Mastering engineers, help me~

[SouthSIDE Glen]

But a good mix pushed for loudness can still sound good, and it usually does.

But it still more often than not sounds worse than one that's not pushed so hard. And since there's no sonic or economic or ideological or any other advantage to pushing it that hard, there's no point in making it sound worse by doing that.

G.

 

[Greg_L]

But it still more often than not sounds worse than one that's not pushed so hard. And since there's no sonic or economic or ideological or any other advantage to pushing it that hard, there's no point in making it sound worse by doing that.

G.

But that's in the ears of the beholder and goes back to my initial point. There is clealrly an economic advantage to having loud mixes. How do you think this loud business got started? It sells. If the music buying general public doesn't care about an immeasurable quality like "dynamics" , and they clearly don't, then what's the big deal? Who are you trying to save? Set your sights on something easier to fix, like racism and world hunger.

 

[kcearl]

i pushed hard an got hemorrhoids

 

[Greg_L]

i pushed hard an got hemorrhoids

Just push em back in.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

There is clealrly an economic advantage to having loud mixes.

Please explain the "clear" economic advantage to doing something to a mix that neither increases or decreases that end user's desire for or acceptance of any given recording. In fact, both the sales of and public liking of recorded music have benn in decline almost exactly from the start of the current loudness fad.

How do you think this loud business got started?

It got started back in the "golden days" of AM radio back in the early 20th century, when the broadcasters realized that the higher they push the amplitude modulation level of the radio signal, the further their transmissions could be heard, even when the actual wattage of their transmitter stayed the same. Anybody who has dabbled with ham radio or even the early days of CB radio knows this effect just as well. And the further their transmissions could be heard, the more they could charge for their advertising rates.

Now that 98% of music transmission is by frequency modulation, digital satellite transmission or Internet streaming, that effect is no longer in play. What has evolved since the early '90s when the latest fad pretty much started, is the idea that instead of trying to build up the non-MJ, non-Madonna blockbuster acts they sign by pouring scads of money into advertising an act to try and get it to stay on the charts long enough to make tons of money for them, they'd instead try and make a thousand of small, quick hits on the market that cost them next-to-nothing to support and don't stay on the playlists for all that long because of listener fatigue, letting the next over-loud piece of engineering crap come along and take over on the charts for a couple of weeks for very little cost.

Perhaps a good idea for the labels - though the sales and satisfaction figures don't support that - but a lousy idea for the DIY recording artist who wants his or her stuff to be more than a couple of week flash in the pan.

If the music buying general public doesn't care about an immeasurable quality like "dynamics" , and they clearly don't, then what's the big deal? Who are you trying to save?

When actually given the choice, the listener *does* notice the difference, and *does* prefer the stuff that's not over-pushed. And there's nothing "immesureable" about it, we measure dynamics all the time in things like RMS levels and crest factor and such and can measure listener response easily in listening tests.

I care, because I love music. Which is why I'm in this racket to begin with. It's not about being a rock star, it's about making quality music for me, as it is for most folks. And to take away one entire dimension of the music space by forcing everything to be smashed for no good reason, artistic or economic, is tying one of my hands behind my back. It's like telling a photographer that they can only take pictures that are over-exposed or too high in contrast, or telling a chef that they can only cook meals that are only well-done and not medium-rare. It's nonsense to do either of those simply because that's the fashion of what so many lemmings are doing these days.

I don't care if it is tilting at windmills, it's the only course that makes any sense to anyone who actually likes music. I'd rather go down fighting than stay up by being a girly boy about it.

G.

 

[kcearl]

Just push em back in.

I cant, the piercings prevent me

 

[Greg_L]

Please explain the "clear" economic advantage to doing something to a mix that neither increases or decreases that end user's desire for or acceptance of any given recording. In fact, both the sales of and public liking of recorded music have benn in decline almost exactly from the start of the current loudness fad.It got started back in the "golden days" of AM radio back in the early 20th century, when the broadcasters realized that the higher they push the amplitude modulation level of the radio signal, the further their transmissions could be heard, even when the actual wattage of their transmitter stayed the same. Anybody who has dabbled with ham radio or even the early days of CB radio knows this effect just as well. And the further their transmissions could be heard, the more they could charge for their advertising rates.

Like everything else in business, it's monkey-see-monkey-do. When loud CD/single X sells a bunch, so will the next, and the cycle continues. Surely this doesn't need to be explained to you. Did you sleep through the 90's?

