Tom Petty: A loudness war white flag

[Silver Sonya]

Or maybe a flag of defiance?...

Check it out, y'all. Public awareness of this madness is rising.

Notice that he's making two versions available. The one with the hyper-limiting and the one with the more naturalistic dynamic contour.

I'm so psyched.

Five years ago, while speaking on the mastering panel at Tape Op Con, I predicted that this would happen: The re-issue of classic records with the loudness war limiting removed.

I said "Just you wait, the new versions will have a sticker on them which says 'Now with full dynamic range!'" Everybody laughed. And then I said "I'm completely serious."

People kept laughing.

(I was wrong about the sticker part. 'Cause, really, why have stickers when there really aren't record stores anymore?...)

For the last few years, I have been making and archiving less limited versions of the records we've been mastering at Silver Sonya, predicting that someday the labels would start asking for them. It no longer seems like a crazy idea...

- c

[KingDaddyO]

That's totally cool and hopefully, something that will catch on and develop a customer base. Damn - guess I'll have to budget for and start buying new releases again!

[bcgood]

That's really cool to see them step to the plate like that. I hope that they influence others. Thanks for the link to the article, that just slightly brightened my day.

[Greg Reierson]

Originally Posted by Silver Sonya

For the last few years, I have been making and archiving less limited versions of the records we've been mastering at Silver Sonya, predicting that someday the labels would start asking for them. It no longer seems like a crazy idea...

- c

SOP for years here. More a consequence of my work flow than forward thinking... An EQ'ed and "musically" compressed mastered version is always captured prior to final loudness processing. Handy for LP masters too.


GR

[Cellotron]

Originally Posted by Greg Reierson

SOP for years here. More a consequence of my work flow than forward thinking... An EQ'ed and "musically" compressed mastered version is always captured prior to final loudness processing. Handy for LP masters too.

Yeah - I'm the same in that I do all final limiting in-the-box - nearly always after capture from my analog process chain - and that my session archives include both the 16bit final limited master and 24bit files prior to final limiting.

The one case where this might not help that much though is where I've clipped the inputs of my ADC in order to help achieve client requests for a very high average level. The other case where this might not help for future releases is that archives that I maintain are for my convenience only and I don't plan on preserving a digital archive into the future just on the possibility that a label might want to do a reissue. I always give my clients options of getting copies of my session files though.

Anyway - excellent to see that Mr. Petty has chosen to go this rout - and hopefully many more artists will choose to make their music available in the same way.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[Silver Sonya]

Originally Posted by Cellotron

The other case where this might not help for future releases is that archives that I maintain are for my convenience only and I don't plan on preserving a digital archive into the future just on the possibility that a label might want to do a reissue.

If admit that when we're working on records that are clearly classic (i.e. reissues), we tend to be more conscientious/vigilant about chain-of-custody and archiving. Then there are those rare records that sound so great that we encourage the client to be careful and mindful of storing high-resolution (less limiting, 24-bit/88.2kHz) files for possible future use (particularly in the film world). These records are truly rare, though.

I'm intrigued by this Tom Petty thing, though. It might be an anomaly or it might be leading to The New Way. It might allow a new mindset in the mastering studio: (1) the commercial version and (2) the "true" version, mastered for art and historical preservation, without the pollution of a loudness agenda.

I could see this becoming popular in the independent world more than the major label world.

It makes sense that this less-limited CD comes with the vinyl because it presumes that the type of person who buys vinyl actually cares about music...

Demographically speaking, that's probably a fair assumption.

- c

[MAzevedo]

It's a bit of a drag that you can only get the dynamic version as a pack-in with the LP. What will really be great is when you go to the iTunes or Amazon store and can pick between 'loud' and 'dynamic' versions of things.

[finetuner]

Originally Posted by Silver Sonya

.. It might allow a new mindset in the mastering studio: (1) the commercial version and (2) the "true" version, mastered for art and historical preservation, without the pollution of a loudness agenda...

