The "Loudness War" and the Future of Music 687
An anonymous reader notes an article up at IEEE Spectrum outlining the history and dangers of the accelerating tendency of music producers to increase the loudness and reduce the dynamic range of CDs. "The loudness war, what many audiophiles refer to as an assault on music (and ears), has been an open secret of the recording industry for nearly the past two decades and has garnered more attention in recent years as CDs have pushed the limits of loudness thanks to advances in digital technology. The 'war' refers to the competition among record companies to make louder and louder albums by compressing the dynamic range. But the loudness war could be doing more than simply pumping up the volume and angering aficionados — it could be responsible for halting technological advances in sound quality for years to come... From the mid 1980s to now, the average loudness of CDs increased by a factor of 10, and the peaks of songs are now one-tenth of what they used to be."
Re:I have the solution (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm probably just ill-informed, but aren't CD's just plain old 16-bit, with no compression, and great sound quality? The summary says 'CDs', but the link refers to technologies used on DVDs, which are highly compressed. As for annoying volumes, TV commercials really piss me off. It's illegal to crank commercial volumes, but every local station does it anyway - advertisers love it. I have to turn down the volume every time a stupid loud commercial comes on.
It's a serious problem (Score:4, Insightful)
If I want it to sound loud, I'll turn the volume up.
Only solution? (Score:4, Insightful)
Just releasing tracks that are much quieter than the current standard is going to be annoying for a lot of listeners.
"It's Good Enough" (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong - I'm not a Luddite, and I love the Digital revolution of music. I am just sickened by it's apparent side-effects, and AMAZED at the tolerance we the "consuming public" have for getting fed shit. As long as we accept this as the standard of quality we find acceptable, the various producers and manufacturers will keep feeding us more and crappier garbage.
Re:The alternative? (Score:2, Insightful)
If the volume is set too high (there is a max limit to what CD's can store), then the fine detail can be lost in the noise.
Re:What pisses me off (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, it makes business sense (Score:4, Insightful)
When I say "better", I mean that these devices cannot play the full dynamic range that an expensive HiFi set could, which means you'd miss part of the music if a CD is mastered the "old" way, as compared to a CD that is mastered using dynamic range compression.
Now you may guess how many people these days spend $3000 (or even $1000 for that matter) to buy just an amplifier, a CD player and 2 speakers, as compared to the amount of people who listen several hours a day to MP3 players, cheap (portable) sets etc.
That's why "they" are doing this.
Re:The alternative? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"It's Good Enough" (Score:3, Insightful)
That said, a lot of the audible artifacts of digital media can be prevented and they're not. But you can do your share. Don't like the quality of MP3? Don't do lossy compression then (you *do* have the original CD, right?) Unsatisfied with the sound quality of a CD because too much dynamic range compression is going on? Then don't buy it. This will ultimately force the studios to do their share to release a quality product.
Optimised for radio, unlistenable on good systems (Score:4, Insightful)
Explains why people listen to awful demos in department stores (those horrible tinny Bose cube things with terrible hissy fizzy treble and booming vague bass) and think they sound good simply because it's turned up loud for the midrange.
And no, I don't have "exotic cables", just quality speakers and a hefty power amp with plenty of headroom to spare.
Re:When is everyone going to realize? (Score:2, Insightful)
To further prove the point, the next big thing in music was MP3s, a compressed form of the cd ripped at lower bps. Take the MP3 a step further and lower on sound quality, the speakers that an MP3 is typically played through are tiny little pieces of crap that are put directly into the ear (ipod and the like).
After all this, people are complaining about loudness?
What an interesting contradiction (Score:4, Insightful)
- too much dynamic range.
Scenes with explosions, traffic, etc are way too loud while the dialogue is way too soft.I solved the DVD problem by inserting a compressor on the audio out of the DVD player before it reaches my stereo - precisely what the network station did before the era of DVD when everybody watched movies on HBO, Turner Classics, ABC, NBC, etc. I did the same to my parents' TV so they wouldn't get blasted by commercials on cable TV. We are all much happier.
Unfortunately there is no easy solution to "squashed" CDs. Once the dynamic range is compressed to oblivion, you cannot get it back without the source material (IE master multitrack). In the last five years I have bought 10x more DVDs than CDs.
Re:It's more than just music (Score:4, Insightful)
If you think that super8 film is astounding, you probably aren't paying attention to the substantial color shifting you are observing, or haven't bothered to check out any of the HD-quality video cameras they have out for shooting news items now.
