Talk:Loudness war/Archive 4

Rolling Stone article

There's a new Rolling Stone article about the loudness wars called The Death of High Fidelity. Please feel free to add new references from this article; I don't have time to go through the whole thing myself right now Illuminatedwax (talk) 15:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I read that article and it's on target. We could use it for more refs. Thanks for bringing it to WP.Jrod2 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Modern exceptions

I noticed it says in the article there are very few, there are a few including.

Franz Ferdinand - Franz Ferdinand (loud but good by todays standards) RG -6db

Eskobar - 'Til We're Dead RG -4.5db

The 411 - Between the Sheets

Mark Ronson - Version

I wonder if other people agree? AJUK ^Talk!! 09:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

"Forever Faithless" sounds awful - compare the version of "Insomnia" on it against the same track from the mid-90s "Now" compilation. The "Now" albums always seemed to be slightly compressed anyway but against the new Faithless CD it sounds far better. Not familiar with the other albums, but I did recently rip and encode the third Norah Jones CD which didn't have the same level of brick-wall limiting as most modern CDs. Squirrel 07:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with all of those albums, but could you calculate the Replay Gain values for each of those albums to give us an idea of their relative loudness? --MinorContributor 18:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Version is badly compressed. Not as bad as some but my no means "good". Mojo-chan 18:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I only have Stop Me and it looks like this [1] I assumed that was what the rest of the album must look like. AJUK ^Talk!! 19:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the complaint. It's not too compressed throughout but it DOES have excessively variable volume levels between tracks, which could have been balanced without resort to compression. 193.63.174.10 (talk) 13:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Most classical recordings use very little or no compression, or at least none that is audible. I believe many recordings, especially live recordings, use no processing at all. And they almost inevitably have a much larger dynamic range than any pop recording. So for an example of a recording free of compression, limiting, or clipping, you could use most decent classical recordings, especially those by the late John Eargle for Delos. Karlchwe (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Most live albums do use processing these days anyway, but there are exceptions: try Minimum-Maximum by Kraftwerk. Dynamics galore. -andy 78.51.74.120 (talk) 09:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

To repeat, most CLASSICAL recordings use little or no compression. So again, for an example of a compression-free recording, try any decent classical recording. Ever listened to one? Karlchwe (talk) 05:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Just because you can't hear it, doesn't mean it isn't there. The dynamic range of large symphony orchestra can exceed 100dB, and is therefore beyond the bounds of what can be represented with only 16-bits (as on a normal audio CD). Furthermore, the closer you get to 0, quantization noise becomes a greater problem. So, not only is compression common on classical recordings, it's necessary. Pianissimo sections would sound incredibly bad and noisy without it. MikeCerm (talk) 09:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, while Franz Ferdinand's first album was very well produced, their second one is the typical super-loud junk. -- Stormwatch (talk) 10:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes I had trouble understanding why they did that, thought they kind of proved a point with the first album it was so popular; and did much better than the second! AJUK ^Talk!! 19:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The Enid's music is probably an acquired taste for some, but all of their CDs are treated like classical recordings and released with full dynamic range, so that the dramatic contrasts between the loud and quiet parts of the music aren't lost. Obviously it helps that they're an indie band who keep a tight rein on their production and mastering. Lee M (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Guns N' Roses's Chinese Democracy could be better, but for today's standards it turned out pretty decent. [2][3] -- Stormwatch (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The mastering engineer of Chinese Democracy, Bob Ludwig, has some interesting things to say about the loudness war: [4]. Quote: I’m hoping that Chinese Democracy will mark the beginning of people returning to sane levels and musicality triumphing over distortion and grunge. I have already seen a new awareness and appreciation for quality from some other producers, I pray it is the end of the level wars. Dors (talk) 22:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The latest Alan Jackson album "Good Time" (2008) gives a max-noclip gain reading of 1.5dB on most tracks after levelling to 89dB. Admittedly this is after software HDCD decoding to 20-bit then using LAME to dither back to 16-bit but it does sound superb. Maybe the tide's turning? Squirrel (talk) 18:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The Loudness War & Live Music

Since (often digital) mixing decks for live music these days often have all this 'technostuff' built in to allow exactly all this sort of boosting & compression & limiting, 'Live Music Events' (with or without 'lipsynching') are now experiencing the same problems.

I suggest a new paragraph, at least - or is it worth a separate page?

FoolesTroupe (talk) 02:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Why would that do that? AJUK ^Talk!! 12:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's worth a mention or a separate page. My career's in the live field exclusively, save five years of university schooling in studio techniques. As a longtime live guy, I just don't agree that boosting and compression and limiting are the reason for WAAAY TOO MUCH LOUDNESS at concerts. The main reason is that loudspeakers are more capable than they were twenty years ago; that and Joe Average Sound Guy mixes until it sounds "edgy" which means he's tickling the higher distortion levels of either the upper performance envelope of the PA (which is already too loud) or the upper electrical limit of some other part of the mixing chain. My personal experience is that when I'm asked to mix at a level I know is too loud for the audience's safety, I try to use the "technostuff" for good purposes--I use it to generate a higher level of harmonic content (distortion) within the mixer so that the client gets the impression that the PA is really bumpin' into its hard stops when it actually has quite a lot of "go" left. I make the mix artificially distorted (for these certain clients) while producing a true sound level that measures safe by objective metering tools. Of course, this kind of audio trick can rob dynamic depth from the performance but in my estimation it's better to satisfy an insistent client with "technostuff" tricks than to harm the thousands of people in the audience with too much real volume. Unfortunately, my viewpoint is not the norm. Tons of sound engineers get and keep their jobs by pushing the PA to its limits--and it's not the boosting and limiting tools and tricks that allow this, it's the sheer power of modern loudspeakers.

