The Loudness War
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 24 авг 2024
- Spring 2016 - check out my updated course, Foundations of Digital Audio, at www.lynda.com/A...
HD version of this video and petition to end the Loudness War here: www.change.org...
Big-name CD manufacturers are distorting sounds to make them seem louder. Sound quality suffers.
NOTE: Use headphones if listening on a mobile device. Phones and tablets usually apply their own dynamic range compression on their built-in speakers, which hides the effect of this example.
This video was made with image editing software and a screen capture program for the visuals, and a DAW (Digital Performer 4.5) to process the audio.
Thanks to everyone for watching! - Matt Mayfield, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA
![If you can't hear this then you're not an audiophile [See description for link to followup video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/48PxwspDvrE/mqdefault.jpg)
'Wimpy loud sound' has to be the perfect way to explain the loudness wars in three words.
Very clean and flat sounding.
To me. If you're using more than a compressor, a 3-4 band parametric EQ and a very sparse use of a limiter - you're mixing down wrong.
You just blew my mind on mastering. This whole time I've been trying to make my stuff as loud as modern music by sacrificing quality. Thank you, for helping me realize the folly of the industry.
***** That's not true at all.
Bob He has a point, but it only helps the individual, and only in the short-term.
Bob If you want to get played on the radio, you'll have to. If you just sell CDs or Vinyls or make a living from Downloads, it's not that important I guess.
DJ ConRad
What would be the reason for that? Because I don't see one. Everything is leveled in volume on the radio anyway.
Radios don't play very dynamic mixes because of a row of factors. Many people listen to the radio in their car, which makes quite a lot of noise. A dynamic mix has way more level differences than a very compressed mix which means the quiet parts could not be or hardly be audible. Plus, imagine yourself zapping through the radio. You automatically give the station which is louder more attention in the first place. I believe radio stations even demand certain RMS levels, so the average volume can be kept. It's way too much to discuss though. There is a lot literature or stuff in the internet about this theme too I think... Its pretty sad though what it does to the music, I prefer dynamic mixes myself - even though there are exceptions.
Incidentally, normalizing does NOT increase ALL the peaks to their limit. It finds the single LOUDEST peak and adjusts the level of the sound so that single peak is at 100% volume.
12 years after this was published, but this is easily the clearest and most understandable explanation of the loudness wars I've seen - thanks!
16 years after it was published, RUclips and the Record Companies can now steal all the money because Matt used a 5 second audio clip from a song made in 1989, lol. Love the irony of our little f'd up world. (I can't even use the f word anymore without the Autobots rolling out and deleting my comment).
@@casedistorted Fuck.
Saddest thing is that youtube is full of tutorials instructing people to "improve" their sound in exactly this damaging way.
the first victim of compression is....the poor snare :'(
Terrific, and still very relevant 10 years later (unfortunately).
It’s getting even worse with the amount of music being produced at home.
Bullshit
About a month ago someone named Dan Worrall made a song that pretty much maxed out how loud things can get by setting each sample to be either +1 or -1, effectively making 1 bit audio and turning the volume to max
@@TwoQs What's wrong with music being produced at home?
This should be played as an AD each time you open RUclips.
About 10 years too late with this request.
when you see the inscription "Remastering" on the CD. Stay away.
unless its a beatles remaster from after 2009! those are chill
Still relevent 17 years later. This video is literally older than my sister is
The song is "Figure of Eight" by Paul McCartney, according to the end credits of the video... I'll have to give it a listen, the original version sounds extraordinary
Ever since I got a decent stereo setup in my home I've noticed just how fatiguing it is to listen to most new music because of this phenomenon. Many audiophiles complain that modern day stereo components aren't as good as older ones, when in reality it's the compression and loudness of the recordings they're playing that are the reason for the poor sound. Shit in = shit out :(
If you have good speakers, it wont sound so shitty..
