The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Vote on the solutions to the loudness war.... Dynamics Plugins
View Poll Results: Vote on Loudness Normalizatoin
No LN, over my dead body.
143 Votes - 41.21%
I want LN, with a consumer option to defeat.
137 Votes - 39.48%
I want LN required and undefeatable in all consumer gear.
28 Votes - 8.07%
No opinion, whatever will be will be.
39 Votes - 11.24%
Voters: 347. You may not vote on this poll

Old 18th November 2009
  #61
Gear Nut
 
+6/185's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bob katz View Post

4) I am laissez-faire, no opinion. Whatever will be will be.
Bob - I don't think I'm being "laissez-faire" voting for #4. I believe in the freedom to produce any kind of music you want and let the marketplace decide on what "sounds good" or not. The fact is, most of us grew up hearing heavily compressed music over radio on less than wonderful playback systems. But that didn’t stop the British Invasion, New Wave, Grunge, New Country, Hip-Hop or Rap from taking it’s place in history. In a perfect world everyone would write great songs, sing in tune and not abuse recording equipment but that isn’t going to happen because freedom of expression is more important. I say produce the best art you can and move on.
My two cents,
Old 18th November 2009
  #62
kjg
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bob katz View Post
Which seems a lot fairer to me than: "Well, you can compress and be louder than anyone else"!

If you want to be quiet, just make sure you have one loud song on your album and use ALBUM-BASED LN.
that my point dear mister BK, IMO it is not about what *you* think is fair.
it is about artists and/or entrepreneurs making up their own mind and not having their business or art interfered with by some arbitrary (yes, arbitrary) standard.

regards,
klaas-jan


Old 18th November 2009
  #63
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bob katz View Post
...

In classical music, SINGLE setting would cause the second movement of a Beethoven symphony to be as loud as the first. ALBUM setting would permit the entire Beethoven symphony to compete with the rest of the world, including rock. So Beethoven would appear (nearly) as loud as Metallica.
Ooops. really? And in the pauses between the movements with room sound we have an audible level jump? Please do not speak for the classical world. I think such a system is just unacceptable and unnecessary. I know several classical musicians that would send the men in black to your house, if they knew what you are suggesting here.
Why should the second movement be as loud as the first? From he point of view of a (classical) musician this is a completely unacceptable suggestion.

There are producers and engineers that carefully balance a classical production according to the intended dynamic of the score and interpretation. The only thing that should be between them and the listener is the listeners volume knob. Anybody else stay out of it.
Old 18th November 2009
  #64
Mastering
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 24-96 Mastering View Post
A potential downside to enforced LN is that it might cause a development that we've seen in advertising that has to pass a loudness meter: Adjustment of sound content for maximum effect while maintaining a given overall loudness. Like cinema ads are often automated, mixed, sound-designed and even scripted to grab your attention in the beginning, then drop down and give a crescendo on the end. Imagine songs were written, arranged, mixed and mastered specifically to 'fool' the loudness meter.
There is a sophisticated gating algorithm to prevent this from happening. But what will more likely happen that cannot be prevented is analogous to what happens with theatre trailers. Dolby's trailer limits require a certain maximum SPL not to be exceeded for a certain period of time. I don't recall the limits for the EBU's algorithm, but there will always be people who want to be on the outside of them. No different that today's situation where the Black Eyed Peas Edge out the Red Hot Chili Peppers by a dB on the "maximum fatigue" meter. So there will be room to be a dB, 2 or 3 hotter even with LN if you are on the outside of the envelope. And highly compressed material with a long duration at a loud SPL will likely seem louder than dynamic material at the same average loudness but peaking up and down around it. Tool versus Peppers, for example.