Now that 98% of music transmission is by frequency modulation, digital satellite transmission or Internet streaming, that effect is no longer in play. What has evolved since the early '90s when the latest fad pretty much started, is the idea that instead of trying to build up the non-MJ, non-Madonna blockbuster acts they sign by pouring scads of money into advertising an act to try and get it to stay on the charts long enough to make tons of money for them, they'd instead try and make a thousand of small, quick hits on the market that cost them next-to-nothing to support and don't stay on the playlists for all that long because of listener fatigue, letting the next over-loud piece of engineering crap come along and take over on the charts for a couple of weeks for very little cost.

Even the lowly MP3 single needs to be loud so it doesn't stick out as inferior when sandwiched between other loud singles on a user's MP3 player. Contrary to what you may think, people don't want to be fumbling with volume every time the song changes. It takes their thumbs away from texting and facebook updates. Sure, it's easy for you to say "just turn it up". People don't want to have to do that though. Don't blame me, blame them.

When actually given the choice, the listener *does* notice the difference, and *does* prefer the stuff that's not over-pushed.

Proof?

And there's nothing "immesureable" about it, we measure dynamics all the time in things like RMS levels and crest factor and such and can measure listener response easily in listening tests.

The listener doesn't care about RMS levels, or even know what that is. Sure, we can measure it, but the listener can't and doesn't care. They're not gonna buy a song because it's only -18 RMS.

I care, because I love music. Which is why I'm in this racket to begin with. It's not about being a rock star, it's about making quality music for me, as it is for most folks. And to take away one entire dimension of the music space by forcing everything to be smashed for no good reason, artistic or economic, is tying one of my hands behind my back. It's like telling a photographer that they can only take pictures that are over-exposed or too high in contrast, or telling a chef that they can only cook meals that are only well-done and not medium-rare. It's nonsense to do either of those simply because that's the fashion of what so many lemmings are doing these days.

You're doing a great job reversing the trend! Face it, that's all fine and well, but you and every other non-famous engineer/mixer/producer do what you're told. If the customer (band, label, and/or listener) wants it loud, you make it loud if that's your responsibility. You can stand up for your principles, and that's cool, but the next guy will squash that shit into oblivion and collect the cash while you and your principles eat ramen noodles. Unless of course, you only make music for a handful of like-minded audiophile snobs.

I don't care if it is tilting at windmills, it's the only course that makes any sense to anyone who actually likes music. I'd rather go down fighting than stay up by being a girly boy about it.

G.

Lol. Okay then.

 

[Greg_L]

P.S. - congrats, Glen, on getting a serious post out of me, complete with breaking things into individual quotes and responses. I don't often do that, and probably won't again for quite a while. I'm right though, so it was worth it.

 

[miroslav]

Mastering engineers, help me~

Where's that Fala mastering dude when you need him?

P.S. - congrats, Glen, on getting a serious post out of me, complete with breaking things into individual quotes and responses. I don't often do that, and probably won't again for quite a while. I'm right though, so it was worth it.

Yeah...the forums are a buzz that Greg actually made a looooooooooooooong post!
I just had to come over and see for myself.


I agree with Greg...it IS VERY HARD to buck this loudness trend and not end up getting ignored. There are some online radio stations that will NOT play your stuff it it isn't competitively LOUD against all the other shit they play.

But I also totally get Glenn's point, and I am sure if the "industry" slowly turned back the volume (yeah right) , the listening public would adjust to it same as did to the loudness.

I beleive that there is a narrow margin where you CAN get pretty loud and still have some decent kind of dynamics instead of just a flat-line sound wave...but it's tricky getting there. I think you have to work with that in mind from the first track rather than try to make it happen at the last step...which is what a lot of folks end up doing. They get to end of the process and realize their shit isn't loud enough sounding...so they slam it.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Like everything else in business, it's monkey-see-monkey-do. When loud CD/single X sells a bunch, so will the next, and the cycle continues.

That's baloney. The best selling, most successful acts in the history of music are the ones that DON'T copy the other monkeys. U2, Springsteen, Jackson, Madonna, etc. didn't get where they are (or were) by copying anyone else. One might argue that Elvis and the Beatles did copy others, but they did it by copying others that were not being heard in their markets, so were "new" in their markets.

Even the lowly MP3 single needs to be loud so it doesn't stick out as inferior when sandwiched between other loud singles on a user's MP3 player.

