SH Spotlight Why the new "LOUDNESS CRAZE" in digital mastering really robs music of life..

Re: Why the new "LOUDNESS" craze in digital mastering really robs music of life..

I think that was a compliment but I'm not sure.

 

Re: Why the new "LOUDNESS" craze in digital mastering really robs music of life..

Doug is correct. Most processing on radio stations today is decided upon within the market. In many cases, it's a collaboration between the program director and the engineer. Most engineers will tailor a station's processing to the PD's request.

 

Re: Why the new "LOUDNESS" craze in digital mastering really robs music of life..

Very true, these two examples illustrate why, unfrotunately, the loudness war will go on for a long time...

 

I wonder if all of this "loudness war" craze is a big factor in the younger kids losing their hearing? They're constantly listening to these maximized and compressed tracks in their Ipods with headphones, their eardrums never have a break. They can never relax. It's unnatural for your ears to listen to music like this, especially with headphones (or "earbuds" as they seem to be these days for the kids).

 

Grant's (& a lot of others) posts are right on the money. When we were younger & we'd hear a song on the radio, what would most of us do? Buy the 45! And 99% of the time, it sounded just like what we heard on the radio! (Granted, there was station echo & "processing" to consider - but basically, it was the same song - the same experience.)

I certainly can't speak for your market, but here in the Baltimore-Washington area, FM radio "sounds" terrible - TONS of added compression - no dynamics at all - barely any stereo separation. It is the worst possible listening experience. This from a medium that we switched to in the late 60's because AM radio sounded so bad in comparison!

Dexter

 

I do see some reason for hope. This issue is getting a lot of play these days, and there are some very good new masterings on major labels from the likes of Vic Anesini and others. And...the Red Hot Chili Peppers and Donald Fagen were extremely pleased with Steve's work on vinyl. They've got to be asking, why can't our CDs sound like this?

 

Re: Why the new "LOUDNESS" craze in digital mastering really robs music of life..

That 8100 and the Audio Prism combo were in use at one station I worked for. When they were adjusted the way I thought they should be set, the station sounded great. It was certainly much better than the CRL crap it replaced, which sounded bad even in "proof" mode. However, the management eventually forced me to adjust it so we were the loudest station in town. At that point, the modulation meter was as you describe, and I quit working for the station.

Unfortunately, one of the comments I heard a lot from listeners when the processing was adjusted the way I liked was: "I don't received your station very well; it's not as loud as the others." I felt, in one way, that everyone, management and listeners, were completely uninterested in good audio and actually found it to be a significant problem!

Bob Orban et al did not destroy the sound of radio. When the tools they gave us were used properly, they could actually improve the sound. The problem was that, in many cases, the people ordering how the processing was to be adjusted had no understanding of audio. The program directors and program consultants and managers are those responsible for destroying sound quality in the broadcast industry.

Radio today may have crawled back a short distance from the edge of the cliff. But the improvement is miniscule compared to what it could be.

 

Some random thoughts...

1) The majority of threads on this forum relate to "older" music - as opposed to current stuff. (What the hey - we're gettin' up there!) If the producer of a brand new 2006 recording (pick one) wants that "in your face", loud, aural assault - fine. Really. I have no problem with that. You're the original producer - it's 2006 - theoretically, you know what you're doing - you know your audience. BUT - why the heck would you think that this kind of sound would be applicable to a 20, 30, 40 or 50 year old recording? You don't know that audience. A Beatles album shouldn't sound like a Beyonce album - period!

2) Do lossy codecs still represent the lion's share of downloadable music files? (I don't download music. I'll rip my own CDs, but that's it.) I assume that to make the process somewhat easier, the file sizes have to be kept down. (128 kbps?) Does the digital compression...the loudness...make these lower quality files more "acceptable" (for lack of a better word)?

3) To us, listening to music is (for the most part) a singular experience. Many have "listening rooms" (or areas) where they can give their total attention to the music. That just ain't the case for most folks out there. Music is background - they're doing other things at the same time. (Yeah, I know we did a little of that too, but it's not the same. Younger people have taken multi-tasking to a whole new level!) The idea - I guess - is to make the music stand out more, be noticed, so it will be remembered when it comes time to choose which songs to download from your music service. But why that should apply to 30 & 40 year old recordings is beyond me.

