The Loudness Wars. Have they damaged some people's hearing?

With all the polarised opinions on some releases such as the 50th Sgt Pepper is it possible some people have just become accustomed to loud mastering or has it actually physically damaged their hearing? Medical as well as anecdotal evidence welcome.

 

I really can not answer this question ;however, I personally have become accustomed to louder masters. I don't prefer it but I have gotten used to it to some degree. I started listening to music in the 80s and over time the music became louder and louder. I didn't feel any reason to complain about it until sometime around 2006 when mastering went beyond my personal sound threshold.

 

I don't think they've damaged my hearing, but they've f***ed it off quite a bit.

 

I would tend to think that music with actual dynamic range would probably be more likely to hurt one's hearing, depending on the playback level. Classical music would probably be the hardest on one's hearing due to the sudden extreme highs and lows. With music that is compressed up the wazoo I tend to turn things down, whereas with dynamic music I turn things up.

I just don't know if constant unchanging volume is worse for the hearing than very dynamic recordings. So many factors to consider.

 

I've been a CD guy since the mid-80s and for years it was generally accepted to be the best medium for listening to music. Not trying to annoy the vinyl fans with that comment. It's just how I perceived it.

Nowadays when I buy a new CD, I know how it's going to sound before I even pop it in the player...It'll be loud and bass heavy and will be virtually impossible to crank. It's such a shame. This is the reason I mainly buy old CDs now. They're not always perfect, but they do have a dynamic range of some sort.

 

what?

 

I don't think that home listening can damage ones hearing, no matter of the mastering. On the other hand, frequently going to live shows, cinema, night clubs and listening loud on earphones can be damaging.

 

I am going to refrain from participating in this discussion. I wouldn't want to be called a "troublemaker" or a "knucklehead" by a gort for contributing my opinion.

 

Yeah, I feel to same to some degree. I never expect a new cd or remaster to be perfect. Honestly, I actually like how bass heavy some remasters are regardless how much dynamic range is lost. I also only listen to music through headphones and I never have the urge to "crank it up". It's when the music becomes too bright that I start too complain.

In addition, there are remasters that I actually prefer over the quieter, more dynamic original version. I have defended a few in the past ;however, after some people began to call me out on it, I stopped. Unless I'm listening to a vinyl record on a nice turntable, I don't need a DR 14. I really believe it's more subjective then some will admit.

 

Good points. One of the downfalls of the CD medium is that so many of them are too damn bright. This is the case with early, uncompressed masters too.

 

Not reallly; as mentioned by one poster, dynamic music with its unexpected peaks in volume is more likely to damage your ears.
If you're listening on headphones or computer speakers, where you're in close proximity to the source.
One of the reasons for brickwalling or "mastering for iTunes" is surely to avoid hearing damage or discomfort on mobile devices and related civil lawuits.

 

Worse than that. It made me sterile.

 

It's band practices in small practice rooms that have damaged my hearing!!!!

 

I think the likely damage may be listening for too long with earphones/earbuds. Question is does compressed music do more damage? Certainly I find compressed mastering has not the brightness of early CD releases but probably because top end has been chopped. Also have people become used to loud mastering or is their insistence it sounds fine or even great a result of some kind of hearing damage. Opinions and conflict over loud mastering are getting more extreme on the forum in my experience. However 'opinion' is not a good word in this context because to someone with good hearing (played back on equipment of decent fidelity) a mastering should sound loud/compressed, dynamic or maybe somewhere in between.

 

Loud masterings wont damage your ears. Listening at loud volumes for prolonged periods of time will; especially on headphones. That is true for both severely compressed music and super dynamic music.
You could maybe argue that if something is mastered extremely loud, there is a larger probability that you'll listen to it at a volume setting that could damage your ears, but even that is a stretch IMO.
No matter how loud a mastering is it can easily be turned down to a "safe" listening level.

 

excuse me, madame!
.
.
.
.
.

 

This is the obvious answer, yes. But I suspect the OP's question was not of medical nature, and most likely a dig at people saying they like the sound of the new Sgt Pepper (since the gorts are watching closely that thread). Meaning: if you like it it can only be because you suffer from hearing loss or because the loudness war has accostumed your ears to overly loud mastering.

 

^This.

 

I think this is the reason I gradually stopped buying CDs in recent years and now rarely listen to them, certainly the more recent ones.

I'm not sure my hearing has suffered from listening to them but I do know that I just can't physically listen to that stuff for any length of time at any volume these days.

It hit home to me a few weeks back when I was browsing in my local record shop and they had the new Sgt Pepper reissue on pretty loud. I love the album but ended up leaving, just to get a break from the aural assault. Guess I'm getting old...

 

It wouldn't be rock 'n' roll, if we haven't messed our hearing up a little, and it has nothing to do with loud mastering.

When I was a kid in the seventies, I used to love getting up close to the speaker stacks at live gigs.

When I'm on my own, I've always loved listening to music pretty loud.

I'm very lucky just to have minor tinnitus for all those years of service. With little us mastering, I just turn it down a bit.

 

Funny you should mention a release that ISN'T mastered loud. Whoops.

 

I can handle newer releases at lower volumes mostly. As someone said earlier in the thread, at least the compression mostly subdues any brightness. Still not right though. It feels like a good chunk of the CD industry has been taken over by Culture Factory.

 

You can damage your hearing. Not sure that the "loudness wars" is a major factor. You can still control how "loud" (the volume) you play the music regardless of the dynamic range. However: For example, it is easier to play music loud (higher volume) with a mobile player (i.e: iPod, iPad, iPhone etc.) playing a source that is seriously dynamically compressed which will add to the risk. Mobile devices have limited ability to amplify the sound/source so the louder the mastering the louder the volume will be without amplification. A good comparison for me is that my nephew blew out his dad's main system subwoofer because he didn't adjust the volume before playing a severely dynamically compressed CD. What I'm trying to say is it is "volume" (how loud you play the music) that can damage your hearing and "dynamic compression" can add to that risk.

Note: Dynamically compressed music can have a negative effect on your enjoyment of the music (brain science/listening fatigue) which is independent of hearing damage.

 

I should say that after 45 years of listening to music, often at high volumes, I haven't noticed any degeneration in my hearing. That said, I don't go to concerts and am not a big user of headphones.

 

Agreed. Sadly I bought into the remastering / reissue bandwagon big time over the last 10-15 years thinking it would result in improved sound and more enjoyment. How wrong I was...