Also baloney. I have never, ever heard anyone say, "you know, I like that song, but I never play it because it's not loud enough", and I know you never have either. It's a myth.

I'll repeat it; if someone likes a song, they'll play it regardless of how loud it is, because they like the song. And if the don't like it, it doesn't matter how loud it is, they still won't like it. Loudness is irrelevant to the listener, the quality of the music is all that's relevant to the listener.

The listener doesn't care about RMS levels, or even know what that is. Sure, we can measure it, but the listener can't and doesn't care. They're not gonna buy a song because it's only -18 RMS.

And they're also not going to buy it because it's only -5 RMS. They're going to buy it if they like the song. Period. In which case, might as well make it -18. If they can't be bothered to adjust the volume, they won't adjust the volume. Ok fine. That won;t keep them from listening to the song.

Or at the very least, they will adjust the volume of the MP3 itself when they rip their own MP3 for their on playlist. Let them do that if they really want to. But for the rest of us that don't have tin ears, we'll leave it sounding good.

You're doing a great job reversing the trend! Face it, that's all fine and well, but you and every other non-famous engineer/mixer/producer do what you're told. If the customer (band, label, and/or listener) wants it loud, you make it loud if that's your responsibility.

Again, baloney. As I am not a mastering engineer, my clients are usually on their own as to what they want to do to it after it leaves my hands. If they want it crushed, I won't be the one to do it. On the jobs I have done which I have mastered, I have NEVER pushed that hard, and will not. Contrary to what the small-minded think, there's plenty of work out there for those who do not push, usually amongst real musicians.

The real question, Greg, is why YOU care so much the other way. You spend AT LEAST as much time complaining as loudness "snob" as I do being a dynamics "snob". Give it up. You're not going to change anything either.

G.

 

[jamesl8]

even someone who would dare post here saying "it doesnt have that loudness that determines quality no-a-days" is still far beyond the "general public."

this person didn't even know that their ipod is producing the shittiest possible audio quality. But I bet they know now.

This person is now (after surely noticing the attention the post is getting) a baby step in the right direction.

For me, if i buy new music anymore, it's an old record. There's no loudness war going on there. There is just the loudness "sweet spot" that is unique to each piece of vinyl. You just turn it up to what is clearly the correct listening volume.

 

[kcearl]

well for one not all genres of music are in a loudness war...it is specifically rock and pop, which admittedly do make up most of popular music...also, even though Glen makes some good points that I wish had the backing of the MP3 crowd or the average teenage listener, they do not....it sounds like an old man, no offense, who hasnt been in touch with the youth for quite a while..in fact all these threads just sound like a bunch of old guys arguing about a point that the actual record buying population dont give a shit about and/or are unaware of

The majority of the younger generation demand instant satisfaction and are brought up in a throwaway culture...they dont fiddle with volumes, they dont give a crap about dynamics, and they certainly dont care about the longevity of what they are listening too...they dont care if its 24bit, 16 bit, 44kHz, 96kHz, 320 kbps, 128 kbps, 96 kbps...they just care that it all sounds roughly the same, artistically, volume wise, and has all the gimmicks that are popular that week....I bet if you pointed out to some kid that a quieter track could actually sound even better than a louder track by turning that little knob theyd be amazed..if, in fact, they could turn it up louder than it already was or take their hands out their pockets to do it


see now im sounding like an old man...its fucking infectious

 

[kcearl]

I just remembered something I found funny...it was a review on Steven Slates new limiter which supposedly has the ability not to distort at even at the highest levels of loudness...the reviewer said that in the future people would be able to point to the time when music was made before and after this limiter lol

 

[Greg_L]

The real question, Greg, is why YOU care so much the other way. You spend AT LEAST as much time complaining as loudness "snob" as I do being a dynamics "snob". Give it up. You're not going to change anything either.

G.

Lol. Touchy! I don't care either way. I listen to stuff that sounds like it was recorded with lawnmowers running in the room. I'm not a representative of the general listening public. I'm a realist though, and I'm not biased by nostalgia. I'm also not worried about offending internet "pros" with a dose of common sense. I'm not yelling at new mixes to get off my lawn. Someone's gotta take the reality stance when the out-of-touch audio snob blowhard crowd starts cramming their angry and dated opinions through a limiter for loudness. It's hilariously ironic how loud and harsh yall get when you start talking about loudness.