GuyVelella *if you have good speakers it sounds even shittier*
bardust Completely agree. I put together a good stereo setup at home and noticed the same thing. But two good things emerged from this problem: 1. I started to discover and appreciate older records I never paid attention to before, like Steve Miller Band or early Rod Stewart. These early albums sound amazing. And 2, I started downloading HD music files, like 24bit FLAC files with higher frequencies around 48kHz and above. The difference from a regular CD or an MP3 file is huge, you should check it out.
Slayer4965 I'm in the same boat as you, I've got into a lot of music I'd never have listened to before since getting my high end speakers + amp and guess what? All of that music has great dynamic range compared to what I listened to before.
I even listen to the higher dynamic range stuff with my earphones while out and about and can't hear any background noise like cars and such.
There's literally no reason for them to squash music like they do, but I doubt it will ever end unfortunately for us audio loving people :(
Slayer4965 Yes one positive bi-product is that one gets a newfound appreciation for older music :) The difficult part then is to find vintage CD's that hasn't been remastered recently. There's been alot of visits to second-hand markets or thrift shops for me, and that's an exciting experience in it's own right. And I took it a step further and bought a vintage record player and started listening to vinyl. I love it, it takes me back to my childhood so it's a dual benefit of nostalgia and better sound :) I have a modern pickup and RIAA amp and the player has a 2,7kg suspended platter so the quality really impressed me.My DAC handles 24bit so I'll check it out, definitely! Thanks for the tip!
0:10 original
0:35 compressed
1:10 compressed with original volume
This video is literally less than 2 minutes long. Anyone that needed timestamps here should get their life together lol
@@stormingthecastle69 Its for quicker A/Bing comparisons
0:15
1:15
0:15
1:15
Thank you for this! I could never quite put my finger on exactly why I prefer old recording and older music... Now I understand! It's that contrast between loud and soft that's missing in so much of today's music.
I really dig this video. Clear, concise, and every EDM producer needs to watch it.
they need to learn the basics before, we all knows they lack on that.
best sound quality of any 2006 RUclips video
For those who don't know sound compression as well as they should, here is the simple form: LPs = capable of capturing sound beyond CD compression capabilities, but an entirely analog process. CDs are sampled with stereo channels (2) x 44,100 Hertz (frequency) at 16 bits per sample, which equals 1,411.2kbps. FLAC compresses these by about 40-50% but without data loss (think of it as a zip file). The data is reproduced back to 1,411 as it plays. FLAC eliminates all those data bits outside the music stream (the empty bit spaces) without destroying the stream (as do all other forms of lossless compression). Lossy compression (mp3, m4a and wma) all start removing bits of data from the top of the stream (sorta like giving it a shave for layman's terms). Loss is permanent. This is why over-compressed music from production cranked back up to full volume to compensate is bad. You cannot recapture the emphasis of the music itself.
There are _two_ things we define behind compression: the dynamic range compression (that's the point discussed by the video), and file compression (the point you try to make). The second point is independent of the first.
LPs sounds better than recent CDs because you can't brickwall a LP master for physicals reasons (your stylus wouldn't follow and may hop on a neighbouring groove, and it would waste precious space). CD actually has more dynamic range, minus the cracks and pops, and allows for all kinds of heresies.
Actually, if you burnt a proper CD master (like they did in the 80's), on a pure sound standpoint, CD would sound better than LPs.
Then there's the question of music file compression. FLAC (and other lossless codecs) optimise the way the sounds samples are stored using clever features of mathematics, while strictly preserving the sample values (e.g. storing the difference between samples with a variable length coding even though there are even smarter ways).
Lossy codecs strip acoustic features, and I concurr on your point, even though there are settings on which even gold ears won't notice a difference (search transparency bitrate), e.g mp3@320kbps, vorbis@q8 (around 256kbps depending of styles) and opus@192kbps.
