Is the new trend in loud masters as bad as everyone makes out?

[roadsweeper]

A lot of people who are not mastering engineers constantly go on about how the loudness war is killing music (myself included) but I was wondering what you professional mastering engineers thought about it. I feel physically sick when I look at the waveforms of new tracks that have had all of the life smashed out of them. However, my eyes are not my ears and some of these tracks sound fantastic and I didn't even notice that they had been processed so heavily until looking at the waveforms. Saying that though, there are a lot of albums that are very obviously 'smashed' such as Dolly Parton's 'Backwoods Barbie'. But does this affect my enjoyment of the recording? It's difficult to say.

I listen to a lot of old records and if these had been mastered so heavily I do believe that a lot of the 'magic' of these recordings would have been lost. But today is 2009 and the majority of people listen to music either in cheap earphones or in their cars and in these situations I believe that 'loudness' can help. However, there's nothing like listening to 'Wish you were Here' while driving through the Isle of Skye in the pouring rain where the dynamics seem to relate to the changing weather!

So, if you throw off the audiophile cloak, in 2009 with the current music scene, what are people's views on loudness?

[Jesse Graffam]

The war isn't over, but people that make bad decisions are starting to recognize their own futility, and that they aren't hurting anyone but themselves.

And I agree that there is a right way and mostly wrong ways to make a record sound "loud".

[bcgood]

Well one thing that I think goes over a lot of people's heads is that over limiting doesn't just even out the dynamics of a recording it also takes away depth and adds very unpleasant distortion that is ear fatiguing. Most modern albums that are mastered for loudness sound very small, claustrophobic and grating to me. Thus it is very hard to sit down and listen to a typical 2009 CD all the way through; and people wonder why no one wants to pay for albums anymore. I know it's not the only reason but still for people like me that are really into sound quality why would I go out and buy a cd if the sound quality has been compromised for the sake of loudness?

[wado1942]

But today is 2009 and the majority of people listen to music either in cheap earphones or in their cars and in these situations I believe that 'loudness' can help.

Actually, that cheap equipment suffers MORE from the loudness war. They have no headroom so those high levels cause additional distortion on playback that top quality equipment doesn't. I've had some digital playback devices that start to distort at levels of -3 to -4dBfs and new albums are AVERAGING around that level instead of peaking at those levels like older albums did. I sold my Ipod because everything sounded especially distorted on it.

I remember when the band Live came out with their first big album. It was obviously a great album so I bought it. I listened to the whole thing once and pretty well never put it in my player again. It's not because there wasn't good music on it but because something about it really bothered me. I wasn't a mastering engineer back then but I recently discovered it was the first album I owned that averaged around -6dBfs. A lot of people don't even HEAR the difference between a good master and a bad one, but most people can FEEL the difference. There's something very alien about hyper-limited/clipped audio that makes people feel odd so they don't listen for very long. bcgood stated the observation of that very well.

But the sickest part of that it's getting to the point where people are doubling, even quadrupling the distortion to get an edge in level so small to even notice. So if that one extra dB isn't even noticable to the average listener, why fight so hard and do so much damage for a numbers game? I have a sample clip on youtube where I'm playing the original master for "Money for Nothin'" against the new remaster. That remaster is -10dBfs on average which is very conservative for a modern master. It seems to sound OK but when I switch back to the original master, it seems like a veil has been lifted. YouTube - Why I Don't Buy "Remastered" CDs.

Yet another thing that a lot of people don't realize is that the user has their own volume control. You can't force somebody to listen to music louder. But adding more distortion will actually make them turn DOWN the volume because the sound irritates them.

[bgrotto]

Originally Posted by wado1942

I sold my Ipod because everything sounded especially distorted on it.

Great point!

Though I actually keep two iPods (an older, 3rd generation one, and a new-ish iTouch) because the D/A conversion and headroom limitations make for excellent references.

I have a really hard time listening to either for pleasure. Lately, all of my leisurely listening is done on vinyl, through speakers (with an occasional listen to a CD at the studio), and I've been finding headphone-listening - particularly via personal players like the iPod - quite fatiguing. This goes double for contemporary stuff; the aggressive sonics just aggravate my tinnitus.

[Silver Sonya]

Super-loud records get listened to quietly.

The volume knob goes down.

Nobody blasts a hyper-limited record.

The ultimate irony.

- c

[bcgood]

Originally Posted by Silver Sonya

Super-loud records get listened to quietly.