And all of this is original research. Not ready for Wikipedia prime time... Binksternet (talk) 07:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

"I just don't agree that boosting and compression and limiting are the reason" Not JUST ... I have heard live concerts - some from miles away :-) - and heard what seemed like the good old 60/70s 'overdrive a valve amp till the speaker cones breakup' sound - but watching the meter on instantaneous - it was obvious that so much compression and limiting was used (and the bass boost was obvious!), that what was happening was probably limiting as far up in the chain as in the mixer - and of course with well over 120dB(C) ON SITE - the sound guy was deafened (or at least aurally impaired!) anyway! :-) You know - those sort of 'live concerts' where the attraction and 'drug' is the bass boost and volume - see the Radio National reference about "The Bottom End" - which is not OR - it's a Radio show - but a transcript on line is possible, especially if enough requests reach them.

They are not all as good as you (and me!) out there... :-) :-P

FoolesTroupe (talk) 11:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This would be worth a mention somewhere, but not in this article, which is about a specific subject relating to problems with fixed ceiling media. Tacking on other subjects relating to loudness creates a WP:COATRACK. Incidentally, that like to "The Botton End" is similarly off-topic, and not very informative. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have listened to "The Bottom End" twice, and it IS highly relevant, AND extremely informative - have you listened to it?

FoolesTroupe (talk) 02:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Why are there no examples of GOOD production?

Interestingly, after having read the article and some of this discussion, there are no examples of any albums that are well respected for having good dynamic range in this day and age. I was reading the Rolling Stone magazine yesterday and it quoted Robert Palmer and Alison Krauss's new album as being particularly good. Can anybody find any others? Alexthecheese (talk) 11:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a shopping guide, and endorsing releases (among thousands of available CDs) is probably not a good idea. The point of this article is that newer CDs (including some or many marketed as "remastered") have this problem. For what it's worth, the 1983 Japanese Abbey Road on Toshiba-EMI is sought by Beatles collectors for being well mastered; a similar Toshiba release of Dark Side Of The Moon exists from that period. edg ☺ ☭ 13:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, we can't be starting a list of "full dynamic range mastered CD releases". There are several thousands of them out there. The article is called the "Loudness War" and that should remain the main topic. Unfortunately, it's hard to find in today's releases, good pop CDs. They still have an element of loudness in almost all of them. Case in point, the 2004 release of Brian Wilson's "Smile" album. It blows out of the water the 2001 re-mastered "Smiley Smile" Beach Boys album, both in sound quality as well as in musical content. That CD is what Brian wanted all along back in 1966. Yet, the mastering guy for "Smile" compressed the loud parts to make the average levels sound louder. However, compared to the remastered "Smiley Smile", the "Smile" album sounds full with dynamics and a perfect clean sound as all the signal to noise floor level issues from the original recordings are gone.

I personally think (and lots of people agree) that the label Capitol made 2001 remastered "Smiley Smile" sound worse than the original LP release in 1967 and the first CD version in 1990. Compared to Brian Wilson's "Smile", it sounds like crap (the mastering guy pushed the level and hammered it against the headroom's ceiling, emphasizing the noise problem from the original recordings) and everyone should return those CDs to the label for a full money refund. Jrod2 (talk) 17:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur that a list of good albums isn't what this article is about. Alexthecheese, I suggest for you that albums which have won awards for Best Engineered and such would be among the top tier of dynamic and well-mastered albums, though a degree of flirting with the edge of hard-limited loudness will be observed in several of these recordings starting from about '95 on. It's a start, anyway. Binksternet (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

They gave an award to Hail to the Thief!! That is brick wall limited, obviously they don't care about compression, looks like its not the audiophile award you would expect it to be, unless the award was based on the vinyl version? AJUK ^Talk!! 12:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be a much better an example that despite not being compressed was still hugely successful, ie Franz Ferdinand 77.99.57.229 (talk) 11:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I listed a few a few months ago, no one used them. 77.99.57.229 (talk) 12:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Motown not the instigator

Well ... this discussion certainly throws a whole new light on the old Gordy Records slogan "It's what's in the grooves that count(s)". However:

Years before the Motown label existed, Imperial Records was in the habit of cutting their singles very "hot". Compare an original 45 of Ricky Nelson's "Be-Bop Baby" (or the Majors' "A Wonderful Dream", or the Showmen's "It Will Stand") with its contemporaries - the difference is blatant.

Invictus Records (where the famed H-D-H team settled after defecting from Motown) boasted openly on its labels of a sound tailored to stand out on AM radio. (someone please pull out an old Chairmen of the Board single and supply the exact wording) My guess is that the secret recipe included serious compression, along with some brightening of frequencies above 3 kHz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.155.146.2 (talk) 01:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That is fascinating, but sounds like Original Research to me. The reason motown is listed is because one of our resources lists it as an offender. That would be awesome if you found some resources that backed up your information. Feel free to add it if you do. Illuminatedwax (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

a seminar in britain?

