed out, the music business is not about selling music anymore, it is about selling advertising. So, in the minds of the mooky mooks, music you turn down is a good thing.


Gabriel

[jerryskid]

Radio doesn't want good or great music. They don't want shitty music - they want mediocre music, which is exactly what they get. Nothing that is offensively bad to an average listener (and no one on this board is an average listener), but nothing that is in any way good either.

I think Mixerman is right; loud music causes people to turn the radio down. But note, I said DOWN, not OFF. If you are listening to it quietly, you will not bother to notice that it sucks, and you will still be listening when the commercials come on, and even if you are not hearing those commercials consciously, you will still be influenced by them.

Gabriel




Also the fact that all our in house commercials are recorded very loud, so even if the radio is turned down, you'll still hear the ads.....

[Bob Olhsson]

The processing at the station does a fine job of matching commercials, announcements and music. The reason commercials are so loud is that they often are less compressed. The least compressed sound you'll hear on radio is the jock or announcer's voice.

Really loud records make a difference in meetings. I don't see where they have any positive effect elsewhere. There's a perfect example of how this works on tv. You can compare old videos with new for yourself.

Forget about the theory and use your ears.

[leester]

So why can't the L2 (or others) be iPlugs or whatever instead?

Why can't the (digital/download/DRM'd) media itself contain meta-information to optimize it for X device, and/or the OPTION to leave it like it was?

That way, you buy the physical CD - you get the GOOD version, the one all of us here would want.

Digital downloads come with a plugin preset for X-toons, or have it already applied... don't matter, but the friggin' CD still has the dynamic range, and POSSIBLY generates mo physical sales than digital... as sooner or later the A/B comparisons will easily show which one is superior.

Somebody pull some strings. And write some iPlugs.

mees

[bunnerabb]

It's the difference between a '50s pop album and a '70s pop album.
That is the most profound thing I've read on this forum.

We aint got the new jack skills, just the chops and the music.

You aint got the history, just the new jack skillz.

Kids... we better start buttering each other's toast or the music will not live.

[burnsy]

I agree with the first two posts and being new to audio I am a culprit of the L2 factor. But however I have noticed it does create that harshness mentioned above. At the moment im listening to phil collins and unlike most of the new music I enjoy this,it isn't distracting but still makes me stop and sit back and enjoy the track . Due to the nature and the places we listen to music I believe the way we are headed is for the noise that cuts through everything. People are keeping themselves far to busy to sit back and enjoy it , which in my eyes is awful.
I hope this makes sense but my piece on it is music is a form of entertainment just like the attention you pay in a film should be giving to music not just turned down because its distracting you conversation.

[nobby]

It isn't even like that because a record is intended to be listened to repeatedly.

Otherwise what's the point in owning it?

With the exception of a great documentary (The Compleat Beatles, Standing in the Shadows of Motown, Tom Dowd/ The Language of Music spring to mind) I can read a book or watch a movie and not need to see it for years because I know how it ends.

A great song I may want to hear 5 times in a row because, among other things, I know how it ends.

[Bob Olhsson]

To me this is the profound difference between our "product" and those of the other performing arts. It's utterly amazing how many people seem to have lost sight of this in recent years.

[graymc]

So...who do we blame for the loudness wars/disappearing act of stereo?
Using the stereo field is getting rarer in new music these days.

A friend of mine sent me the mp3s (I know, ironic in this conversation) of his band's latest CD so I could post them on a website I'm maintaining for them (http://www.solesomatic.net). I put on my headphones and started listening to the tracks and was caught off guard by what I heard: things moving in stereo; things panned hard to one side or another; and really cool little bits and samples hidden way off in the stereo field. Compared to a lot of stuff I've heard these days and the fact that this guy did it all on a laptop I have to say I was impressed.

[stevep]

Another part of the problem is that a lot of successful artists aren't really into records passionately the way we are and only see them as a means to a promotional end. The frustrating thing is when I get a call from a prospective client who loved the way another of my clients insisted that I trash their CD.

Some of the new young artists i am working with will actually listen to me when i explain dynamics to them and what will happen to there record if it is smashed to death

and of course the old guys already know better

but its the young ones who listen


The producer , artist and label need to have the same vision

Making great music !



steve perkins

[Mixerman]

Using the stereo field is getting rarer in new music these days.

That's because you can get a mono record louder than a stereo one.

It's all part of the same disease.

Mixerman

[Bob Olhsson]

Check out:

http://www.stylusmagazine.com/articles/weekly_article/imperfect-sound-forever.htm

[st robert]

So why can't the L2 (or others) be iPlugs or whatever instead?

Why can't the (digital/download/DRM'd) media itself contain meta-information to optimize it for X device, and/or the OPTION to leave it like it was?

That way, you buy the physical CD - you get the GOOD version, the one all of us here would want.

Digital downloads come with a plugin preset for X-toons, or have it already applied... don't matter, but the friggin' CD still has the dynamic range, and POSSIBLY generates mo physical sales than digital... as sooner or later the A/B comparisons will easily show which one is superior.