Keep this in mind: There's nothing to prevent you from riding your volume control with LN engaged. The main difference is that instead of there being 16 dB of difference between 2009 and 1980 there may only be 2 or 3, and that could be more pleasant for anyone to deal with, even you in a normal living room situation. And if you really want to hear all the 16 dB or whatever difference there is between oldest and newest, defeat the LN or ride the volume control with LN engaged. (Even 5-10 dB difference between two pop CDs is seriously annoying, in my book, for normal livingroom listening. I'd say Consumers and audiophiles tolerate somewhere around 4-5 before it gets to be a pain, and I'm not a couch potato, I adjust my monitor for every playback, but I'm speaking of normal living room playback enjoyment).
Old 18th November 2009
  #65
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob katz View Post
I think it's strictly a practical view.
We all know your views. There is no need for a poll for you to expound any more on your views. They are perfectly clear. What is also becoming increasingly clear is that you are not in the least interested in anyone else's views.

Quote:
The vote options are not biased in either way.
Wow.

Quote:
They are simply framed so that those who are in favor of LN get the option they would prefer and those who are not in favor can equally express their disfavor!
No they are not. I am in favor, not by default. Others have already posted that they would prefer having any LN off by default. It is not just me.

The fact that people have voted for option 2 when they meant something else in itself already falsifies the results of this poll. Not a big deal of course but then why even bother with the poll in the first place if you don't care what people actually want?

Quote:
Like the health-care debate there is no namby-pamby middle ground on this that would be acceptable to either camp. Without LN as a default you might as well not even consider it.

As I mentioned above, this is like the health care debate in the U.S.. Here's the argument: A bill without a public option has no beef, what will happen is insurance companies will continue to get fat and greedy.
Leave the messed-up US politics out of this Bob.

Quote:
So if you are in opposition to the LN argument, vote in opposition, but don't emasculate those who wish to have LN by making turning off the default, because consumers will never know it's there nor turn it on.
I am in favor of Replay Gain as an option but I could not vote because you did not include that choice in the poll. I am clearly not the only one in favor of that option.

As for the consumers, don't go and insult them all like that. People don't seem to have any trouble finding the loudness or MAXBASS or whatever option in their portable player.

But hey, you are so sure of yourself and so ready to poo poo on other people's work in a public forum without even having heard it, nothing really surprises me from you at the moment. (See other thread for relevance. Bob knows what I am talking about).

Quote:
If you wish to try another poll to see if it gets different results, then wait till this poll settles down and make another.
Oh I have to wait for your propaganda to be over and then I can make my own poll? How very kind of you Bob.

Quote:
But I've made it quite clear why I chose not to leave this option and why this poll is entirely fair to both sides of the argument.
Then you simply do not get it. That is a shame.

Quote:
An LN which is not the default in consumer gear might as well be no option at all!
We know that is what you believe. That does not make it true nor does repeating it again and again.

Btw, Option 4 is also very badly worded. This whole poll is a charade.

Alistair
Old 18th November 2009
  #66
Gear Addict
 

Verified Member
I havent read the whole thread so apologies if this has already been covered. Is it possible, do you think, that some Engineers would inevitably find a way to 'beat' the loudness algorithm, thus finding a way to still make louder records and the race continues! Especially seeing as the algorhythm couldnt really be changed all that often if it were to be implemented in all audio equipment
Old 18th November 2009
  #67
Lives for gear
 
dcollins's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward_Vinatea View Post
Are you nominating him for first President of the new Consumer Audio Affairs Committee? CAAC
I proposed this a couple years ago:

Viz: All limiters are now equipped with a IP addressed lock. If you add enough level to cause a "K-System" upset, a light comes on in Bob's studio and your phone rings;

"Hello?"
"Is this Mr. Ludwig?"
"Who's calling, please?"
"Bob Katz."
"Yes, Bob, how may I help you?"
"I see you are offending listeners with your egregious, and now illegal limiting?"
"Well, I.."
"Yes. I thought so."

Through the power of the Internets, a signal is transmitted from Florida to Maine, a solenoid clicks, and viola: The peace is restored, Pandora is returned to her box, the genie to his bottle, etc.

Ideas like this are so obvious, I can't believe it hasn't been implemented already.

Hope this helps!


DC
Old 18th November 2009
  #68
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kjg View Post
Like Beethoven needs to compete with Metallica.
And that is the album setting then.

In single setting it gets even worse, because the system will mess up the balance between songs based on some loudness detection algorithm.

