Talk:Loudness war

Bob Dylan Hypocrisy?

The article seems to mention that Dylan has criticised the whole concept of the loudness war, yet further down it lists that he has two albums subjected to this practice. Just thought it was an interesting speculation? Shougunner (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

NPR article

User:TraxPlayer quietly added a link to a recent NPR article. Bob Ludwig is interviewed. Bob points out that the loudness war predates the CD. It was raging when he was mastering 45 RPM singles. Bob also asserts that the the loudness war is ebbing and cites Chinese Democracy as one harbinger of positive change. (The new Beatles remasters are another in my own opinion.) I'll try to edit this new information and references into the article when I get a chance. Feel free to beat me to it. --Kvng (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Did some work on this --Kvng (talk) 01:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Citations

In the criticism section there are two citations one by Bob Dylan and one by Jay Graydon. I personally think that one citation would be enough, for now I will remove the citation by Jay Graydon as I think that "puts it this way" doesn't really fit in an article on Wikipedia. It's spoken language in my interpretation. I do think that if somebody comes up with a more correct sentence he should replace the citation of Bob Dylan by that of Jay Graydon, somehow the citation of Graydon gives me a better idea of what Loudness war is.

"Musician Bob Dylan has also condemned the practice, saying, "You listen to these modern records, they're atrocious, they have sound all over them. There's no definition of nothing, no vocal, no nothing, just like—static."[20][9]

Jay Graydon puts it this way: Do you want it louder? You've got a volume control, don'tcha? Did somebody think that people would no longer want to reach over to their volume control to turn it up? If you want it louder you turn it up. If you want it quieter you turn it down. If you buss compress everything, when the kick drum hits it's sucking back everything from the mix. I don't want to hear stuff pump. I want my dynamics intact that I recorded. I don't want everything to be one dynamic.[21]" --Tomvasseur (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Btw, maybe "musician Bob Dylan" should be replaced by "musicians like Bob Dylan".--Tomvasseur (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Another probable disadvantage: Stereofield-compression

A while ago, i noticed another aspect about overcompressed records, which so far seems to be little known, because it only becomes apparent if the used speakers are sufficient (i first noticed this really strongly when using studio monitors). Overcompressed records, or even just sections in music, have a smaller perceived width of the "stereofield". This is because a panpot works by making a sound louder in one channel, than in the other. That's how stereo, and especially stereo-effects (i.e. sweeps from left channel to the right one) work. Now, if you boost up the loudness level for both channels, so that the signal is constantly near max, any existing stereofield also is compressed towards mono. While it IS possible to still have some degree of stereo in an overly "hot" record, possibilities become very limited. In some tracks, this effect can be studied live: in quieter less compressed sections, the stereofield is wider than in loud sections which constantly peak near maximum. This of course is original research - i leave it up to others to dig up citations, if those exist. Logically and technically though, the argument is sound and a necessary sideffect of dynamic range compression: if you compress the dynamic range, you also compress the differences in stereo-balance, since stereo is directly related to loudness-differences.

Another sideeffect of overcompression which isn't mentioned in the article, is "pumping". When a record is boosted to *really* hot levels, then drumhits distort any other instruments playing at the same time... this is because when the loud drum hit would result in harsh clipping, a limiter kicks in to tame the spike - but if the spike is so high that a lot of "taming" is needed, the sound becomes audibly distorted with every drum hit. Contrary to stereofield-compression, the "pumping"-effect is well known, and you should have no difficulties finding citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.128.0.170 (talk) 02:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is actually true. If you take one of those early stereo jazz records, or a stereo Beatles track, which had some instruments completely on the left and others completely on the right, and then compress the hell out of them, that's not gonna make the instruments move to the center of the stereo field. 78.21.5.181 (talk) 04:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The described audio flaw heard may be caused in this manner, but usually has other causes, at least in my limited experience. The "pumping" usually results in a soundfield that is "shaky", instrument voice positions move about, towards and away from center. This happens naturally for a trumpet or sax as the player moves, for example, but not for a piano. htom (talk) 01:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Awesome page dudes

Just gonna say thanks to all the awesome wikieditors who made this page what it is today. Fuck compressors, fuck limiters. I will never use that shit as long as I live. Give me dynamic range or fuck off.

