The End of Loudness Wars?

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally Posted by wado1942

Interesting. It was my impression that once the actual recording is done, the artist has very little say in what happens. .... They pay for all the costs out of pocket (through recoupable royalties) and do most of the work but the record company OWNs the material and the band. So a lot of the time, the A&R guys, producers & managers are the ones pushing for super-loud...

This is commonly repeated mythology. Most contemporary recording contracts give the artist "complete creative control." which includes how it is mixed and mastered. I've also discussed this point with a number of other mastering engineers and always been told the same thing.

[lerone]

Originally Posted by The Listener

I tried to check what are the respected opinions about this latest initiative that sounds really ambitious, but found no mention of it around here.

So, are you familiar with this: Our Aim | DYNAMIC RANGE | pleasurize music! ?

I hope they will succeed. This could be a possible and reasonable solution to the end of loudness wars and the insane results of degrading audio in the last years.

I can't stand the drum-machine like drums on the last Metallica album, neither the overall distorted sound of it... Are they joking? This has gone too far.

I support this initiative. Hope everyone else will, too!

Sign in: Welcome | DYNAMIC RANGE | pleasurize music! and make it happen!

Have you heard 'Foo Fighters - Nothing Left To Lose' ?!

Yeah they got that one right! There aint a scrap of dynamic range left to lose in that monstrosity. I spent a couple of hours trying to demonstrate the effects of modern loudness to a band I have just finished an album for. I asked them listen to Annie Lennox - Medusa (not the quietest, but a work of art to my ears) in the studio, from beginning to end. They were loving it. I showed them the waveforms of the tracks and explained what was going on. Then I played them the Foos' NLTL at the same apparent loudness (maybe not the fairest of comparisons, a little bit sneaky I know) The lead guitarist started cracking up, "Wow....Thats sounds f*ckin' shit mate" Then I played them a couple of tracks from their new album, at the same apparent loudness as the Foos'. "Yeah, that sounds fat!" Then I started compressing & limiting the track, at least 8dbs of GR going on, and then clipped another 3db off. They were loving it! I captured it and then reduced it to the same apparent loudness as the un-smashed version of their track.

They don't want a super loud CD anymore......Result!!!!!!

[Bluelake]

Originally Posted by The Listener

I tried to check what are the respected opinions about this latest initiative that sounds really ambitious, but found no mention of it around here.

So, are you familiar with this: Our Aim | DYNAMIC RANGE | pleasurize music! ?

I hope they will succeed. This could be a possible and reasonable solution to the end of loudness wars and the insane results of degrading audio in the last years.

I can't stand the drum-machine like drums on the last Metallica album, neither the overall distorted sound of it... Are they joking? This has gone too far.

I support this initiative. Hope everyone else will, too!

Sign in: Welcome | DYNAMIC RANGE | pleasurize music! and make it happen!

Great initiative, but it's going to be tough to make things go back, at least to the proposed 14dbs....

Here is my own example. I'm working at a kind of amateur level for a very small and closed underground market (productions from 500 to 2000 copies only), so I don't need at all to compete with comercial releases. And I'm glad that, because I'm aware of the desatrous loudness war.

So I was thinking I was doing really quiet masters compared to most commercial stuff I hear....but putting a song of the last production I'm working on in the meter gave me the value of 11dbs...oups...still far from the 14dbs......and I have promised the band that the final master would be just a bit louder...tutt ...of course I can't imagine to leave 3dbs of headroom to comply to the proposed rules ....

However, what is really interesting is that if I put one of my favourite recordings in the meter (a Barney Kassel jazz instrumental from the 50's) it reads...... 17dbs...... so I guess your inititive is going into the right direction .....but who will follow ?....

Juan

[wado1942]

I'd be happy if everybody settled on -10dBfs. Anything is better than what we have now where -4dBfs is the current average. If I had my druthers, I'd rather -20dBfs be the standard. I do a lot of sound for movies and it kinda' sucks changing my standards back and forth all the time. I get this huge open sound on all my movie stuff, then I go back to rock or rap, whatever and it feels so (no pun intended) limiting. I don't push it NEARLY as hard as most records either.

[MASSIVE Master]

I'd go to -15... Not that I'm not a huge fan of -20, but offices, cars, iPods and such... I thought audio was hitting its 'quality peak' when the loud stuff was riding around -15 to -14dBRMS. Still punchy, still dynamic, still energetic, not squishy, etc.

[Waltz Mastering]

Originally Posted by wado1942

-4dBfs is the current average.

Seeing that kind of average level is pretty rare imo. What are you using to measure?

TW

[Adam Dempsey]

Dolby Volume.

[wado1942]

Seeing that kind of average level is pretty rare imo. What are you using to measure?

It's getting more and more common all the time. I'm using Voxengo (Pure 3) and CEP 2.1 (300ms RMS window sine = 0). Both are very acurate.

[Waltz Mastering]

is that +3 so regular 7?

[wado1942]

Let me put it this way, a sine wave at full scale will read "0dBfs", which is the prefered method of RMS measurement.

[Waltz Mastering]

Originally Posted by wado1942

which is the prefered method of RMS measurement.

I'm not sure, it could be pure or pure +3 or something different?

TW

[AUDIOBOMBER]

ok - some days ago i delivered a master to an indie guitar rock band at an around -10 dbrms level..
sounded good to me

now the e-mail from the band: "we like to have the master significant louder couse all our favourite cd`s in our house are louder"

they aint got stress from the label , dont have to fit to mainstream , wont sell more than 1000 and recordet at an realy cheap ITB studio......

do i realy have to go into clipping????

at that moment i got the feeling that this will never stop - never !



hold on...it will...the crisis will change everything , 90% of the artists and producer will fade away and the rest wont compete that much anymore

[Lemonsqueezer]

Get them to do a copy of the tracks that they are comparing and create a CD with them and their own tracks on. But adjust the levels so the RMS match.

[Table Of Tone]

I always get asked by the artist to make it loud!

I have a handful of loud but good sounding wavs on my desktop from around 2003/2005 to compare against.
Songs for the deaf/QOTSA, The love Below/Outcast, American Idiot/Green Day etc.

That is as loud as I would be prepared to take any master!

You cannot get anything louder than that without it starting to sound worse!
People have tried since then and failed and that is why this thread exists.

The only way I can match that sound quality, punch and dynamics, at that kind of volume, is to use a few of the things that those mastering engineers used on those records and it also takes a hell of lot of skill to do so!

It's not easy riding by the seat of your pants!

Cheers
Ade

[lerone]

Originally Posted by Waltz Mastering

Seeing that kind of average level is pretty rare imo. What are you using to measure?

TW

Yeah, -4 is a bit ott, -5/-6 dbfs is more like it for the completey ****ed stuff. I will admit I have chucked out a couple of records with -4dbfs average. not my fault though