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 19th November 2009
  #151
Mastering
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
I am not being short-sighted. I am debunked another one of your arguments. I will go even further and say that auto-shuffle and appreciating quality are mutually exclusive paradigms.
Alistair, I'd like to hear your argument on that point in more detail.

I think some of your other points are well-stated, even if I don't agree with them all. Argue on... As long as this discussion stays on the level of ideas, then we can get somewhere.

BK

"Jane, you ignorant slut". --- Saturday Night Live
Old 19th November 2009
  #152
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waltz Mastering View Post
So true.

I have yet to hear one consumer complain about cd levels being to hot.

Ever.
At least 21079 have complained about Death Magnetic: Re-Mix or Remaster Death Magnetic! Petition


Alistair
Old 19th November 2009
  #153
Mastering
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
That is not what 807Recordings is claiming. He is claiming that if you have to reduce the crushed music by 8 or 9 dB to be at the same perceived level as the non-crushed music, cheaper and smaller playback systems will not have enough power to satisfy the consumers. Lowering the maximum level of an iPod by 9 dB below it's current maximum will be unacceptable to many owners. The same goes for boom boxes, laptops etc.
It's an interesting argument. It doesn't make sense to me. It's not power, it's gain structure, anyway. I say there's plenty of gain left in the Ipod gain to blast your ears with hypercompressed material, because there's plenty of gain to turn up the dynamic material. So yes, in an LN system, the maximum possible level you can play Metallica would be turned down, but that would already be many dB above the distortion point of the Ipods reproduction circuitry. This is becuase the Ipod has to be designed with enough reserve gain to play soft music, and it does.

But in the worst case, if I'm wrong, then the Ipod software can be reverted and we can put LN to rest in the pasture until new hardware is designed, sad for me.

BK
Old 19th November 2009
  #154
Mastering
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TurtleTone Studi View Post
I think it's clear why the options are what they are.
If you're claiming that my money and income are at the root of my preferences you're just being plain obnoxious and wrong. It took me 40 years of hard work to get to drive a Suburu Outback, I'm not rolling in dough and most of us mastering engineers are in a similar boat. My motivations are strictly related to my preferences for consumers who want to have sound quality to have the opportunity to get it.

BK
Old 19th November 2009
  #155
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob katz View Post
2. However, despite the education and the positive movement, only a technical solution will solve a loudness race that's currently at the end of a 20 dB crescendo!
It is 20 dB now? Even less likely to be implemented on portable players and boom boxes.

You know Bob, you really are arguing yourself into a corner. A corner with no LN at all. That is a shame. I still think having Replay Gain as an option on every player would be a nice thing.

Alistair
Old 19th November 2009
  #156
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bob katz View Post
Let me see if I understand what concerns you, Bob. Are you concerned that a simple level correction (gain adjustment) based on a loudness measurement would sound poor?
Poor isn't the word - Unnatural would be a better word.

Different music is designed to sound at different measured "loudness." What people consider louder or softer cannot be properly measured using current ITU specs. As a matter of fact, most of the industry doesn't really have a clue. When rap music measures 3 dB louder than rock music, most listeners would say that they are equal loudness.

If current standards or something close to that were used to detect loudness, and 14 dB of compensation was applied you would destroy the difference in styyles of music.

If however, 6 dB of compensation was applied, you could have a system that helped.

This reminds me about advice I give mastering students:

If the intro of a tune is 12 dB lower than the rest of the trune, making the tune sound weak, try a volume envelope that raises the intro 6 dB.

I guess this is getting quite off-topic
Old 19th November 2009
  #157
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob katz View Post
This is the folly of the peak-normalization concept
Bob, really. Peak Normalisation is not folly. It is good engineering. It maximises the number of bits of the delivery medium used. It lowers the digital noise floor. It is the best thing since sliced bread.

I guess it is telling that you call it a folly. The system you propose would achieve the exact same result every single time! Even if an artist chooses to have their acoustic guitar CD peak at -12 dB FS, your proposed system will have it just as loud as the latest black metal hit. Your folly trumps er... your folly.

The other folly I see here is trying to combine shuffle play with quality listening. These are diametrically opposed listening scenarios. They have nothing to do with each other.

