More clarity on the loudness wars

[Balcro]

Why modern music sounds rubbish...................... er, discuss. Try the link and see what's missing

[url="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/07/loudness_wars_stfu/"]http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/07/loudness_wars_stfu/[/url]

Balcro.

[bremen]

[quote name='Balcro' post='1366302' date='Sep 8 2011, 12:47 PM']Why modern music sounds rubbish...................... er, discuss. Try the link and see what's missing

[url="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/07/loudness_wars_stfu/"]http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/07/loudness_wars_stfu/[/url]

Balcro.[/quote]

'When there's no quiet, there can be no loud'. Nicely put.

All hail Saint Albini!

[bartelby]

[quote name='bremen' post='1366311' date='Sep 8 2011, 12:54 PM']All hail Saint Albini![/quote]



My copy of "Mastering Audio: The art and the science" by Bob Katz arrived yesterday. A quick flick through shows there's a bit in there about loudness.

[fatboyslimfast]

Which is why I love buying 60s and 70s vinyl.

Yes, there is mastering compression (there has to be or the music would either be swamped by vinyl roar or the needle would jump with loud transients), but generally it's only used where and when necessary, and only as minimally as required.

I'm all for the "turn it up" movement, where the mastering engineer leaves it up to you if you want it louder or not. There is so much dynamic range available on CDs compared with analogue media that it seems criminal to waste most of it.

Edited September 8, 2011 by fatboyslimfast

[51m0n]

LIstening environment, record company execs (and their fear of not being loud enough on radio), artists falling fo rthe same trap, the advent of digital allowing for true brickwall limiting of peaks, move away from the natural compression of tape (although this has lagely been mitigated now) all contributed over time to this.

I honestly hope that one day we really do take a stand and adopt the K-metering system for mastering and mixing as a standard (K-14 works great for me).

Strangely the advent of mp3s actually gives light at the end of this tunnel in a way. Unlike wavs mp3s (and oggs, although flacs dont - but theer is an ogg flac wrapper that handles this) can contain metadata, and that means it can store level variations (replaygain) against tracks in your playlist to make the output volumes equal. Meaning that the final mastered volume is irrelevant, only the sound quality should count.

I have a copy of Californication pre-mastering, and it sounds absolutely lovely - especially the kit - often been tempted to do my own far more sympathetic mastering on it.....

[51m0n]

[quote name='bartelby' post='1366321' date='Sep 8 2011, 12:58 PM']

My copy of "Mastering Audio: The art and the science" by Bob Katz arrived yesterday. A quick flick through shows there's a bit in there about loudness.[/quote]

Top book that

[fatboyslimfast]

[quote name='51m0n' post='1366328' date='Sep 8 2011, 01:02 PM']I honestly hope that one day we really do take a stand and adopt the K-metering system for mastering and mixing as a standard (K-14 works great for me).[/quote]

Did you use K-14 on the track you mastered for Silddx? If so, completely in agreement with you!

[51m0n]

[quote name='fatboyslimfast' post='1366324' date='Sep 8 2011, 01:00 PM']Which is why I love buying 60s and 70s vinyl.

Yes, there is mastering compression (there has to be or the music would either be swamped by vinyl roar or the needle would jump with loud transients), but generally it's only used where and when necessary, and only as minimally as required.

I'm all for the "turn it up" movement, where the recording engineer leaves it up to you if you want it louder or not. There is so much dynamic range available on CDs compared with analogue media that it seems criminal to waste most of it.[/quote]


Mastering compression is not the same as brickwall limiting.

A bit of compression on the 2 buss wont knacker the transients, instead it will help 'glue' the mix together into a cohesive sound.

Brickwall limiting (and even deliberate clipping of the ADCs in a mastering chain - god forbid) are post digital techniques to get the RMS level higher compared to the peak level, so closer to 0dbfs, which is the absolute maximum level achievable in a digital system.

The entire warm/tape brittle/harsh/digital argument is a nonsense thoguh. If you accept that art the turn of the tech a huge number of people were recording to digital using the same techniques/mics/signal chains as they did with tape. Now tape doesnt handle transients anywhere near as well as digital, it limits transients and compresses and warms up the sound all of which is as a result of it being less perfect at capturing audio than digital, not to mention the hiss!

Nowadays engineers are far better at choosing the right tools to work with digital and get results at least as good as those on old recordings.

The issue is that the execs with the chequebooks are forcing the hand of mastering engineers to the point where people have come to accept over limited final masters as how things should sound.

Its a nightmare!