I ran across a news article [5] that "a seminar against loudness war is arranged in England next Tuesday." The article continues to cover the loudness war but doesn't give any further detail on the seminar (it is implied that it is for professionals). I couldn't find any more information about this on a quick google. This could be a good addition to the article. Anyone have more information? --MinorContributor (talk) 09:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this is it. --MinorContributor (talk) 21:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Broadcast compression not part of Loudness War

Right from the start there is a mis-characterization of the term 'Loudness War'. While it is true that Broadcast practices compound the problem, the term refers solely to the choices made during the process of producing, mixing, mastering, engineering (whatever you want to call it) the original recording. And it is not that compression is bad, it is that over-compression is bad. The distinction seems arbitrary until you look at an illustration such as the excellent one at the top of the page. Also, the point of the Loudness War is to call into question the motive for compression. If it is an artistic one, it is OK. Rock music as a genre is always compressed more than classical music; it is supposed to be. Rock music is loud on every beat, but there should be room for an extra loud part of the song. The current practice is to eliminate that extra loud part of the song by making every part equally loud.

If you look at the sources, you will see that there is a tacit acknowledgment that it is necessary to compress Broadcasts due to the limited dynamic range of a Broadcast. The mistake is in comparing the music being mixed in the studios to how the current hits of the day sound over the radio. Apples and Oranges. Trying to make it sound in the studio as it will over the radio is a mistake. A mistake which will make it sound worse when it gets played over the radio later on. Now there are other motivations to over-compress, I am just addressing how Broadcasting get thrown in the mix.

Stephen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.211.111 (talk) 04:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you check the links given, you'll see that the term "loudness war" is widely used to describe the effect of different radio stations each trying to be louder than their competition. --Slashme (talk) 08:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess my retort is that radio stations have to compress because they have a lower signal to noise ratio. The concern nowadays is that digital compression is more powerful than any form of compression from the past and does not have any built-in constraints. This medium which has the potential for greater dynamic range also has the potential to offer less dynamic range than any other medium. I think that if you check the links you will see that the main concern is that if you compress music as much or more than the radio will with its own compressors, the radio's compressors won't know what to do with the signal and will mess it up. The concern is not that the broadcasters over-compress, but that they need a relatively uncompressed signal to work with.

Stephen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.211.111 (talk) 13:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The "Loudness War" started in broadcasting and spread to the recording companies. The rationale given in broadcasting (and while it's OR, I was there, then) was that if our signal sounded louder (even if it didn't sound as good) the station could make more money for its commercials. Those making the decisions to increase compression had no understanding of signal-to-noise or distortion. htom (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Not completely true. Radio stations also use those so-called Optimods to do a sort of station branding, i. e. to make their station recognizable and distinguishable from the others. This is called sound processing, which has already aroused some anti-movement by people who do not like this. This effectively means, that a good ol' 80's song might sound in over 10 different versions over the radio: due to additional compression (yes additionally to the overcompressed audio source - call it AUDIO TORTURE!), exciters, stereo broadening tricks, and sometimes /(reportedly) slight reverberation applied. -andy 78.51.74.120 (talk) 08:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

MP3s etc.

I'm a little surprised that the article does not really discuss that MP3s etc. carry even less information per time than CDs, so that as more and more people listen to music via their iPods and the like, the temptation to ignore high fidelity must get even greater for the sound engineers. I don't have anything citable on that, though it must be out there; if someone does, it would make a good addition to the article. - Jmabel | Talk 05:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Up to a point, increasing sound pressure level at playback increases the detail one can hear in music. Loudness war methods exist that can retain the high frequency detail while maximizing level within a hard limit (such as 0 dBFS.) MP3s, on the other hand, sacrifice detail and nuance for smaller data sizes. When you turn an MP3 up louder, you don't hear more detail. I tend to think these are two completely different topics. Binksternet (talk) 08:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well then, whatever there is (citably) to say about how MP3s etc. fit the picture still belongs in the article, because they are becoming how more an more of the world hears music. - Jmabel | Talk 17:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Be bold!  :-) If you have something to add, add it. Perhaps the Other formats section is the place to start. Binksternet (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I may be bold, but I'm not bold (or foolhardy) enough to make substantive edits on a highly technical topic where I have only layman's knowledge. - Jmabel | Talk 23:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the caution. MP3 is not a direct cause of compression and clipping. The audiophile objection to lossy compression is reasonable (up to a point), but that particular complaint is not relevant to this article. What might be relevant is the possibility (alluded to in the Rolling Stone article, if anyone wants to search for a source) that industry types consider louder files optimal for MP3 listening. / edg ☺ ☭ 00:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC) (currently listening to Tool in ogg vorbis, q5)

People often confuse dynamic range compression with the compression used to produce lossy files. The two can't be compared by any means, because of their entirely different natures. This article discusses the use of mastering techniques used to artificially control the loudness of a record, and that has nothing to do with the format of the sound or anything similar.

Those who despise lossy compression demonstrate their lack of knowledge about it. When the lossy file reaches its point of transparency (wich varies from person to person), it is virtually impossible to tell the difference between the compressed file and the original. For most people transparency can be reached at 192 kbps using constant bitrate (personally I can't understand why people are still using cbr). Improper encoding is the reason why a lot of people think of mp3s as an equivalent of bad quality, contempt against them (mp3 files) has no objective basis whatsoever. Besides, there are superior lossy formats if one is concerned about quality. Edd3 (talk) 20:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. I should have said MP3 is not a direct cause of dynamic range compression and clipping. Not distinguishing that from lossy compression made my comment rather unclear. Perhaps we should make that distinction explicit in the article as well. / edg ☺ ☭ 21:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

MP3's use of a lossy compression algorithm is designed to greatly reduce the amount of data required to represent the audio recording and still sound like a faithful reproduction of the original uncompressed audio. Whether your conversion fills up all 8 or 16 bits of resolution, your headroom is unchanged, thus, loudness has nothing to do with the data lost or the perceived loss of sound quality. In addition, Kbps sampling rates are irrelevant to loudness as well. Jrod2 (talk) 04:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

And yet tracks with large amounts of dynamic range compression won't encode as transparently to MP3 (or AAC, ATRAC, WMA or any other lossy format). Even a CBR file is "variable" of sorts, in any given fixed size frame there will be more bits allocated to certain frequency bands. A snare hit with a transient followed by rattling snare wires will get allocated more bandwidth than say the bass (which needs less bandwidth to encode).