The volume knob goes down.

Nobody blasts a hyper-limited record.

The ultimate irony.

- c

So true...

[MASSIVE Master]

A lot of people who are not mastering engineers constantly go on about how the loudness war is killing music (myself included) but I was wondering what you professional mastering engineers thought about it.

I [SELF-CENSORED]-ing hate it. It's really not what I signed up for. It was bad enough 15 years ago. Now, it's just insane.

[Trell Blaze]

Originally Posted by bcgood

So true...

Depends on the genre. I've heard many people blast some heavily distorted and stredded records as loud as they possibly can through all 6 of their 15inch car subs...

[bcgood]

Originally Posted by MASSIVE Master

I [SELF-CENSORED]-ing hate it. It's really not what I signed up for. It was bad enough 15 years ago. Now, it's just insane.

That's actually what we need. More people speaking the truth. Honest Abe was on to something...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We celebrate Abraham Lincoln's birthday (February 12), and we should. Lincoln was one of the few great men who really was great. Before he became president, Lincoln spent twenty years as an unsuccessful Illinois lawyer -- at least he was unsuccessful in financial terms. But when you measure the good he did, he was very rich indeed. Legends are often untrue, but Lincoln was the real thing. George Washington never chopped down a cherry tree, but Abraham Lincoln was honest. During his years as a lawyer, there were hundreds of documented examples of his honesty and decency.

For example, Lincoln didn't like to charge people much who were as poor as he was. Once a man sent him twenty-five dollars, but Lincoln sent him back ten of it, saying he was being too generous.

He was known at times to convince his clients to settle their issue out of court, saving them a lot of money, and earning himself nothing.

An old woman in dire poverty, the widow of a Revolutionary soldier, was charged $200 for getting her $400 pension. Lincoln sued the pension agent and won the case for the old woman. He didn't charge her for his services and, in fact, paid her hotel bill and gave her money to buy a ticket home!

He and his associate once prevented a con man from gaining possession of a tract of land owned by a mentally ill girl. The case took fifteen minutes. Lincoln's associate came to divide up their fee, but Lincoln reprimanded him. His associate argued that the girl's brother had agreed on the fee ahead of time, and he was completely satisfied.

"That may be," said Lincoln, "but I am not satisfied. That money comes out of the pocket of a poor, demented girl; and I would rather starve than swindle her in this manner. You return half the money at least, or I'll not take a cent of it as my share."

He was a fool, perhaps, by certain standards. He didn't have much, and it was his own fault. But he was a good human being by anyone's standards and I'm glad we celebrate his birthday.

Honesty makes you feel good about yourself and creates trust in others. It improves your relationship with yourself and with others. It's not much in fashion these days to talk about the benefits of honesty and decency, but the benefits are there and they are valuable and worth the trouble.

Lincoln didn't talk much about religion, even with his best friends, and he didn't belong to any church. But he once confided to a friend that his religious code was the same as an old man he knew in Indiana, who said, "When I do good, I feel good, and when I do bad, I feel bad, and that's my religion."

Honesty. It may be corny, but it's the finest force for good in the world, and it always will be.

Do some honest good in the world.

Honest Abe

[okydoky]

hi,

hmmm. i wonder if the loud approach is more acceptable for some records than for others.

i remember digging the ozzy track "perry mason", and then watching it on the console and seeing that the meters were basically frozen in one place. i thought it was weird, but the track does kick ass, no doubt. so maybe it fits that particular type of tune or something.

on the other hand, "martha my dear" would probably sound weird if it was crushed like that.

i also find that it is hard to listen to a lot of records all the way through, but i am not sure that it is always because they are overlimited. some of it is probably because every song sounds the same, and the writing is not that great, so i get bored.


right.

[bcgood]

Originally Posted by Trell Blaze

Depends on the genre. I've heard many people blast some heavily distorted and stredded records as loud as they possibly can through all 6 of their 15inch car subs...

Yes, but how long did they listen to it for?

I've seen people eat deep fried Twinkies at the State Fair. It doesn't mean that it's a good idea. Sure it might taste good for a couple of bites but then your stomach aches and the toilet is calling soon after.

[Silver Sonya]

Fantastic and appropriate image.

I love that someone had a Twinkie in their hand at some point and said to themselves, "You know what this needs?..."

- c

[Trell Blaze]

Originally Posted by bcgood

Yes, but how long did they listen to it for?