Alistair
Old 19th November 2009
  #158
Mastering
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
Bob, really. Peak Normalisation is not folly. It is good engineering. It maximises the number of bits of the delivery medium used. It lowers the digital noise floor. It is the best thing since sliced bread.
I debunk that argument in my book. The idea of "maximizing the bits and peak level" has no merit in practicality in improving AUDIBLE signal to noise. In summary: The ear hears noise based on its RMS level, not its peak level. When you adjust the gain of the playback system for normal playback level, there's plenty of "footroom" to go even in a 16 bit system. You work in film, so you know that with standard SMPTE monitor gains and even 16 bits, there is no audible hiss coming from the monitors. That means there's plenty of signal to noise ratio and no reason to peak normalize. And for rock with a 14 dB peak to average ratio, you could lower it 6 dB, never peak to the top and still have the same excellent signal to noise ratio you have with a major film.

Quote:

The other folly I see here is trying to combine shuffle play with quality listening. These are diametrically opposed listening scenarios. They have nothing to do with each other.

Alistair
If I gave the impression that shuffle play and quality listening go together, that was the wrong impression. I'm simply saying that each participant and preferent gets far more potential for the best he wants with an LN system being available than not.

Keep the arguments coming!

BK
Old 19th November 2009
  #159
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob katz View Post
It's an interesting argument. It doesn't make sense to me. It's not power, it's gain structure, anyway.
Not really. You need 9 dB more power in the system to achieve the same loudness with LN turned on (on the crushed tracks of course). Or you need 9 dB more headroom in the electronics to allow the softer tracks to sound as loud as the crushed ones would without LN. It makes the devices more expensive and potentially much more dangerous if someone turns off LN.

Quote:
I say there's plenty of gain left in the Ipod gain to blast your ears with hypercompressed material, because there's plenty of gain to turn up the dynamic material. So yes, in an LN system, the maximum possible level you can play Metallica would be turned down, but that would already be many dB above the distortion point of the Ipods reproduction circuitry. This is becuase the Ipod has to be designed with enough reserve gain to play soft music, and it does.
That is possible. I don't own any portable players nor do I ever use headphones. The last time I did own one many years ago I do remember sometimes finding the output of my discman a bit low in a noisy environment. Judging by what I sometimes hear coming out of some people's ear buds, I suspect some people want it even much louder than I could ever imagine listening to!

You might say that these people can turn LN off. I say you can turn LN on.

Quote:
But in the worst case, if I'm wrong, then the Ipod software can be reverted and we can put LN to rest in the pasture until new hardware is designed, sad for me.
It is a question of cost. Not of technology.

Alistair
Old 19th November 2009
  #160
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob katz View Post
Dear Alistair, here are some references for you about peak normalization. Using a peak meter and working to make the material reach its top is the same as peak normalization. I'm including some very short selected quotes from these each of these by email and since these are less than a paragraph in length they can be considered to be used for review purposes and not violate copyright intent.

<snipped for brevity>

Hope this helps,


Bob
Thank you very much Bob for taking the time and making the effort of collecting these texts and posting them here.

All these texts confirm what I wrote earlier. It is about peak metering. Not peak normalisation. Except text Nr 5. Now who could that be by?

Only the TC guys argue that this metering caused the loudness war but anyway, I do not in any way agree with them. We always will need peak metering to know whether we are within the physical limits of the media being used. There is no way around that. If engineers would and would have been using loudness meters predominantly, I reckon that the loudness wars would have been an even bigger issue!

With peak metering as a reference, anyone wanting to sound louder than the competition needs to listen to a reference CD from the competition to compare loudness. If a loudness meter were constantly visible in front of the engineers, they might very well be constantly and consciously trying to achieve higher loudness. (Very much like some budding mix engineers do now). The loudness aspect becomes very much in your face. The meters keep reminding you! The clients might even be egging the engineer on if loudness measurements become ubiquitous and widely known.

"Yeah but Mr Engineer, MC Loud Brotha hav da 20 loudness. Iz only sees da 18 loudness maan. I want da 21 loudness maan".