So, it can not be loud, it can not be quiet, it can not be dynamic between songs/movements/parts. And all that to allow poor Beethoven (artist that doesn't need ANY support) and poor Norah Jones (entertainer that hardly needs support) can "compete" with Metallica, and, of course, so the couch potato can have his music in pre-chewed, half digested, lukewarm, glorious ALL equal loudness blandness without even having to use his remote.

In the name of art. Seriously.
thumbsup
Old 18th November 2009
  #69
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
 

Verified Member
PS: Anyone smart enough to find the shuffle button on a player is smart enough to find an LN button. If they are not smart enough to find the shuffle button (let alone copy music to a portable player), they do not need an LN function anyway.

Your entire premise is flawed bob.

Alistair
Old 18th November 2009
  #70
Here for the gear
 

"Leave the messed-up US politics out of this Bob."

that is precisely what this thread is. Here are your options... If you don't pick my options, then you are against everything and no one likes againsters.
Old 18th November 2009
  #71
Mastering
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
We all know your views. There is no need for a poll for you to expound any more on your views. They are perfectly clear. What is also becoming increasingly clear is that you are not in the least interested in anyone else's views.
That's a patently unfair thing to say to the person who put up the poll to ask for opinions. I AM listening to your opinions and reading everything in this thread!

Quote:

No they are not. I am in favor, not by default. Others have already posted that they would prefer having any LN off by default. It is not just me.

As for the consumers, don't go and insult them all like that. People don't seem to have any trouble finding the loudness or MAXBASS or whatever option in their portable player.
I assume you read my argument why LN off by default virtually defeats the entire purpose of having LN. You have far more faith in consumers getting things right than I think is justified. As Denny Purcell used to say, "I love that five point one. Now I have a speaker for every room in the trailer!" The menu options and combinations in 5.1 receivers and Blu-Ray players are now so complex that even the most knowledgeable consumers can't get them right. Over 50% of the current Blu-Ray and DVD players default to "SMALL" as the speaker option. And DRC turned ON. And it's buried deep in the menus. So any option that's off by default but you would like to have turned on has a snowball's chance in hell of working or convincing producers that they should not overcompress.

But I'm listening. Please tell me, what would be your purpose and goal for voting for LN with the default off? How do you think that is going to convince producers not to hypercompress? If you can convince me that's going to happen if LN gets incorporated into receivers, then we'll start a new poll.

What is your argument in favor of that? And yes, I am listening, and please, don't go away mad :-). It's nice to see someone so riled up over this, as passionate about your point of view as mine, but you're not going to get anywhere by assuming that I'm being unfair when I have expressed some very rational logic for choosing the two options, even if you disagree. In my opinion, there is no middle ground on this issue. In my opinion, LN defaulted to off might as well be no LN in there at all.
Old 18th November 2009
  #72
Lives for gear
 

I think option 2 is fine. When I switch on the CD player, LN should be on by default every time and should be only switched off by going through some submenu of some submenu of some submenu. Then the idiots, who cannot read manuals, will always have it engaged and the clever people can switch it off.
Old 18th November 2009
  #73
Mastering
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by audio ergo sum View Post
Ooops. really? And in the pauses between the movements with room sound we have an audible level jump? Please do not speak for the classical world. I think such a system is just unacceptable and unnecessary. I know several classical musicians that would send the men in black to your house, if they knew what you are suggesting here.
Why should the second movement be as loud as the first? From he point of view of a (classical) musician this is a completely unacceptable suggestion.

There are producers and engineers that carefully balance a classical production according to the intended dynamic of the score and interpretation. The only thing that should be between them and the listener is the listeners volume knob. Anybody else stay out of it.
Men in black, eh.
Hmmm... I'm an avid classical listener, so let's try to examine this holistically. There's so much to say and never enough time to say it all. Let's look at the whole picture and eliminate some of your incorrect assumptions.