Somebody pull some strings. And write some iPlugs.

mees


another take on the same theme would be to only offer the crushed-to-fuck-and-back mixes as singles for mp3 sales, but sell the cd as the nice, round, dynamic, punchy product it is supposed to be.

meaning, if you spend .99 at itunes or wherever, ya get what ya pay for, i.e. same old same old square waves.

but then the types that listen to cds and are full cd buyers are rewarded with the better shit.

kind of like radio edits vs. the full length versions with swear words and everything.

sell it both ways, tell 'em upfront the reasons why, and be happy...

or not.

(i plan to try this with the upcoming release.)

my .02

rob

[mousdrvr]

If you own the First Norah Jones record and a CD changer try this. Find the heaviest record you have in your collection that was released prior to say 96, Load it up right before Norah and play the last track. As it's playing walk as far away from your stereo as you can. Go down the hall, outside, whatever just go find some place you can barely hear the ragging thunder gods. Now wait 3 minutes, your jaw will hit the floor.

[James Murphy]

in the diligent pursuit of making everything louder than everything else, i have created a series of plug ins.... here's my debut offering, i think it's gonna be a hit.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y36/jfmguitarist/bizarroplug1.jpg?t=1167805545

easy to use, only one control.... and once you move it up, it won't go back down.....i didn't figure anyone would want that functionality anyway, so why bother coding it??

[srvenable]

On my band's last two CDs, I asked the engineer to "make it louder" when mastering. And he did -- with a wrinkled nose -- especially on the acapella madrigal-type numbers.

I figured the vast majority of people buying our CDs are going to listen to them driving home from the Renaissance Faire. Cars, engine noise, traffic noise -- you get the picture.

Yes, it made the CD boring to me in some ways. And some people compliment me on how "professional" our CDs sound -- and I know what they mean by "professional," and that's kind of sad.

But to be honest, I'm not sure I made the wrong decision. But I DO wish I could have released two versions: the play-in-your-car version and the audiophile version.


On a sort of tangent: On our last CD, after the first few passes of mixing, I posted 128kps MP3s for the band to listen to. Everyone kept telling me "the tambourine sounds like ass!" I could't figure it out. Then I realized my eval CD was burned from the .wavs, not the MP3s.
Then I listened to the MP3s, and they were right, the tambo sounded like ass, as did the cymbals on the few songs with drums.
I told the rest of the band "that's what MP3 compression will do to music."
A discussion ensued -- in the end we realized that A LOT of people would ultimately listen to the music on MP3 players.

So, we adjusted the mix so it didn't sound like ass as an MP3 ... AAAGGGH!

But honestly, what else can I do? Put a disclaimer on the CD saying "You really shouldn't listen to MP3s, they sound like ass?" It's infuriating that the "new medium" of recorded music (MP3s) is actually a step down in quality from its predecessor (CDs).

[Mixerman]

On my band's last two CDs, I asked the engineer to "make it louder" when mastering. And he did -- with a wrinkled nose -- especially on the acapella madrigal-type numbers.

I figured the vast majority of people buying our CDs are going to listen to them driving home from the Renaissance Faire. Cars, engine noise, traffic noise -- you get the picture.

Yes, it made the CD boring to me in some ways. And some people compliment me on how "professional" our CDs sound -- and I know what they mean by "professional," and that's kind of sad.

But to be honest, I'm not sure I made the wrong decision. But I DO wish I could have released two versions: the play-in-your-car version and the audiophile version.


On a sort of tangent: On our last CD, after the first few passes of mixing, I posted 128kps MP3s for the band to listen to. Everyone kept telling me "the tambourine sounds like ass!" I could't figure it out. Then I realized my eval CD was burned from the .wavs, not the MP3s.
Then I listened to the MP3s, and they were right, the tambo sounded like ass, as did the cymbals on the few songs with drums.
I told the rest of the band "that's what MP3 compression will do to music."
A discussion ensued -- in the end we realized that A LOT of people would ultimately listen to the music on MP3 players.

So, we adjusted the mix so it didn't sound like ass as an MP3 ... AAAGGGH!

But honestly, what else can I do? Put a disclaimer on the CD saying "You really shouldn't listen to MP3s, they sound like ass?" It's infuriating that the "new medium" of recorded music (MP3s) is actually a step down in quality from its predecessor (CDs).

First of all, and I'm not scolding you here but I take umbrage to the term, making a record less loud is NOT audiophile. I am certainly not being an audiophile when I bring mic pres to full distortion then back them off one click. Or when I comp a vocal that has a spitting Pultec on it, and don't really give a shit. The vocal was money, so there.

You do not have to obliterate a record to hear it in the car. Listen to Neil Young's Harvest (hopefully they didn't remaster it loud). Or listen to Scheryl Crow's Tuesday Night Music Club. These are albums that are NOT crushed, that sound FINE in the car, and if you just turn the volume knob, you can hear everything, and plenty loud. Definitely louder than the external noise. Loud enough to not hear the siren behind you. Isn't that loud enough?