Not that new. Didn't we use to make louder single versions at some point ?
Things went wrong when we were asked/tempted to treat albums the same way.
It just had to be driven to a point so ridiculous, that more people would become aware.

Originally Posted by MAzevedo

It's a bit of a drag that you can only get the dynamic version as a pack-in with the LP. What will really be great is when you go to the iTunes or Amazon store and can pick between 'loud' and 'dynamic' versions of things.

One step at a time...

Anyway, Way to go mr. Petty !

Peter van't Riet
FineTune Mastering

[lucey]

It's interesting to me that Petty saw the problem and responded intelligently while U2, Bowie and so many established others have just piled on. Perhaps goes to confidence.

[MrHope]

This is a good sign. I'm hoping that were inching towards 24 bit (or higher) audio distribution formats too. I noticed that Nine Inch Nails is now releasing some high bit material online for download. I'm done with companding down to 16 bit. I'd love to have 32 bit floats be the standard file format. Say goodbye to clipping and hello to dynamics.

[lucey]

Originally Posted by MrHope

I'm done with companding down to 16 bit. I'd love to have 32 bit floats be the standard file format. Say goodbye to clipping and hello to dynamics.

I dont understand this argument, am I missing something?

There is plenty of dynamic range at 16 for what's used now (maybe as much as 20 db RMS to peak, or 8). Clipping is a choice to boost the rms level vs. 0 dbfs., and would be the same kind of choice at 24 or 32 bits delivery format. Sound quality is everything added up, and the weak links stand out. With no weak links moderate limiting is easy to do nicely. Shit production is not going to be better at any bit or sample rate. 32 float is perhaps useful for some of your ITB processing, but a nice converter at 24 to 16 will beat a shitty 24.

Technology is not stopping dynamic/great records from being made, it's people.

[bcgood]

Originally Posted by lucey

Technology is not stopping dynamic/great records from being made, it's people.

true dat

[JPeters86]

Originally Posted by lucey

Technology is not stopping dynamic/great records from being made, it's people.

Amen to that.

[scraggs]

Originally Posted by lucey

It's interesting to me that Petty saw the problem and responded intelligently while U2, Bowie and so many established others have just piled on. Perhaps goes to confidence.

TP has a long history of seeing problems in the biz and responding intelligently. The "running down a dream" documentary is essential viewing.

[Silver Sonya]

Word!

I haven't seen the film yet, but I highly recommend this book.

- c

[doorknocker]

Well, I WANT that version! I really love the 'Mudcrutch' album, musically it's better than anything Petty did after at least 'She's the one' IMO.

But I really don't like the way the CD sounds. It IS hyper-limited even for Petty's own standards (he always used a lot of compression on his records). It's somewhat irritating because the music has such a great early-70ies 'Cosmic Country' vibe and that sound was pretty much the anthithesis of today's ultra-loudness I'd say.

[feyshay]

Originally Posted by MAzevedo

It's a bit of a drag that you can only get the dynamic version as a pack-in with the LP. What will really be great is when you go to the iTunes or Amazon store and can pick between 'loud' and 'dynamic' versions of things.

There should be a "I've got my Ipod earbuds on and I'm listening to this song in the Metro" version and a
"I'm actually listening to music in a decent environment and care about the integrity of the sound and dynamics" version.
Better yet, scratch the first version and everybody will not have extensive high frequency hearing loss at the age of 50.

[jslevin]

Awesome.

I've been saying this for a couple years now, too ... that we should get two masters made, one with "modern" dynamic range but not totally insane, and a second one with even more dynamic range than vinyl.

I mean, it's sad, this is what digital recording is really good at — capturing huge dynamic range — and we just piss it away.

Even for downloaded tracks, this could make a huge difference. As bandwidth increases, there's no reason two different versions can't be encoded in the same file, sort of like a fat binary app. You could encode the "stupid loud" version at 160K (could it possibly need more than that?) and the "full range" version at 320K. For a four-minute song, the total file size would still be only about 15 MB, and that's nothing.

JSL

[Silver Sonya]

Originally Posted by jslevin

I mean, it's sad, this is what digital recording is really good at — capturing huge dynamic range — and we just piss it away.