As for broadcast levels. I am very familiar with all the issues there. That is the world I spend most of my time in. No need to tell me. That would be preaching to the choir. My mixes tend to be softer in loudness than many of my colleagues but not by the time they come out of the TV speakers.

Alistair
Old 19th November 2009
  #161
Lives for gear
 
807Recordings's Avatar
 

Verified Member
I think I may not have included enough information to get my point across.
The 50K watts was only a point that even on these systems people still are using **** software and convertors with terrible dynamic range. It is of course possible to master stuff well and have it come across clean on such a big rig. Something very few home systems can even come close to. Even audiophile systems. But that is getting a bit off topic.

Back to the consumer.... Unless your living in an igloo you have missed the point that most kids listen to their music on their phones. By on their phones I mean annoying the bloody hell out of me and other users on the tram as they play their music out of a iphone or similar devices built in speaker. At best they are listening on a boom box or some 3,99 earphones never mind 14dB as they are lucky to get 3dB.


Sure iTunes does over load and their could be a better implementation but I suspect the reality I is most systems today are just too crap.

Even my iphone when I use my Shure PTH 500's isolation in ear monitors it barely is loud enough when I have a -14dB crest factor. The output circuit just can not drive the full range, and these are not even that hard of a load.
Old 19th November 2009
  #162
Moderator
 
jayfrigo's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
At least 21079 have complained about Death Magnetic: Re-Mix or Remaster Death Magnetic! Petition


Alistair
There was also significant fan push-back on Rush's Vapor Trails CD. I recall there being a couple others as well, though the exact titles escape me at the moment. Some articles, perhaps one in Wired if I remember correctly, have also brought up the issue. I won't say it's a majority by any stretch, but the issue clearly is starting to show up on the radar of consumers.

Still, I'm not sure a default to some kind of level policing is the answer. It would be a nice optional feature if it weren't some kind of awful compressor or processing that would degrade the sound. I'm just not sure I trust it to be benign, if history is any indication.
Old 19th November 2009
  #163
Gear Nut
 
pinwale's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bob katz View Post
Thanks for confusing what I do for a living, Edward!

Bob Katz Credits - ARTISTdirect Music

BK
Bob,

With all due respect, this itself calls some attention to a disconnect in your thesis. If you were to look at the discographies of some who disagree strongly with your LN concept, say Messrs. Collins, Fossenkemper, O'Neil and Blackwood for example, you would see in the more widely recognizable titles there, that their discographies indicate considerably more exposure to the market forces whose influence your concept is seeking to restrict. I don't mean to assail your workmanship as an engineer at all, but you don't seem to be trading as much in the contemporary, chart-topping popular music that others here do, hence some skepticism in seeing you bank experience in your credibilty against those disagreeing with you.

For that matter, a question was asked some pages ago that I find germane to the discussion.

Quote:
How do you explain artists who have enjoyed similar success without crushing?
Old 19th November 2009
  #164
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob katz View Post
I debunk that argument in my book. The idea of "maximizing the bits and peak level" has no merit in practicality in improving AUDIBLE signal to noise. In summary: The ear hears noise based on its RMS level, not its peak level. When you adjust the gain of the playback system for normal playback level, there's plenty of "footroom" to go even in a 16 bit system.
That is debatable. On very dynamic material you can easily be down to 12 effective bits. Take out a bit for peaking at -6 dB FS instead of 0, and you are down to 11 bits. It's getting dodgy!

Quote:
You work in film, so you know that with standard SMPTE monitor gains and even 16 bits, there is no audible hiss coming from the monitors. That means there's plenty of signal to noise ratio and no reason to peak normalize. And for rock with a 14 dB peak to average ratio, you could lower it 6 dB, never peak to the top and still have the same excellent signal to noise ratio you have with a major film.
Yes I hear the monitor hiss in every dubbing room I've been in when everything is silent. Anyway, every film that I am aware of peaks at between -2 and 0 dB. That might be just once during the whole film but still, in effect, the films are peak normalised.

Alistair
Old 19th November 2009
  #165
Lives for gear
 
Waltz Mastering's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
At least 21079 have complained
I haven't spoken to any of those people.