The fact is, a very loud CD beecomes tiring to listen to. And wheras you can listen to Tuesday Night Music Club at a high decibel level and not fatigue, the same can not be said for today's very loud CDs. They definitely fatigue you, and this is why people are turning them down.

This isn't about audiophile's wanting better sound. This is about providing an emotional experience for the listener, and when you make your music loud, you take away from that emotional experience. I've made CDs loud on more than one occasion because that's what the label wanted, and I am intimately familiar with the before and after of destructive leveling. As you should be. Excepting you had people telling you your CD was professional, so you thought that was cool. I contend, you would have been better off hearing "Dude, I can't stop listening to your CD," or "When I trun it way up, it fucking rocks!" Anything but professional! There are bands that wear velvet jackets that are professional. You know what I mean?

As far as MP3's are concerned, that's just a passing fad. Bring out the 300gig ipods, and all of a sudden everyone is loading in wave files. Bring them up to a terabyte and who knows what we'll be loading on them. MP3s bring a convenience. No one really knows it's a step doen because frankly, it's not. A loud CD sounds like shit and is entirely uninviting. So is an MP3. It's just a little shittier, and a little less inviting. Okay, but I can carry it everywhere, and I don't have to deal with CDs! Convenience.

I mean, if our very own industry readily places convenience over quality, then why should the consumer be expected to act any differently?

Mixerman

[Kris]

When can I get a 300G Ipod?!?:Thumbsup:

[st robert]

I agree with the first two posts and being new to audio I am a culprit of the L2 factor. But however I have noticed it does create that harshness mentioned above. At the moment im listening to phil collins and unlike most of the new music I enjoy this,it isn't distracting but still makes me stop and sit back and enjoy the track . Due to the nature and the places we listen to music I believe the way we are headed is for the noise that cuts through everything. People are keeping themselves far to busy to sit back and enjoy it , which in my eyes is awful.
I hope this makes sense but my piece on it is music is a form of entertainment just like the attention you pay in a film should be giving to music not just turned down because its distracting you conversation.

as i get closer to the end of this cd, i am making mixes for myself in the car at levels i plan to release in and find myself being taken aback at how it just sounds punchy, fat and good sometimes. i am in the last death throes of the mix sessions before i abandon the motherfucker and master it, but i love the music and love some of the mixes because they are different from the others, i.e. allowed to breathe. i am small time and have nothing to lose by releasing a quieter product, but so convinced am i about the merits of the fat punch, i will never crush the music to fuck and back again.

i promise.

rob

[Bob Olhsson]

If you aren't playing the focus group game, there's nothing to be gained from sounding wimpy-loud.

[bunnerabb]

Mixerman's points are valid and lucidly stated.

There is only one situation where I've found crushed to shit CDs to be of any use.

I live and work on a small resort island in the Great Lakes, all summer, mixing live shows for a bar that des two shows a day. The boss lady is very old school and the bar is 130 and change years old. We don't use a DeeJay for breaks and what we have is an old Wurly jukebox (http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/ADVG/28~Wurlitzer-Jukebox-Posters.jpg) - the kind that has the arched top and the little ether bubble tubes and colour wheels over the fluorescent tubes mounted in the front.

Anyhoo, this is what we use for breaks for music. It has a variety of CD's from Jimmy Buffett to Mudvayne to Audioslave to stuff from the artists who play the bar.

We all have a pretty good idea as to levels on the Audioslave and Mudvayne stuff, but I have to tell you, the stuff that was done "locally" and even some of the ones done in Nashville, are woefully understated as far as level. The opposite end of hot mastering as exhibited by the previously mentioned discs are pretty fatiguing. Like listening to a jackhammer and trying to focus on the rhythmic aspects but the total lack of dynamics just makes you shut the windows.

The point is:

That jukebox has to get over the noise floor, which I've clocked out at 89 dBA, some nights, of several hundred, boisterous, "woo" hooting, yammering, shouting drunks.

It's patched into the console for playback through the mains and I am *constantly* pestered to "turn it up, dude" when a less that Vlad the Impaler level CD pops up. And of course, this is an atmosphere where people basically come to bray at each other while shitfaced and could give a rat's ass about the sound quality of the jukebox, although I have received several compliments on the live mix from people I never thought would give a rat's ass abou that, either.

Master one disc for cars? For radio? For "audiophiles" who can reach the volume knob? One for noisy bars?

No. No, no and fuck no.

What we need, IMHO, is simply for the RIAA to establish a 2 DB RMS window for what constitutes an acceptable master. This is not an unheard of precedent. To wit: The RIAA curve was implimented as simply something that allowed records to be played back with the bass information intact when it was impossible to imprint and retrieve that low end from those narrow vinyl grooves without sending the stylus jumping off the record or making the album 12 minutes per side, tops. There were two, IIRC, the RIAA curve - basically a high gain to low gain ramp - and the short lived NARTB (now simply the NAB) curve which found a switch position on a few of preamps in the '50s and early '60s.