To all the people saying: "I like the loud one better", no you don't. You objectively don't. There are two reasons why you literally cannot prefer the loud version from a musical perspective:
1. Our ears prefer dynamic range because the breathing space between louder parts gives our ears a break from constant loud sounds. Hearing something at the same volume consistently is fatiguing to the ears. Unless you're some freak of evolution, then it's likely your ears are built the same way.
2. Emotional quality of music is directly linked to dynamic range. Seeing as the original purpose of music is for enjoyment through the emotional shifts we experience when listening to it, it isn't too hard to imagine why we enjoy the music less when one of the emotional aspects is diminished.
If you think you prefer the loud one, it's an illusion. What you're really hearing is an increase in overall volume, and this tricks almost everyone into thinking it sounds better. But you have complete control over the volume of what you're listening to, so it isn't necessary for the quality of music to be diminished just to gain some volume.
100 times this. Of course I'd like to add that people will also go with what is familiar to them. It's the same reason why people prefer the shit food they ate as a kid to high end versions (canned cranberry sauce versus fresh, etc...)
MrRuination these may be the two most intelligent comments I've ever seen on RUclips.
Unfortunately all volume knobs have a limit. Your not going to get the music as loud as possible without the loudness war.
I disagree.
The sudden spikes in volume in the original might make it objectively "better", but the one with the range reduced at 1:11 is easier to listen to. Sure, you might not get the same emotional impact, but that might not be what people are looking for.
The flipside of dynamic range having more emotional quality is that it also commands more attention. And if you're sitting at a desk working, then you might not _want_ to have your concentration be constantly broken by music with a very diverse volume range.
If you're putting on music for the sake of putting on music and you're, at that moment, committed to _just_ listening to music, then yes, dynamic range is what you want.
But for a lot of people, music is merely something pleasant to fill in the silence. And in that case, dynamic range is _way_ too demanding of attention.
Lol no offense but that's just not the way it works. Transients from recorded instruments will only be distracting if you have the music at a loud enough level to begin with, and that's no different than squashed music. You, as the listener, adjust the volume for your preferred listening experience, and a lack of transients won't change that. If you want music that's so consistent and soft in its volume level, then the answer is to listen to different music. Grab yourself a meditation/ambient music CD and take that to work. There's no reason for music of a naturally dynamic style to be diminished in quality so that some workers aren't "distracted".
I happened to have a chance to speak with Steven Wilson just over a week ago when he flew to Sydney on the Hand. Cannot. Erase tour. Having discovered his work through it being known exceptions to the loudness war. I felt an urge to ask him about why he decided to avoid it. He was apparently sick of sending albums out to external mastering studios. More explicitly he was pissed at having to pay $10,000 to have an album mastered, only for it to sound worse. After taking a well deserved shot at Metallica- He went into more detail: A few years ago, he took one of his albums to Abby Road for mastering and sat in on the mastering session. During the session, the mastering engineer started leaning over to the monitor on the far left. Steven got worried that something might be up with the mix and asked the engineer if there was anything wrong. The engineer replied "Sorry I'm losing my hearing."
Paul Graves that’s as absurd as letting a pilot that’s going blind continue to fly
@@danieldaniels7571
True story though! And it got a big laugh from the audience!
Actually, another memorable moment from that night was when he started talking how artists used to release albums on a yearly basis, and how the time between album releases is getting progressively longer. To illustrate this, he made a point that things are so bad that Tool hadn't released an album in 10 years :D
When you know what exactly you have to be listening for and have a lot of experience with all the standard techniques you can continue to work with a surprisingly bad hearing.
I'm sorry you feel that way. I sense that nothing I say will change your mind, so I wish you well as you go your way, and the rest of the professional audio community and I go ours.
Peace,
Matt
This is what, in part, killed rock music.
Yup. I got my first album by Garbage, the one from 2016 called "Strange Little Birds" I played half of the album once and I never touched it again. It was a huge wall of ugly sound. Shame because some of those tracks were good.