Your in-laws probably have a REALLY bad digital satellite TV setup, because my HD satellite setup blows anything else I have seen out of the water. And waxing nostalgic about how awesome old VHS tapes look is just foolish.
I see no reason to complain about how a DVD player you buy today (which you can get for around 25 dollars) will not last as long as the 200 dollar one you bought 5 years ago, especially since HD players like Blue Ray are going to be what you really want a few years from now. I rather buy a 25 dollar dvd player and replace it every 4 years or so than buy a 200 dollar one and replace it every 10 years. But that is just me.
The market is in the middle of large changes and shifts in video technology. Video technology is progressing forward with ever greater quality. If you don't believe me watch any sitcom from 20 years ago and compare it with one from last year. You, my friend are either delusional or making things up for effect.
The thing we are complaining about is the fact that audio quality is not progressing forward but going backward even as video and image quality improves. Go back and watch your precious Charles in Charge VHS tapes with their amazing video and audio quality.
Loss of dynamic range isn't a digital problem (Score:3, Insightful)
For the tin-eared masses. The bar of quality for audio/music/telephony has never been lower. We now accept crap MP3 audio as "acceptable", stuttering vocoders and dropped calls as "tolerable", and reduced/compressed bandwidth as "louder (hence better)". We are now getting spoon-fed the worst quality audio since wax recordings and the Western Electric "Noiseless" recording system of movies from the 30-40's. And like everything else around us that continues to suck worse and worse, we take it in stride, shrug and say "well, it sounds good enough, I guess."
Total apples/oranges comparison. We tolerate "crap" MP3 audio due to a quality/portability tradeoff. The dynamic range issue is a completely different animal - that doesn't provide any tradeoff to the consumer unless he likes constant, loud noise. Note also that this has shit all to do with analog/digital - even analog media have a dynamic range, and having the audio signal occupy a very small part of it will still make a recording sound like shit.
Additionally, I find a poorly mastered CD to be much more offensive than compressed audio. For one, I think one could probably demonstrate that poor mastering destroys more of the information in the audio signal than does compression. Additionally, the issue isn't just one of information loss (though that is important) - it's also listening fatigue, because the output ends up just being a constant barrage of noise.
Ultimately, I'm not an audiophile, but I can tell the difference between a decently-mastered track and a bad one even at 128 bit MP3 compression, and I don't have to try.
Re:The alternative? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Try it for yourself! (Score:5, Insightful)
Many people experienced improved sound quality from using a special pen to draw round the outside of their CDs. They expected it to sound better and so it did.
Re:Earplugs becoming more common pop concert s (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the job of the playback device (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:That's why you have a volume knob. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you do not like to turn the knob, stop listening to music. Each album has its own volume, each song too.
The issue is not much about turning the volume knob. The problem is that you cannot *unturn* the dynamic range knob. I can use replaygain to have constant album volume, while I can only cry about bringing back the lost dynamics.
Re:It's more than just music (Score:3, Insightful)
Mostly true, except it's still widely acknowledged that the dynamic range on digital camera sensors (yes, even the really expensive ones on the 1d series) is lacking compared to that of film.
Digital might be there on resolution, but resolution is far from everything. That said, they're getting a lot better, and I don't think this is an example of an industry that's moving backwards.
Re:I have the solution (Score:5, Insightful)
You know...I've often wondered why kids of today, aren't as into getting good sound reproduction, as they were when I grew up.
My friends and I would drool at the gear in the higher end audio shops. I knew at age 12 when I heard my first McIntosh tube amp running through a pair of Klipschorns, that that was what I wanted someday. I don't have the Mc yet, but, using a decware SET amp, but I do have the 50th anniversary K-horns.
I mean, none of us were wealthy back growing up, we all worked jobs we could get as we grew up, buying a piece at a time...upgrading over the years...etc.
But, if the music being put out the past few years....doesn't sound good due to over compression, etc....well, why get anything good to play it on....and I guess, over the past few years with this, youths of today don't even KNOW what good sound reproduction is supposed to be.
I guess that kind of explains the reactions I see here when I comment I'd not be interested in buying music online until it is available in at least CD quality....much of what I like is older, and with greater dynamic range, does sound better on good gear?