Post manufacture - consumer level equalisation curves no longer need to be enforced for accurate and uniform playback characterisitcs.

Loudness compression levels do.

A petition, perhaps from industry engineers?

No idea, but we need this, I think.

.02 USD

- the bunny

[Mixerman]

The RIAA isn't going to do that for a multitude of reasons.

One solution to the problem might be to manufacture smarter playback macchines with an ability to automatically adjust the volume based on the average level of the CD.

Of course, then some engineer will realize that he can use apparent loudness by making the mix heavy in the 2k-5k range.

Or someone will get the idea to leave an entire track at the end of the CD that is nothing but 10 minutes of white noise at a leve just above our smart hardware's recognition, thus bringing the average down, and thus having your CD played significantly louder than the other CDs.

Still, I think in general, that solution would clearly illuminate which levels sound best, causing the record labels to "remaster" the 25 or so truly time tested hits they had from 1997 to 2007.

Mixerman

[dwoz]

To wit: The RIAA curve was implimented as simply something that allowed records to be played back with the bass information intact when it was impossible to imprint and retrieve that low end from those narrow vinyl grooves without sending the stylus jumping off the record or making the album 12 minutes per side, tops.
- the bunny


Well, I'm going to slightly disagree here. What you're talking about here is not the RIAA curve, but rather the RIAA standard. The difference is that the standard was established as a way for manufacturers of equipment and media to create mutually-compatible products. You didn't have to buy the "Phillips" disk, and your friend didn't have to find the "Marantz" disk, because he couldn't play his girlfriend's "RCA" disk on his Marantz console.

When we have a situation where a recording that's at a certain RMS and peak loudness won't play on certain systems, and when one with this OTHER RMS and peak loudness level WILL, but won't play on those other systems...then there will be a standard. Not until.

dwoz

[bunnerabb]

Well, yes it was a standard, but it was an E.Q. ramp that was standardised, none the less, to allow records to be made the way they were made.

And, sure, they wont do it, but a 2db mastering RMS level area as a standard would do a hell of a lot for the LEVEL incompatibilities between discs on all equipment.

Obviously the equipment isn;t the problem, but the levels from disc to disc vary so much that it's easily as ridiculous as having 17 different E.O. curves for phono preampe, IMHO.

[DaveC]

Everyone on here thinks CD's etc are too loud?

This reminds me of when I was a teen and they were introducing CDs. I used to go to HI-Fi shows, and everyone was saying CD's sound shit! Just listen! It was like chalk and cheese, CDs sounded appalling, vinyl had so much depth clarity, emotive power warmth etc etc. We were definately right. CD should be binned.

But we were so wrong. We were comparing Linn Sondeks with graphite arms playing records pressed from japanese virgin super vinyl, and everything was being pumped through the worlds finest amps and speakers.

Back in the real world, people were buying CD players. These were replacing cardboard record players from Amstrad which had sharpened points of iron (or maybe saphire if you were lucky) instead of diamond needles, pumping the sound out of tiny speakers made of hardboard. Your pop and rock records were often pressed on the thinnest flimsiest vinyl ever, tended to be at least a little warped before you even had a chance to leave them in the sunlight, got them scratched up and covered in fluff and dirt. Man they sounded rough, and even those first CD players did sound 1000 times better.

Sometimes the uneducated masses are right, even when all the evidence says they are wrong. And maybe they are right again.

Background music? The rock and metal kids that I work with all use music as background. But that is because they have already studied every note and nuance of the songs on their own in total concentration, before they entered the studio. 'yeah but they are in bands, what about the rest?' Hard to say, but there are a lot of fans on myspace and various forums who listen to their favourite bands in great detail. When they are on their own. Like we did. When they have mates around, play the same songs in the background!

And the main point here - loudness. Well, of course I know what everyone is saying about the fidelity and the details that are lost, I hear what goes out of my recordings when they are pumped up. But I also hear something nice happening to the sonics which I like.

Is turning it up better? Well no. If I turn up an unmastered/quietly recorded recording at home so I can hear the quiet bits nicely over the background, often the loud bits are too loud. Either uncomfortably so, or else simply intrusive on other people in the house who don't want to listen or the neighbours etc. And I do sometimes want to hear my favourite songs when I am driving.

But for one thing - we are audio professionals with years/decades of ear training to be able to hear into the sounds. For a second, not everyone has a soundproofed acoustically treated room with Bryston amps or ATC speakers to listen to their music. Not everyone can afford that stuff, or the time to spend hours on their own away from family and friends concentrating on music.

Working in this business, we do make a product, and it gets used by our consumers. We should be understanding what our public want and how they really use the stuff we produce, not arbitrarily impose some set of rules about sonic fidelity and what is 'better'.

And call me a philistine, but whilst we have lost something I think we have gained a whole lot more: to me rock records sound a load better than they used to now that they are really loud.




oh ps - the fatiguing issue. Yeah its fatiguing, but the kids today have built up staminer to take it 24-7. It won't kill anyone any more than the hoola hoop did!