The serious listener would ALWAYS turn off LN and adjust his own volume for each work. But we have to consider both casual listeners and serious listeners. Casual listeners would appreciate having LN at the gym or jogging with the Ipod. In ALBUM mode, every movement will be at its correct relative level, pianissimo will be pianissimo, I can assure you. However, with LN on, in ALBUM mode, a chamber concert will sound as loud as a symphony. But remember, this is EXACTLY what happens when you listen to the radio now, except it won't be compressed! Is this ideal for the serious listener? Of course not, but he has the option to turn LN OFF. For the casual listener LN on (default) is ideal. But there are advantages over the radio: The sound quality will be better than the radio. LN will turn up the chamber concert, but the casual jogger will appreciate it. The serious listener will adjust his own volume and let the chamber concert play softer than the symphony. Or if he turns on LN, the relative levels between chamber music and symphony will be about the same as the radio---even steven. No worse and sounding better because no AGC or limiting.

Does this help a bit? Turn off LN because you are a serious listener and, unfortunately, in the minority, so you have to find the preference in the menu. But being a serious listener, you already know about menus so it shouldn't be much of a pain for you.

A system that is helpful for both serious and casual listeners AND discourages producers to hypercompress AND is easy to use for casual listeners sounds like a win to me. Someone has to go to a menu to turn it ON or OFF. Since the majority of listeners are the casual listeners, LN should default to ON. This is the ecumenical solution. If you are voting for the first and probably the only chance in the 21st century to reduce the tendency to hypercompressm then vote for LN, defaulted to ON, defeatable in a menu.
Old 18th November 2009
  #74
Lives for gear
 
wado1942's Avatar
 

I say option 2 but with a stipulation on how it works. It should use intelligent metadata and pre-analyzed statistics bring down the overall level of loud material. That is, don't just crush down loud portions of the material, but adjust the level for the entire track to provide acceptible playback without changing the dynamics within it. Level should be controlled by a digitally controlled analogue amplifier upon output bearing in mind the headroom of standard quality equipment. Metadata could be stored in online databases and/or in the medium itself. Things like average/minimum/maximum RMS levels and genre should be contained within that data. This will allow the user to customize their options. Like If I'm going from the Dave Brubeck Quartet to Metallica, I don't want them to be the same level because that'd just be weird. Likewise, the output level on speech would need to be set lower than the Min/Max/Av RMS ratios would suggest compared to say, Garth Brooks.

More important is how to keep people from cheating the system. Dolby has standards on overall levels but the mastering engineer just has to change a perameter in the encoding to set the playback completely awry.
Old 18th November 2009
  #75
kjg
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bob katz View Post
It's nice to see someone so riled up over this, as passionate about your point of view as mine, but you're not going to get anywhere by assuming that I'm being unfair when I have expressed some very rational logic for choosing the two options, even if you disagree.
I wouldn't call saying that Norah Jones doesn't have enough freedom of expression very rational. Hilarious is a better term.

Quote:
In my opinion, there is no middle ground on this issue. In my opinion, LN defaulted to off might as well be no LN in there at all.
And if it is *on* by default a lot of music will be not represented as the artists chose. They will have no choice, because a choice has been made for them. Not even by the consumer/audience, but by a third party. Yuk!
Old 18th November 2009
  #76
kjg
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Rose View Post
I havent read the whole thread so apologies if this has already been covered. Is it possible, do you think, that some Engineers would inevitably find a way to 'beat' the loudness algorithm, thus finding a way to still make louder records and the race continues! Especially seeing as the algorhythm couldnt really be changed all that often if it were to be implemented in all audio equipment
Robin also suggested this. The beat the algorithm race.
Maybe.
Old 18th November 2009
  #77
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob katz View Post
That's a patently unfair thing to say to the person who put up the poll to ask for opinions. I AM listening to your opinions and reading everything in this thread!
I don't think the two automatically go together. Maybe you believe you are open to other people's views but I honestly think that, consciously or not, you set up this poll to get confirmation of your own views. Not to really find out what people would like.

Quote:
I assume you read my argument why LN off by default virtually defeats the entire purpose of having LN. You have far more faith in consumers getting things right than I think is justified.
As I said, if a consumer can find the auto-shuffle function (which is NOT one by default) they can can find the LN function. Also, on most CD players this is a non-issue anyway. You listen to a CD and then need to switch it out for another one.