Unfortunately when everything's compressed into 1dB of dynamic range there's no way for the encoder to tell what needs more bandwidth. I did a little test encoding the 1981 and 2005 versions of ABBA's "One Of Us" (from The Visitors), the same track I used for screenshots, using lame in VBR mode (flags -q0 -b32 -V0 -mj). I'm not at home to check the actual figures at present but the average bitrate on the uncompressed 1981 master was significantly lower than the heavily compressed 2005 remaster. From memory the average bitrate was around 220kbit for the 1981 version and 280kbit for the 2005 version.

I read an article recently that explains this but a lot of it I belive is to do with the MP3 encoder seeing the heavily compressed signal as noise and therefore being unable to drop the bitrate on those frames. Material with a wider dynamic range also compresses better (in terms of psychoacoustic rather than dynamic compression) as it enables the encoder to utilise the bit reservoir more effectively.

I'll stop there as this is starting to get into the realms of original research, but I'll have another dig around for that article. It may even have been one of the links from this page. Squirrel (talk) 08:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Music Types

Is it worth mentioning that this effect is slowly working its way into music types it never used to effect very much, I have rhythm and Stealth by Leftfield and Play by Moby both from around 1999/2000 and they are both really dynamic. AJUK ^Talk!! 13:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I just want to express my gratitude to the writers of this article. It is very much possible that without this article I had never realized why listening to music is not as enjoyable as it was before. Fortunately I read the article. Now at least one reason is obvious, yet more of them may be hiding. I realized that I have some commercial music CD copies that are technically inferior compared to the real potential of the CD according to the standard. I don't think that it is my fault that I expected approximately all new CD copies to be at least as high quality as the old vinyl LP copies. I expected that, but I was wrong. However the real error was done in the record industry. Consumers are victims of the greed of the record industry. 130.230.31.119 (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Not only are we victim of their greed but their madness. Jrod2 (talk) 22:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, as I said before they sell without this treatment anyway. AJUK ^Talk!! 19:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks from me too. Some time ago, I had started a German translation of this article, which has greatly evolved from "beta" stage the last weeks/months. Since there are a lot of renowned German firms who produce hi-fi equipment for audiophiles, this is a good audience to address to. -andy 78.51.74.120 (talk) 08:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Objection to summary deletion of comment

Getting sick and tired of summary deletions, people Lee M (talk) 23:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, the deletion to which I object was a paragraph in which I pointed out that if somebody has the time, inclination and a modicum of skill it is possible to use editing programs to adjust the volume of individual passages in a sound file, compensating at least to some extent for the loudness effect. This was not intended as a how-to, and in any case because it was on a Talk page I did not feel that its deletion was justified. Lee M (talk) 02:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

That was me in this diff. Your heart's in the right place, but Talk pages are for discussion directly affecting the article itself, not a public forum or bulletin board for general discussion. See WP:TP. Ciao... Binksternet (talk) 09:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Clipping isn't just a problem in the digital domain

I think the bit that's talking about clipping needs to be rewritten to make the point that any audio system will clip if you drive it hard enough - the difference is just that digital systems clip very abruptly as a perfectly defined place. They also tend to sound harsher, since the distortion in a clipped digital signal is all in the odd harmonics. TriMesh (talk) 06:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Odd harmonics are what characterizes analog clipping as well. I agree that the "Effects" section could use a rewrite. Binksternet (talk) 08:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Loudness in classical music

Should there be a mention of how the "loudness war" also has extended to the classical music realm? “This is the problem you find in many places, that the conductors are conducting more and more loudly,” Ms. Käch said. “I know conductors who have hundreds of shades of fortissimo, but not many in the lower levels. Maybe the whole world is just becoming louder.” Wangry (talk) 04:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It's possibly worth a mention, but that loudness comes from the choices of the conductor, not from the mastering engineers (as is common in other kinds of music). I personally haven't run across any such recordings, but I believe the engineers would have to turn the overall level of the recording down to let the fortissimo parts fit. --MinorContributor (talk) 11:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not worth a mention. This article is about recording, not performance. Karlchwe (talk) 05:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

No discussion of "loudness war" benefits?

There is limited review of the legitimate good arguments in favor of louder tracks and dynamic range compression.

• Using more of the dynamic range available in the 16-bit sound field improves the fidelity of the recording. This goes beyond any sub-conscious perception resulting from higher volume listening. Personally, I see this as a gradual reaction to the differences in sound reproduction between LPs and 16-bit digital sound on CDs. I believe that as 24-bit recordings are adopted, the wider sound field will allow for both very high quality audio and appropriate loudness, as is done for DVD soundtracks.