Amplifiers

You know that box that makes sound louder. I guess nobody can afford them nowadays so we need to resort to making our records clip. Egad a headphone amplifier costs less than 10 bucks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.127.70.60 (talk) 14:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Turn me up!

Do we need examples of albums which contain the Turn me up-text? The album "The seldom seen kid" by Elbow contains this text in the cd booklet: "Turn me up!(tm) To preserve the excitement, emotion and dynamics of the original performances this record is intentionally quieter than some. For full enjoyment simply Turn me up! (Turnmeup.org)"

Drums actually sound like drums instead of like static on this album by the way!

The Placebo effect appears to be in play here. Please have a look at archived discussion on this topic. --Kvng (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Loudness in movies

For the professionals among us: maybe someone could do some research on sound and music in movies. I've got the idea that the dynamic range of movies is increasing (eg dialogue is much less loud than the rest of a movie's soundtrack). Also movie soundtracks still seem to have a large dynamic range often. A good example is the new JJ Abrams Star Trek movie which I think's got a huge dynamic range, both the music and the rest of the soundmix. Of course part of the intention is to make action scenes stand out, but a side-effect is the fact that the rest of the soundtrack will sound much better :)

Yes, seriously, but this is caused by keeping the dialogue the same and making everything else louder. Which is bad, then every fucking mundane sound is so loud like it's a boom at the end of the world. If bomb and a bag dropping sound the same then how are the actually loud things supposed to have gravitas? Also with special effects, a pickup truck hitting a big train head-on WILL NOT FUCKING SPLIT OPEN ARMORED CARS MANY CARS DOWN AND BREAK AND DERAIL EVERY CAR IN THE TRAIN. A shotgun would not blow user and usee backwards through glass cabinet doors or people wouldn't hunt near trees. 12.196.0.50 (talk) 14:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Movie producers have Dialnorm at their disposal. It gives them artistic control over dynamics. They are able to dial in more dynamic range these days because sound systems in theaters are more powerful than in years past. Dialnorm is definitely something that should be mentioned in the article. I didn't realize that it was missing. --Kvng (talk) 14:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone else noticed that there can also be a point where a film is mastered with TOO LARGE of a dynamic range? For example, if the dialog is so soft you need to turn it up, but then an action scene is way too loud so you need to turn it down, up-down-up-down all through the film. I'm curious to know of any studies about the compromise between realistic 1:1 sound volume / full range versus compression as it relates to enjoyability and accessibility in home entertainment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.97.190.242 (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Motivators

The article claims that "Competition for listeners between radio stations and competition for clients between recording studios has also resulted in a volume "arms race".[3]" I find competition between recording studios to be a dubious motivator. Maybe competition between mastering houses. The reference is a dead link (and I've marked it) so I can't WP:VERIFY this. --Kvng (talk) 20:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Loud albums list (again)

I had been inclined to let the Examples of "loud" albums section live (see Talk:Loudness_war/Archive_4#Examples_of_.22loud.22_albums). I've just worked through the History section and am reminded that many of the most notable are called out there. I'm feeling like the "Loud" albums section is redundant in light of this and that maybe it should be removed or moved to a separate article e.g. List of loud albums. --Kvng (talk) 00:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. It's always better to bring the examples into better focus, in context, by discussing them in the article. Binksternet (talk) 00:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Also agree it should be removed. There is nothing in the list section to indicate why these albums are being singled out. There are hundreds of examples, and much worse examples out there. 71.0.173.144 (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

There have been attempts to remove it but so far it refuses to go. Despite how it may look in this discussion, there is no consensus to remove it. --Kvng (talk) 03:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Paul McCartney

Appears to be fighting against loudness wars. He's offering a quieter version of Band on the run at a premium price (Allan Rouse. "High Resolution Details". Retrieved 2010-11-10.). Mentions Beatles remastering work there too. --Kvng (talk) 14:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Waveform images

