The Loudness War

[soulster]

https://youtu.be/w9xXzTjBt5c

[Sotosound]

Many thanks for posting this.

Sadly, it might take a generation or two to set things straight, just as is probably the case with literacy in the UK, wherein spelling, punctuation and pronunciation all went out of the window for several decades, and wherein some of the subtleties of language went with them.

In the UK we now have a situation where there are efforts to correct this, but there are probably two generations of adults wherein many, many people simply can't pronounce "th" and instead come out with "f", and where "was" is used instead of "were".

Can you imagine Barbra or Gladys singing "The Way We Was", or Len Barry singing "1-2-free"?

Given what's happened with language, It might take a looong time, therefore, to get dynamic range and subtlety back into mainstream pop music .

I'm depressed, now!

[soulster]

What's more depressing is the lack of interest in the issue among the forum membership. Apparently, they don't care how their music sounds.

[robb_k]

9284
The songs of the day reflect the language used by the average person, as those are the people singing [[at least, before they start making big money), and those are the target market. What else would we expect, given that the billionaires all over The World, favour, support, and, indeed, foster, the destruction of adequate public education, and the continuing descent into sloth and laziness of the masses?

Those selfish, stingy power mongers want a giant, uneducated, and, thus, ignorant underclass, to do their bidding, working for almost no gain, so they [[the billionaires) can reap most of the rewards from all their cheap labour. In other words, the average person these days, is not only an imbecile, but an uneducated, ignorant one, who is even too lazy to rise up against his or her oppressors [[or to sing songs using proper grammar ;)).

[arr&bee]

Soulster,what is this about?are we talking about remakes of classic songs or just today's music in general.

[ralpht]

I think he means today's music, arr&bee.

I found the video interesting and so accurate. I remember as a very young musician in a band, being informed by a group of older, experienced musicians telling us the importance of "dynamics", the ebb and flow of volume, in our performances. I think I was about 12 when I learned that, but it made a lasting impression on my approach to making music, playing or studio.

[arr&bee]

Ok,i remember being in the studio telling the band to tone it down because the vocalist were straining thier voices,today's music seems to be all about loudness.

[Philles/Motown Gary]

Many thanks for posting this.

Sadly, it might take a generation or two to set things straight, just as is probably the case with literacy in the UK, wherein spelling, punctuation and pronunciation all went out of the window for several decades, and wherein some of the subtleties of language went with them.

In the UK we now have a situation where there are efforts to correct this, but there are probably two generations of adults wherein many, many people simply can't pronounce "th" and instead come out with "f", and where "was" is used instead of "were".

Can you imagine Barbra or Gladys singing "The Way We Was", or Len Barry singing "1-2-free"?

Given what's happened with language, It might take a looong time, therefore, to get dynamic range and subtlety back into mainstream pop music .

I'm depressed, now!

Sotosound, I hear ya. It's the same here in the U.S. Back in school [[I graduated in 1969), I was really good at only two things – Band [[drums), and English grammar. Now, it’s like everything I learned and excelled at in English class has gone down the drain. I recently heard that the incorrect "conversate" [[incessantly and inadvertently used for the word "converse") has been misused so much, it is now an accepted word in the DICTIONARY! Majority ignorance has now taken over grammatical correctness. Makes ya wonder what’s next?

[alanh]

Loved the bit about 'ear fatigue'. That's what gets me with 'loud' productions and it means that I can't listen to the music for very long without wanting to turn it off. The music itself also tends to sound distorted because it's overloud, losing the natural original sound of the instruments [[and voice). If I ever come across music mastered at the right level, allowing the music to 'breathe', it's so refreshing!

[ralpht]

I got some of my best mixes by very low level speakers. I learned this one from Russ. He told me if you can feel the energy in the mix when played at low level, it will hold up at much higher db's and give you the better balanced loud sound.

[soulster]

Soulster,what is this about?are we talking about remakes of classic songs or just today's music in general.