Rock never died -_-
@@randomboys1000 Name a rock band less than 20 years old that's popular. Chances are, you can't (or it's a hybrid rock/synth/pop/rap type band). Rock is still just as popular today is it was way back when. Only problem is, now with such a plethora of content out there, many people just settle on the classics and don't give new bands a chance.
Go to any college, and they're listening to Queen, Led Zeppelin, and The Beatles. Crazy.
@@TheDylandProductions Every single Nu Metal band was putting stuff out after 2001 that was good. Fuck you, that's rock, rock was always a little funky and political, and in your face. You can pull stuff up from the 1940s that was funky, angry, and political.
Most of the Alternate Rock golden hits were after 2001.
Most of Green Day, was after 2001.
After 2010, you're kinda right.
@@Seth9809 Firstly, calm down. I was just making an observation based on my own experience.
I agree that there's been a lot of great stuff in the 2000s, but that's when Rock was on the decline. Sure, Green Day is popular, but they're no Foo Fighters, or Coldplay, or Taylor Swift, or Pink Floyd, or The Beatles, or Beethoven etc. Rock bands and musicians used to be the pinnacle of pop culture and popularity e.g. Elvis Presley. Even in the 1980s and 1990s you had international sensations like Guns n Roses, Metallica, and Nirvana.
Not so much any more. Again, not saying there hasn't been good rock music post 2001, because there has. I'm saying that 99% of popular post-2001 rock music has been from a band formed earlier. There aren't many, if any, bands FORMED in the 2000s or 2010s that have achieved that level of mainstream success that aren't hybrid rap, country, or pop musicians.
Good day.
I think that everybody who cares about audio quality, whether it be audiophiles or just plain music lovers should start a huge campaign/petition to set an industry standard to make music between certain points of loudness.
I'm not sure how to explain what I mean because I'm not a producer, nor do I know many of the technical terms in mastering... but we do need an industry standard to ending the loudness war once and for all.
Death magnetic....
Look for the Guitar hero III Rip or moderus remaster, they're much better than the original.
I prefer dishing the album than risking to lose my hearing permanently, Hardwired is also a bit over-compressed.
Such a terrible loss...
2015 remaster (Itunes version)
I'm glad this video was made, and that it was made over 10 years ago. The loudness war is really killing the quality of modern records. I don't even know the reason for labels and producers to do it, it literally ruins the final product.
The dynamic range is fundamental towards audio fidelity and quality, making everything consistently loud is stupid.
Sometimes CDs that were made long ago get their master volumes raised in future re-issues, but always in a controlled and proportioned way. While CDs made nowadays are already recorded and mastered with excessively high gain levels and I don't know the reason.
The volume shouldn't be too low because it would be very difficult to hear obviously but shouldn't be too loud either because not only it's disturbing to the ears but also, that means that they have to compress and cut frequencies out in order to make everything super loud therefore everything becomes flat.
Basically, the recording level should remain the same in the final master, without raising the volumes like that, because that results in a loss of details and clarity and makes everything sound disturbingly loud and flat.
The solution to this is to listen to amazingly produced records such as "Thriller" where the recording process, the mixing, the equalization and mastering are done properly.
So this is why I feel like me ears are gonna bleed after a few songs new albums.
This song is going to be re-released this year, and I don't want to know how it'd sound like.
White noise.
What did it sound like?
Very good simple and short explanation of OVER compression. Thanks for this easy to understand video. I will be showing it ALL of my hip-hop, and rock clients to illustrate why a very loud end product actually sucks.
People with poor hearing might prefer loud, but it just sounds like a ton of detail was taken out to me.
I still share this video to my friends when I'm complaining about the flat sound of our studio recordings. Somehow it seems what used to be a measure to get noticed on the radio, has become an industry standard that's taught to new music producers as a default. I'm a metal-head myself, but rarely do I experience records from well renowned bands that has any sort of dynamic in the sound. It's just flat. A crash - equal to the rest of the band, doesn't even mark what the crash is there for..
