Is it O.K. to Clip instead of Limit?

[masteringhouse]

Glen's point is on the money. There often times seems to be an emphasis in more recent times on how something looks, technical aspects, how trendy or cool something is etc. rather than the fundamental. In other words the icing is more important than the cake. Look at American Idol as a ready example.

Sorry if I've derailed this thread a bit but loudness wars discussions have become very boring and self-serving IMHO. Not long ago I was in one of those "mastering cattle calls" with some other MEs. I lost the gig to one of the MEs who is a very vocal advocate against the loudness wars. When I asked the potential client why he liked his version of the master more he said "because it was louder". I'm glad he got that gig.

Is it OK to clip instead of limit? Is it OK to have a dynamic CD over one that is less dynamic? If your music is great, the answer to all of the above is yes.

 

[LogicDeLuxe]

I guess the question I have there (I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm just trying to understand a different technique) is how you decide to adjust the volumes to each other? Somewhere along the line you are setting a calibration level to compare them against; i.e. you gotta start somewhere, right?

I usually work with roughly -20 dBFS RMS sine, so that's basically my reference. When I think all songs are fine, then I load them together and check the relations and tweak those whenever it feels necessary. After that, I do cross fades etc. when applicable. Then I usually check the loudest part, if the song still works with an album total rms of -14 dBFS rms sine. If yes, -14 dB will be the target loudness of the album. If not, I decrease the volume until it does work fine, which is rarely necessary on the average style, though. If the music isn't rather dynamic to begin with, I also go hotter than -14 dB, since I don't loose anything in that case.

The point where an album is too hot is usually the point where you go over about -5 dBFS rms sine at the hottest 300 ms. That's also the point where you risk overloading the circuits and the sound can start to sound distorted, even if the wave isn't.

 

[LogicDeLuxe]

There has been a lot of emphasis on loudness wars in forums and elsewhere ad nauseum. It just seems to me that there are issues which are just as or more important that are being severely ignored.

The other big issue is called "no talent", and it can be in fact easily ignored as you don't miss anything by not buying or listening to them. Thus it's not discussed as such a big problem.
American Idol (and how it's called in all the different countries as well) came to my mind, too. I couldn't care less how those CD's are mastered.

 

[masteringhouse]

The other big issue is called "no talent", and it can be in fact easily ignored as you don't miss anything by not buying or listening to them. Thus it's not discussed as such a big problem.

Hypercompressed CDs can be ignored and not bought as well. The thing is we all like to listen to good music and new talent. We are being force-fed crap by the entertainment industry. To me this is an issue that should be discussed and is a big problem.

 

[Ironklad Audio]

Just curious, for bands that you really like, do you stop listening to them because of any sort of audio production issues? If so, do you not listen to them on mp3 and earbuds?

i'm a big metalhead, but i honestly can't stand to listen to most of the stuff that's come out in the last 5-6 years. even when i do like the music, it feels like it's a chore to try to get past 2, maybe 3 songs due the excessive smashing going on. i know people like their shit to be bludgeoningly heavy, but there's a point where too much it too much, and it starts to take its toll on the listener.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I think a big part of that problem is that it's not really force-feeding so much as it is providing a fix. No business is going to try and force feed any product on the public if they realize that the public just won't buy it...unless the public has no choice.

The problem is that with the music industry the public DOES have choice. This is nothing but entertainment, pure discretionary income only. While music sales have declined somewhat, the fact is that despite all the protestations we hear here about the crappy state of music, the people still want it. Those that stopped buying it just started to steal it instead.

The big record labels may not be the sharpest knives in the drawer, but they're not entirely stupid. They know that as long as someone is stealing their stuff, that it still has value to them. That and they know that their main market is the 12-20 year old range, the least discretionary group with the largest discretionary income. So they're not going to change much of anything other than the delivery methods and the pricing.

Not much to be done there other than give those kids an alternative.

Which puts all that much more of an imperative for the independent music movement to get it right from the get-go. Don't phone it in. Don't count on technology to make your product popular. You want to go up against the big boys that way you'll lose every time. They own the technology.

