The Loudness War: Give It Up!

I just read this article and immediately thought of this forum and how it is written for the people here who hate dynamic compression. I would love to hear your thoughts.

http://stereos.about.com/od/introductiontostereos/fl/The-Loudness-War-Give-It-Up.htm

 

I was thinking about this the other day, while listening to my original Atco mono pressing of The Troggs' first US release. Dynamic compression has always been with us.

 

The problem with compression for me is that while listening to CD's in my car, it is starting to make nervous and edgy. I have had to turn the treble way down to avoid it.

 

How does turning down the treble help you avoid dynamic compression?

 

The shrill, goosed-up EQ on many remasters is by far a worse offender than low DR, IMO.

 

I really don't mind when dynamic compression is used in new recordings. It becomes, as the author says, part of the production and shapes the overall sound of the album. I do, however, frequently dislike when it is applied to older recordings in an effort to "modernize" the sound.

 

We need to SHOUT OUR ANGER!

 

Not a bad article, but I had to laugh when I read this: "Never mind that I've never met a single audiophile who actually listens to Metallica." There are threads here that definitely contradict that.

What I always found odd is that the bands with the worst offenders also have earlier CDs that sound very good (Metallica has Death Magnetic but also the Black Album, Red Hot Chili Peppers has Californication but also Blood Sugar Sex Magik). So saying it doesn't matter because people who listen to them won't care seems strange.

 

When used correctly it can sound good, And One's latest sounds great, however the Pixies latest sounds like ****

 

Yes, but I think strange EQ choices are much rarer today than squashed dynamic range, and boosted treble can be corrected by the listener. That's why the loudness trend is much worse. The majority of new pop albums is now DR7 and lower, which makes them unlistenable on a hifi system.

 

I detect a subversive media campaign started by the majors, as a very similar article just appeared in the latest issue of Stereophile by Steve Guttenberg.
http://www.stereophile.com/content/communication-breakdown

Why all of a sudden are the "Loudness Wars" receiving push back?

I find it incredulous that Guttenberg would start an article with the sentence:
"Classical and jazz notwithstanding, an awful lot of new music is highly compressed, processed, and harsh, and it's about time we got used to it."
And then he sets out to convince us why that is good and acceptable? Maybe this explains why 75% of my listening is comprised of the aforementioned "Classical and Jazz...."?

"Highly compressed" is one issue but not the only issue, the bigger factor is the harshness and distortion, not from the instrument but from the recording and production process. Sorry, I'm not buying it......

 

Plus, modern digital methods of compression are a different animal from their analog ancestors.

 

A good compressor would help get that across.

 

Some good points.
The harsh truth is anyone 50 years old and upset about the hyper compression on a Katy LP should probably be in therapy for listening to Katy Perry (or whatever music it is that's intended for what should be their grandkids... ) in the first place.

 

I disagreed with most of his article but I find I often disagree with Guttenberg's opinions too.

Listen to Classical? Why do that when I prefer Rock/Pop and can choose from any number of titles coming out from Analogue Productions, ORG Music, Audio Fidelity and Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab? Why do that when I can be mindful of the DR database and choose to buy major label releases that are not loudness wars victims like the new Tori Amos album or Daft Punk's last record or just about anything from Underworld?

And Rick Rubin didn't cook the mixes for RHCP, Vlado Meller did. The new Californication cut by CB from 24/192 files of the original master (which means Rubin's master) sounds lovely to me.

 

The problem is only audiophiles complain about dynamic range compression.

The bigger problem is that audiophiles have created a narrow minded taste with listening (and comparing various re-issues) to the same old recordings over and over again.

The only target audience for current music right now is the "streaming generation". They don't know anything about sq + younger vinyl enthousiasts are listening to their plastic crosleys.

And Neil Young made the same mistake ... Focus on middle-aged and old audiophiles. He didn't even invited the indie-labels yet to join his project, while they're releasing the majority of interesting current music.

 

"The recording industry is never going to change its ways to please perhaps 100,000 mostly middle-aged and elderly audiophiles."
I'm not what you would call "an audiophile", but brickwalling and extreme compression bothers me a lot. And those ugly procedures are not usually linked to aesthetic decisions required by the artists themselves.

 

If you read the article you would find that it was in response to Steve' article. No conspiracy going on here.

 

The part of the loudness war that bothers me is that it reduces the actual usable range of the volume control. Turn the knob just a little (or press the + button on the mobile unit) and the sound is already quite loud. Turn it past 4, and blow out your ears, annoy everyone else around , and get a ticket from the local PD.

 

They have been approved by the artist however.

 

I read the Guttenberg and part of the Butterworth. When a writer rehashes an article so quickly to increase it's visibility I find that to potentially have underlying motives. And besides, it was partly tongue-in-cheek.

 

Can't say I have that issue.

 

What's the problem? About 0.1% of listeners think dynamic compression is a problem. Sure, there are a lot of albums out there that have been mastered to the point that there is audible distortion - but you also get nutjobs that are complaining that apparently the latest Robert Plant album is brickwalled, when it is anything but. There is a brand of "audiphile" that thinks any use of compression or even EQ is evil.... essentially that music shouldn't be mastered. whereas most people would think it sounded limp.

 

Have you read their previous articles on the subject? If you have you would understand that they tend to do this frequently.

 

I don't know all artists are allowed to supervise the masters before the pressing process.