I dunno...but, I think it is sad that so many people don't care about really good sound repro...and maybe it is that music put out today (regarless of content, that's another argument) just doesn't sound as good....and all they know is to drive in a car with all subs vibrating the neighborhood, and no tweeter at all in the car.
Re:I have the solution (Score:5, Insightful)
1) The kids with their overpriced and overpowered subs are the behavioral equivalent of you in your youth. The goal is different but the mindset of lusting over ever better and more unattainable with your friends is the same. Sadly the technology is far too affordable and effective at producing nothing but bass and that's why I have less distraction living next to the airport than living across from the high school. 2) Low end sound quality has also improved. The gap between absolute crap and super high end still exists, but most people aren't working with the lower extreme. Mid-range systems that are just fine for casual listening are cheap and readily available.
Re:I have the solution (Score:2, Insightful)
Audiophiles either have extremely sensitive hearing (which I would consider a curse considering how much audio is around us that isn't pristine and perfect), or they're liars with too much money to blow.
Re:Shitty Analogy (Score:4, Insightful)
Consumer's don't want shit, they just accept it. The real problem is that they don't particularly want or care about quality. The studios work hard to promote shit because it's cheaper to create, and (more to the point) REALLY cheap to keep repackaging and reselling. Why write new songs that will take effort to sell, when you can resell the macarena as a country song (Achey Breaky Heart) or some other such crap?
I think the two biggest reasons that shit has become so prevalent in the past decade are that (a) rap music and (b) pitch correctors have removed all necessity for talent or ability. Now all the studios need to create and sell an album is a misogynist thug with bad fashion sense, or a half-naked slut with no clothes.
... the more they stay the same (Score:2, Insightful)
How about adding compressors into the amps? (Score:2, Insightful)
Normally, I don't like heavily compressed audio, but there are times that I'd like to compress, for example, a recording of a Classical symphony. Only because the full dynamic range makes it just too loud to play in a satisfactory manner, in an apartment.
Does anyone know if there are amps out there that have adjustable compressors in them?
why the music industry needs a crash helmet... (Score:2, Insightful)
I replied that mastering engineers had been killing music for years.
He stated that an mp3 contains less than 10% of the original music. (an exaggeration)
I claim that the CD itself contains less than 10% of the music.
Shrinking the dynamic range is tremendously bad. Loudness is tremendously bad.
I'm a musician and producer. My music contains portions which are loud and portions which are soft.
If we as a culture lose the loudness war, then we allow the industry to kill music.
The opposite of dynamic is static, which is what most of today's music sounds like. (not making a comment on electronic, just music as a whole).
Re:Is MP3 louder than uncompressed? (Score:5, Insightful)
The real layman's description of how mp3s work is the black box model: CD goes in here, mp3 comes out there. It's smaller now.
Re:Try it for yourself! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:FCC RMS Volume (Score:3, Insightful)
They crank up the 'loudness', which is totally subjective. There is no way the FCC can go after commecials for being 'loud', unless they created some new extremly byzantine rules about dynamic range, which would basicly fuck up the whole art of mixing and music production and ruin a lot of good music.
Re:I have the solution (Score:3, Insightful)
Why blame this on advances in digital technology? It was always possible to compress the shit out of audio, weather you used a digital compressor or analog one.
Try blaming stupid suits who don't care about audio quality, or music, who basically tell audio engineers to make it as loud or louder than every other CD or else they won't have a job.
One of the most compressed albums I have ever heard, is October Rust by Type O Negative. Not only is it compressed to death, if you look at the waveform, it literally clips constantly.
Compression is not a bad thing though. It really gives punch to drums and bass, evens out the volume of vocals, etc. It is almost the one thing other than good EQing that makes modern music sound modern, in my opinion. But to do all of that work, and then shove yet another compressor or brickwall limiter on the master and squish a whole track, is sad, and only something someone who hated music would do.
No use. (Score:3, Insightful)
No, I didn't. The amount of work required to pull off such a feat isn't worth the Internet-credibility I'd get for having said, "I double-blind tested this with N = 500, theta =
Dynamic range is easily apparent to all but the worst ears, and for those it isn't apparent to, you can simply look at how saturated the Winamp spectrum analyzer is on average. No matter how bad your ears are, you should be able to see the difference between Californication and a good classical recording.
Re:You've never listened to modern turntables (Score:2, Insightful)
The real factor in any digital recordings you make from vinyl is the quality of the A/D converter you use, and the bit depth and sample rate used. These days however I wouldn't doubt that homemade vinyl to digital recordings like yours would be better than most of the over-crushed CDs being released even using the A/D in a modest audio card.