Get it right by GETTING THE MUSIC RIGHT. Screw the volume. Screw the mechanically perfect pitch. Screw the "tone". If you wanna bitch about their music, then do better. Make better MUSIC.

Then, AND ONLY THEN, record better TRACKS. Use those tracks to make better MIXES. And learn that MASTERING actually MEANS delivering a better FINAL PRODUCT, not making a louder final product and not backtracking and trying to fix what should have already been done right to begin with.

And you know what? That all takes work. A LOT of work.

But it's worth it.

G.

 

[LogicDeLuxe]

No business is going to try and force feed any product on the public if they realize that the public just won't buy it...unless the public has no choice.

They DO realize. They just blame piracy for that.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

They DO realize. They just blame piracy for that.

But they also realize that the piracy proves the demand still exists, and that they still hold all the cards.

Now if the public weren't hooked like crack whores on their mePods and their music, not to mention their need to carry their entire music library with them everywhere they go for God knows what reason, then they would respond like sober human beings; their answer to the problem "music sucks" would be not only to stop buying it, but to stop listening to it and to replace that form of entertainment with one that didn't suck.

But no, they just gotta have it. Amazing how they are conscientious objectors enough to stop paying for it, but not enough to not steal it. It must not suck all that bad after all, or at least it doesn't matter much if it does, because the demand is still there. All that's changed is that the average volume customer has turned into a cheapskate. That's how they see it. And you know what? They're right.

So where's their impetus to change? They just change the delivery and pricing method, but the product remains relatively the same. And they can wait a bit, because they know the public is hooked and would rather shoot up bad junk than no junk at all.

Until the public stands up and is mature enough to do without, to kick the monkey. And I don't see any signs of that happening any time soon.

G.

 

[masteringhouse]

All of the larger labels that I talk to realize that music isn't the money maker that it used to be and are turning to using it as a vehicle to sell merch. Rather than being concerned with people stealing it, they are giving it away in exchange for selling things like T-shirts which can't be stolen or aligning with larger corporations to help market their products. Hence the 360 deals, Pepsi downloads, Starbucks Entertainment, Hanna Montana, etc.

If you don't think the industry is biased toward the "manufactured artist" just watch TV for a while and wait for the next music commercial. Artists need to look good first and fit the image of the products to be sold, they can fix everything else with autotune and Pro Tools.

It's not the case obviously with all music but the question is who is going to promote the really good stuff? How do you filter the new music that you want to hear from all of the crap that's being created? It used to be the job of the labels, but this doesn't seem to be the case any longer. At least from the majors.

[edit]
#1 on the Billboard top 200 this week?
Miley Cyrus - peaking at #1, wks on the chart 1

http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/charts/chart_display.jsp?g=Albums&f=The+Billboard+200

There's hope though, Buddy Guy is #68!!!

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

There's hope though, Buddy Guy is #68!!!

My man!! Thank god he's got those trademark polka dots, ya can't even recognize him now with his shaved head . It's been a while now, but we used to run into his wife (license plate: "MRS GUY") filling up the Lexus at the gas station.

Back on topic: this very topic is why I'm here. People used to challenge me all the time, asking why I was so eager to answer questions on this forum and why I hung out here at all.

The short answer is because I love good music and I love good musicianship, and I see real dangers ahead for both of those.

As Tom said maybe a bit more diplomatically, the big labels are interested in circus performers, not musicians, and are interested in putting on shows, not selling music. It used to be that concert tours were meant to sell albums. Now albums are used to sell concert tours (and the associated merchandise), where the real money is. And we can complain about it all we want, but as long as they keep targeting the tween and teen demographic, where all the discretionary money is spent on such irrational stuff, and as long as they actually keep consuming this fluff stuff, that's not going to change.

The real future of quality music - if there is to be one worth talking about - lies in the independent movement made possible by the advent of relatively inexpensive (as compared to the past) audio production gear and the extremely inexpensive advertising and distribution channel called the Internet.

The problem is, this democratization has led many people to believe that anybody can do this stuff just by clicking a button or two or following a canned recipe, and that - just like Britney Spears - they don't have to have an ounce of talent to be a big star. At least Britney used to be pleasant to look at (before she just became a sad casualty), more than can be said for 90% of folks on meSpace.