What you're describing here is higher resolution. Yes, very quiet parts get lower resolution (-48 dB means a mere 8 bits of resolution). However, this much volume variance is extremely rare in popular music, or, actually, any music not played by full orchestras. Besides, can squashing and distorting the waveform really be called "improving fidelity"? --MinorContributor (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• The context in which people listen to music has changed drastically. People used to listen using large high-quality sound systems in their home, but now everyone listens to music on crappy iPod headphones on commuter trains. In these less than ideal listening environments, if the volume is allowed to vary too much, it makes it hard to hear the music during periods of lower volume. This could be addressed with good dynamic range compression features to meet the listening environment, but reality is that most music players don't do this very well (ex. iPod's 16-bit digital equalizer cannot process the 16-bit soundfield without introducing massive clipping). So, the reaction to this, naturally, would be to hold the loudness constant in commercial music.

I'm not familiar with the iPod, but, last I checked, equalisers only amplify or diminish certain frequencies. They do not claim to compress the dynamics of a recording. I'm not aware of any DAP with a dynamics compressor, and I doubt one would perform well with just the finished (mixed) product. But please find a "un-loud" pop album released in the 1980s (beware of remasters) and test your assertion that the music is inaudible in commuter trains.

I tested this out recently by playing the non-remastered version of Brothers In Arms (probably one of the most dynamic pop/rock CDs ever) on my iPod on a train from Orpington to London Victoria. I could hear it just fine. Admittedly that wasn't with the standard crappy white earbuds, I was using a pair of Sennheiser PX-100s, but still, my point stands. Squirrel (talk) 09:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, your argument is alienating all of the people who actually don't listen with poor equipment in poor conditions. One size doesn't fit all et cetera. --MinorContributor (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, I haven't done any research on this so I feel it would be illegitimate to just throw these ideas into the main article... but I do believe that they are both very valid arguments, not only explaining the motivation for the trend by some means other than "the producers have gone mad" but also providing counter-arguments that help balance the article. --SirLamer (talk) 22:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Understand that my comments are just possible arguments in favor, but shouldn't be understood to be mean trying to argue that the current trend is correct. I agree that Death Magnetic is a mess and Dark Side of the Moon sounds beautiful. But, I do have an MP3 player as well as a high fidelity system at home and I can confirm, as I'm sure many other people can, that it's really hard to appreciate an album like Dark Side of the Moon on a train or in a noisy environment without sacrificing the ability to hear half of the music or accepting the high risk of hearing damage from the louder parts so that you can hear the softer parts. I deliberately prefer loud albums with minimal volume fluctuations when I'm listening in public spaces.

As for the "equalizer" thing, I used the wrong word but I was referring to the sound driver in general, which is software-driven. iPod does have dynamic range compression but it really sucks. Creative Labs has a much better implementation. -SirLamer (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You're describing benefits of dynamic range compression, not the benefit of the loudness war. Nobody's arguing against the sorts of situations that make dynamic range compression a handy tool. The loudness war is about the unavailability of good-sounding versions of albums, not about the usefulness of listening to compressed versions in loud environments. There's no reason to discuss benefits of a "war"... there usually aren't any except for the makers of weapons. In that regard, the loudness war has allowed mfrs to sell some specific devices for brickwall-level dynamic processing, though it is arguable whether in the absence of the loudness war they wouldn't have sold the same number of other processing devices. Binksternet (talk) 20:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

New articles on The Loudness War

Check this out, it is really good and will really help the article: 1) The Baltimore Sun Audio gain in volume signals loss for listeners --Goferwiki (talk) 02:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

New Image

I don't think this is a good example as there appears to be no degradation of sound quality untill the final image and that is good by todays standards, I think normalizing a track so that the peak level is at full volume is a good thing. Although I am surprised there would be a need to strangle Beatles records. AJUK ^Talk!! 12:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Since the final image shows apparent degradation of sound quality, this is a good example. The progression toward this brickwalling demonstrates how the decisions being made to make CDs louder. My only concern about the image is that the years may not be clearly readable, making it hard at first to tell which is the first image and which is the end result. While more extreme example of a flattened before/after waveform can probably be found, I think the replaygain images demonstrate this fine. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Changed colours and added text saying that this illustrates the trend of increasing loudness. Aquegg (talk) 07:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it looks fine, if anything, slow it down to 2 sec/frame and create another frame where the signal, for the most part, looks like solid block. Good job, man! Jrod2 (talk) 03:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the original poster here that the animated image at the top isn't the greatest example of the loudness war in action, and can in fact give an erroneous impression of the true problems created by the war. There's very limited dynamic range in the original clip; the last and presumptively "worse" image, while slightly squashed, is really not that much different from the first.216.165.95.5 (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with the original poster. Mastering has always sized peak program level to the capabilities of the destination medium. The the 1983 and 1987 frames show less than full-scale peaks. This image furthers the common misconception that equalizing peak level will equalize perceived volume. The image needs to be along the lines of what's shown in Matt Mayfield's YouTube video --Kvng (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi guys, shouldn't an image for the 2009 remaster of "Something" be added? 84.157.242.25 (talk) 15:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

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. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Examples

What are the examples of? Albums that "break" this mold? Albums that verify this? This needs explanaiton. -24.6.56.121 (talk) 07:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I tend to think that you have to demonstrate that CDs can be mastered without digital distortion. That is CDs that have not succumbed to the Loudness Wars. Trying to be louder that your competitors is OK unless you destroy your music in the process, which is what is happening today. Even my recent McCartney CDs are distorted. Anyone like me who listens to music and asks himself what type of Bass he was using, what does he have in the drumset will realize that these distinctions are being lost.