Yup. You called it. One of the tragic ironies of the modern age of audio.

One of many...

- c

[bcgood]

Originally Posted by Silver Sonya

Yup. You called it. One of the tragic ironies of the modern age of audio.

One of many...

- c

Isn't it ironic, don't ya think?

[doorknocker]

Originally Posted by jslevin

I mean, it's sad, this is what digital recording is really good at — capturing huge dynamic range — and we just piss it away.

I agree but then again some pop music always intentionally worked with a very limited (pun intended) dynamic range. I really love Tom Petty's work and his records always sounded like they would be coming from a radio broadcast to my ears. Actually I always liked that sound FOR THAT PARTICULAR KIND OF MUSIC.

So the problem here is the hyper-limiting for volume's sake which of course will reduce the (already intentionally reduced) dynamic range even further. What's much worse though is that the sound is becoming very flat and midrangey in the process.

We all know that the volume wars are a huge problem but about a week ago I made an interesting comparison between the 'Mudcrutch' and the Plant/Krauss CD. (I totally love both of these offerings.)

Listening from the other room played thru my 'waiting for a Sub to be added' home system of a Studer CD player and a pair of Genelec 1029As, I was STUNNED by the sonics of the Plant/Krauss CD. A very dark and compressed sound that stills sounds very dimensional even though it probably also would benefit form a slightly lower volume.

The 'Mudcrutch' disc on the other hand sounds VERY boxy, undynamic and un-sparkly (if that's a word?). To be honest, I'm not sure if the quote from the article is really appropriate: 'When we did the regular CD, we had to deal with the realities of the marketplace, and we came up with a good compromise,” said Mr. Ulyate, who produced the album with the guitarist Mike Campbell.' It doesn't sound like a 'good compromise' to my ears but rather like a complete butchering job. But maybe it's just the fact that Petty's already heavily-compressed signature sound suffers more from the additional volume than the (to my ears) very 'fuzzy but natural' and organic sound of the Plant/Krauss masterpiece.

No matter what, Petty is a very cool guy. After fighting high album and ticket prices and being able to regain his copyrights after a 'David vs. Goliath'-type fight against MCA, he re-assembles his old band with spectacular results and now also fights the good fight against the loudness wars. R-E-S-P-E-C-T!


Well, maybe I WILL buy the vinyl after all (hell, I'd rather give my hard-earned cash to Petty and the boys than most anybody else). I'm totally curious to hear the difference in the unhyped CD. It surely is a rare chance to do such a comparison - vinyl is great but much more subjective because of all the variables with the gear/pressing/turntable setup, etc.

But maybe it's a great educational tool that could be used to convince artists to go for better-sounding 'turn it up' masters.

Maybe we could establish an offical sticker that would be granted where appliable that reads 'Dynamic musical content- please turn it up for maximum enjoyment' or something.

[jslevin]

Originally Posted by doorknocker

I agree but then again some pop music always intentionally worked with a very limited (pun intended) dynamic range. I really love Tom Petty's work and his records always sounded like they would be coming from a radio broadcast to my ears. Actually I always liked that sound FOR THAT PARTICULAR KIND OF MUSIC.

I agree with all of that, but the kind of deliciously compressed sounds you're talking about are in a whole different category from the stupid-loudness. For one thing, a lot of those sounds are from individual sources being limited — voices, guitars, overheads — not from crushing the life out of a whole mix. For another thing, it simply is a whole different magnitude — finding that right balance where it's juicy-limited but still has some life and air to it on the one hand, crushing everything down to the last bit on the other.

I'm sorry, but I just don't think they're the same thing at all; they're not even cousins. The former is mashing something so that it sounds good, the latter is mashing something with no regard for whether it sounds better or worse.