I've seen people eat deep fried Twinkies at the State Fair. It doesn't mean that it's a good idea. Sure it might taste good for a couple of bites but then your stomach aches and the toilet is calling soon after.

Lol...how long did they listen? Well most of these people spend several hours at a time in in nightclubs and bars in the middle of the exact same aural surroundings. I suppose "overlimiting" doesn't bother you as much while you're intoxicated...

[vonrichter]

The distortion artifacts on these slammed albums makes my ears literally hurt and "cotton up" within a minute or two. Completely unlistenable for pleasure no matter how good the song is. Hard to appreciate a good song through a splitting headache.

[bcgood]

I guess that's really the point.

Who's the more foolish? The fool or the fool who follows him?

[bcgood]

Originally Posted by Trell Blaze

Lol...how long did they listen? Well most of these people spend several hours at a time in in nightclubs and bars in the middle of the exact same aural surroundings. I suppose "overlimiting" doesn't bother you as much while you're intoxicated...

Actually that reminds me of a thread awhile ago. Someone mentioned that he was in a club that was blasting all the modern, smashed songs and then all of a sudden they played something from the 70's. The guy described how it sounded so much better and before he knew it the dance floor was packed and literally everyone in the joint was dancing. Of course it was the song that mattered but the person did make a note of how much better it sounded than the modern smashed stuff.

[IIIrd]

yes it is (to the original poster), and to be frank its bloody insanity. why would you pay £3 per min (in some studios) to have your audio sounding worse than when you came in.
i dispair of it, and it almost makes me want to stop mastering.

but there is some hope among the mire. there are bands who want their albums sounding good , not loud. little by little their numbers will grow.

anyone cames into my mastering room gets the anti war lecture, and if they want it criminal loud then , i'm happy to eq the tracks and they can take the files away and ruin them themselves.

i do stuff loud enough, and there's a point i refuse to go past.


makes my blood boil

sorry...i havn't done an introduction...will do...this subject bugs me though

[inlinenl]

I just love the sound off JayZ track "99 problems but the Bitch ain't one" ... playing it really loud .. I reaaaaaaly feel everything is going to explode ... it's just blows my adrenaline sky-high .. I always need to recover quit some serious time from that .... I love it smashed to impact and drowned in distortion

50% off what I do is loud and 50% off what I do is very sensible ... so I can live with that.

but finding more and more major releases smashed and killing the recordings .. it looks like some bands don't care how it sounds finally when it's released .. it just has to sell and sound great on the web ... which is a point I can understand, we all have to feed our kids ..

[IIIrd]

the over loud stuff sounds rubbish on the radio as well,

i think a&r and producers have forgotten the existance of the volume knob. it rotates clockwise to make it loud, and the other way for quiet.

think of how the Jay Z track would have sounded if it wernt distorted and squashed and you had used the volume knob that the manufacturer had provided for you for free.... you would have been blown away further i'd wager.

[okydoky]

hi,

is it really the rule that a super loud album is easier to sell, or are people just competing for loudness because they think so?



right.

[Jesse Graffam]

I would like to throw in the idea that much of the wrecking is NOT happening at the mastering desk.

I know almost every ME in here can certify that they get MANY mixes of modern genra that are ruined plenty well enough before they get a hand on it.

When people hear a ruined album, they immediately blame the ME without any prior research at all. That's a failed misconception and it's only going to make the problem worse, the more mastering engineers are blamed, and the less the attention is put on producers and mix engineers who are mostly the ones to blame.

Yea, I said it. fuuck

[wado1942]

i wonder if the loud approach is more acceptable for some records than for others.

Absolutely. Some records can easily sit at -10dBfs RMS without ANY limiting. On the other hand, I just mastered a single and it took considerable limiting to bring it up to that level. It lost a lot of its impact with limiting so other tricks are needed.

i do stuff loud enough, and there's a point i refuse to go past.

-10dBfs is where most rock stuff falls apart. Of course it's different for every album but I usually won't go past -9dBfs for any reason, even if it can be done without considerable processing.

is it really the rule that a super loud album is easier to sell, or are people just competing for loudness because they think so?

Well, DJs ride the volume so that the levels are all the same. Radio processor squash the loud stuff down the level of the lower stuff. In a single CD player, the record only has to compete against itself. The only time this rule could possibly apply is in a CD changer set to shuffle mode, but by then, the record has already been bought.