If the indie movement is to work, if the evolution of home recording is to succeed at all, it's got to be done *right*, not fast, and not loud. People need to treat that Big Red Record button with respect, and not hit it until they are truely ready to hit it, and not take the results and shove them up onto the net until the results have been properly mixed and mastered, and not just ground through an MBC and a limiter, both set to the "power suck" setting.

If indie/home recording is going to work as a valid alternative to the McMusic of the largest labels, the music has to be good, the performances even better, and the quality of final product be as good as possible. Otherwise the whole movement will just collapse under it's own mass of mediocrity.

If we try to compete on the Big Boy's level, putting out our own McMusic that takes tepid-at-best performances, autodynagogs them, and then smashes them into pancakes of volume, the Big Boys will wipe the floor with us and wring us out every time.

G.

 

[masteringhouse]

VERY well said G.!

 

[masteringhouse]

I saw this article and thought of this thread, another good discussion:

http://www.moozek.com/2008/02/03/the-loudness-war-oh-please/

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Ugh, never mind....




G.

 

[masteringhouse]

Actually the loudness wars are evolutionary aren't they?

I think that he also brings up some valid and interesting points even though some may not be 100% technically accurate. Mainly I thought that it was interesting that someone else felt the need not to have to regurgitate loudness war protestations for the 1,000,000th time and sees the trendy aspect of these discussions. A different angle on an old and tired debate.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Actually the loudness wars are evolutionary aren't they?

Weeelllllllllll...

"Evolution" and "fad" are two entirely different things, and that by the usual definitions, this constitutes more fad than evolution. The loudness wars did not evolve out of a trend or evolution of music styles, nor was it brought about by new capabilities in technology. In fact, back around 1990 when this latest incarnation started, the prevailing music trends were in hip hop and grunge, neither of which really benefits in any definitive way from pancaking. And it's certainly not the technology; the main evolutionary trend then was digital recording, the main benefit of which was pristine dynamic range, and the main drawback being a hard ceiling. Pancaking actually turns that evolution on it's ears (pun intended ).

Nor are the loudness wars anything new to the last 18 years. As any regular to this forum knows, this concept of "mo' louda, mo' betta" has been around since the advent of amplitude modulation; it has cyclically reared it's ugly head several times over the past hundred years or so, give or take a couple of years. This latest incarnation of it is only the latest - and because of the democratization of technology, most insidious - peak in the cycle. Like flying saucers and bigfoot, it's a myth that seems to find fresh believers virtually every new generation until that generation learns better. Then a new generation comes along, re-"discovers" it, and we start all over again.

That's not evolution, that's a stagnation cycle. That's the poster child for "those that do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it."

Mainly I thought that it was interesting that someone else felt the need not to have to regurgitate loudness war protestations for the 1,000,000th time and sees the trendy aspect of these discussions. A different angle on an old and tired debate.

I'm with you, that it's old and tired, but it's still a problem.

I'm tired of answering the same useless questions like "which monitor should I get", "which plugs have the best easy buttons" and "how do I make my mix as loud as the space shuttle", but they just keep coming because the amount of misinformation and disinformation out there is insanely large. (This is one reason why I'm building up a library of answers to these kinds of questions on my website, so I don't have to type the same crap over and over again )

And when mooks like this guy come along with their "I blog because I can" opinions based upon misinformation and spreading more disinformation, all they are doing is causing cycle # 1,000,001 in the debate to start anew.

I don't know about anybody else, but if someone asked me which displeases me more, the endless debates on the volume wars or the crappy sound of music the past two decades, it's the crappy sound of music, hands down. If I didn't give a shit about the music, I wouldn't be fighting the good fight.

G.

 

[masteringhouse]

The loudness wars did not evolve out of a trend or evolution of music styles, nor was it brought about by new capabilities in technology. In fact, back around 1990 when this latest incarnation started, the prevailing music trends were in hip hop and grunge, neither of which really benefits in any definitive way from pancaking. And it's certainly not the technology; the main evolutionary trend then was digital recording, the main benefit of which was pristine dynamic range, and the main drawback being a hard ceiling. Pancaking actually turns that evolution on it's ears (pun intended ).

