Loudness War article from a friend's website

Possibly doesn't quite belong in Techniques, but I can't think of a better place.
 
Interesting to see something on this aimed at a mainstream, non-technical audience, though:
 
http://thequietus.com/articles/06872-loudness-wars-dynamic-range-compression-mastering

+1

Interesting, though I sincerely doubt that things will change for better. There'll always be a resistance, people like us, but that's it... The Cher effect and the clipping records are here to stay.

I find it quite ironic actually.  He's complaining about over compression, but the first thing he admits to is taking his 6 year old article and compressing it

In all honesty, I don't see the point in us doing that to our music/productions. People are still buying The Dark Side of the Moon and Abbey Road, and I have yet to read or hear a complain that it isn't loud enough. When the Levee Breaks is still sampled and used all over the place due to it's incredible apparent loudness. 


Even some non-audiophile buddies of mine are now complaining that the music sounds bad these days - they don't have all the vocabulary to state exactly what's wrong, but it basically boils down to clipping, harshness and ear fatigue induced by listening to crappy masters. It seems to be more and more common to hear such complains.
Good music at an acceptable level won't turn off anyone, except maybe people who don't really have a clue - people listening to "beatz". The opposite on the other hand can happen - I remember how disappointed I was when Depeche Mode ruined an otherwise excellent album (Playing the Angel) to comply with the loudness war. The songs are good, but I can't listen to it. Therefore they didn't get my money and I even sort of gave up on them from that point on.

So unless the record company forces you to do so, you have every reason not to give in to this trend. 

Rain


In all honesty, I don't see the point in us doing that to our music/productions. People are still buying The Dark Side of the Moon and Abbey Road, and I have yet to read or hear a complain that it isn't loud enough.

Bingo.

Maybe there will come a day when it's looked back on with disgust...
heh heh...Like when I see pictures of 80's hairbands and go..."WTF were they thinking?"

Thanks for posting this. Very cogent and relevant.

IK Obi


Good read! @Bitflipper I would have said "Thats not artistic expression that is a newb mistake!"

  Yes I agree it is a newb mistake but its not newbs putting out the latest squashed big name recordings. The next argument could well be how much is too much. We all use compression. Some of us are comfortable with more than others are. Given the same mix, I would be willing to bet that no two of us would do it exactly the same....Yes I think it can be agreed that extreme is extreme and there is no hiding that.  The rest is subjective to a large degree.

I've made many attempts over the years to educate my clients on this subject but in almost all cases my words fell on deaf ears. And these are the artists! You'd think the people that would care the most would be the artists themselves but they are (usually) just as uncaring as the general public about such stuff. Now, having said all that, no one wants their song(s) to be lower in volume than anyone else's songs especially when they are in rotation on your iPod or car stereo. Hell, even I understand that. A good loud mastering job doesn't have to sound like ****. Some times I appreciate a loud mix. When I'm driving in my car for example. Bitflipper is right about the irony of the whole situation. Which probably partly explains the resurgence of vinyl.

Loudness is just a trend, and it will reverse itself. These cycles last about 20 years from start to finish.

In my opinion - never mess around with the multi-track or the resulting stereo mix. This can retain as much dynamics as you want and will leave the door wide open to mastering to any target audience.

Many big name artists will have their music mastered at least 3 times, all a little differently.

1: CD: This will reflect the original intentions of the record company/producer/engineer/artist.
2: Radio Release: Oddly enough, this will be the most dynamic of all - but not by the time you hear it. It will be mastered with the knowledge that the radio stations are going to do their own "mastering" and squash the hell out of it. If you sent a heavily squashed song to the radio - it would get even worse by the time it is heard by the audience.
3: Digital Release: The industry knows that a song bought this way is likely going to be played on an iPod (or similar) at random. This version will be squashed to death to make sure it competes with every other downloaded song. This is where the loudness war really takes place.

As long as you keep your original mix (with loads of dynamics) you can do whatever you want with it - and the loudness war should not be an issue.

batsbrew


the more you squish.....

the more you need to  roll off the high end, and manage the 2.5khz to 3.5khz very carefully.

otherwise, you are making pain.

+1 on Bat's musically minded conclusion.  I nominate Bat for vice-president.  IMHO: I think Bat has given us the real lesson to be learned: How to 'better' squash a mix.  Bat also warns of rolling off those upper hissies and 2.5 to 3.5kHz shrieks which sound aweful compressed.
 
-1 on this article, as it is oversimplified like Bob Katz's quaint proverbs.  There seems and inordinant lack of concern for the low end: like at 40-250Hz, where things need ultra-compression or the mix becomes tinny.  Try roller skating to classic-rock 'open' waveforms.
 
The article even showed waveforms that appeared quite normal, but were diss'd as being bricks.
Squishing and squashing (without clipping) is a necessity for mastering; the quest for bass and kick will always thicken our waveforms; ultra compresson in the lows is a hip-hop skater's life-blood. 
 
So, I'll start a new thread on squishing techniques, which I pray Bat and others will help us with.