I - meaning "personally"... not cyber space ; )
Old 19th November 2009
  #166
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
...He is claiming that if you have to reduce the crushed music by 8 or 9 dB to be at the same perceived level as the non-crushed music, cheaper and smaller playback systems will not have enough power to satisfy the consumers. Lowering the maximum level of an iPod by 9 dB below it's current maximum will be unacceptable to many owners. The same goes for boom boxes, laptops etc....
Isn't that basically an argument pro crushed to death hypercompressed music then?
Because the same music uncrushed with natural dynamic would also be 9 dB too soft, accoridng to your logic?
Old 19th November 2009
  #167
Lives for gear
 

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

1)
Audio Engineering Society
Convention Paper
Presented at the 125th Convention 2008 October 2–5 San Francisco, CA, USA

Loudness Descriptors to Characterize Programs and Music Tracks
Esben Skovenborg1 and Thomas Lund2
1 TC Group Research, Risskov, DK-8240 Denmark [email protected]
2 TC Electronic, Risskov, DK-8240 Denmark [email protected]

A short one-paragraph excerpt:

"Level control in digital audio production has traditionally been based on measuring peak level; often just taking the value of individual samples, which requires a minimum of processing-power. Such practice makes material with low dynamic range appear louder, and has led to the so-called loudness war in music production (see e.g. [1])."
IMO that's just wrong. "Appear louder"? Optically to the uninitiated maybe. WHat has loudness to do with optics?

Also engineers have an education and know that the relation of peak and average level and perceived loudness are dependent on the program.

That is clearly not the reason for the loudness war. The reason for the loudness war is competition of business people disregarding quality for perceived quantitative gain.
Free market capitalism works like that regarding art. It trivializes and prostitutes and in the end destroys it. Has always been like that. Most valuable art has been created outside of the free market, few exceptions apply.

-----
Quote:
2)

Presented at the 115th Convention 2003 October 10–13 New York, New York
___________________________________
Intelligent Program Loudness Measurement and Control: What Satisfies Listeners?
Jeffrey C. Riedmiller, Steve Lyman, and Charles Robinson
Dolby Laboratories Inc. San Francisco, CA. 94103, USA

A short excerpt:

"As implied by the name, a PPM responds very quickly to changes in the signal level. It was designed to help identify potentially problematic peaks or transients which may exceed distortion limits in a device being used. Because the instantaneous fluctuations in a signal may be so brief as to pass unnoticed, the PPM was designed to react quickly to peak onsets but fall more gradually from these peak levels. The human ear is not particularly sensitive to instantaneous peaks in signal level and while such peaks of short duration may be present in a signal the perceived loudness of the overall signal may not be significantly effected. This makes a peak meter less effective in indicating how loud the signal being passed might sound to the human ear."
This is common basic engineering knowledge for decades. I'm sure even DOlby's engineers have figured that out for a long time already. Analog PPM (<10 ms rise time) have been used since the 1960s or even earlier, without leading to a loudness war then.

Quote:
------

3) Program Loudness: Nuts & Bolts
Jean Paul Moerman
VRT
Belgian National Broadcasters for the Flemish Community August Reyerslaan 52, B-1043 Brussels Belgium [email protected]

Short excerpt:

"1. Viewer complaints
Nevertheless let’s start with something else and perhaps more familiar, viewer complaints. Not these are the problem, but we broadcasters seem to be the cause of this never ending story. Complaints about audio level- differences during broadcasting of programs: annoying trailers and commercials, dialogue to difficult to identify and to understand, too loud music
...Viewers were extremely annoyed by the sudden jumps in levels. The sound engineer possessed only a digital peak meter."
Clearly operator error. Every decent engineer knows he has to balance the loudness of a program with his ears only. Unfortunately often today not the engineers are to blame but lousy working conditions and faulty workflows or "engineerless" (half-)automated broadcasting scenarios.