Stephen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.211.111 (talk) 13:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems Chinese Democracy will break this damn mold. [6] --Stormwatch (talk) 17:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we maybe have a parallel example list of notable remasters that went from quiet - or even reasonably loud but not compressed - to badly overamplified in later remasters that tried to sell themselves as sounding much better? EG I had to replace my fairly old CD copy of Bon Jovi's debut album after it got badly damaged ... only managed to find the "remastered" version to replace it, and it sounds TERRIBLE by comparison. The sound reproduction is an awful, muddy mess now, as everything is at the same volume - maximum - and a lot of the dynamic and actual power of the performance has been lost. (Hey, I know it isn't exactly Beethoven, but it holds some sentimental value to me, and it seems such a shame.... plus if material even as simple as this can be wrecked by this effect, what's it doing to true masterworks?) ---- (also, I now habitually try to undo the over-compression a little where I can on newly ripped CDs... it has variable and limited success but I like to think it improves things. Knowing what typical compressor levels and profiles are used by the industry would help immensely, so I can set up my expander side of this virtual compander, if anyone knows) 193.63.174.10 (talk) 13:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Another useful source

A good piece on this that I notice is not cited in the article: Douglas Wolk, "Compressing Pop: How Your Favorite Song Got Squished", p. 212-222 in This is Pop (2004), Eric Weisbard (ed.), Harvard University Press, ISBN 0674013441. If someone is working further on this article, wants to read this, and cannot access a copy of the book, feel free to get hold of me (email, please), and I'll scan the relevant 11 pages and send them to you. (Not particularly a topic I want to write on.) - Jmabel | Talk 05:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

There is also an excellent source called Mastering Audio by a mastering engineer called Bob Katz. I do not have any other details with me at the time of writing. In that source he also proposes a solution to the loudness war (I forget what he calls this method, by I do know it is named after himself or his company). Furthermore, there is a useful bit of information in the resource that is missing from the article. The subjective perception of louder music being "better" is a well-known fact, but what is absent from the article is mention of the fact that this subjective perception is temporary. After a period of time, listening to loud music with less dynamic range tends to fatigue one's ears, reducing the subjective enjoyment of the music. Seeing as how this subjective perception is one of the bigger arguments for loudness, this piece of information is relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.14.91.2 (talk) 07:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

New Elbow album

Might be worth a mention, apparently its really dynamic and has "Turn Me Up! To preserve the excitement, emotion and dynamics of the original performance this record is intentionally quieter than some. For full enjoyment simply Turn Me Up! (TurnMeUp.org)" Written in the notes [7] AJUK ^Talk!! 16:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a link to turnmeup.org on this article. So far I haven't seen any CDs with the logo on, good news that someone's finally released one. I'll keep my eyes open. Squirrel (talk) 11:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Its only good by todays standards, even this brick walls in places, I'm quite surprised they were allowed to put that turn me up stuff on it! AJUK ^Talk!! 11:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Now its won the Mercury Music Prize AJUK ^Talk!! 00:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

With a 2008 release date and Album Replay Gain of -9.6 dB, the new Elbow album is no different than its contemporaries. For me, this is a credibility issue for "Turn me up!" --Kvng (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Practical hints

I missed some advice how people might check and compare their own collection. The article names typical averaged db values. How about some software links (especially Win and Unix, especially useful and free) which will output those db numbers for single tracks (full or in parts), for full CDs, for MP3? Apart from that, I expected some explanation of the Loudness button of many amplifiers and sound systems, which does increase lower and higher frequencies. --Traut (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added a link to the Pleasurize music foundation (a link was previously available in one of the footnotes. From the Pleasurize website, You can download a tool that measures dynamic range in audio files. --Kvng (talk) 03:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Death Magnetic / Metallica: The straw that broke the camel's back?

The talk is that this is the loudest record ever. In most internet forums the backslash is clearly directed at the band or his producer Rick Rubin. The mastering engineer, Ted Jensen, apologized for rendering such piece of crap and blamed the label for giving him the mixes already squashed. The point is that even the fans who are for the most part "regular" people, have noticed the loudness. Some people (including myself) think that they did this whole thing on purpose. Wouldn't surprise me coming from Metallica.

I think this could be a turning point in the Loudness War.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrod2 (talk • contribs) 12:11 26 September 2008 (UTC)

That's nice, but this talk page is for discussion on how to best edit this article. This is not a forum. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Relevant to topic. The record has been listed by users on the main space and the article itself. It is not a "personal opinion", it's fact across the web. Would you like me to quote references? The topic is the "Loudness War" and what we can do to improve the article. Shall we start heralding a new era in loudness or will this new precedent result in lower levels? There is room for more discussion as to how to continue the development of the article. OTOH, if you find another user who agrees with you that this is my personal view and this is a forum-like comment, delete it. I wouldn't be offended. Jrod2 (talk)

This section looks very much forum-like. But please don't delete it; how else would people learn? --Kjoonlee 13:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, this started a little "forum like" but this does have implications for this article. The article already cites at least one specific example of a highly compressed recording (Californication). To the extent that mentioning that recording is appropriate, should there be a reference to Death Magnetic? There is plenty of reputable sources on this (e.g. http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2008/09/18/fans-complain-after-death-magnetic-sounds-better-on-guitar-hero-than-cd/ ). It may also be relevant for the CD vs. Vinyl reference, as it looks like this is compressed on both the CD and the Record (although the source may not be usable - http://audiamorous.blogspot.com/2008/09/metallicas-death-magnetic-clips-on-both.html). Anyone have any thoughts? Judicata (talk) 18:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