Evolution as I define it is a process where something grows and reforms often times to a change in the environment. While it may not be directly related to a music style in particular, it has definitely been a process that steadily grown over the years. Part of the reason that it could grow is due to digital technology. To me this is evolution, the "new" environmental stimuli (digital) allowing growth and transformation. It's just been a more conscious one than man losing hair and becoming more erect over the years.

A hard ceiling, distortion, or a record skipping have always been the limitations. The question is which media has allowed the average level to be brought up? It's exchanging one type of distortion for another.

Rather than testing the limits of how much distortion the pubic will tolerate through overall gain structure limitations, the loudness wars been testing how much distortion the public will tolerate due to "dynamic constriction". We've also been in the process over the last several years of seeing how much distortion the pubilc will take due to lossy compression. For me this is the new "loudness war" though a bit of a misnomer. "Distortion war" is a much better term. In the meantime John Q. Public is happy with 200+ songs in a box that he can fit in his shirtpocket. The evolution continues ...

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Evolution as I define it is a process where something grows and reforms often times to a change in the environment. While it may not be directly related to a music style in particular, it has definitely been a process that steadily grown over the years. Part of the reason that it could grow is due to digital technology. To me this is evolution, the "new" environmental stimuli (digital) allowing growth and transformation. It's just been a more conscious one than man losing hair and becoming more erect over the years.

A hard ceiling, distortion, or a record skipping have always been the limitations. The question is which media has allowed the average level to be brought up? It's exchanging one type of distortion for another.

Rather than testing the limits of how much distortion the pubic will tolerate through overall gain structure limitations, the loudness wars been testing how much distortion the public will tolerate due to "dynamic constriction". We've also been in the process over the last several years of seeing how much distortion the pubilc will take due to lossy compression. For me this is the new "loudness war" though a bit of a misnomer. "Distortion war" is a much better term. In the meantime John Q. Public is happy with 200+ songs in a box that he can fit in his shirtpocket. The evolution continues ...

Excellent post, Tom, you bring up some new and interesting ideas (the debate itself is evolving? )

I'm not sure I grok the idea of the digital technology being the stimulus this time around, though. Why would the advent of a technology that widened the dynamic range (at least for one stage of the gain structure, anyway) and brought it more in line with the natural capabilities of the human ear stimulate the movement towards cramming the entire dynamic range into the top 10%? That's counterintuitive.

Plus it's not like that couldn't be done before digital; it's not like limiters didn't exist before digital came along. In fact, the most desired limiters today are the analog ones.

No, the current incarnation started by folks like RHCP and such expirimenting with new sounds. And there's nothing wrong with that; that's fine. But then that quickly changed to "if they're doing it, I had BETTER do it too just to be competitive." THAT is the cyclical myth that has been proved wrong time and time again over the past century.

And that's not evolution. Evolution is the adaptation of successful traits, not the mimicing of as-yet-unproven traits, and certainly not the re-visiting of unsuccessful ones.

And don't you find interesting your observation that whatever the incarnation of the loudness/distortion wars, that you describe it as a pushing of tolerance? "Let's see how far we can go and still have an acceptable percentage of the consumer tolerate it." Why? What profit (creative or financial) are they getting in return for testing the limits of the public's tolerance? They wouldn't be striving for "Let's see how much we can bug them until they finally can't take it anymore" if they didn't believe there were a profit motive in it. The problem is, that's just the same ol' mo louda', mo' betta idea which, again, has been repeatedly shown to have no basis in fact.

The day I walk into the studio thinking, "Lets see how far I can push the listener's tolerance" instead of "Let's see how I can make a product the listener prefers" is the day I hang up the cans and retire.

G.

 

[masteringhouse]

Excellent post, Tom, you bring up some new and interesting ideas (the debate itself is evolving? )

I'm not sure I grok the idea of the digital technology being the stimulus this time around, though. Why would the advent of a technology that widened the dynamic range (at least for one stage of the gain structure, anyway) and brought it more in line with the natural capabilities of the human ear stimulate the movement towards cramming the entire dynamic range into the top 10%? That's counterintuitive.