But again, clearly NOT the fault of the PPM.
---
Quote:
4)

Audio Engineering Society
Convention Paper 7044
Presented at the 122nd Convention 2007 May 5–8 Vienna, Austria
Broadcast Loudness: Mixing, Monitoring
and Control
Alessandro Travaglini
FOX INTERNATIONAL CHANNELS (Italy), Rome, 00138, Italy [email protected]

"3.2. Audio mastering operation
Unfortunately, in the broadcast industry it is common to use technical recommendations that only indicate reference and maximum permitted electrical levels. Only very skilled sound engineers know how to interpret them in order to understand the loudness of metered signal. The lack of detail on this subject does not allow operators to master at a guaranteed loudness level, although the produced audio mixes comply with those recommendations. The following pictures represent two waveforms from programs: both signals have maximum true peak at -10dBFS, but that is not enough for guarantying loudness consistency. In fact, the measured loudness differs by 11 dB Leq(A)."
It is not unfortunate, it is absolutely fine like that. All you need is a qualified individual to balance the program, primarily with the ears and secondary with the PPM and experience. It has been done with good results for decades.
No loudness meter comes even close to the capabilities of a human in evaluating relative loudness.

----
Quote:
5)
From Mastering Audio, the Art and the Science, Second Edition, page 168

Short excerpt:

"In the analog recording system, most engineers
used VU meters,
Maybe in the US... it was the lousiest "meter" existing, but also the cheapest...
Quote:
...ending up with a fairly consistent
average level and loudness regardless of the amount
of compression used.
Because of their ears, not their meters.
Quote:
The way analog LPs used to be made
is similar to loudness normalization, seen at right in
the figure. The first bar represents a recording with
20 dB peak to average ratio; its average loudness (in
forte passages) is at the 0 dB line. If we compress
and loudness-normalize this recording, its loudness
remains consistent. However, digital recording
allowed us to peak-normalize, seen at left. If we
compress and peak-normalize this recording, its
average level goes up as we decrease dynamic range.
Since mastering engineers can now easily normalize
to the peak, compressed material gains an unfair
level advantage over uncompressed material. The
Compact Disc became the catalyst for the
accelerated digital loudness race. Peak-normalization
is the fuel that keeps the motors running."
Wrong again. Content creation ALWAYS has "peak normalized" the program content based on the dynamic range of the target medium for obvious reasons. Even more so for the early analog recording systems with their very limited dynamic range.

It was always common sense, that for achieving relative equal loudness for sequential playback of different content, it had to be balanced by a human. No matter if at home, in the broadcasting studio or at a live show.

All these automated loudness business has only one point, to do loudness equalization without costly humans. C'est la vie...
Old 19th November 2009
  #168
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by audio ergo sum View Post
Isn't that basically an argument pro crushed to death hypercompressed music then?
Because the same music uncrushed with natural dynamic would also be 9 dB too soft, accoridng to your logic?
Not quite. Most overly crushed music would be OK with a couple of dBs less loudness. Some need even more compression/limiting reduction probably.

My point is that Bob's argument is invalid. If the music is pulled down by 9 dB (although that number has now risen to 20 dB!) some consumers will complain. They might even try and return their newly purchased iPods causing Apple a headache. Large manufacturers tend to try avoiding headaches.

Alistair
Old 19th November 2009
  #169
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by audio ergo sum View Post
That is clearly not the reason for the loudness war. The reason for the loudness war is competition of business people disregarding quality for perceived quantitative gain. Free market capitalism works like that regarding art. It trivializes and prostitutes and in the end destroys it. Has always been like that.
A bit like the way free market capitalism trivializes and prostitutes "research papers"?

Bob, TC are trying to sell their new meter. They are not really trying to understand the cause of the loudness wars.

Alistair
Old 19th November 2009
  #170
Lives for gear
 
Taurean's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by audio ergo sum View Post

That is clearly not the reason for the loudness war. The reason for the loudness war is competition of business people disregarding quality for perceived quantitative gain.
..
Totally agree... the reasons for loudness and the means to curbing it lie in the understanding of the psychology of why it is done.
Read my blog about it regarding this perspective.
Old 19th November 2009
  #171
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward_Vinatea View Post
Dear Bob,

You have two successful books published and have been educating the future engineers, artists and producers for several years now. You are primarily an educator, a ME second, and a direct result of the technological audio revolution that created among many wonderful things, the "Loudness War".