I mean about the AUDIO quality, the QUALITY of the sound that was mastered from the mixes, and the sound comes out of your stereo.

I'm talking about ALL music, today's music, and the reissues of the old music. It makes no difference.


I think he means today's music, arr&bee.


No! All music. Think of the hyped-up bass, and the near-distortion on those bbr soul reissues.


I found the video interesting and so accurate. I remember as a very young musician in a band, being informed by a group of older, experienced musicians telling us the importance of "dynamics", the ebb and flow of volume, in our performances. I think I was about 12 when I learned that, but it made a lasting impression on my approach to making music, playing or studio.

I'm talking about retaining the dynamics of the final mixes during the mastering phase.

[soulster]

Loved the bit about 'ear fatigue'. That's what gets me with 'loud' productions and it means that I can't listen to the music for very long without wanting to turn it off. The music itself also tends to sound distorted because it's overloud, losing the natural original sound of the instruments [[and voice). If I ever come across music mastered at the right level, allowing the music to 'breathe', it's so refreshing!

Yes! Yes! You get the whole point of it! Finally!


I got some of my best mixes by very low level speakers. I learned this one from Russ. He told me if you can feel the energy in the mix when played at low level, it will hold up at much higher db's and give you the better balanced loud sound.

Exactly! But, what these people are doing today is taking those nice mixes, say one your brother did back in the day, and an applying tons of compression, limiting, and EQ to the entire mix to make it louder. It the process, the dynamics are squashed, and it causes that ear fatigue alanh was talking about.

Thank God some people around here get it!

[ralpht]

I think I mentioned in the past how Russ used an old speaker from the car radio of an Oldsmobile, mounted on the console. This was during the 45rpm mono records era. He would make a mix sound good by going through that small speaker. When it sounded good on that, he had something.

[soulster]

I think I mentioned in the past how Russ used an old speaker from the car radio of an Oldsmobile, mounted on the console. This was during the 45rpm mono records era. He would make a mix sound good by going through that small speaker. When it sounded good on that, he had something.Eh, I guess you're focused on the mixing aspect. I'm talking about mastering, after the tapes leave the mixer's hands, a whole 'nother part of it.

[Sotosound]

Eh, I guess you're focused on the mixing aspect. I'm talking about mastering, after the tapes leave the mixer's hands, a whole 'nother part of it.

Cutting a single back in the 60s and early 70s was quite a challenge since it had to have dynamics but it also had to survive AM radio, which was compressed and limited in every sense.

There's a fabulous track called "Lady Eleanor" from the early 70s by a UK band called Lindisfarne which opens with a quiet acoustic guitar-led intro and then slowly builds up through the verse to a full-on chorus; and this cycle is repeated three times during the single prior to a final a quiet finish.

In the mid-80s, Porky [[yes, THE Porky) cut a single of a track for myself and fellow [[main) producer, Ken Gibson, for the purpose of pressing white label copies for initial promotion; and it was Porky who cut the "Lady Eleanor" single.

Whilst mastering our track, Porky talked about how difficult it had been to get the feel of dynamic range of "Lady Eleanor" down on 7" vinyl whilst also not making either the quiet passages too quiet or the loud passages too loud for the format. Then, after he'd got it right and it got pressed and released, he heard it on AM radio, and all his wonderful crescendos and diminuendos got squashed down to a uniform level, which broke his creative heart.

So, I can understand the car radio speaker, and I can imagine that Russ might have compressed the mix during playback to see whether or not it would survive the AM radio loudness wars.

[soulster]

Cutting a single back in the 60s and early 70s was quite a challenge since it had to have dynamics but it also had to survive AM radio, which was compressed and limited in every sense.

There's a fabulous track called "Lady Eleanor" from the early 70s by a UK band called Lindisfarne which opens with a quiet acoustic guitar-led intro and then slowly builds up through the verse to a full-on chorus; and this cycle is repeated three times during the single prior to a final a quiet finish.