IMO, you could use the one from the Rollingstone site though it does have a blog, it is an article. Jrod2 (talk) 18:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Remasters paragraph disappeared

Why an user removed that information about Abba's "One of Us"? It's not an original research, it's a matter of fact! Everyone can rip that song on a pc and saw that difference! It's obvious, imho it don't need a citation.--151.53.247.68 (talk) 13:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I've put it back now (twice) - any further deletions will be taken as vandalism... Squirrel (talk) 09:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Original research includes use of primary sources (such as the recording itself) as citations. The most acceptable sources for Wikipedia are secondary sources. --Kvng (talk) 03:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Matt Mayfield YouTube video

Because the video has been mentioned by two major newspapers, it's more than just an external link. I put it in the "Opponents" section of the article, along with mentioning Mayfield and the two newspapers that reported on his video. If a consensus of editors decides it should be moved back to the external links section, I'll understand. Otherwise, I think my edit is a good one. What do you think? Grundle2600 (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It is a good edit. I've seen this video (deservedly) referenced frequently --Kvng (talk) 17:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Higher writing standards?

I couldn't read through this article, because I couldn't get past the errors and "pop" writing in the first section. While perhaps well intentioned, some of the statements are false.

However, as the maximum amplitude of a CD is at a fixed level, the overall loudness can only be increased by reducing the dynamic range.

This is only true in situations when the recording already has signal reaching to full scale, which is not always the case/ Since this is logically not all situations, it should not be assumed. Combined with the fancy animated image, which only seems to show dynamic reduction in the last frame, this article starts with pop knowledge, and could benefit a rewrite by an experienced engineer.

"pushing"? is this encyclopedia-level terminology?

"each year"? while time may be of accidental relation to the phenomenon (as it is for most of us), the concept of "year" is unrelated to this phenomenon.

Loudness definition > Opponents = missing inference —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antilog (talk • contribs) 23:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible solutions -- trimming?

Quite a while ago, User:Thumperward changed the "Possible solutions" section with the message "pare this down to the only part which isn't wholly speculative". Later on, it was reverted. I just wanted to say that I wholly agree with his edit as it would remove the original research, and makes the section integrate much better to the article. Should this edit be re-done? And if not trimmed as radically, what should be left?

The (currently) two organisations listed in the section may be worth a mention. Perhaps a new section for them? --MinorContributor (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the criticism of that section, and I've pared it down to talk about the various reactions against the loudness war. I changed the section name from "Possible solutions" to "Reactions against too little dynamic range", and I welcome any writing that talks about how a person or an organization has acted against the loudness war.

Unfortunately for Replay Gain, I am not familiar enough with the subject to change the how-to style of the previous version into a retelling of Replay Gain's history. Instead, I deleted Replay Gain entirely because it was written as original research. I would be very happy to see somebody restore mention of Replay Gain in a way that tracks their formation, their first and subsequent actions, with references. Binksternet (talk) 23:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Alan Wilder on the war

Musician Alan Wilder (of Recoil and formerly Depeche Mode) wrote an open letter[8] that touches this subject. Worth quoting, methinks. --Stormwatch (talk) 20:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Examples of "loud" albums

User Anetode has deleted the list twice. See editions [9] and [10], both marked as "minor edits". The list is useful and appropriately included to an appropriate article, which has not grown too long. Uikku (talk) 03:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Add prose to the text describing several notable examples supported by critical commentary in reliable secondary and tertiary sources. If you see utility in maintaining a list of "loud" albums, spin it off into its own article (nevertheless I fear that it will be difficult to maintain editorial standards on such a thing). The problem here is that by demanding that someone disprove the necessity and accuracy of a list you are putting the horse before the cart, it is rather the obligation of the editor to verify its entries and explain its role in the article. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 11:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a more constructive plan than your previous edits. It's probably not going to happen by itself though --Kvng (talk) 15:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Anetode, you thinking about this issue is wrong. It is up to each editor to justify--if needed--each edit, regardless of whether it's an addition, deletion, or modification. So yes, demanding that you disprove the factual accuracy of this list is valid. Also, i don't accept the idea that some other editor should do the work you want done with the article. You should do it yourself. I have reverted your deletion. —fudoreaper (talk) 22:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

No, that is not correct. Editors don't justify anything, editors apply policy to the creation of content. Current policy (WP:V, WP:RS, Wikipedia:Trivia sections) prohibits this section for the aforementioned reasons. Wikipedia ain't a democracy, and "disproving the factual accuracy" is precisely the ass-backwards way of handling editorial guidelines. To wit:

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article.[1]

If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them.