Plus it's not like that couldn't be done before digital; it's not like limiters didn't exist before digital came along. In fact, the most desired limiters today are the analog ones.

True analog limiters existed, but there is no real equivalent of a digital limiter with lookahead in the analog world. With digital the audio could be analyzed in advance and with an attack time of essentially 0 ms! Can't do that in analog. I also disagree (sorry) that the most desired limiters are analog. Digital is definitely the way to go for brickwall. Just ask any analog limiter. Compression on the other hand is a totally different story.

No, the current incarnation started by folks like RHCP and such expirimenting with new sounds. And there's nothing wrong with that; that's fine. But then that quickly changed to "if they're doing it, I had BETTER do it too just to be competitive." THAT is the cyclical myth that has been proved wrong time and time again over the past century.

And that's not evolution. Evolution is the adaptation of successful traits, not the mimicing of as-yet-unproven traits, and certainly not the re-visiting of unsuccessful ones.

Well I don't want to debate the definition of evolution, I'm not Webster. I don't know that RHCP came up with the idea of the loud CD, they are just the poster children for it. There have been others though that have used clipping for effect. Trent Reznor was one, I even had a CD that I mastered back in the 90s where the band ran their mix through a guitar distortion pedal. I don't think the RHCP's intent was to have a purposely clipped and distorted CD, it was just to be loud, and that was nothing new even at that time.

And don't you find interesting your observation that whatever the incarnation of the loudness/distortion wars, that you describe it as a pushing of tolerance? "Let's see how far we can go and still have an acceptable percentage of the consumer tolerate it." Why? What profit (creative or financial) are they getting in return for testing the limits of the public's tolerance? They wouldn't be striving for "Let's see how much we can bug them until they finally can't take it anymore" if they didn't believe there were a profit motive in it. The problem is, that's just the same ol' mo louda', mo' betta idea which, again, has been repeatedly shown to have no basis in fact.

The day I walk into the studio thinking, "Lets see how far I can push the listener's tolerance" instead of "Let's see how I can make a product the listener prefers" is the day I hang up the cans and retire.

G.

Absolutely it's financial, also a matter of convenience. The loudness wars are based on the concept that the louder a CD is the more notice it's going to get in the public eye, hence more sales. Hyping the upper end on an album is a similar tactic. Lossy compression schemes are now a way of reducing frequency bandwidth (rather than dynamic reduction) in order to require less download time and as a convenience to fit more on a smaller footprint. It has nothing to do with improving the quality of the audio anymore than crushing it does. It's cheaper, more conventient, and as a result will sell more unless people steal it. Even so, it will sell more Me-me-me-Pods.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

True analog limiters existed, but there is no real equivalent of a digital limiter with lookahead in the analog world. With digital the audio could be analyzed in advance and with an attack time of essentially 0 ms! Can't do that in analog. I also disagree (sorry) that the most desired limiters are analog. Digital is definitely the way to go for brickwall. Just ask any analog limiter. Compression on the other hand is a totally different story.

OK,I'll concede on the limiter vs. compressor thing, but still: are you saying that it was the advent of digital look-ahead limiters that spurred the evolution to pancaked mixes, or that the lack of them before digital is what held producers and engineers back from crushing dynamic range? In other words that that was the technology that triggered the "evolution"?

Well I don't want to debate the definition of evolution, I'm not Webster. I don't know that RHCP came up with the idea of the loud CD, they are just the poster children for it.

I agree with that completely, which is why I said "folks like RHCP." Guilty as charged, using them as the poster example . But it's pretty much agreed that it was the time right around 1990 that was pretty much the pivot point/seminal year that really launched the current battle*.

There have been others though that have used clipping for effect. Trent Reznor was one, I even had a CD that I mastered back in the 90s where the band ran their mix through a guitar distortion pedal. I don't think the RHCP's intent was to have a purposely clipped and distorted CD, it was just to be loud, and that was nothing new even at that time.