Where is does become relevant is on portable players because of the number of tracks they can store. Random play becomes much more likely. If someone can install the software to transfer music to their player, download or rip the music and actually copy it to their player, they can find the LN function too.

But hey, maybe European consumers truly are smarter than American consumers. We often have a good laugh at the things people sue for in America. Things that would get you laughed out of a court room in Europe. We still believe that people should think for themselves. Maybe that isn't the case in America.

Oh and the CD-changer at the party scenario, that is just bogus. That is background noise. Not music. It doesn't matter how it sounds in the first place so all your arguments for better dynamics are invalidated per definition for that scenario.

Quote:
As Denny Purcell used to say, "I love that five point one. Now I have a speaker for every room in the trailer!" The menu options and combinations in 5.1 receivers and Blu-Ray players are now so complex that even the most knowledgeable consumers can't get them right. Over 50% of the current Blu-Ray and DVD players default to "SMALL" as the speaker option. And DRC turned ON. And it's buried deep in the menus. So any option that's off by default but you would like to have turned on has a snowball's chance in hell of working or convincing producers that they should not overcompress.
We are not talking about talking about Blu-Ray or DVDs or 5.1 or anything to do with video. This has no bearing.

Quote:
But I'm listening. Please tell me, what would be your purpose and goal for voting for LN with the default off?
To give people choice. The choice to listen at a somewhat uniform volume level or not. Right now they do not have the choice. Once they have, they decide what they want.

If the vast majority of consumers like this option and turn it on, it will have the effect you desire. If the consuming public chose not to enable this option, they have voted. They do not want it whether anyone likes that or not.

One thing to keep in mind is that any player with a maximum level limiter could have it disabled when the LN is on as the average volume would be lower and thus would not be as damaging. Of course this would need some thought as, as has already been pointed out, this could also be abused.

Quote:
How do you think that is going to convince producers not to hypercompress? If you can convince me that's going to happen if LN gets incorporated into receivers, then we'll start a new poll.
It will only convince producers not to over-compress (maybe) if the public decide to turn on the LN functionality of the players. If they chose not to, it won't but that then reflects the choice of the consumers. We should not then try and force it on them.

Quote:
I have expressed some very rational logic for choosing the two options, even if you disagree. In my opinion, there is no middle ground on this issue. In my opinion, LN defaulted to off might as well be no LN in there at all.
Then I would prefer no LN just as I despise Apple for having sound enhancement ON by default in iTunes. Media players should have absolutely no sound manipulation on by default. Nothing.

I find it utterly preposterous to limit freedom in favor of catering for the fears of musicians too afraid of releasing uncrushed music. They need a couch to talk about their fears from, not some **** volume control.

Alistair
Old 18th November 2009
  #78
Deleted User
Guest
I find it very disturbing and extremely ignorant when "professionals" simplify ordinary music consumers into being a bunch of half-deaf idiots.


Regards
Patrik
Old 18th November 2009
  #79
Mastering
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kjg View Post
I wouldn't call saying that Norah Jones doesn't have enough freedom of expression very rational. Hilarious is a better term.

And if it is *on* by default a lot of music will be not represented as the artists chose. They will have no choice, because a choice has been made for them. Not even by the consumer/audience, but by a third party. Yuk!
KJG, with all due respect, you are misrepresenting both sets of issues. In response to the Norah Jones, there is one probable answer as to why her three albums are hypercompressed: she or the record company chose to do so for business reasons. She had the freedom to choose, of course, but the pressure to choose one over the other. Her sonic expression was sublimated to a business decision. Yes she had the freedom, but due to the demands of the current system in place, her choice was a business-choice, not a sonic one. Would she have made a sonic choice if LN was the system? More likely, in my opinion.