First time i realize why older music from 70's and 80's sound so much better! Its all about dynamic range. And that altough i listen to music mostly in my car. (upgraded sound system)
Thanks for bringing this to light in a simple-to-understand manner. It is an issue with which many of us in the audio production field find quite troublesome.
Thanks for all your comments. The general term for this is "dynamic range compression" and actually it has nothing to do with MP3 or AAC data compression. It is not done much on classical music, because the dynamics are so much more vital and noticeable, but it is creeping into jazz.
13 years ago damn .... and I’m the first reply!
This is a really good presentation of loudness war. Unfortunately sometimes it is very hard to explain the problem. People do not know why it is boring and wearing to listen "modern remastered" music. This is the answer!
Loudness War still going as of mid-2021, but now the tides are little bit turning
It's encouraging for you to say that, but what makes you believe that the tides are turning, however incrementally?
*2 factors:*
Streaming platforms ⬆️
Physical release ⬇️
Still the best and far the shortest example on the whole net. Thank you!
Interesting. So this is how every song gets remastered all along.
How is this 17 years old, and even more relevant now than 17 years ago?
Streaming services have made releasing new music more accessible than ever - including for noobs ;)
Thank you for your comment but you are talking about clipping, which is something different. I am talking about dynamic range compression.
Very good question. This is because almost every mobile device's built-in speakers incude extreme dynamic range compression. So on most phones and tablets, the two examples sound nearly identical - defeating the whole purpose of the video.
To any metal fans the album Thresholds by Nocturnus is a fantastic album that managed to escape the loudness war.
***** Ahh makes sense, its kinda sad too because 1997 was an awesome year for music, not just metal but rap and other genres too.
***** I still cherish my combat records pressing of spiritual healing by Death.
***** Vallue Village/Savers, about a year ago :P
***** Got it for $2.99, I know i know I should die in a fire.
***** they have all genres. There's just a social stigma about going to thrift stores. Also I live in Canada so the prices in the States should be cheaper.
I mean with clipping and careful volume automation you can definetky achieve a loud but dynamic song. You dont specifically need to make the quieter parts louder, you can shave stuff off without losing quality with hard and soft clipping.
Trentemoller's Flamingo remix comes to mind. When you play it on a system, you do have to turn it up. But when you do, and you match the "loudness" of the other tracks, it's crisp and alive. The little subtleties in the bass pop out, yet the percussion never loses it's shine. It is one of my reference tracks.
Thanks for the comment. There's a public radio station here in town (St. Paul, MN) that plays modern music. I got to take a tour of the station and the engineer I talked to said that of course they compress, phase rotate, and all that, but quite not as much as the commercial stations. I'm glad for that!
Unfortunately, most listeners have become accustomed to the loudness, and anything that isn't almost clipping will sound flat to them.
Latest Disturbed single is so disgustingly guilty of this it's not even funny...
And this vid was before Death Magnetic. Damn this is old.
Thanks for explaining it. I've been saying for years how recent music all sounds the same.
Maybe this is why I struggle listening to more modern music.....
There is no streaming platform that allows us old guys to listen to good old music. All is remastered and if you are young you cannot understand how cheap and bad the remastered music is ... Too bad those streaming platform do not propose both original and remastered. The real problem is that remastering is a destructive process. Dynamic range of the music is definitively lost.
By chance I have a copy of the albums I want to listen to.
In fact I've arrived here just because searching what was this stupid 'remastered' word seen on every 80's music I was listening to. And I thought my ears had lost quality because of the age which is probably true. But the reality is that this is the remastering that altered my music. What a strange world !
I cant believe ive never heard of this before! I dont have alot of cds but from the ones i do i have it becomes clear how this loudness war has taken a toll on the quality.
This video succinctly explains the problem with a great demo. Highly recommended.