 

[Lt. Bob]

The majority of the younger generation demand instant satisfaction and are brought up in a throwaway culture...they dont fiddle with volumes, they dont give a crap about dynamics, and they certainly dont care about the longevity of what they are listening too

Hell ..... they often don't even listen to songs all the way thru.
Because I still play out all the time I'm around kids a lot. I even play with 20 year olds fairly often. When you have 5000 songs on your iPod you can't really listen to ANY of them in any great depth.
So they just have a different connection with their music than we did or do.
When we all started (us geezers to be specific) you had maybe a couple of dozen records at most and you listened to them over and over and over and over. They were all you had so you had no choice. You knew every tiny detail and click or pop and every mark on the cover. You knew every word and every little thing about it.
You even listened to your bad records more than once because you didn't have 5000 songs available to you.
Now when I have kids show me their music .... or I listen to it while they are ..... they very often play half a song and move on to the next. With 5000 there have to be most of them that they only listen to once and then never again.

They CAN hear the difference ..... when I have them come over and listen to my reference vinyl rig they always get all excited about how it sounds.
They'll say, "I've never heard music sound like this before" and "I'm hearing things I never knew were there" and "That's fucking AWESOME!""

But ultimately ..... they don't care. I don't think any of them have said, "Ooh, I gotta save up and get me a real stereo".
They like to come over and listen from time to time but kcearl and gerg have it right .... they really don't care. For most of them music is what they play in the background while they do something else.
It's just different than it was and I doubt very seriously it'll ever go back no matter how many fine nuanced recording we let them hear.

 

[kcearl]

Hell ..... they often don't even listen to songs all the way thru.
Because I still play out all the time I'm around kids a lot. I even play with 20 year olds fairly often. When you have 5000 songs on your iPod you can't really listen to ANY of them in any great depth.
So they just have a different connection with their music than we did or do.
When we all started (us geezers to be specific) you had maybe a couple of dozen records at most and you listened to them over and over and over and over. They were all you had so you had no choice. You knew every tiny detail and click or pop and every mark on the cover. You knew every word and every little thing about it.
You even listened to your bad records more than once because you didn't have 5000 songs available to you.
Now when I have kids show me their music .... or I listen to it while they are ..... they very often play half a song and move on to the next. With 5000 there have to be most of them that they only listen to once and then never again.

They CAN hear the difference ..... when I have them come over and listen to my reference vinyl rig they always get all excited about how it sounds.
They'll say, "I've never heard music sound like this before" and "I'm hearing things I never knew were there" and "That's fucking AWESOME!""

But ultimately ..... they don't care. I don't think any of them have said, "Ooh, I gotta save up and get me a real stereo".
They like to come over and listen from time to time but kcearl and gerg have it right .... they really don't care. For most of them music is what they play in the background while they do something else.
It's just different than it was and I doubt very seriously it'll ever go back no matter how many fine nuanced recording we let them hear.

I dont disagree with you at all....

Im also of the generation when then best tracks on an album were the ones that you took weeks/months to like...discovering little nuances, the slightest of sounds, that drew you into a song yet you hadnt noticed them before after 1000 listens..man I half starved myself through college so I could have a NAD amp, Dual turntable and a pair of Missions..I was trying to live of a couple of hundred pounds a month, selling vinyl so I could afford new records...buying rare soul 45's at 15 quid a pop after spending 6 hours on a bus one way to make the record fair down south, and I wasnt alone

Kids couldnt give a fuck about that now...not with 160gb ipods and docking stations....and to be honest, If I was them, neither would I... Id be torrenting everything and growing bored of it in two listens just like they are..crap as it is its what they know and us old fuds arent going to change that


now Im off to change my depends and have a cup of cocoa

 

[Greg_L]

But ultimately ..... they don't care. .

Right. That's all I'm saying. They simply do not care. It's pointless and dumb to think you can change them.

 

[jamesl8]

so can you make my shit louder, or what?

 

[Waltz Mastering]

I just remembered something I found funny...it was a review on Steven Slates new limiter which supposedly has the ability not to distort at even at the highest levels of loudness...the reviewer said that in the future people would be able to point to the time when music was made before and after this limiter lol

Don't believe the hype ; ) It's all in the name of marketing.

 

[kcearl]

Don't believe the hype ; ) It's all in the name of marketing.

dont get left behind Waltz, Im ordering two!