• The waveform images used in the article all seem to be user-created and not attributed to any source. Wouldn't that constitute original research? Jedibob5 (talk) 15:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Images from other sources are a bitch to bring into Wikipedia. Have you ever tried? The images you see in this article are ones that show similar content to those which have been published online at these locations:

• Mix magazine. Sidebar: "The New Wall of Sound?"
• The Wall Street Journal. "Even Heavy-Metal Fans Complain That Today's Music Is Too Loud!!!"
• MusicRadar.com. Chris Vinnicombe blog: "Death Magnetic sounds better in Guitar Hero"
• Wired. "Analysis: Metallica’s Death Magnetic Sounds Better in Guitar Hero"

The user-generated images here in this article are not wrong, and they show the loudness war details that the reader should see. I do not think we need to dump them. Binksternet (talk) 17:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The waveform images are not an original research. They merely convey factual data (like a photography of a building) and they do not have any "added research value". --pabouk (talk) 21:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

So the, can we remove the WP:OR banner from the article? --Kvng (talk) 15:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I !vote for removal of tag. Binksternet (talk) 16:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

One point that I think is missing in the article It's the inclusion of the "Normalize" function in CD Players and software reproduction. I think this is consecuence of this volume changing and how this affect this tracks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.137.32.251 (talk • contribs)

• I know this is an old discussion, but I haven't been following this, nor am I concerned enough to fight to get it removed. (For one thing, I agree with the subject matter. Death Magnetic nearly blows my ears out if I don't turn it down fast enough.) My only concern is that I can't tell how the waveforms were extracted, nor if they are accurate. I mean, were these extracted from a CD by a program? From an MP3? Did someone turn on the song and hold it up to their computer's microphone? There's no indication of it on the file. Jedibob5 (talk) 03:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The Best of New Order

Can someone find out how loud The Best of New Order. Although not by today's comparisons (well maybe), this CD's volume really stood out as louder when first released (1994). Also The Guns N' Roses "The Spaghetti Incident?" sounds very loud - to today's standars - but the version that is "loud" of what i known is the silver-disc version (released in 1997 so the article says).--92.237.84.183 (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Classical Music

From the article, one might get the impression that it's just pop music that's suffering from this. But classical music companies, even the big names like Deutsche Grammophon, are pushing up the volumes too. I just loaded a cd which sounded a bit distorted into an audio editor, and discovered serious clipping; at one point, 33 consecutive samples were clipped. (around 46 minutes into the Abbado / von Otter / Wiener Philharmoniker recording of Alban Berg's 7 Early Songs, Der Wein and 3 Orchestral Pieces, DG 445 846-2) From the looks of it, more than 6 dB was added. Maybe someone has an outside source for this ? Or maybe we can add a waveform image from classical music ? 78.21.5.181 (talk) 04:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Use of "volume" within article

The use of the word "volume" in this article is annoying to the extreme. When talking about a technical audio engineering subject, which this article to doing, there should also be an appreciation the technical language and engineering terminology. In audio engineering a preferred, less unambiguous term is level. While the volume term is a popular term there is not a good reason to use it within a technical article such as this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.41.195 (talk) 00:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

"Level" isn't any less ambiguous; the technical term would be "amplitude" or (if you will) "amplitude level"; preferably expressed in dBFS when it comes to cd's. 78.23.228.141 (talk) 04:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Either "amplitude" or "level" are reasonable when talking about measured quantities. "Amplitude level" is redundant. When talking about perceived levels, the correct technical term is "loudness". I agree that "volume" is not a precise term. I have edited it out of the article. --Kvng (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Removel of WPBeatles

G'day, why was my edit of adding WPBeatles, removed? --Yeepsi (Talk to me!) 21:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you please justify its inclusion. The Beatles are mentioned here but they are not central to the topic. There are no links from The Beatles to this article. "Loudness" is not mentioned in The Beatles. Is every article that mentions The Beatles worthy of inclusion in WPBeatles? Should we add other artist-related projects to this article? --Kvng (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The Beatles are not part of the loudness wars. The Beatles' image should be removed as it does not show loudness changing vs full scale peaks, it only shows peaks increasing, approaching full scale. Binksternet (talk) 17:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Lead image

There was some previous discussion about the lead image. I'd like to sort of reopen that. I propose that the lead image (The Beatles) be removed and replaces with the second image (Michael Jackson). Reasons for doing this.