Here is where you are going wrong, you are advocating for a new system {LN, default "on"} that will impact on people's listening habits, will change the excitement and sense of discovery and foment the idea that an "egalitarian" system for listening is a good thing. More importantly, you are advocating for the arbitrary creation of a new standard in hopes that these artists, producers, managers, etc, will stop the nasty habit of slamming the music up with over compression.

There are already other systems put in place which indicate that it won't make a difference at all. It is known that the public does not control "overcompression" trends.

Bob, don't give up on yourself. The books are out there and doing their educational job. You have planted the seeds. I assume that you have addressed in your book the lunacy of hyper-compression, its good and bad points, etc, etc, so please don't assume that those who read you just don't get it. But, don't expect that your work will change the general thinking overnight either. The loudness wars should subside as new generations of new engineers, artists and producers start making their impact in the industry and should go exponentially towards less limiting as it went towards "louder".

Having said all that, do not also assume that loud records are entirely crapola. Some have a legitimate artistic argument to be that way. It's still within the artist's right to free expression, so putting a cap onto that option would be a very bad policy and will threaten in this respect artistic freedom everywhere.

Be patient Bob, keep educating the new artist and producers as you had for years, forget new LN schemes, server algorithms, iPods and focus on what's real. Remember, the tide is on your side, the majors that pushed for the loudness wars continue going on a downward decline while the 'indies' are consistently increasing their influence in the music industry. Some day it will be a brand new day for music and the freedom of art.

So be patient Bob, be patient. I hope you don't find this post condescending, that's not my intention.

PS: I haven't placed my vote yet, I don't think I will. But, as some mentioned it, I would have probably also voted for LN default "off" and hope for the best.

Regards,
Critical, but hands down the most intelligent, insightful, and generous post on this whole bloated and benighted thread. Undervalued trait, generosity. Lots posted I can agree with - on both sides, and I work genres not so affected by BK's blight - but so much heat for such paucity of illumination!

SB
Old 19th November 2009
  #172
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by PatrikT View Post
Or writing books that are revised and sold again?


No greed and pure security it clearly seems.


Regards
Patrik
This is the idiot ungenerosity (compared to Edward V). Many many books are revised for 2nd or 3rd or many more editions: it shows desire to keep up with knowledge. University standard texts are revised every couple years. Your post makes you a bit ugly.

Sorry

SB
Old 19th November 2009
  #173
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver Sonya View Post
This is a discussion about ideas.

Why are people being so nasty?

Chill, everybody.

- c
+1 - (wish I'd read this before posting my other two - it's much more to the point!).

SB
Old 19th November 2009
  #174
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver Sonya View Post
This is a discussion about ideas.

Why are people being so nasty?

Chill, everybody.

- c
+1 Unfortunately it seems to happen a lot in this forum.
Old 19th November 2009
  #175
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Waltz Mastering View Post
So true.

I have yet to hear one consumer complain about cd levels being to hot.

Ever.

It's a total non issue with laymen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waltz Mastering View Post
I haven't spoken to any of those people.

I - meaning "personally"... not cyber space ; )
Whilst I acknowledge your personal note, and not that I have anything at all to add to the technical issues here, but I'd really like to comment that an awful lot of us (gee, I HATE the word but...) audiophiles are very aware indeed of 'the loudness wars'. For all I know that term could be way too limited for what you guys are discussing....

Trouble is, even we recognise that we could be that last gasp of a dying hobby...hi end audio.

I wonder if the two are some how going hand in hand? What's the point of a great reproduction system if all you can play is crap?? (else only listen to what is well recorded..yuck. The system is only a vehicle for the music, not the other way round)
Old 19th November 2009
  #176
Mastering
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
A bit like the way free market capitalism trivializes and prostitutes "research papers"?

Bob, TC are trying to sell their new meter. They are not really trying to understand the cause of the loudness wars.

Alistair
I disagree. I feel that putting the capitalist label on my friend Thomas Lund's fine research is a complete misrepresentation. Over the years I've come to know him and the company, it's a very progressive Danish company with very few titles and very little hierarchy or red tape. The engineers work together and collaborate in a unique way. You should see the amount of research and testing that they go through to create their reverb algorithms; they're quite serious about it and justifiably proud of it, far beyond any commercial notion. The System 6000 is a loss-leader product that probably has not even earned back its investment; TC thinks in the long term and often develops products that their individual engineers think would be nice to make rather than some corporate directive.