[gjones]

CD mixed for cars eh? I always listen to music with the high frequencies rolled off slightly because most modern mixes are too toppy for me - now I know why (I thought I had batlike ears or the studio sound engineers were all deaf) . I always knew a good engineer mixed for the average hi-fi not for full range studio monitors. Which is why there should always be a set of average hi-fi speakers set up and available in the studio to allow you to listen to the mix through. Now they must have car speakers set up in the studio too.

Edited September 8, 2011 by gjones

[fatboyslimfast]

Or do their mixing in the back of a Saxo...

[51m0n]

[quote name='fatboyslimfast' post='1366337' date='Sep 8 2011, 01:10 PM']Did you use K-14 on the track you mastered for Silddx? If so, completely in agreement with you![/quote]

I used K14 metering for the mixing, you havent heard the final masters yet, that was just the mix, raw as it were with a very simple 'level up' to a reasonable level - in fact there has been a lot more work on those tracks since (upto 30 tracks of bvs on each!!!)

I should have finished the nmastering within a couple of weeks, usual issues though, need to get something close to a commercial level but without trashing the sound at all. We are getting there, they sound lovely now. Release party is on the 9th I think, after which you are all encouraged to buy a copy

Edited September 8, 2011 by 51m0n

[chris_b]

[quote name='gjones' post='1366339' date='Sep 8 2011, 01:12 PM']....Now they must have car speakers set up in the studio too....[/quote]
They used to have transistor radio speakers in studios 35 years ago.

[Mykesbass]

[quote name='fatboyslimfast' post='1366346' date='Sep 8 2011, 01:14 PM']Or do their mixing in the back of a Saxo...[/quote]

There was a studio in Brighton that checked mixes in a car in the garage. Was an old Roller so that may have slightly defeated the object of the exercise!

[51m0n]

The [url="http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/apr07/articles/avantonemixcubes.htm"]Avantopne Mixcube[/url] is the studio monitor of choice for checking your mi against a less great reproduciton device.

Yamaha NS10s are awful sounding things, fair stereo image, horridly stunted frequncy response (personal opinion, don't try and change my mind!), and yet are popular as nearfield monitors (less now than they were maybe, but still more popularthan their performance really justifies).

Personally I like to monitor on the best available kit I can use, as long as I have a good couple of reference recordings for comparison then the better the monitors and room, the better the mix and the better it will translate to other systems.

[mcgraham]

I'll look at the link later, but wanted to chip in as it's a great topic of discussion. I agree about the loudness wars. I myself do like a more forward sound to instruments in mixes, but currently produced stuff just seems to lack dynamics. Even the parts that are being played softly seem to be incredibly loud all the time. I find that the constant level doesn't draw me in but keeps me at a distance.

As an example, Janek Gwizdala released an album called Live at the 55bar, supposedly just recorded with two condenser mics roughly equidistant from the centre of the band. No overdubs, there are mistakes, and the pristine-ness of the instruments is not the same level as commercial recordings in studios, but the overall sound of the album as a whole - and I'm ignoring the quality of musicianship and the songwriting in this, just talking the sound of the album - is possibly my favourite sounding album. It's not my favourite album, but the way it just captured the band is beautiful. Nothing is too quiet, but equally so nothing is too loud or in your face. There are points where you sometimes wonder if your CD/ipod has stopped because there's dead silence, then a really light snare hit permeates the silence... it just draws you in grabs your attention (IMO).

[fatboyslimfast]

There's a CD sampler by a HiFi manufacturer who also runs a record label (Naim) where all the tracks were recorded onto two mics feeding a nagra reel-reel recorder. No mixing, no EQ, no nuffink. Called True Stereo I think.

The engineer worked out the levels by placing the vocals/instruments different distances from the mics.

Most of it isn't my sort of music, but the feeling of being there is incredible, even through an ipod with reasonable headphones. Wouldn't work for a commercial recording, and also probably wouldn't work for a lot of music styles, but as an exercise in what recorded sound can be like, it's very good.

[flyfisher]

The loudness war has also spread to TV adverts - or am I the only one who gets annoyed when the ads are far louder than the programme?

Actually, I don't get that annoyed because I just hit the mute button . . . which rather defeats the obejective of the advertisers in the first place.

[fatboyslimfast]

PVRs are your friend. I rarely watch anything live now except maybe BBC news. Anything else is either on catchup or recorded so I can whizz past all the adverts.