[recall]

E
And call me a philistine,


...philistine:D

[Mixerman]

Is turning it up better? Well no. If I turn up an unmastered/quietly recorded recording at home so I can hear the quiet bits nicely over the background, often the loud bits are too loud. Either uncomfortably so, or else simply intrusive on other people in the house who don't want to listen or the neighbours etc. And I do sometimes want to hear my favourite songs when I am driving.Name me a CD that you have to keep turning up and down that isn't in the classical genre. I'm curious.

There is an optimal dynamic range in which you do not have to keep adjusting your volume, and in which it is not squared off distorted and 2 dimensional and loud to the point that it will cut through any background noise even at low volume.

Currently, you are arguing that some undefined CD sounds better than some undefined and probably different record played on a player, both of which have some undefined dynamic range. This simply can't be argued.

Are you saying that making a CD so loud that every kik drum is severely clipping is a good thing? How much is too much?

I can think of some CDs where clipping is appropriate and part of the sound, like Trent Reznor. I can think of far more where clipping is not appropriate, and clearly doesn't make the CD better.

Mixerman

[DaveC]

Name me a CD that you have to keep turning up and down that isn't in the classical genre. I'm curious.
...

Currently, you are arguing that some undefined CD sounds better than some undefined and probably different record played on a player, both of which have some undefined dynamic range. This simply can't be argued.

Are you saying that making a CD so loud that every kik drum is severely clipping is a good thing? How much is too much?


Naming CDs sounds like a great idea - which CDs are too loud? what proportion of CD's are we talking about?

Was Nirvana and Rage Against The Machine I too loud? Machine Head? These are pretty loud CDs, I love the sound. Or do you mean other CDs?

There are quite a few CDs which I have to turn up and down, especially if driving, but also if not in a 'quiet space on my own' (don't get that very often here). First which springs to mind is the recent Kate Bush and I think Dave Gilmour albums. There are a few though, I will have to go through to sort out more.

In the mean time, time for the other side to name names. Which CDs are too loud, and which are appropriately loud?

[Mixerman]

How about Scheryl Crow's Tuesday Night Music Club? Do you have to turn that album up and down? Or Neil Young's Harvest. I have no idea when the last master of this album was made, but preferably something that was mastered before 1995 as this was originally on record.

I'm sure many of us would be happy to supply you with albums that are a two-dimensional distorted mess that sound like crap. First let's understand what albums you feel have too wide a dynamic range.

Mixerman

[DaveC]

I know some of the singles off the Sheryl Crowe, they sound excellent to my ears. So does one of the loudest CDs I've heard in a while, Green Day's American Idiot.

I'll have to go through my CD collection to find ones that have annoying quiet bits in certain circumstances. In the mean time, yes, I would love to know which CDs are too loud. Maybe I agree with you after all, but to read this thread it seems as if all CDs mastered after 1996 are deemed to be too loud. I disagree strongly with that sentiment.

Please let me know whether the 'loud' CDs I have listed in this and the last post count as great sounding or whether these are the ones symptomatic of the 'too loud/sound crap' category.

[Mixerman]

I know some of the singles off the Sheryl Crowe, they sound excellent to my ears. So does one of the loudest CDs I've heard in a while, Green Day's American Idiot.

Scheryl Crow's album isn't loud by a long shot.

How about any of Sting's early solo albums?

How about Soungraden's Superunknown?

How about Red Hot Chili Pepper's Bllod Sugar Sex Magik?

Do any of those albums require turning up and down?

I'll have to go through my CD collection to find ones that have annoying quiet bits in certain circumstances. In the mean time, yes, I would love to know which CDs are too loud. Maybe I agree with you after all, but to read this thread it seems as if all CDs mastered after 1996 are deemed to be too loud. I disagree strongly with that sentiment. No one stated this. Certainly not me. Albums I've done in 1996 are not as loud as albums I've done recently. And I personally approve of the final results of my more recent work. So, you can't argue that I am holding on to some decade old notion of what the dynamic range should be on a rock CD. But I also have a keen awareness of exactly what loudness of all degerees does to mixes and songs I'm intimately familiar with. I'm not making my arguments as a consumer.

Please let me know whether the 'loud' CDs I have listed in this and the last post count as great sounding or whether these are the ones symptomatic of the 'too loud/sound crap' category.I understand that you want to discuss what I think is too loud. And we will. I promise you. But I have at the very least defined the factual artifacts of an overly pumped CD. I've also provided a theory as to how this loudness trend has affected negatively the way people listen to music.

You have made some very broad statements of opinion, and I am trying to get a gauge on what dynamic range in a CD is acceptable to you. Once we've determined that, then we can start to determine what your threshold of too loud is.

Mixerman

[DaveC]

This is great if we can clarify what this thread is about, since I think that everyone is verbally agreeing with everyone else, but that there are a lot of differences of opinion here about what is too loud and what is not.