When people hear a ruined album, they immediately blame the ME without any prior research at all.

You're right. They DO blame the ME because it's HIS FAULT! Any limited or clipped mix that comes across my desk gets sent back with a request for a remix. Any mix that's been treated that way prior to the mastering is virtually unmasterable. So it's the ME's job as the last step in quality control to make sure he gets material that can be processed. Yes, a lot of producers and mixers have taken it upon themselves to master/destroy records before sending it to the mastering engineer. But in that case, the producer or whoever should then get the mastering credit because the actual mastering engineer cannot possibly do the job. Granted it's the producer that's pushing for the record to be so loud. But I have no problem refusing work under those conditions. I'm in the business of optimizing an artform and I will not destroy that art over a numbers game. I used to charge double for pushing the album louder than it wanted to be. But now I just turn down the job if I know ahead of time that the producer wants a squashed record.

[IIIrd]

Originally Posted by uncajesse

I would like to throw in the idea that much of the wrecking is NOT happening at the mastering desk.

I know almost every ME in here can certify that they get MANY mixes of modern genra that are ruined plenty well enough before they get a hand on it.

When people hear a ruined album, they immediately blame the ME without any prior research at all. That's a failed misconception and it's only going to make the problem worse, the more mastering engineers are blamed, and the less the attention is put on producers and mix engineers who are mostly the ones to blame.

Yea, I said it. fuuck

i completey agree

[IIIrd]

Originally Posted by oky****

hi,

is it really the rule that a super loud album is easier to sell, or are people just competing for loudness because they think so?



right.

the general public don't give a s**t. they just want good music. they only notice when its been mauled too much...metallica case in point...otherwise...no...marketing and exposure sell albums

[Bob Olhsson]

Every mastering engineer I know has been resisting this for ten years. The bottom-line remains that it's the artists' call and our job is to give them what they want while introducing the least harm in the process.

Unfortunately we also are now seeing mixing engineers need to make sure their mixes aren't softer than their competition in order to get work.

The whole thing is a race to the bottom where most people don't think CDs are worth buying and most CDs aren't selling. While there are obviously numerous additional factors, CDs that are so distorted nobody wants to listen all the way through can't exactly be helping.

[IIIrd]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

Every mastering engineer I know has been resisting this for ten years. The bottom-line remains that it's the artists' call and our job is to give them what they want while introducing the least harm in the process.

Unfortunately we also are now seeing mixing engineers need to make sure their mixes aren't softer than their competition in order to get work.

The whole thing is a race to the bottom where most people don't think CDs are worth buying and most CDs aren't selling. While there are obviously numerous additional factors, CDs that are so distorted nobody wants to listen all the way through can't exactly be helping.

indeed,...punters pay the bills.
i do have a limit (no pun intended) though, i'll only go so loud.
little by little the loudness war will become unfashionable...
there needs to be some big successes that arnt loud..
the elbow album that won a mercury award is a good start.

[Bob Olhsson]

I think the important thing is to stay on top of what's being pitched to radio and making sure you aren't contributing to the problem by making something louder than it needs to be in order to compete in this week's "pile."

[Trell Blaze]

Originally Posted by bcgood

Actually that reminds me of a thread awhile ago. Someone mentioned that he was in a club that was blasting all the modern, smashed songs and then all of a sudden they played something from the 70's. The guy described how it sounded so much better and before he knew it the dance floor was packed and literally everyone in the joint was dancing. Of course it was the song that mattered but the person did make a note of how much better it sounded than the modern smashed stuff.

Just for the record, MY stance on the subject is that IF and ONLY IF squashing it works for the music (it very rarely does), then by all means do what you have to do. But I refuse to sit here and say that ALL "overlimited" music is an abomination or that EVERYTHING would sound better if it wasn't squashed. That's just not true at all. Anyone closeminded enough to believe that would never be my M.E.

[bcgood]

Originally Posted by Trell Blaze

Just for the record, MY stance on the subject is that IF and ONLY IF squashing it works for the music (it very rarely does), then by all means do what you have to do. But I refuse to sit here and say that ALL "overlimited" music is an abomination or that EVERYTHING would sound better if it wasn't squashed. That's just not true at all. Anyone closeminded enough to believe that would never be my M.E.

I don't think squashing music with a brickwall limiter is ever good for the music. It's great for making stuff loud and for temporarily making newbs think a demo sounds "professional" but that wears off pretty quickly...