But back OT, yes, they always seem louder to me, including radio adverts when I'm in STMBO's car (6Music only in mine - radio won't tune to anything else )

Edited September 8, 2011 by fatboyslimfast

[Chris2112]

I always think of it as a case of listening to Big Country and then listening to a modern rock record. With Big Country, you've got two guitars, vocals, a big sounding drum kit and the loud, busy bass playing and it sounds fantastically well judged. Everything has it's place, everything stands out, everything has punch and a dynamic quality. Now a lot of things just sound mushy and flat. The trend towards big bass sounds, especially in popular music, has been fairly damaging for the home listener too, since these tracks are designed to sound big and fat through a nightclub's PA system but not so great at home.

[leonshelley01]

Unfortunately, two of my favourite artists (RHCP and Metallica) are especially guilty of this. Its so obvious when you compare the CD version of Death Magnetic to the Guitar Hero version.

[Lozz196]

[quote name='Chris2112' post='1366769' date='Sep 8 2011, 06:23 PM']I always think of it as a case of listening to Big Country and then listening to a modern rock record. With Big Country, you've got two guitars, vocals, a big sounding drum kit and the loud, busy bass playing and it sounds fantastically well judged. Everything has it's place, everything stands out, everything has punch and a dynamic quality. Now a lot of things just sound mushy and flat. The trend towards big bass sounds, especially in popular music, has been fairly damaging for the home listener too, since these tracks are designed to sound big and fat through a nightclub's PA system but not so great at home.[/quote]

Quite agree, I wonder how Big Country would have sounded with todays production. Think Mark Brzezicki would have particularly suffered greatly, as his dynamics really pulsed through the band.

[noelk27]

The author of the article "To The Limit: 'Dynamic Range' & The Loundness War" (Sound On Sound, September 2011) would suggest we're arguing about nothing: music is getting louder but it is not getting less dynamic. Makes an interesting read.

[Musky]

[quote name='flyfisher' post='1366623' date='Sep 8 2011, 04:37 PM']The loudness war has also spread to TV adverts - or am I the only one who gets annoyed when the ads are far louder than the programme?

Actually, I don't get that annoyed because I just hit the mute button . . . which rather defeats the obejective of the advertisers in the first place. [/quote]
I don't think that's a new thing though. I can remember a discussion at school about compression being used to side step rules about the loudness of adverts - this was 35 years ago!

[Skol303]

Must say I've been guilty of squishing dynamics to death in order to up the 'loudness'... but it's a bad habit I'm starting to break!

I think it [i]can[/i] apply to certain genres of music in a positive way, but I totally agree that it can ruin most music.

If anyone's interested, I've recently been listening to an interview with the German mastering guru Rob Babicz who has some wise words on this subject (and plenty else for that matter). It's in German with subtitles, but it's only 15 mins long and includes gratuitous footage of his very unique and custom-made studio gear... in case that sort of thing makes you drool, as it does me

Here's the link:

[url="http://vimeo.com/808485?pg=embed&sec=808485"]http://vimeo.com/808485?pg=embed&sec=808485[/url]

[51m0n]

[quote name='noelk27' post='1367011' date='Sep 8 2011, 09:30 PM']The author of the article "To The Limit: 'Dynamic Range' & The Loundness War" (Sound On Sound, September 2011) would suggest we're arguing about nothing: music is getting louder but it is not getting less dynamic. Makes an interesting read.[/quote]


Interesting spin on it.

He states the difference between loudest and quietest parts of music now and over the last 40 years hasnt changed much, he states that this is due to a large degree to the original material having more perceived range now than at any time previous. Clearly modern recording techniques are what make this possible.

For older material I'd squarely point to the issues with recording to tape as a huge part of this, it is one of the nicest sounding forms of compression/limiting there is, and it was applied liberally to every single track when recording almost anything back in the day - driving the tape hard to make it squeeze signal a bit was the norm, in fact if you had a truly awful kick or snare it wasnt unusual to overdrive the tape to get it good and crunchy to help the sound - which compressed the nuts out of it. However the result sounds far more pleasant than a digital brickwall limiter that is pushed even a tiny bit too far IMO & IME.

In fact in order to achieve a beautiful mix these days as a standard I have a compressor on every track & every group and a tape saturation emulation on nearly every track & every group too (and an eq and often as not a gate too). Back in the day the tape would have done a lot of that work for me.

However what he misses out is that whatever else you do, if you brickwall limit something you are heavily and abruptly distorting the transients of the signal - thats what it does - and that this distortion is less pleasant to human hearing over time than not bothering to limit in the first place and instead turning up the playback system so you hear those transients in all their glory. Digital (even 16bit CD) made available a vastly superior dynamic range than analogue of any period. Rather than make the best use of that we are now in a position where we make less use of available dynamic range than at any time in the history of recording, even Edison's cylinder had a better dynamic range than current output does.

Oh and the final point - over limited masters really do sound like s*&t.