As for your second issue, your argument is flawed because with LN the artist who makes a dynamic album will get her music represented as she chose, because it will be played at the proper loudness. The artist who chose to make a dynamic album will likely get her artistic wish because LN will turn her up. I've made some albums with a "Turn Me Up" request on the traycard. LN will fulfill these artists' wishes. I strongly doubt she wants to be played too softly. You could respond by saying that the hypercompressed artist doesn't say on the back of his album, "Turn Me Down"! But in an ecumenical world, LN will restore some order and encourage more artists to be dynamic so in then it's a win-win situation. Consider LN as a smart volume control, jukebox-ready. If you don't want a jukebox, turn off the LN.
Old 18th November 2009
  #80
Craneslut
 
Brad Blackwood's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob katz View Post
KJG, with all due respect, you are misrepresenting both sets of issues. In response to the Norah Jones, there is one probable answer as to why her three albums are hypercompressed: she or the record company chose to do so for business reasons. She had the freedom to choose, of course, but the pressure to choose one over the other.
You're assuming her releases sound the way they do due to market pressures because you have an agenda.

How do you explain artists who have enjoyed similar success without crushing?
Old 18th November 2009
  #81
kjg
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bob katz View Post
KJG, with all due respect, you are misrepresenting both sets of issues. In response to the Norah Jones, there is one probable answer as to why her three albums are hypercompressed: she or the record company chose to do so for business reasons. She had the freedom to choose, of course, but the pressure to choose one over the other.
yes, she chose to give business priority over art. and she is free to. no need to force anything on her.

Quote:
As for your second issue, your argument is flawed because actually with LN it is MORE likely that the dynamic artist will get their wish. The artist who chose to make a dynamic album will likely get her artistic wish because LN will turn her up. The wish of the dynamic artist is for the consumer to Turn Her Up. LN will realize her wish. I strongly doubt she wants to be played too softly.
I am surprised that you still do not get my point.
The point is that you should not try to FORCE anything on anybody.
Not on artist, not on entrepreneurs and not on consumers.

I would love nicer sounding more dynamic music. But free art, free market and respect for costumers if also a tiny, tiny bit important to me.

I might have chosen LN, default to off. Which was not there. Default to on is trying to force your opinion on artist, disrespecting to consumers, and interfering with free market.

This is not about sound quality to me at all. Consumers are free to choose, and they do. So are entertainers and they do. So are artists and they do.
No need for moderation.
Old 18th November 2009
  #82
Here for the gear
 

I know, you can TAX level. Those that have a higher than say.... 10db RMS will be taxed $4 a record. It's obvious they can afford it because they paid a lot of money for that loudness. Those that are really soft, we can give them $2 for every CD they don't sell. This way everyone will strive to make soft records. If the soft thing doesn't fly, well, now we can pay for healthcare with this new found money.

Problem(s) solved.
Old 18th November 2009
  #83
Lives for gear
 
Hannes_F's Avatar
 

I don't know whether this has been mentioned before but the DJ software Traktor Pro by Native Instruments has a pretty good analyze function which adds an individual gain to each song. I suppose that is the same as the second version of loudness normalisation in the original post.

I really love this feature and it is one reason why I DJ with software. Before that you had to level out each song individually. This is of course possible and good practise for a DJ but if you forget or are on toilet it could happen that the whole audience were p***ed off by a song beginning way too loud and you would see me running to the dj desk. Especially if you are mixing songs from different decades. Problem solved, the control is much better now ... without using any additional compression or other sound-degrading effects.

I still level out a bit here and there but Bobby McFerrin "Don't worry be happy" is now as loud as Lady Gaga "Poker face" by default, just to mention some extremes. Which makes me grin now and then when I notice that so much effort is done in production to make songs louder for radio ... when they are played in a club or at a party that has a good DJ the loudness of a song is is really a non-topic. Better or worse sound is independent from loudness in this context.
Old 18th November 2009
  #84
Lives for gear
 
wado1942's Avatar
 

Quote:
And if it is *on* by default a lot of music will be not represented as the artists chose. They will have no choice, because a choice has been made for them. Not even by the consumer/audience, but by a third party. Yuk!
The artist does not now nor have they EVER been able to force you to listen to anything at a certain level. The listener has been and will always be able to determine their own playback level. The idea that destroying the top 14dB of their music to MAKE the listener hear one album louder than the previous album is obsurd in the first place. What happens is the consumer turnes down his volume knob and that is no different from what Bob K is suggesting aside from saving you the reach. There is absolutelly no artistic reason Angels & Airwaves should be 17dB louder than The Police, particularly since the final outcome is just the consumer turning the knob till the levels are similar anyway. It's a stupid child's game that's gone way too far and record sales as well as art are suffering for it.