1. The Beatles image does not clearly show the peak level of the signal. A very important concept we need to convey is that the peak level of all these recordings is the same. The loudness war is won by increasing average level not overall level or peak level. This figure, because is does not clearly show peak level is misleading in this regard. The Michael Jackson image clearly shows full-scale peaks for all versions.
2. The Beatles has not been updated to show the most recent masters. If it did, reliable sources indicate that the latest master would show reduced level. Leaving it incomplete is arguably biased. If the image were complete, it would cause confusion. As far as I can tell, the Michael Jackson image is complete.

--Kvng (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

To quote Edg from that same discussion "Since this isn't the Loudness war on "Something" article, there is probably no need for an update. The current image demonstrates the article subject fine." And the Jackson image is fairly useless, in that the difference are harder to see. Hot Stop (c) 14:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes, there is some subtlety to the topic. It's not just about amplifying the music. It's not surprising that what you're looking for is not absolutely obvious. --Kvng (talk) 04:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Support changing lead image to Michael Jackson analysis. The Beatles' example is only one of increasing peak level, not increasing loudness vs peak level. MJ is the better example. Binksternet (talk) 17:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Hot Stop has reverted Binksternet's change without comment. I assume that means more discussion is required. Let's start by helping me to understand the Edg argument. Why are we not required to keep the information up-to-date? Why should we settle for fine when we have a workable alternative ready to go and at least 4 editors have pointed out technical problems with the current illustration? --Kvng (talk) 15:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Seeing no argument in favor of keeping The Beatles image, I have once again removed it. It is not a complete picture of what the loudness war entails. Binksternet (talk) 03:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's good to see that my picture is now the lead image. And I see some people say that it's hard to see the difference. I admit that. So I made another image, File:Michael Jackson's Billie Jean Loudness.png hope you will check it out. Song Yanbo (talk) 09:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Nice job on the picture. My general complaint with these sorts of illustrations is that we don't listen with our eyes. Waveforms don't always correlate well with what we hear - but people tend to think that they do. --Kvng (talk) 16:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Dont't use your computer's little speakers, connect to your sound system then you will clearly hear the difference.Song Yanbo (talk) 04:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm wired up and I can hear the difference. I would expect to hear clipping but on non-extreme material like what you've illustrated, what you notice is just LOUD, a limited dynamic range and perhaps unnatural timbre in the drums. It is often immediately appealing but is generally fatiguing over the long haul. --Kvng (talk) 22:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

You may wanna watch This video then. Song Yanbo (talk) 09:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with that video. Sort of makes my point. It is unclear exactly what processing he's done to make the example louder but it does not sound clipped, just sounds loud, and when turned down to match the original, wimpy and lifeless. Engineers and their tools have gotten quite good at mastering things loud. Distortion and other artifacts are not the primary problem in most cases. The primary problem is loss of dynamics. --Kvng (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

New ref

I'll just dump this here until I or someone else has time to incorporate this new information. --Kvng (talk) 05:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Mike Barthel (2011-07-21). "The Loudness Wars: Is Music's Noisy Arms Race Over?". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2011-07-22.

Loudness War itself not cause of "bad sound" according to Sound On Sound magazine

There's a very interesting article in the August 2011 issue of Sound On Sound magazine (which btw. mentions this WP article). They did a lot of technical research, and even got someone from Ircam involved. Their finding is that while the "loudness" has been rising since the early nineties, this doesn't necessarily mean that the dynamic range of recordings has decreased. A lot seems to be down to changes in, and differences between, musical styles. The article pays particular attention to the reviled Death Magnetic by Metallica, which according to SOS is simply "the wrong style of music" to compress as heavily as hip hop or r'n'b. Sound On Sound offers older articles for free on their website, so in 6 months or so, we could link to this article. 78.23.228.141 (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)