4) The music industry is focused on what they perceive as the future - downloaded music - whether the iTunes model or something else. (It's the whole, "Who buys CDs anymore?" thing.) I've said it before. It's nearly 2007 - why can't we have both? Make a nice sounding CD AND an mp3 (or whatever).

Dexter

 

Exactly!

These days one has to assume that all new music on cd and downloads will sound bad, and so I usually pass on purchasing new cds (at least until after I check here). I simply don't enjoy listening to bad sounding music. No more impulse buying of cds or downloads for me - not even new stuff from favorite artists.

 

I don't think a roomfull of audio freaks agreeing with Steve at the top of their forum page isn't gonna have much of a positive effect, although I do admit forewarned is forearmed. But we're not the problem here. Ya wanna be pro-active?

Out them.

Name names. Who are the tin-eared tyrants ordering people who should know better, to ruin their work? Specifically. First and last name. Position in which company. Out them...and then, inform their bosses that you as a purchaser of their product, do not approve.

They won't listen to us. They will tell us that's what the public wants. And then, you e-mail them a link to that. And tell them you have sent that to ten of your friends who buy music, and you are asking them to send it to ten of THEIR friends who buy music.

Once they know WE know who they are, and how it effects their bottom line, there might start to be some change.

Or, if you like, we can just post these all day:

 

What song is playing?

 

Do you mean on the YouTube clip? It's McCartney's "Figure of 8" (from Flowers in the Dirt).

 

Cool man. The more the message gets out there the better!

 

I hear you!!

 

Hmm...any wonder I'm so afraid to buy new rock CDs cause they're so friggin LOUD

 

Hey, who knows? Maybe they're just being helpful...proactive...looking out for us down the road...for when we're all old & we can't hear a darn thing anyway! We'll still want to listen to music, but we won't have to crank it to get it all because it'll be nice & compressed for us!

(I was visiting my mother in law over the holiday & turned on the TV. Talk about being "blasted"! )

Dexter

 

Very good explanation. This is just the issue I had in mind - default color temp settings that supposedly look good in a fluorescent-lit showroom and look terrible at home.

 

Yes, if this highly unlikely test were ever done, you bet there'd be a winner: the smashed one. Because that's the one that will be the default proper title put out online, on the stands at WalMart and the Amazon listing, discounted etc while the non-smashed version would be listed as a special edition and usually cost more if it's noticed. The only other likely method would be to call the smashed version "remastered." Most buyers couldn't be troubled to tell which was which let alone think of why, but putting "remastered" on it might give it a small advantage. If folks compared, they'd probably like the non-smashed, but few will hear both let alone compare. So at the end of this exercise, the insecure industry folks will gloss over all of those becauses and present the resulting sales numbers as absolute confirmation of their mistaken beliefs and practices.

Call it cynical, but a fair test will not happen. They're doing this in large part from insecurities, misinformation and mistaken beliefs, and aren't going to allow a fair test. It might prove them wrong.

 

I've directed a couple parties to the demo link, and will continue to do so in small doses... but I can't imagine that anyone in my circle of friends is concerned... anymore, I run into enough resistance for music appreciation, never mind music playback appreciation.

I don't want to insinuate "great unwashed masses" here, but I can't be convinced casual listeners wouldn't genuinely prefer the compressed version in a comparison... how many times would we need to talk them out of it?... I'd expect the casual listener would conclude we were going to way too much trouble to simply play music.

Regular folks are more concerned with their "lifestyles"... tacking on things like music in the most expedient, mobile, shiny and stylish manner possible.

The rest of us are enthusiasts in a teeny minority with little or no influence on J6P market trends... I'm sure there are enthusiasts in other arenas (movies, cars, toys, etc) who go through the same thing.

Boycott? – HA HA.

 

Glad this is now a sticky.

 

I think that most listeners listening at normal volume would not notice if the CD is maximized or not. Most listeners would not go back and forth between two different masterings of a CD and try to see which one they like best. They would just listen to the CD that they have. But I think that is the best reason not to maximize to death. Most listeners don't care, so why do it at all.

 

Not at all, as I have mentioned many many times. Dynamically compressed music sounds particularly bad in MP3 format, while a DCC Gold CD ripped and encoded as an MP3 still sounds very good.

 

That is an excellent presentation.

 

Yar, that's what I meant. Average people call it "detail". I know it's not detail, but I was just using common termanology, however inaccurate it is. Yes, compression smears fine detail.