Tom
Re:What pisses me off (Score:3, Insightful)
If you want to learn English, read books, preferably ones written more than 50 years ago. I guarantee you'll lose the bad habits and sound more intelligent.
And no,
IMO, our whole society is rapidly becoming more illiterate every year.
Take the "loose" thing. I don't recall seeing it before a few years ago (I've been active online '93), yet now it's possibly the most powerful internet meme since "All Your Base", and it's just one of dozens of similar stupid mistakes that are propagated by people who seem to seldom, if ever, see the correct usage of common words.
I'm a hardcore nerd C++ developer and don't actually consider myself particularly well-read, but I can see that a classical liberal education would do everyone a world of good, especially managers and politicians, and that our society suffers greatly from a lack of it. We aren't educated these days, we are trained. There's a big difference and it's to our deteriment. I managed to escape Virginia Tech with a degree in Computer Science in 1987 and I probably didn't have to write more than 3 papers, not counting the elective English classes I took. Even at the time I thought that was ridiculous and I can guarantee it hasn't gotten better in the last 20 years. It's not so much that we are ignorant of history, I'm no historical scholar for certain, I probably know the history of Middle-Earth better than that of Europe, but that we aren't taught how to think, how to reason and how to weigh the constant barrage of seeming-facts which bombard us from every direction. Ultimately, we end up with polarized politics where rhetoric ends up being nothing but canned phrases with no meaning and debate becomes equated with seeing who can shout louder or come up with the cleverest put-downs. In fact, the very term "rhetoric" used to mean the study of persuasion, how to convince people of something using facts, logic, and a fundamental understanding of the human psyche. When is the last time anyone in public life could do that? Modern politics owes more to Goebbels than Aristotle. Our leaders sell geopolitical policy, which will affect our world for generations, with no more depth than a commercial for dish soap ("Brand X stops tyranny better than Brand Y and leave your society with a fresh pine scent").
Um. What was the original topic again? "The Loudness War"? Don't get me started. I've recently bought at least one "remaster"* that was so awful, my 15-year-old cassette tape sounds better. How is it that something can be released when the sound is so boosted it literally dissolves into buzzing. Yet, here we are. It seems all the tremendous leaps in sound quality, studio engineering and whatnot achieved since the 70's has been totally lost for so much of music released today, and I buy quite a bit of music.
* Jon Anderson's "Animation", which, ironically was a very well-produced record and sounded great on vinyl when it was first released in 1983. I'm convinced I could dust off my vinyl copy and master a better sounding CD myself, in fact I could probably do it with a needle, paper cone and a microphone given how awful that CD sounds.
Re:I have the solution (Score:2, Insightful)
Personally I think that a lot of it comes with the MP3 issue. When Napster was first out, and then all the clones, and then ones like AudioGalaxy... Most of it was compressed into 128kbit crap or worse. So there was a trade-off: Superior sounding CD's with 15 songs or 15,000 songs of sub-quality but free? People put up with the compression artifacts because it was free. Now, I'd venture that people don't even notice it anymore, or they look past it.
For me, I could never look past it. I download music sometimes but I never hold on to anything less then 256Kbit, and even then, you're going to lose a lot of the little subtleties on some types of music (but let's face it, a lot of music out there wasn't recoded with great equipment, and so it won't benefit from great playback gear.)
Re:What pisses me off (Score:4, Insightful)
But you might be right. After all, Google made its fortune serving up advertisements that were easy to ignore. And I often suspect that most advertising dollars spent on traditional media (print, broadcasting) are wasted, since they don't really have a reliable way of measuring their effect.
On the other hand, there's a school of thought that says that obnoxious ads are more effective. The whole point of advertising is to plant a product meme in your head. Long after you've forgotten which advertisers you're pissed of at, you'll have their trademarks floating in your subconscious. That's why folks don't go out for a burger any more (they go to McDonalds), don't by markers (they buy Sharpies), etc.
Re:What pisses me off (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The alternative? (Score:2, Insightful)
How do you propose to tell the difference between a particular sample level that got that way as a result of dynamic-range compression, versus one at the same level that accurately reflects the recorded source?
That's what's meant by "losing information". When you compress the dynamic range of a signal, you reduce its precision. It cannot be restored.
Information theory. It's what's for breakfast.