Why Music Really Is Getting Louder

Teksty Piosenek writes "Artists and record bosses believe that the best album is the loudest one. Sound levels are being artificially enhanced so that the music punches through when it competes against background noise in pubs or cars. 'Geoff Emerick, engineer on the Beatles' Sgt. Pepper album, said: "A lot of what is released today is basically a scrunched-up mess. Whole layers of sound are missing. It is because record companies don't trust the listener to decide themselves if they want to turn the volume up." Downloading has exacerbated the effect. Songs are compressed once again into digital files before being sold on iTunes and similar sites. The reduction in quality is so marked that EMI has introduced higher-quality digital tracks, albeit at a premium price, in response to consumer demand.'"

Dubious reasoning

[Puff of Logic]

The reduction in quality is so marked that EMI has introduced higher-quality digital tracks, albeit at a premium price, in response to consumer demand.

Odd. I was under the impression that the higher quality tracks were incidental to releasing non-DRM'd tracks in iTunes. Essentially, the higher quality eased the pain of another $.30 per track.

Sound engineers can bitch all they want,

[Spazntwich]

but if the music keeps selling, the labels are providing exactly what the cloth-eared idiot masses want, and in the end they're out to make a profit, not "quality music."

Terminology confusion?

[megabyte405]

Is it just me, or does that article (intentionally?) confuse the two meanings "compression" can have with regards to digital audio? The loudness bit is audio compression: reducing dynamic range (which they do talk about). Then, they bring in the bit about data compression and the EMI iTunes Plus downloads, which is entirely different (admittedly, it also introduces artifacts, but of a completely different nature). The bit about the Los Lonely Boys album "compression-free" could easily be free of either (or both!) kinds of compression.

While the logical part of me chalks it up to confusing terminology being misunderstood, part of me wonders if those meanings are being intentionally conflated to make the article more impactful... it would sound less impressive if EMI wasn't "admitting there is a problem with compression"

Peaking

[zerocool^]

We always called it "peaking", and it's something that everyone who's recorded an album in the spare bedroom of their band mate's house can attest to - if you record with fewer peaks (places where the sound wave maxes out at the top of the available volume area), it sounds better. It just plain sounds better.

But, take songs off that CD and slam them onto a mix-tape style rotation or an iPod, and you'll be reaching to turn up the volume every time your song comes on.

From what I can tell, recording engineers are responding to the bands who don't want people to have to turn the music up (in particular record execs). It's one of those terrible problems - if everyone would agree on such-and-such date to back off the recording volume and get less peaks (say, no more than 7 per album), everyone's music would instantly sound better. But the fact that everyone's competing, and you don't want your copycat pop punk band to be the quiet one, means it's a self perpetuating problem.

~X

Re:Sound engineers can bitch all they want,

[Tablizer]

Most people listen to music while doing something else, such as driving, ironing, gardening, trolling slashdot, etc. The quality does not matter that much during those activities. It is noticed by audiophiles far more than Joe Blow.

How do I adjusted volume?

[Eideewt]

I find the notion that people are unfamiliar with their volume knobs ludicrous. Putting together tracks with more dynamic range isn't going to make people listen to them at whisper quiet levels -- they're going to turn it up to normal listening volume.

I suppose the good news is that we literally can't compress music more than we are now. We've hit the wall, and the only way to go is the right direction.

this just in...

[wordsnyc]

if your music sounds good on an iPod, you're listening to crap.

Oh God.

[rhizome]

THIS IS SO FUCKING OLD.

Cranked up to 11

[tbo]

It's tough being able to hear.

I know what you mean, and I'm not even old and wise. I went to a concert for the first time in a few years, and was reminded of why I stopped. I had to wear ear plugs most of the time, which, since they don't attenuate all frequencies evenly, totally messed up the sound.

Imagine if, when you entered an art gallery, they stabbed out one of your eyes. That's how much sense it makes to destroy people's hearing when they go to concerts.

That is partially right, but there's more to it...

[yroJJory]

WHY are albums mastered so damn loud?

It's a vicious circle and it is caused essentially by one feature: shuffle mode.

Here's how the problem reveals itself:

Band A decides they want to have the "heaviest, loudest album ever made", so they tell the mastering engineer to make their master louder.

Band B is hears Band A's album and wants to be louder (or at least AS LOUD) as Band A. So they tell their mastering engineer to pump up the volume, too.

Assume the same thing happens with Bands C through L.

Now Band M comes along and they've had these other 12 albums playing on iTunes while they're mixing their album. Band M isn't so concerned with being "the loudest", but when the put their ref CD into iTunes and are listening in shuffle mode, their songs get completely drowned out by a factor of 6-12 dB of amplitude difference.

So Band M now asks their mastering engineer to make their master louder so they'll match up with everyone else's.

And Bands N-Z follow suit.

It's a very difficult domino knockdown to break out of, since no one wants to make the album that is super quiet and requires intervention with the volume knob. (Yes, I'm aware of the "Sound Check" feature in iTunes, but that's just a lousy attempt to solve the problem with technology.)

In 2005 I recorded an album for a Hawaiian band. It was gorgeous and I convinced the band to master the album at Universal because I knew the main mastering engineer and was adamant that he was the ONLY guy who could do the record justice. I was also adamant that the album did NOT need (and would avoid) any compression.

We only boosted the overall level of the album by 4 dB and that was purely using a limiter to ensure no overs.

I then sent the first ref CD to the band member who couldn't be present. He was thrilled with the mastering but had just one question: Do they make it louder when the CDs get pressed?

I told him that it was at the level I was recommending and that Mastering was the time to change levels, but that we really wanted it to sound good, not loud. His response? "Oh. But it's so much quieter than every other CD I own."