If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider tagging a sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, a section with {{unreferencedsection}}, or the article with {{refimprove}} or {{unreferenced}}. Alternatively, you may leave a note on the talk page requesting a source, or move the material to the talk page. Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations, and do not move it to the talk page.[2]" - WP:BURDEN

As before, this list is nothing but bits of commentary by random bloggers, original research by the people who added the individual albums, generally unreliable sources and speculation. Are you certain that all of these are correct? Stating that an album was poorly mastered has real life consequences, it may damage the reputation of the recording engineer, album producer and artist. Not only is the burden on you to prove these entries are true, you also have to prove that their inclusion is warranted in the main article (as opposed to a list of an uncertain, but presumably high number of entries). Consider pitch correction, another controversial practice in recent times, should we have a list of every album where the engineers used Auto-Tune? How could we be sure? I can go online and claim to be an executive and drop names, albums, etc. on my blog and they would be added to the list without any scrutiny. Similar scenarios have occurred - and not only in the music business. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 09:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

This is all well and good and I am actually sympathetic to your suggestion to remove the list. Others are not and so it needs to be discussed. Above I thought you had a reasonable proposal and encouraged you to implement it. Instead you have deleted the list without doing the suggested replacement work. --Kvng (talk) 17:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I will continue to edit this article over the next week or so. However, as I see no utility in this list, I would not be the one to implement a list article alternative or the one to look for trustworthy sources to back up each current entry. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't realized (because you marked it as a minor edit [again]) that you'd deleted the section (again) without doing any of the supporting work you propose. Not productive. --Kvng (talk) 00:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between using the word "productive" as an encouragement and using it to condescend to someone who disagrees with you. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 09:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Read carefully; I do not disagree with you. I disagree with your approach: marking major changes as minor edits, repeated reverts, reluctance to discuss. These are Edit warring behaviors --Kvng (talk) 17:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, your selective interpretation of my behavior is consistent with edit warring guidelines. I have not been reluctant to discuss changes and I'm not sure of a way to contest the validity of speculative text without reverting to a safe (read: one without the offending passages which may violate policy) version. I disagree with the approach of blindly reverting someone's deletion of a part of text without an explanation and justifying it to a lack of some made-up due process. Trivia sections are routinely removed from articles, so are tracts of unverifiable information. The challenge is always on the part of those who wish to retain the text to explain their position before re-inserting poorly sourced material. As for the minor edit thing - chock it up to personal preference, my usage of that tag is not very consistent. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can delete the whole page with a single push of a button. Is that a minor edit? No. Let's get past the minor edit issue by not specifying any of the deletions or restorations as minor. Thanks. Binksternet (talk) 01:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I did not delete the entire article, I removed a small section from it. Using the backspace key. Once. Why am I even defending this? Your disagreement is noted. Please consider my choices of how to mark my edits as arbitrary and of no one's business but my own. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Very overdriven Elvis CD

The Elvis CD of 30 Number one hits Elv1s; is very subject to the loundness war trend. I ruined multiple speakers at once playing it for a short time at the same volume level I play other CD's. The distortion was highly audible and it cooked the speakers to the point where you could smell them overtly in about a minute's time. About the Beatles waveform; I did notice that on my Beatles album 1 (Beatles album). Wonder if that's the one they used for the year 2000 example. 192.156.234.170 (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

This is me. I am at FLCC and I forgot to log in. Daniel Christensen (talk) 16:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

2009 Beatles remaster(s): NPOV?

The 2009 remaster does not continue this trend. Without a graphical proof, this is highly subjective I guess! The animated GIF only shows graphs up to the year 2000, but not 2009. Someone please should put the 2009 version in so that we can see ourselves. I quote the bottom section of the Guardian article: "On the bright side," Howlett remarked, "they sound louder than previous CD reissues." EVEN louder? So they should even undercut the 2000's versions in terms of dynamic range! -andy 92.229.126.162 (talk) 13:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Is the loudness war over? --Kvng (talk) 14:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

No, not at all. But there was no way they could get away with compressing the Beatles remasters as much as current pop music. The backlash would be phenomenal. --Vossanova ^o< 17:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The Guardian citation does not support the statement The 2009 remaster does not continue this trend. As I've stated before, the introductory image does not need to include information about the 2009 remasters—I would suggest simply removing the statement. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, here is a screenshot of the 2009 "Something". / edg ☺ ☭ 18:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

looks like the Beatles are back to their 1993 levels. Jolly good. I deleted the extra discussion in the caption. It is not good NPOV to exclude data. This will need to be fixed. The new Beatles just recently hit the streets. We can take some time and get some perspective as secondary-source material gets published. Although I have not had an opportunity to listen, I personally find the reduced levels to be an unconditionally encouraging development. --Kvng (talk) 00:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Appropriate refs for example albums

Regarding the edit war over the example section, I think the middle ground is to throw away the unreliable sources and go with only the reliable ones. Certainly Rolling Stone is reliable, but self-published sources are debatable, depending on who is considered an expert. If a notable rock critic or mastering engineer keeps a blog then that is a good source.

I have deleted a bunch of the reference URLs that I consider unreliable. Here they are so that people can discuss them and prove me wrong:

• http://www.sharoma.com/trading/loudness.htm Self-published article by Robin Sharrock, 16 November 2006
• http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f9/new-rem-album-accelerate-good-fidelity-314073/ Forum thread
• http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=42376&view=findpost&p=406782 Forum thread
• http://forum.keanemusic.com/t/7926.aspx Forum thread
• http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/R15J2O2NCF9TPK/ref=cm_cr_pr_cmt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B001GF7W2C User submitted review
• http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/177/index1.html Letters to the editor

Just FYI, I personally know that several of the albums I have deleted from the list are indeed over-loud pieces of crap. The Muse screenshots on Hydrogenaudio—these images match what I remember from my own experience as an audio engineer. However, the sources must be good here or the list degrades to something not worth a damn. Binksternet (talk) 01:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Other ways to make it louder

User:Zaphraud has pointed out in comments to the article source that there are other means of reducing peak to loudness ratio. In addition to the phase manipulation suggested by Zaphraud, intentional introduction of various distortions is a method long used by electric guitar players and broadcasters. --Kvng (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)