Ok Signed up.

Their manual seems to indicate that the tool only works at 16 bit / 44.1; can anyone verify this?

If that is so, then that alone would prevent me from dropping it in my master bin.

ORIGINAL: AndyW

ORIGINAL: RTGraham
A) It's a hoax

I doubt it, given the extensiveness of the site and the list of partners.

B) Their research, principles, and assertions are valid and proven, but whoever is presenting the arguments online is an amateur at thesis defense

Could be...but I think the graphic illustration on the front page are pretty clear....plus I have read a lot of articles and study on this topic...I don't think many disagree that overcompressing destroys(literally...clips) the music. Do a google for the Metallica "Death Magnetic" fiasco for a current example.

C) They truly think they're right, but the principles are *not* in fact proven.

Feel free to check it out and judge for yourself.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not specifically disputing anything they're saying. Everything seems plausible enough, and certainly mirrors statements we've all heard before. Not to mention the fact that they list the creator of the MP3 format on their board of directors. It just seemed a little odd to me for them to present so much information as "technical fact" and to state that things are "scientifically proven," but fail to indicate where, when or by whom. The presentation is thorough enough that I would have expected footnotes or supporting documentation.

So I'm still at the "see-how-much-momentum-they-gain" stage.

ORIGINAL: RTGraham

It just seemed a little odd to me for them to present so much information as "technical fact" and to state that things are "scientifically proven," but fail to indicate where, when or by whom. The presentation is thorough enough that I would have expected footnotes or supporting documentation.

Good points.

Here are some "Official DR values" for a semi-random sampling of stuff on my hard drive. Sorted by DR num, then by artist.

What does it actually mean?



EXTRA BONUS TRACKS!

My Bloody Valentine - When You Sleep - DR10
My Bloody Valentine - Come In Alone - DR11
Iggy Pop - China Girl - DR9
Iggy Pop - Lust For Life (song) - DR10
Iggy Pop - Funtime - DR8
Hole - Celebrity Skin (cd) - DR7
Elastica - Elastica (cd) - DR7

It's used a lot in classical guitar compositions, too -- I never experienced any [guitar] neck problems at all.

-Susan

Hey Jay, Susan, and Ric... thanks for your comments re: drop tuning.

Ric, the Third Hand Capo site you linked to is very interesting. I think I might give partial capoing a try. I edven have a capo that I can alter for that purpose. Should be more convenient than down-tuning and retuning. Though either way will take some getting used to. Should be fun. Thanks for the link!

EDIT: apologies for the partial thread hijack....

ORIGINAL: Marah

Here are some "Official DR values" for a semi-random sampling of stuff on my hard drive. Sorted by DR num, then by artist.

What does it actually mean?

It means Garbage is freaking LOUD.

I would actually question the Stevie Wonder track...is that an original or a re-release? I have noticed that a lot of stuff that gets re-released gets remastered to higher levels. I have an Audio Adrenaline "Best of" CD that exemplifies this as I have all their CD's as well. The same track from 1995 is much more dynamic than the same track on the "Best of" album. You can look at the waveform in Soundforge and see it, it is that obvious.

ORIGINAL: Marah

ORIGINAL: Wookiee

heehee! I don't do metal (whatever metal means) but I'm about to explore the world of drop-D tuning... on my only guitar... with a locking nut... so it's gonna take a real commitment. I hope to forget what a third is!

This may of course be a minor decison leading to a major mistake.

I am sorry someone had to say it.

Hi Wookiee.

Can you explain further what you mean? I haven't done it yet. But I DO have some concern about what impact changing the neck tension will have on my guitar. Is that what you're getting at?

Thank you!


Hi Marah, it was a hee hee, Major Third, Minor Third.

I did appologise.

ORIGINAL: barlowjam


In light of your post, I think I'll tell a joke.


A 'C' an 'Eb' and a 'G' walked into a bar. The bartender says, "Sorry, we don't serve minors here." So the 'Eb' left and the 'C' and 'G' shared an open fifth.

LMAO!!!

Hmmm ... the plug in is not free anymore.  You need to donating $30 a year to become an "Active Member".  That's not going to attract people to the cause. 

Cheers,

jayson 

The interesting thing to me about this page (aside from the politics and questions about the funding) is the graphic animation that shows the shrinking dynamic range over the decades. Many people do not realize that one of the major jobs of the mastering engineer in the days of vinyl was to set levels that would not destroy the master by cutting across to the next groove. Too much loudness just ate too much recoding medium. To some extent excess loudness/insufficient dynamic range reflects the limits and capabilities of the recording media, and the music choice and listening habits of the people who buy the media. In my youth during the brief period of the so-called folk revival, popular singers chose to enunciate their words, and dispense with ear-slamming percussion tracks in order to communicate. You do not hear much about the loudness wars from classical music critics today. People who buy that kind of music usually listen to it on better systems in quieter places, and do not do a lot of drinking and talking while listening. People who want to put the party in their pocket and listen to the beat through ear buds while driving with the top down are looking for a different experience. Measuring the average dynamic range of popular music over time says more about what music is popular than about compression technology.

slartabartfast


Also from the site:

Generally, music with little or no dynamics is better suited for listening situations with loud ambient sound levels because quieter passages are masked by the louder background noises. However, this cannot and must not be an argument in favor of only producing and mastering music for use in cars with noisy environments.
In this case it makes sense to use modern DSP chip circuitry which provide automobiles with a compression system which is speed-dependent. This is a promising field for the consumer electronics industry for bringing new car hi-fi products on the market. Dolby Volume is a technology that already exists for such a use.

Scroll down to the list of sponsors for the foundation and guess if any of them are marketing or developing such technology.

I like the car auto volume idea. several years back, Lotus introduced a car noise sensor that would measure the noise in the car and cancel it by producing a similar waveform (phase cancellation). That sensor can also be used to measure the the volume increase.

The $30 is a bad idea, esp so early when they should be trying to get more ppl signed up. I wonder if I can share my plugin for non-profit use?

Only music that provides a positive musical listening experience has real market value.

thats absolute nonsense. the "reasons" for their "aims" are completely moronic. sorry.

and tends to make the listener aggressive after a certain amount of time spent listening to it.

come on, some one has serious conspiracy theory issues ...

Various criticisms have been voiced, as you would expect, over the Pleasurize music foundation’s campaign on this forum. Par for the course. But perhaps a little unjustified. When people passionately feel a situation is running out of control their actions to change it often appear to be somewhat extreme, yet their aim is still pure & no less valiant.
As to whether it could really change things depends solely on the organisations ability in gaining a Herculean membership. But even then its effect could still be relatively minimal.
You see there is one almost insurmountable barrier, and it’s known as… human nature.
The vast majority of the public have no idea of what we’re talking about. And even if  hours where spent explaining the merits of true dynamics against maximizers, before  given the choice between a expertly maximized track or a un-maximized dynamic track, they would still choose the former as their preferred version. This is not a plebeian, but known psychological reaction. 
The record companies know this, a large number of producers therefore stick to this,  artists & bands believe their careers rely on it, & therefore money, at the end of the day, will always win over dynamics. Music is a business.
 
Anyway, in at least offering an option I hope Pleasurize do convert some people.