And he's right. Compared to every CD that has come out in the past 5 years, his album is seriously quiet. Possibly as much as 8 dB quieter than current albums. And maybe we did it TOO quiet. But it matches in amplitude to CDs that came out in 1989, back when some dynamic range was still an OK thing in music. Nowadays we don't like ANY dynamics.

So who is right? And can we go back?

I've been a HUGE advocate of dynamic range and NOT destroying our months of hard work at the last step in the process. But I can only do what my clients want. And I was really hoping we had a chance with DVD-Audio and other surround formats, but the over-compressors are winning out there, now, too. And it's a bigger problem on that format, since you are now forcing people to change levels between movies and surround music, when both are calibrated identically.

Re:A good video explanation

[NeMon'ess]

Some albums like Soundgarden - Superunknown from 1994 and Foo Fighters from 1995 still had much of their dynamic range. What changed in the late 90's was the overall volume was increased so much the peaks of the drums and bass got clipped. Doing that also deletes any other vocals or instruments playing during the clipped time. It's more like an analog volume adjustment of just sliding the volume up too high when mixing.

What's different now that the video shows is the peaks are not getting clipped anymore, instead they reach 0.0 db but the entire mix is digitally volume maximized so almost every single peak is that loud. Vocals and instruments like guitars are always the same maximum loudness. If the singer sings louder or plays harder the volume the listener hears doesn't change.

It's also why the theme song to Casino Royale, You Know My Name by Chris Cornell sounds so weak. Not only is it rock with orchestral backing, so it's already a wall of sound, but since everything is maximized, when Chris starts singing his lungs out there's no change in the volume. The power and energy of his voice and the music is just destroyed. [alterpersanium.com]

Re:Also, the Loudness War

[Andrzej Sawicki]

Sadly, I think yours is the better explanation.

Thanks to the RIAA...

[thogard]

While most people here think if RIAA as an evil anti-sharing group, back before they turned to the dark side, they used to set decent audio standards. Too bad that was in the era when hi-fi records were new.

The volume compression crud is one of their more recent "technology advancements". Volume compression is isn't data compression but reefers to horizontally compressing the waveform or boosting the quiet bits and cutting the loud bits.

This is why modern music has no emotion. The soft bits get boosted and the high energy bits get clipped. It is why most remastered CDs suck so bad.

Its also why rap is so popular. Rap's verbal beat messes up the auto-compressors and break them and since rap is about the only modern music that has an energy, its got a huge younger following.

Re:It is not too loud!

[mrogers]

when I was a kid my parents were always screaming at me to turn it down ... 20yrs and my own kids started telling me to turn it down.

Have you ever considered that maybe you just like terrible music? ;-)

It ain't just music that's louder

[macraig]

Television commercials have had the volume artificially jacked-up for many years, perhaps decades now? To rephrase the OP quote: "It is because television companies don't trust the viewer to decide themselves if they want to pay attention during commercials." So they crank it up to make damned sure we do.

Re:Also, the Loudness War

[Tassach]

Sadly, I think yours is the better explanation.

That's the reason that when the Beatles' box was released it was outselling the modern "artists" by a wide margin.

Re:The older I get the louder I need it

[leenks]

Except this is a gross oversimplification. Compression is typically done in a number of bands independantly for mastering. Some bands get compressed to hell and back, others are barely touched - the effect is much the same as "TFAuthor" described - some bands totally go missing. Some get deliberately removed by filtering them out prior to the compression too so that they sound good on the widest range of hardware.

In reality, all three compression techniques (compression, multiband compression, perceptual coding) are highly lossy because you lose the relationships between individual components in the sound. Whether you can hear that with the latter is up to the audiophiles though :)

Re:Cranked up to 11

[Nimey]

Buy stock in hearing-aid makers. Seriously.

Might as well take advantage of the fuckwits with doof-doof car stereos. "Revenge is a dish best served cold".

Re:It is not too loud!

[Original Replica]

so that the music punches through when it competes against background noise in pubs or cars.

I find nothing more annoying than a bar or pub with no dance floor cranking the music. I don't want the music to fucking punch through the conversation I'm trying to have. I go to the pub to talk to people, why the hell is the music so loud that i have to yell to the person beside me?

Re:The older I get the louder I need it

[ConceptJunkie]

No degree needed. People don't normally start going deaf at 35.

Re:The older I get the louder I need it

[joto]

Whether you can hear that with the latter is up to the audiophiles though :)

Correction: Whether you can hear the latter is something that is best settled in double blind test experiements. Most people can't, at least if they're older than 30. If you ask an audiophile, the answer will of course be YES, but the same audiophile will probably also tell you that the quality of the power cord from the wall socket to your amplifier matters, with the more expensive power cord sounding "warmer", "richer", and "more detailed". After all, he already spent $10000 on the power cord, so it'd better sound right!

Loudness and Dynamic Range can co-exist

[John3]

The reference CD for amazing dynamic range on a popular rock album is Pink Floyd's "The Wall". We can argue about the music, the lyrics, the message, but there's no arguing that the recording, mixing and mastering of this album is second to none in the pop and rock world. The quiet birds chirping just before the girl says "Look mummy, there's an airplane up in the sky" contrast sharply to the smashing of the televisions or the deafening helicopter.

As far as truly loud rock and roll albums, Robert John "Mutt" Lange (aka Mr. Shania Twain) has a long tradition of producing punchy, loud rock albums that still manage to keep a decent dynamic range....Def Leppard, The Cars, even AC/DC albums produced by "Mutt" are layered with music without compressing it beyond listenability (if that's a word). :)