This video is so true. Today's rap especially trap music is extremely loud compare to older rap from the 80s/90s rap. Sometimes i have to turn up the volume higher if I listen to old music. New music not so much.
Loud is not enough, but tell this to AC-broadcasters who even squeeze tender jazz tracks or classical music into literally zero dB dynamics and MPX power of continous +3dBr...
I heard about this a while ago & must confess that I haven't always understood, nor have I been annoyed to any large degree. But as time goes on, I've begun to feel it's impact more clearly, I think. As it's often been described, the loudness can sound good at first.. everything right there, clear & detailed. But at the very same time, there might be a subtle or not so subtle wearing effect.
I stumbled across this video as I was reading an article about dynamic compression on the new Dylan CDs. This video in turn prompted me to really explore this whole compression thing as just today I discussed with a friend of mine taking a shot at doing some amateur mastering for work we're doing.
I really just wanted to express my thanks because I know that what I'll be doing in the future with regards to mastering will be better because of this video and how it was a catalyst for learning.
I am beginning to understand what I merely thought I'd already understood.
This is the reason why CDs never got 'better' than vinyl (even though they are). Nothing like the track itself clipping during the production process
But even today's vinyls have the same production as CD's. They just clip the master tape down. Quieter doesn't always mean better quality, and it's just proven in the video.
@@randomeststranger Heh, don't say that to a vinyl enthusiast.
How disappointing to know that I will experience less range for the rest of my lifetime. I believe this explains a lot. Music these days tends to all sound exactly the same from start to finish. It's strong and loud... but being in your face isn't everything.
I think they take "smash hit" too literally
Douglas Holmquist moment
loudness started because stupid top 40's radio stations would "audition" a bunch of records at a time - finding out which ones to air, you see - and they seemed to be picking the songs which sounded the loudest. This is because they would sit behind a desk all day, listening to song after song after song and when one is suddenly WAY louder, you notice it WAY more and it picks you up. This has nothing to do with the music, it is sheer volume and how we as human beings perceive sounds. A car alarm. A fire alarm. We are startled and surprised by loud noises.
In other words, loudness started because of ignorant, stupid people.
+duviday I wonder if it wasn't the opposite - that quiet songs were rejected instead of louder songs being favored. Or both...
I think that the loudness war was started by record pluggers wanting their song to have more impact than the previous one.
Pressing X to doubt
Yeah, the issue is that radio stations have incredibly distorted music over the radio waves and also, they have a limited acceptable volume because they don't want people driving their cars to crash them.
Basically, I don't believe you, because any song that sounds "louder" wouldn't sound any louder over the radio and FM radio fucks up the range of anything played over it.
I have the cassette of this audio (Flowers in the Dirt - Paul McCartney). Amazing fidelity. Sounds better than my CDs.
just blew my mind thank you
Thank you for the comment! Yes, it all depends on context. I would prefer if people compressed the proper amount to serve the song, and didn't compromise sound for loudness, or for more dynamic range if it didn't suit the song. (And, if they would err on the side of too little compression, but start putting limiters in playback systems so people can compress it more if they want!)
People buy music that's this loud because there aren't many other options. The vast, vast majority of music released today is mastered like this.
Wide range results in an immersive 3D experience, while narrow range results in cardboard.
How awesome would be if famous records release two versions, the mastered and the raw one.i would always go for the raw one
Yup, I would really like to see that someday too.
Music must breathe. If 90% of today's music was mixed properly and not over saturated like a TV commercial, there would be nothing to listen to, simply because there is no content.
Compression in mastering makes even the smelliest shit sparkle.
*****
Get with the times? Oh grasshopper, of how little your pea has absorbed.
Is it bad that I kind of like both methods? I mean it really is a great thing when you get a quality pair of headphones and are able to easily pick out individual instruments, not to mention the peace of mind that comes with crystal clear clarity.