More stuff which I think sounds great - Christina Aguewhatsit's ballad 'Beautiful'; a lot of Pink's stuff; Brittany's early stuff; System of a Down's Toxicity onwards; Shania Twain's big singles.

What stuff has too big a dynamic range for me? It is context dependent - as 'art' anything goes. As 'rock'/'pop', breathe and on the run from dark side are too extreme, but a lot of the other tracks work great as rock (ha ha - that should get me flamed!). But my thresholds are a bit irrelevant, since the topic of this thread is pretty broad.

Is the point:
1 - there have been a few records which have been poorly mixed and mastered to achieve a high RMS, they should have been left quiet or else totally remixed and mastered by someone more talented.
2 - high RMS is generally bad (except in a few/a lot of cases)

I could certainly agree with '1'. There are some bad sounding CDs out there, but then there has always been a large quantity of bad sounding records since recording started. And today's bad sounding records sound bad in different ways than bad sounding records of yesteryear. Don't think it is a crisis especially - kids heard the music through bad recordings in the past, they are hearing the music through it today.

If the point is '2' - then hey yeah, keep the RMS down for Jazz, classical and the 1% of 'artistes' who make genuine art which is to be 'experienced' in quiet places through $1000+ sound reproduction systems. For the rest of rock/pop/country, pump it up!

[bunnerabb]

I got a copy of Jimi Hendrix's Greatest Hits, a couple years ago, as a gift.

It had been through the whack box at Sterling.

Nothing on the extracted tracks printed a hair under -3dB RMS on any passage,and the dynamic relationships between passages in the original mix had been removed.

Try and imagine "Little Wing" without a shred of air in it.

I threw it out.

It was work to lilsten to it. Like walking through broken glass to get to your living room.

I binned a Jimi CD.

That's the stuff that gets on my tits.

[DaveC]

Hey! I was just thinking about Jimi...

First, I agree about remastering - yes it has definitely destroyed a few CDs. Today's mastering style does not suit the music or recording and mixing style.

But what I was thinking - if Mr Hendrix had been around today, man he would have written and recorded differently and his CDs would have made sure his CDs were the baddest loudest shit out there, and just as great in their alternate universe different way. He wrote recorded and played in the context of what was going on around him. And made something which worked then, and we can still enjoy today.

[Mixerman]

This is great if we can clarify what this thread is about, since I think that everyone is verbally agreeing with everyone else, but that there are a lot of differences of opinion here about what is too loud and what is not.

More stuff which I think sounds great - Christina Aguewhatsit's ballad 'Beautiful'; a lot of Pink's stuff; Brittany's early stuff; System of a Down's Toxicity onwards; Shania Twain's big singles.

What stuff has too big a dynamic range for me? It is context dependent - as 'art' anything goes. As 'rock'/'pop', breathe and on the run from dark side are too extreme, but a lot of the other tracks work great as rock (ha ha - that should get me flamed!). But my thresholds are a bit irrelevant, since the topic of this thread is pretty broad.

Is the point:
1 - there have been a few records which have been poorly mixed and mastered to achieve a high RMS, they should have been left quiet or else totally remixed and mastered by someone more talented.
2 - high RMS is generally bad (except in a few/a lot of cases)

I could certainly agree with '1'. There are some bad sounding CDs out there, but then there has always been a large quantity of bad sounding records since recording started. And today's bad sounding records sound bad in different ways than bad sounding records of yesteryear. Don't think it is a crisis especially - kids heard the music through bad recordings in the past, they are hearing the music through it today.

If the point is '2' - then hey yeah, keep the RMS down for Jazz, classical and the 1% of 'artistes' who make genuine art which is to be 'experienced' in quiet places through $1000+ sound reproduction systems. For the rest of rock/pop/country, pump it up!

I asked you about some widely available CDs.

You're saying pump it up, but I'm asking if some CDs which are not pumped up sound great to you.

They are:

Soundgarden - Superunknown.
Red Hot Chili Peppers - Blood Sugar Sex Magik
Sting - Dream of the Blue Turles

1. do you need to adjust your volume up and down to account for too wide a dynamic on any of these CDs?

2. Do you think these CDs sound good?

Please answer the question.

Thanks,

Mixerman

[DaveC]

Sorry but I don't have those CDs to hand. (I am kinda living in 2 places, and also some of my CD collection has ended up in storage). I did like Paul Simon's Gracelands, thats kinda got that world music feel a-la Sting? Also love the Police mixes. Is the Pink Floyd example any good? I think I also had it on the last Tool album.

I love the sound of old records, Led Zep, Jimi Hendrix, Beatles etc etc etc. But I love the sound of new ones too and I like the way things are evolving.

[bunnerabb]

Nobody asked for my .02¢, but I think that "The Dream of the Blue Turtles" is one of the most meticulously and brilliantly crafted CDs ever. Omar Hakim's flawless drumming punching through everything, as it should... lush verbs that would sound overwrought and bloated on any other production, nestled in perfectly.. it's a sonic landscape and it takes you through a journey musically and dynamically and if anybody ever "remasters" that thing, I will kill them with my teeth.