Even within "compressed sound" genres, you could still have — if you really wanted to — the mixes sitting at -20, and put in some very quiet passages (relative to the style) that are quiet detailed at -40 and sitting above a noise floor that is simply un-hearable from any normal listening perspective. In other words, you've dramatically increased the headroom for transients and dynamics within the standard/loud sections, and dramatically increased the dynamic range between loud and quiet sections — and yet when it comes to the quiet sections, you're still working with 60-80 dB of dynamic range.

It doesn't sound like a 'good compromise' to my ears but rather like a complete butchering job. But maybe it's just the fact that Petty's already heavily-compressed signature sound suffers more from the additional volume than the (to my ears) very 'fuzzy but natural' and organic sound of the Plant/Krauss masterpiece.

It may also be that the Plant/Krauss record has significantly less commercial intentions and/or more enlightened label support. It's amazing to me that having fought all of these fights, Petty still finds himself having to argue with the label over loudness. But is he really? Or are he and Campbell themselves wondering if they really want to release a record that's somewhat less loud than Britney?

Maybe we could establish an offical sticker that would be granted where appliable that reads 'Dynamic musical content- please turn it up for maximum enjoyment' or something.

Interesting. A warning label for good sound ...

JSL

[doorknocker]

Originally Posted by jslevin

I agree with all of that, but the kind of deliciously compressed sounds you're talking about are in a whole different category from the stupid-loudness. For one thing, a lot of those sounds are from individual sources being limited — voices, guitars, overheads — not from crushing the life out of a whole mix. For another thing, it simply is a whole different magnitude — finding that right balance where it's juicy-limited but still has some life and air to it on the one hand, crushing everything down to the last bit on the other.

I'm sorry, but I just don't think they're the same thing at all; they're not even cousins. The former is mashing something so that it sounds good, the latter is mashing something with no regard for whether it sounds better or worse.

I totally agree with you and that's what I meant - compression as an artistic tool (maybe with Joe Meek as the ultimate culmination of that approach) and 'stupid loud' levels that actually make you turn DOWN.

Originally Posted by jslevin

It may also be that the Plant/Krauss record has significantly less commercial intentions and/or more enlightened label support. It's amazing to me that having fought all of these fights, Petty still finds himself having to argue with the label over loudness. But is he really? Or are he and Campbell themselves wondering if they really want to release a record that's somewhat less loud than Britney?

Good point. The last few Petty records sounded pretty hyper-limited and overbright to me. The reason I like the Mudcrutch one so much is because these are great songs and performances, sonically it is very compromised - and that's why I'm so curious to hear the 'vinyl' CD master.

Some people actually complained that the Plant/Krauss CD was mastered too loud - it sure is up to current levels but again, IMO it sounds organic and intentionally compressed. in short, the sonics fit the dark and brooding mood of the music perfectly while that's definitely not the case with the Mudcrutch CD. It has a early 70ies California-Country feel, even sounded Dead-ish in places and IMO that doesn't go along with hyper-compression at all.

Originally Posted by jslevin

Interesting. A warning label for good sound ...
JSL

It might come as a shock to some......

Actually I'm pretty sure that today's loudness war could and would have happened in the mid-60ies were it not for the 'limitations' of the vinyl. A single can be mastered louder because there are wider and deeper grooves. Thus the artists could master teh singles (i.e the hits to be) pretty loud while the records sounded better when the didn't extend 45 or so minutes in length. It all makes sense but it was dictated by technique, as you know Motown especially was always trying to master as loud as possible and thus influenced everybody else. Wanting to be 'louder than the competition' surely isn't a recent phenomenon.

But the CD format unfortunately doesn't have this 'natural threshold', though everybody with ears SHOULD hear when the sonics go to hell because of 'stupid loud' masters!

[gregerlindberg]

Originally Posted by KingDaddyO

That's totally cool and hopefully, something that will catch on and develop a customer base. Damn - guess I'll have to budget for and start buying new releases again!

I would certanly buy stuff with full dynamic range rather then overcompressed squashed the living hell out of all life CD.

More dynamics for the people...

___________________________________________________________
MySpace.com - Death Rattle Six - Stockholm, SE - Classic Rock / Blues / Southern Rock - www.myspace.com/deathrattlesix