In the mid-80s, Porky [[yes, THE Porky) cut a single of a track for myself and fellow [[main) producer, Ken Gibson, for the purpose of pressing white label copies for initial promotion; and it was Porky who cut the "Lady Eleanor" single.

Whilst mastering our track, Porky talked about how difficult it had been to get the feel of dynamic range of "Lady Eleanor" down on 7" vinyl whilst also not making either the quiet passages too quiet or the loud passages too loud for the format. Then, after he'd got it right and it got pressed and released, he heard it on AM radio, and all his wonderful crescendos and diminuendos got squashed down to a uniform level, which broke his creative heart.

So, I can understand the car radio speaker, and I can imagine that Russ might have compressed the mix during playback to see whether or not it would survive the AM radio loudness wars.

I know about how records were/are mixed, and I see the subtle attempt to change the topic.

I am specifically talking about the mastering, not mixing. It is the mastering that affects the way the final product that you hear and buy will sound. When something is mixed, it is not finished. The mix is not the final word. When you hear your CD or download, what they mixed isn't necessarily what they heard when they mixed it.

Now, you mentioned radio. All radio stations have set compressors. So, anything you put through it is going to get squashed. And, if you put in a modern squashed CD or worse, an mp3, it's going to sound even worse on the radio. Their compressor will not see that the original source was already squashed, and further squish it, bringing down the overall volume with it.

[ralpht]

That's too bad. The original intent of mastering was to slightly beef up the mix, if needed at all. If the mix was good the only thing done would be to cut it at hot as possible. But done correctly will not distort.

[soulster]

That's too bad. The original intent of mastering was to slightly beef up the mix, if needed at all. If the mix was good the only thing done would be to cut it at hot as possible. But done correctly will not distort.

Right, but it doesn't need to be compressed in mastering.

I guess it's true that mastering is a mystery to many people. The concept of tweaking and massaging the sound is lost on people, even recording/mixing engineers. It's not about, or shouldn't be about making everything louder for the sake of making it louder. because, when you do that, you must trade something, and that is dynamics.

Making everyone aware of, and ending the practice of compressing the life out of the music is what this is all about.

[ralpht]

You're preaching to the choir, Soul.

[soulster]

You're preaching to the choir, Soul. Well, when I read on this forum that people don't know what i'm talking about, or that they are happy with certain CDs from companies that are known to compress the life out of the music, i'm obviously not.

[ralpht]

I was referring to me, Soul. But you should understand, most people, no matter how much they may be into a particular style of music, have no idea what compression is or what it does. They're just buying the music as dished, which in itself is a damn shame.

[Jerry Oz]

I have always had a difficult time registering high frequencies. I've been on the fence about getting hearing aids since I was seven years old. Consequently, my ears are really sensitive to certain sounds, usually women's voices in everyday life, but horns, synths, pads, and guitars on records. If they are just right, I'm fine. But there has been a lot of music in the past decade or so that just irritates the heck out of me and this thread provides a reason for it.

The one album that I love AND hate is Michael Jackson's HIStory. For some reason, it is twice as loud as any CD that I own and even the classic disc in the set is difficult to listen to. I assumed it was my hearing that got worse between the mid-80s to 1995 [[It's been that long since that record came out!!!). This thread has given me pause to consider that it was more likely the remastering of the the tracks that irritated me than it was my degraded hearing.

[ralpht]

A good example of a properly compressed album was the Beatles "Abbey Road" It was perfect. Russ ran the music through some sort of processor to prove what he was thinking. The VU meter reached a certain level and then barely moved. It was steady but the music flowed as it should. That is proper compression.

[soulster]

I was referring to me, Soul. But you should understand, most people, no matter how much they may be into a particular style of music, have no idea what compression is or what it does. They're just buying the music as dished, which in itself is a damn shame.

Oh! I know. But, things can't change for the better if people aren't aware.