Back to the bench.

[bunnerabb]

As Orson Welles said on his deathbed "Keep Ted Turner and his box of crayons away from my movies". This is why you wont see a colourised version of "Citizen Kane".

I feel the same way about some records.

I don't want to look at the technology, I don't want to see the seams, I don't want to watch the tail wagging the dog.. I just want to jump in and swim through the story it weaves until I forget I'm watching a movie or listening to a bunch of ones and zeros.

[AxeSlash]

OK here's 10p from an underling.

Loud:

Dew Scented's past few albums. Everything is VERY obviously clipped, but it works. They're thrash albums, and "intense" isn't a strong enough word to describe them; it's music that would be frighteningly loud live, and that seems to have been translated to their CDs as well.

I listen to a lot of metal and these are some of the only albums I always have to reach over to turn down. These albums were intended to be harsh, and they are. But that's the whole point; stuff with this amount of energy isn't meant to sound "nice". It's dirty, gritty, fast, insane stuff. Having these albums quieter than others of their genre wouldn't do them any favours; they would lose some of their impact (and considering that "Impact" is the title of one of the albums...)


Quiet:

Lots of Dire Straits stuff. I'm always reaching to turn bits up and down. But that's a small price for the kind of quality we're talking about here; clipped-to-hell knock-you-off-your-seat mastering would just DESTROY some of these records, and I pray that never happens. I don't want "Why Worry" knocking me off my seat thankyouverymuch. It's not meant to do that. It's not the intended effect.

So in my opinion it's horses for courses (as with everything in this game). There are some styles you can spank to high heaven and it'll sound better for it; there are others best left alone.



But to get back to the original post...let's talk about radio-friendly pop crap for a moment, rather than music listened to by you, me, and musicians. The whole people turning music down thing...I think you (Mixerman) may have misread the current social musical climate (if such a thing exists). Let's face it, popular music these days is not made popular by the skill displayed in creating it (however you want to quantify that), or indeed by the music itself - it's made popular by marketing. At the end of the day a label can take an absolute pile of tripe (and I mean absolute pure SHITE), market it heavily, and have it at the No. 1 spot easily (assuming they have the money to do so). There's been some truly impressive examples of that here in the UK in the past few years.

Now let's look at the effect of this: Heavy marketing = more people are going to listen to music; whether you like that fact or not, it's true: marketing works. Does that mean that a LARGE percentage of those people are actually going to be listening to this stuff to REALLY sit down and appreciate it?

Like you said, kids don't listen to music like they used to. You're right. And you're wrong. I'm betting there's a percentage of those kids (probably the same percentage as in years gone by) that DO listen to music like kids used to pre-loudness wars. But there's now this huge percentage on top of that that are listening to pop music because they've been told to.

God knows if they were to sit down and listen to some of the crap we hear under the banner of "pop" these days they'd realise that it's not about the music anymore. But they don't care. They just want a simple tune with a simple melody that they can hum/whistle/sing along to or dance to....while they're doing something else. Most people like stuff they can understand and recognise.

These people aren't musos. They're not aficionados. They're people to whom music IS purely a background idea; the idea of sitting down in front of a pair of speakers to listen to something is alien to them. Why? Because the music they're told to listen to doesn't MERIT that. If they WERE to do that, they'd get bored due to the nature of the material. Hence it's background stuff. Music is something they listen to while doing something else.

My point? Maybe the problem isn't with the way kids listen to music. Maybe that's just the symptom. Maybe the problem is the music itself. In short, repetitive, popular tripe is responsible for the loudness wars. People are writing and marketing background music. What can we do about that? Not a lot, because it sells.

We can wait, perhaps. Until the world gets tired of repetitive crap. But that could be one loooong wait.


I've rambled a lot here, and these were ideas that were just falling off the top of my head; but I'm hoping there's some lucidity here.

That whole thing probably came out as a rant, wildly skewed by my rabid hatred of popular music...so you may wish to mentally edit it while reading. I'm hoping it's food for thought though.

[weedywet]

While I agree that the majors are too DRIVEN by marketing concerns (over any attempt to just make GOO Drecords and only THEN worry about selling them...) that's a slightly different thing.

No matter what, the labels only WISH they could just automatically market ANYTHING into a "hit".
They CAN'T.

Just because we're in a phase where the public accepts dumbed down programming doesn't mean that there's NO public taste and choice involved.

the public DOES express their disdain... and in part that accounts for why NOTHING is selling the way records used to.

While this week the number one album is only selling 70,000 units a week... I still would bet you that if Green Day puts out another American Idiot (meaning a record that GOOD) it will still sell big numbers.

You just can't push disposable singles on people and expect them to want a whole album of it.

[Unfcknblvbl]

1. do you need to adjust your volume up and down to account for too wide a dynamic on any of these CDs?