Things were well under way in "the '90s", for sure, even before the Internet even became public (~'93/'94) and people like us were able to publicly debate it. This one one of the many erroneous details that one guy made in that blog; he mentions 2001; things were already well underway by a good decade or more by then.

But let's make a distinction here, if I may suggest it. Clipping for the distortion effect, and clipping to push for competitive RMS levels in the loudness wars are two rather different things. I'll concede the arguable legitimacy of the former, when done purposefully.

Absolutely it's financial, also a matter of convenience. The loudness wars are based on the concept that the louder a CD is the more notice it's going to get in the public eye, hence more sales. Hyping the upper end on an album is a similar tactic. Lossy compression schemes are now a way of reducing frequency bandwidth (rather than dynamic reduction) in order to require less download time and as a convenience to fit more on a smaller footprint. It has nothing to do with improving the quality of the audio anymore than crushing it does. It's cheaper, more conventient, and as a result will sell more unless people steal it. Even so, it will sell more Me-me-me-Pods.

Some important differences here though.

The concept behind the loudness dates back to the beginnings of AM radio, where there was a truly legitimate concept based in proven science and marketing principles: The closer to 100% that one pushed the RMS modulation level of the AM broadcast, the farther their signal could be heard without boosting the transmitter power beyond the licensed limit. The farther away they could be heard, the more potential customers the commercial advertisers could reach. The more customers they could reach, the more the radio station could charge for air time. Very neat, sweet and straightforward, and provable and proven both on paper and in real results.

Over the years that concept has indeed "evolved", but it has evolved into a premise that has little to no basis in reality. There is no proven or demonstrated scientific or marketing principle that says that a higher RMS to the music on a CD will get it more into the public eye or garner a more positive response amongst those who do hear it.

In fact, I'd say that the reaction has been far more negative than positive. When was the last time you heard *the listeners* come back at us in gangs and tell us we were off our rockers because music sound quality and their listening experience has gotten better since 1989? Where are all the supporters of the Loudness Wars sitting on the business end of the loudspeakers/headphones?

The lossy compression argument is different and not analogous because there is a definitive and demonstrable advantage in the savings of download times and storage space, and most people (including myself, frankly) are more than willing to pay the cost in relatively marginal fidelity loss for the gains in speed and capacity. Once Internet II trickles down to the public and we're talking multi-terrabye memory sticks (neither of which will be very long now), then there will be no reason not to offer bitmapped audio (or the 1-bit version of it, maybe.)

G.

 

[masteringhouse]

OK,I'll concede on the limiter vs. compressor thing, but still: are you saying that it was the advent of digital look-ahead limiters that spurred the evolution to pancaked mixes, or that the lack of them before digital is what held producers and engineers back from crushing dynamic range? In other words that that was the technology that triggered the "evolution"?

Definitely a major contributer, also the CD itself. Without digital storage even the ability to hammer 2x4s would have done any good unless the foundation was there to hold them up.

But let's make a distinction here, if I may suggest it. Clipping for the distortion effect, and clipping to push for competitive RMS levels in the loudness wars are two rather different things. I'll concede the arguable legitimacy of the former, when done purposefully.Some important differences here though.

I would like to think so too but they are not always easily separated. I had a client recently who was very particular about having his CD be as loud as another release. I was showing him the difference in the level of distortion between a level not so hot and where we were at. He said that he liked the distortion too. You can't have one without the other no matter what your intent is, unless you smash and reduce level which seems a bit silly in most cases.

Over the years that concept has indeed "evolved", but it has evolved into a premise that has little to no basis in reality. There is no proven or demonstrated scientific or marketing principle that says that a higher RMS to the music on a CD will get it more into the public eye or garner a more positive response amongst those who do hear it.

Listen to any commercials lately? Same psychological principles apply ...

The lossy compression argument is different and not analogous because there is a definitive and demonstrable advantage in the savings of download times and storage space, and most people (including myself, frankly) are more than willing to pay the cost in relatively marginal fidelity loss for the gains in speed and capacity.

Different but still an issue of convenience and cost (and making money for the provider) over quality audio and hence part of the disease. When CDs go the way of vinyl, and the only thing that you can buy at a record store is a download card for a compressed format, will we as audio pros be happier?