[Jerry Oz]

You may as well face it by realizing that people are much less interested in the subtleties of music than they used to be. That's why Top 40 exemplifies this topic. And since the people moving into sound engineering are influenced by what they're hearing in their youth, it's likely that the little bit of nuance that still exists will be gone forever in the next decade.

I'm going to dig out some Lenny Kravitz records tonight because I know he is a throwback to the '70s with his music. I'm wondering if his songs are mastered with heavy compression.

[soulster]

You may as well face it by realizing that people are much less interested in the subtleties of music than they used to be.

I already know that! But, we not going to let that stop us from spreading the message, and by us, I mean a whole lot of industry pros, like Bob Ludwig and Bob Katz. And, why is it that people are less interested? Is it because music has been so squashed that they no longer care? It no longer draws you in like it once did?



I'm going to dig out some Lenny Kravitz records tonight because I know he is a throwback to the '70s with his music. I'm wondering if his songs are mastered with heavy compression.

Oh yeah! At least since about 2003. His last two albums were slightly better, but not by much. Do you know how to identify the effects of compression?

[Jerry Oz]

I watched a few other follow up videos on YouTube after watching the one you provided and they were pretty informative. I open up a few songs in a sound editor to confirm if I have to.

I don't understand why remastered records from the '80s and before would need it since those who are likely to buy the collections like the songs as originally produced. It's unnecessary from a financial or artistic standpoint. I guess they think 90% of listeners use ear buds.

[soulster]

I don't understand why remastered records from the '80s and before would need it since those who are likely to buy the collections like the songs as originally produced. It's unnecessary from a financial or artistic standpoint. I guess they think 90% of listeners use ear buds.

Thank you! The reissue producers think they are trying to bring the music to a younger audience, but that's bullshit! The younger generation does not pick music on the basis of whether it is loud or not. Hell, they don't even buy music as much as the older audience does. All the producers/engineers/labels have to do is gradually lower the levels down over two or three years until we are back to where we were in the 90s. That way, no one will notice. And, if they think they are doing because of radio programmers, that's a crock too. First, radio is not impressed by how much louder a song is, and, second, radio gets promos that are not compressed [[!).

[Jerry Oz]

But the producers still get paid. Unless there's a monetary reason to stop, they'll look at it from an 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' perspective. You may have noticed that there were no counter arguments on YouTube, explaining why this became industry norm. I assure you that whenever something shifts like this, there's a financial reason behind the shift. Fig deep and you'll find that listeners are being manipulated psychologically. It's like musical MSG, where they are beefing up the flavor without adding to the substance or nutrional value of the food.

[Jerry Oz]

But the producers still get paid. Unless there's a monetary reason to stop, they'll look at it from an 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' perspective. You may have noticed that there were no counter arguments on YouTube, explaining why this became industry norm. I assure you that whenever something shifts like this, there's a financial reason behind the shift. Fig deep and you'll find that listeners are being manipulated psychologically. It's like musical MSG, where they are beefing up the flavor without adding to the substance or nutrional value of the food.

It's not about whether the music sounds good, soulster. It's about whether they can produce songs on an assembly line without having to pay craftsmen for their experience.

[bradburger]

For those Motown fans here, a good way to hear how the loudness war has crept in on these reissues, is to take a listen to those early to mid 90s' Motown Master Series Box Sets and individual CDs [['Hitsville USA', 'Emperors of Soul, Motown Year By Year etc.)

Now go and play the late 90s' till present reissue titles, such as the 'Ultimate Collection' series, and 'The Complete Motown Singles' sets, and see how much louder [[and sometimes different) the same mixes can sound due to the kind of compression/limiting applied.

I know it was claimed that the 'Ultimate Collection' & TCMS sets where mastered to make them sound more like the actual 45s as opposed to the master tapes, but opinion seems divided over them.

I've read comments from people who have said they prefer the sound of the 'Ultimate Collection' and TCMS sets over the same songs found on the 'Hitsville USA' box, whilst others have described the former as 'ear bleeders'!

Cheers

Paul