TC also gives its research and sales engineers (like Thomas Lund) the opportunity to do research and development and write papers which while of course they are connected to product concepts are far from the kind of puff pieces I've seen from many other manufacturers. They sponsor numerous seminars, which in good times (before the recession) have brought speakers like George Massenburg and myself to Paris. When we asked them what should we talk about they didn't say that we had to talk about TC equipment or even use TC equipment. We talked about what we wanted to talk about and what we were passionate over.

An interesting tidbit is that around the time that Thomas wrote the paper I cited and I was writing the second edition of my book a lightbulb went off in my head, a realization about Sample-level Peak Normalization as the strongest contributor to the digital loudness war, that explained why CDs went up 16-20 dB in 20 years while LPs only went up about four. I wrote to my friend Thomas about my "Eureka" and it turned out that he had had the identical realization about the same time about Peak Normalization. We both came to the same conclusions.

Mind you, both of us have been musing about this topic for 8-12 years (does that sound Capitalist to you?) and it took that long for that particular light to hit us both simultaneously, no collusion. So it's no surprise to me that you (Alistair) are so skeptical about their motivations and ready to deny the contribution of Peak Normalization to the loudness race. You have to have been thinking about it for a while to connect the dots. I hope that the 4 or 5 research papers that I cited here help you in that context.
Old 19th November 2009
  #177
kjg
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bob katz View Post
. So it's no surprise to me that you (Alistair) are so skeptical about their motivations and ready to deny the contribution of Peak Normalization to the loudness race. You have to have been thinking about it for a while to connect the dots. I hope that the 4 or 5 research papers that I cited here help you in that context.
Silly Alistair. But, give him a few more years and he's probably able to connect the dots as well!

Obviously those who don't agree with you just haven't been thinking it through long enough.
Old 19th November 2009
  #178
Lives for gear
 
Cellotron's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Bob -
Without repeating the numerous points made in other posts regarding this - got to say I'm in the camp that thinks the LN idea is seriously flawed, and as currently proposed I'm without a question opposed to it.

An infinitely better solution to the loudness war to me - and one that does not require any new technology or cooperation from any manufacturer - is for the artist to simply issue 2 versions of the material - one crushed to whatever extent they wish it to be, and one left more dynamic to whatever extent they think a possible more audiophilic audience will want it at. Due to the way that music is primarily distributed and purchased offering two versions of the same release with extremely minimal additional expense is finally possible - as it only costs a small amount of additional mastering time, and a small additional fee from the digital aggregator for handling an additional release. This way the audience can preview the downloads as they each sound and choose the one that fits their needs best. I've already been doing a bit of this for some clients - mainly to provide a less crushed hi-res version for vinyl cutting - but it would be very easy to do this to provide different versions for download as well.

Best regards,
Steve Berson
Old 19th November 2009
  #179
Lives for gear
 
Silver Sonya's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cellotron View Post
Bob -
Without repeating the numerous points made in other posts regarding this - got to say I'm in the camp that thinks the LN idea is seriously flawed, and as currently proposed I'm without a question opposed to it.

An infinitely better solution to the loudness war to me - and one that does not require any new technology or cooperation from any manufacturer - is for the artist to simply issue 2 versions of the material - one crushed to whatever extent they wish it to be, and one left more dynamic to whatever extent they think a possible more audiophilic audience will want it at. Due to the way that music is primarily distributed and purchased offering two versions of the same release with extremely minimal additional expense is finally possible - as it only costs a small amount of additional mastering time, and a small additional fee from the digital aggregator for handling an additional release. This way the audience can preview the downloads as they each sound and choose the one that fits their needs best. I've already been doing a bit of this for some clients - mainly to provide a less crushed hi-res version for vinyl cutting - but it would be very easy to do this to provide different versions for download as well.

Best regards,
Steve Berson
The "sport version" and the "art version" as we call it here at SSonya.



- c
Old 20th November 2009
  #180
Gear Nut
 

Bob how do you achieve loudness without multiband compression?
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