Also, I'm sure I'll get lynched for saying so but everybody is WAY too uptight about this thread. A checkbox on a niche forum isn't going to change the world, certainly not forcibly.



Quote:
Consumers are free to choose, and they do.
Really? Where can I get the -20dBfs RMS version of Augustana's last record? When EVERYTHING being released follows the same trend, the power of choice is eliminated.
Old 18th November 2009
  #85
Deleted User
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
Oh and the CD-changer at the party scenario, that is just bogus. That is background noise. Not music. It doesn't matter how it sounds in the first place so all your arguments for better dynamics are invalidated per definition for that scenario.
Speaking of noise: I find it ironic that a world of aspiring young ME's are trying to calibrate their monitoring by playing out noise in order to become less fatiguing and more dynamic.


Regards
Patrik
Old 18th November 2009
  #86
kjg
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by wado1942 View Post
The artist does not now nor have they EVER been able to force you to listen to anything at a certain level. The listener has been and will always be able to determine their own playback level.
Of course they are not able to force anything. which is exactly why there is no need for a default on (or any) LN system.
Artists are free to use the medium the way they want, and should be.

And someone in the entertainment biz is free to crush 20 dB if he thinks that will help sales.

Quote:
It's a stupid child's game that's gone way too far and record sales as well as art are suffering for it.
Record sales might be down, main stream products might be crushed, but art is doing just fine.


Quote:
Really? Where can I get the -20dBfs RMS version of Augustana's last record? When EVERYTHING being released follows the same trend, the power of choice is eliminated.
You buy, or you don't. That is your choice, has it ever been different? Just go spend money on some decent none crushed music.
It is a shame that some artist are insecure or influenced by management. But only they can choose differently, and there are enough artists that do.
Old 18th November 2009
  #87
Lives for gear
 
wado1942's Avatar
 

Quote:
Just go spend money on some decent none crushed music.
That's my whole point. There's virtually no music available that isn't crushed. At least in the 80s when hundreds of records were ruined by MIDI sequencing for the sake of sales, there was still plenty of other music out there to chose. Now if I want an album, I have to find one mastered before 1990 or so which is most likely used and won't show on the sales charts.
Old 19th November 2009
  #88
Mastering
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kjg View Post

I am surprised that you still do not get my point.
The point is that you should not try to FORCE anything on anybody.
Not on artist, not on entrepreneurs and not on consumers.
The problem is that by doing nothing, by choosing NO OPTION, or no LM it is YOU who are FORCING something on us! The current recording system is designed to ENCOURAGE hypercompressed music, so it's causing an epidemic of hypercompressed music to be put before the consumer, reducing our freedom of choice.

Everybody complains about hypercompression and overloud CDs but when offered a solution to the problem starts to complain about regulation without thinking this through deeply enough. There is a very simple reason why the digital recording system encourages hypercompression: It's called "Peak Normalization". The ability to peak normalize has placed us in this quandary. It's entirely unnatural from a psychoacoustic viewpoint and is the major problem with the digital recording system.

Mastering engineers who have been forced to recalibrate their VU meters higher and higher from year to year understand this very well.
Old 19th November 2009
  #89
Lives for gear
 
Waltz Mastering's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Restrictor plate audio.
Old 19th November 2009
  #90
Gear Nut
 
+6/185's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bob katz View Post
The problem is that by doing nothing, by choosing NO OPTION, or no LM it is YOU who are FORCING something on us! The current recording system is designed to ENCOURAGE hypercompressed music, so it's causing an epidemic of hypercompressed music to be put before the consumer, reducing our freedom of choice.
Doing nothing? I don’t buy music that sounds bad to my ear.

Did digital reverbs ENCOURAGE too much reverb in the 80’s. Were punk records too distorted? Should we have done something to control it? Where does it end?
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
ianshepherd / Mastering forum
18
Quad / The Moan Zone
4
kenjkelly / Mastering forum
7

Forum Jump
Forum Jump