On the other hand 'loudness' has a way of getting your blood pumping. Playing games like Killer Instinct, Daytona USA, and NBA Jam in arcades as a kid were exciting for me in part because of the audio experience. Even to this day when my friends and I joke about what we'd do if we somehow won the Mega Millions lottery I describe how I would have a soundproof room with my favorite arcade games running full blast. Soundproof mainly because I wouldn't want to go through the pain of starting them up every time I wanted to play but I also wouldn't want to hear them while I was sleeping. Plus I'm a mega millions winner I can afford the power bill dammit.
Ironically I recently learned that because of the limited storage capacities that came with many arcade machines that it wasn't uncommon for home versions of these games to have better sound quality. Especially when Playstation and Sega Saturn came along and provided developers with disc based storage, which has a much higher storage capacity then the Roms used in arcades and cartridges.
Come to think of it I also had a fondness for Mortal Kombat Annhilation (horrible movie) after I saw it originally in theaters because the sound was so loud, especially during the intro with the theme song. Ironically when I saw it a couple of weeks later in a less advanced theater the experience seemed hollowed because the sound felt so quiet by comparison.
.....starting to think I'm part of the problem.
You don't need loudness brickwalling to, y'know, turn up the volume on your speakers.
love when youtube recommends to me after 17 years
F***, you nailed this. I just learned something new about why I like certain music and not other music, and even certain performances of songs and not others.
Just used this in a class on audio. So very well explained. Thank you!!
The new Foo Fighters EP is a shocker for this, very noticeable on Neverending Sigh.
even the vinyl doesn't really improve it, must be a quiter (but not more dynamic) transfer of the loud digital master
the microphone quality is out of the world
in 2020
Most awesome. I've often commented about the loudness war and how destructive it is, and this video shows it very clearly and succinctly.
Figure of eight . Paul McCartney. CD: Flowers in the dirt. 1989 lol
What I don't understand is how does this loudness war help sell music? I don't get it.
Yea I don't get that. You already have to adjust the volume to the level you want to begin with. Either way you're going to listen to it at whatever volume you want. Something is severely lost on me here lol.
Warndog Its for people that turn up there speakers all the way regardless.
people perceive loud as better. and it started back in the day with louder tracks getting more requests on jukeboxes something like that. but in all honesty its not as simple as just turning the track up, you can can still make it loud and have dynamics if it is mastered/compressed at a good level.
***** imo it's not poor if that's the results you wanted.
yeah i understand, its art for a reason. it's all subjective.
Difference between "instant" maximum peak level, and slower average level. More explanation: search Google for "peak vs average level".
Right on. Spread the word! When songs are limited (compressed) so much these days, it is really the expression, that gets limited.
I've noticed this with an album I bought a couple years ago Michael Jackson Dangerous, it was a remastered version and some songs were so distorted in parts I thought I don't remember this being distorted back when I bought the original and I was right I tracked down the original first release and sounds completely different sounds a lot softer so I put the songs into adobe audition and the remastered was off the scale for volume and the original was considerably well with in the limits in fact no where near, the only thing I do like about the remastered version is the bass line, which sounds completely different in both versions of the disc, remastered version does wonders for my subwoofer where the original doesn't bring it to life as much even with volume up loud.
THe magic is gone. The whole aura the ambience and the reflex and tightness of the speaker as it makes way for the quietness so the sound before it can prepare for the whispers to be heard in between is all gone. Buying good speakers makes no difference when all your music is being blared in one monotone which is like a siren. There must be a way to but quality. Because this is a good demonstation so how can you purchase quality. There should be an alternative to be able to purchase quality misc and keep it.
If you want to, i will sell 2 versions of my upcoming album: Mastered for Loudness and Mastered for Dynamics. Good idea?
@@KOSMIKFEADRECORDS I say ditch the first version.
