Stop The Loudness War

[Seafroggys]

Out of curiosity, I ran my latest mix of the first song off my album through this program and got a DR12. No buss effects whatsoever. Even compression individual tracks is light (2:1 or less), and I don't even use it on all tracks. It just turned out DR12. When I ran just the beginning section (which is the 'loudest' section according to the waveform) it is DR11, and once I add vocals I wouldn't be surprised if it went down to DR10. And that's just natural for the mix

 

[flatfinger]

SS ,
You're right , a "DR" label on the cover won't do it .......... So at least some are honest , and putting this label on instead!!!

.
.
.
.
.
.
.


Actually , they are joking

http://blogs.chicagoreader.com/crickets/2009/03/16/souvenir-loudness-war/

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Out of curiosity, I ran my latest mix of the first song off my album through this program and got a DR12. No buss effects whatsoever. Even compression individual tracks is light (2:1 or less), and I don't even use it on all tracks. It just turned out DR12. When I ran just the beginning section (which is the 'loudest' section according to the waveform) it is DR11, and once I add vocals I wouldn't be surprised if it went down to DR10. And that's just natural for the mix

Frog, I'm curious, what is the actual RMS on that song? Would you mind measuring that and letting us know which tool you're measuring it with?

G.

 

[NYMorningstar]

Bob Katz is waaaay too into numbers.

What we need is LESS numbers and more emphasis on ears.
G.

That's a bit harsh and maybe it's we need more emphasis on both. If we lose the science do we not lose the perspective?

It could be it's not what we are using to arrive at decisions but what decisions we are making.

Might it be we should create a Y-system that would measure how much ego we mix into a song? We could use this thread as a baseline: HR thread 280672 = 100% ego

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

That's a bit harsh and maybe it's we need more emphasis on both. If we lose the science do we not lose the perspective?

There's science, and there's science. Ya know, NYM, people who really know me would laugh out loud at the idea that I am trying to ignore, dismiss or otherwise minimalize the science of this; I am usually accused of being way too much "Mr. Science".

But there's no science behind the setting of such "loudness standards". It is a political reaction that has no more basis in real science than the loudness wars themselves have.

Might it be we should create a Y-system that would measure how much ego we mix into a song? We could use this thread as a baseline: HR thread 280672 = 100% ego

I think maybe you're mistaking passion for ego. On the "P" scale (for Passion), this thread rates saturation.

We all hate the Loudness Wars and are passionate about bringing them to an end faster than their natural course (they WILL end of their own volition in their own time, we're all just impatient ). But some of us are perhaps diametrically opposed in just how we define the root problem behind the Loudness wars, and certainly in how to best address them.

Personally I see all arbitrary loudness standards the same, they are arbitrary standards which restrict the music, the folks who make it, and the folks who listen to it. What's needed is not law but education.

G.

 

[Seafroggys]

Frog, I'm curious, what is the actual RMS on that song? Would you mind measuring that and letting us know which tool you're measuring it with?

G.

Well, using this program, the RMS for the beginning section is roughly -12.4 between both channels. For the entire song it averages to -15.2 RMS (which is a bit different from the DR12). If you want to check it out yourself to measure and such, its here: http://soundclick.com/share?songid=7317897

Btw, it is normalized to -.2 dB.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Well, using this program, the RMS for the beginning section is roughly -12.4 between both channels. For the entire song it averages to -15.2 RMS (which is a bit different from the DR12). If you want to check it out yourself to measure and such, its here: http://soundclick.com/share?songid=7317897

Btw, it is normalized to -.2 dB.

Hey thanks for the info, Seafroggys . I am currently having problems downloading the file, but I think that's my problem with my provider only. I'll try again a little later.

But in the meantime I do want to backtrack on a technicality or two: I had forgotten that - as some of us discussed in a previous thread on this subject - the measurements that they are using for the DR number do not match the old style sine wave-based RMS measurements that I'm used to using.

I wanted you to check that for me because -12dB RMS without any mastering processing sounded high to me. The -15.2 number, while still slightly high, is not unreasonable and makes much more sense. And if there is a linear relationship between Dr and sine RMS (I don't know if there is) then the DR 14 that Logic referred to would equate to close to 17dB RMS sine, whihc is a much more sensible number.

I still stand by the general principle that mixing/mastering to numbers does not make much sense to me, but I do apologize to everyone for some misrepresentations I may have made on a technical level regarding the specific numbers being batted about.

I'll grab your file later (I gotta step away from a while right now), and look forward to hearing it, as well as checking the numbers against the tools I'm used to looking at when it comes to RMS values, just to make sure we're talking apples and apples here.

G.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Well, using this program, the RMS for the beginning section is roughly -12.4 between both channels. For the entire song it averages to -15.2 RMS (which is a bit different from the DR12). If you want to check it out yourself to measure and such, its here: http://soundclick.com/share?songid=7317897

Btw, it is normalized to -.2 dB.

Finally got to d/l your song this morning. Interesting stuff, kind of a vibe somewhere between 10CC, Jethro Tull and Synergy in the arrangement. Nice work .

More to the topic, however, but just as interesting IMHO, is the fact that with my typical RMS reading tools I get the following numbers for the song:

Sound Forge: Left channel -18.3dB / Right Channel -18.12 dB
Voxengo SPAN: Left channel - 18.3dB / Right Channel -18.2dB
Elemental Audio Finalis: RMS ~ -18dB / I/O Crest Factor ~ -13dB

As I understand it, Sound Forge and Voxengo are using the "sine" style of RMS measurement - versus Pro Tools and some others which use the "square" style of RMS measurement, which typically winds up being about 3dB higher.

Anyway, now your numbers are making sense, Seaforggys; your DR of about 12 appears to be basically the average crest factor for the song, their RMS reading is probably using the "square" method, and then there's the "sine" RMS, which I'm used to. And your sine RMS numbers of around -18 fit in almost perfectly with what one would expect for a pre-master mix w/o squashing.

Confusing? Yeah. Yet another case where we have at least three different ways of measuring more or less the same kind of thing that come out with three different values.

If somebody wants to regulate or standardize something, perhaps they should look at standardizing measurement values such as RMS values, crest factor measures, and A/D conversion calibrations, and leave the engineering itself to the engineers.

G.