2. Do you think these CDs sound good?



Mixie (and Slippy and AARDVARK and Everyone) - what was the first CD/recording you heard that was too loud, lacked dynamics, represented stereo's disappearing act?
What do you - specifically and fundamentally/philosophically - as an AE, producer, etc. to combat this (if anything)?

The first CD I can recall that was too "loud" was Pantera's 'Far Beyond Driven'. I remember them bragging to the mainstream press their record was louder than anything else on the market.
Am I crazy?

[punch]

Hi,
I'm a new member to this forum and this is my first post.
I just got done reading everything everyone had to say and so I thought I'd chime in.
I also have noticed that whenever I try to listen to a new cd, I find myself turning the volume down. And then turning it down again, and again!
But no matter how much I lower the volume, I still can't stand the bombarding, unrelenting, volume-slam; and the high end brash.
There are no dynamics, especially where there should be.
What I miss is the 'Punch' that occurs in a mix when the speakers move. The speakers aren't moving at all! There should be more impact with all this volume but instead there's less! The more compressed and limited the program material, the less punch. When the volume is ALWAYS 100%, then there's nowhere to go and no 'punch' to be had!
I've been in the business for 40 years , playing, recording, mixing and producing and although I think it's fine for some metal bands to be over the top (volume wise, and squashed if they want), I still think most recordings sound best "Soft but Big" (that's what I call it).
I know this is a personal preference of mine and these things can be very subjective but when I say "Big" I mean FULL. And when I say "Soft" I mean having dynamics.
I like the idea of stating on your cd to "Turn the Volume Up for Most Accurate Reproduction" or "Full Fidelity" or something to that effect. I remember the first Vanilla Fudge album said something like "This album is meant to be played LOUD".
I don't believe that there is any other reason for extremely loud cds other than for preventing yours from sounding weaker following a hot cd on the radio.
I'm also a radio dj and if a hot cd is finishing, and a not-so-hot cd follows it, I just turn the volume up. No problem.
I think the worse example of what I'm talking about would be a scenario in which a McCartney album or a James Taylor album ended up devoid of dynamics and softness; totally squashed to death for the sole purpose of following some overly compressed death metal tune on the radio.
Artist like McCartney, Taylor, Sting, etc. have dynamics and punch and softness and still sound big without sounding annoying!
Anyway, like I said, I'm new here and I just wanted to jump in the water with some thoughts as a way of saying hello.


:icon_eek:

[leester]

First CD I didn't buy because of it after listening to a co-worker's... Rush, Vapor Trails. (Bought every one up to that, both on cass and CD, some more than once, but bought NONE of them since, excepting the RIO DVD thang as a gift for my kid.)

Most recent annoyance? Stadium Arcadium. Kid bought it, I ripped it to wav, by song 4-5 I had the fader AND the mon pot so far down that I realized I was wasting my time. Well, that, and weren't half them songs on the last 4 albums? :lol:

Now in the 'safe to delete' folder for when I run outta HD space.


Next.


lees

[Mixerpuppet]

I had the fader AND the mon pot so far down that I realized I was wasting my time.

lees


Whew....

I thought you were going to out me after blowing your ears out recently on a mix...

just checking :)

heh heh...

[leester]

heh... that was the speaker in the wifey's christmas present that ya blew out. :lol:

[Mixerpuppet]

Doh!

Uhhhhhh....

can ya give me a better description of what device I exploded?

for ego sake....

[leester]

It was one of them new-fangled rock 'n roll toothbrushes. Knocked a filling right out. :lol:

[Mixerpuppet]

It's probably good she wasn't wearing braces then...


How much do I owe for brush and filling?

[Mixerman]

Mixie (and Slippy and AARDVARK and Everyone) - what was the first CD/recording you heard that was too loud, lacked dynamics, represented stereo's disappearing act?
What do you - specifically and fundamentally/philosophically - as an AE, producer, etc. to combat this (if anything)?

The first CD I can recall that was too "loud" was Pantera's 'Far Beyond Driven'. I remember them bragging to the mainstream press their record was louder than anything else on the market.
Am I crazy? I remember becoming aware of the loudness wars about the time Californication came out. I got a call from an artist who's album I recorded and mixed. We had just finished having the album mastered, and he called me to point out that his album wasn't nearly as loud as the new RHCP album. It's been downhill since then.

Record Companies were sending me mastered versions of songs that were completely butchered they were made so loud. I'd have to fight to get it remastered to a reasonable level.

It's been that way ever since.

Mixerman

[Calvin]

Californication is one lame sounding disk. What I'm wondering, is why some of these big-time artists, ones with some clout, are putting up with this. How can they be happy letting something they've toiled over be released in such a sad state? Do they not have the clout I think they might have, or do they not care?

[Mixerman]

Californication is one lame sounding disk. What I'm wondering, is why some of these big-time artists, ones with some clout, are putting up with this. How can they be happy letting something they've toiled over be released in such a sad state? Do they not have the clout I think they might have, or do they not care?

In the case of Californication, RHCP trust Rick Rubin.

Mixerman