Woo! Matt, you rock! *applauds*
You did a great job of clarifying it and putting it in really simple terms so that someone who doesn't have the background in this sort of thing knows what you're talking about. And made an excellent and persuasive point in the process. Well done!
Thanks for your comment.
I have heard that too, though if I recall, it's possible to press an LP that is as dynamic-compressed as a modern CD mix --- just not nearly as loud. McCartney's 2005 LP was disappointingly no more dynamic than the squashed CD, but no louder than old LPs.
It's always tricky to tell what exactly is different when there are a lot of variables - and sometimes, like when trying to figure out if it's the same master or not, we don't even know what all the variables are!
One should be put in jail for doing this! They ought to be sued!
Lars-Olof Ström irk
This explainit so well
It's like night and day there's a lot more feel and power going into the music when it isn't compressed its strong and powerful feels better to listen to
I have produced two albums avoiding any kind of compression, and even mastering! The whole tracks are freely listenable via Spotify, check these if you wish:
Zaum - Plus de viande dans les saucisses
Sistra - Bearing
I actually use Winamp and a digital sound processor called "Stereo Tool" to accomplish exactly what I want. It does the "loudness" on the fly for me and works with any type of media it can play including videos.
In a direct comparision, louder is perceived as "sounding better".
On the radio songs compete against each other. Many people will perceive song A sounds better, because it's 3 dB louder than song B - even if it's a different track.
On an album this doesn't apply, because usually ONE sound engineer takes care the different are in harmony. But one of these tracks on a sampler ... loses the "sampler loudness war" :-/
Who masters the same song 10 times for 10 different releases? It costs money.
If you were to hear it back-to-back, level matched, the difference would be unmistakable.
the right way to make a song louder is to normalize it up to about 98%, that way you wont loose the dynamics. it makes everything louder as much as possible, thus reducing noise coming from your equipment. Normalizing wont do anything if certain parts are already at 98%. A song like in the example which is already normalized obviously can't and shouldnt be tampered with.
{Insert Death Magnetic joke right here}
So this is the reason why modern music does not feel right. Nothing hits the soul.
Ugh fuck off
@@randomboys1000 fuk off.
It still can, even if it's loud
I think a huge part is that so many people don't understand subtlety anymore.
All music is done bombastic, imagery has to be huge and swooping all the time, specially effects don't try to accentuate they are there to overshadow and so on.
They just don't understand how some things have to have a supporting function instead of being the spotlight, like here the more silent portions carrying the loud ones.
this is one of the greatest videos to show to clients who put pressure on having loudest mixes possible
its sucks big time when your track comes on after a super loud song and sounds all wimpy and quiet. it leaves you with no choice but to find a balance somewhere.
Nowadays most services use some kind of volume equalizing, eliminating this unfair advantage.
Every radio station ever had software that made all the super loud songs quieter, so people don't crash their cars.
Forget sound maximizing. The new EBU R128 sound standar is comming down hard on the loudness war!
As a student audio engineer I have had to explain this to friends countless times. This video makes it incredibly easy to do so. Thanks very much.
Loudness=compression=dead music=fatigue
i think that's why michael jackson's last album, "invincible", failed -- loud and dynamically flat... it was almost unlistenable
no
i think that's because of sony's mistreatment to mj
Poor marketing did that, not the mastering. And the music was kind of ahead of it's time, to be fair. The heavy 808 drums and pop synths didn't really take off until the mid 2000s when EDM started creeping into pop music. If Invincible had been released 5 years later, with proper marketing, it would have been his next Thriller. If you take mastering out of the equation, it's a fantastic album.
you are indeed true my fellow mj fan
I wish I could get my hands on a copy of "Nevermind" from 1991. I really do hear every single difference, but I don't mind it too much to the point where I would buy a vinyl just to hear it. I play guitar so, treble doesn't really bother me, which to me it seems like this is lacking.
I know this is an old comment, but you can buy a CD copy of the original 1991 version of Nevermind on Amazon.