NOT SPAM -turnmeup.org-

[flatfinger]

http://www.turnmeup.org/

 

[XLR]

Yeah, I saw this in Bob Katz' thread over at GS.

Here's to dynamics - *lifts glass*

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Anybody who's been around here for a while knows I am right up there at the front of the fight when it comes to putting an end to the idiotic Volume Wars. The only things that should be flat as a pancake are those who think that the Volume Wars are justified.

But this org's whole certification idea is just plain goofy. Three reasons:

1) In my wildest drug-induced dreams there's no way I could imagine any way on this planet to fairly or properly *judge* based upon a measurement or grading system what is good or proper dynamics or what is too loud (or too soft, FTM) for any given mix by any given artist or engineer on any given gear.

2) This doesn't take into account the blowback that could easily happen where indie engineers purposely DO NOT mix or master the music the way it wants to be mixed just so they can get certification, and the mix actually winds up unnecessarily being too dynamic or too soft. Or worse, the formula or criteria for certification goes public, and then people just set their plugs to meet those criteria with no consideration for the actual content in some kind of volume version of Har-Bal.

3) The most important reason, IMHO: This certification idea is exactly as wrong-headed as the Volume Wars. There is no difference at all between the two, they are both dictating just how loud they think something should be.

G.

 

[FALKEN]

First Paragraph:

To be clear, it's not our goal to discourage loud records; they are, of course, a valid choice for many artists. We simply want to make the choice for a more dynamic record an option for artists.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

First Paragraph:

Quote:
To be clear, it's not our goal to discourage loud records; they are, of course, a valid choice for many artists. We simply want to make the choice for a more dynamic record an option for artists.

That's works fine for those who don't wish TMU "certification".

But consider what is really happening the instant someone submits their work for certification, and it's rejected.

G.

 

[FALKEN]

I would give you that "applying" to "get certified" that your music is at a puny level does seem a bit corny, but I think what is really happening is an attempt to protect the "value" of the tag. Just think what would happen if system of a down put that tag on their cd, it would become worthless because it would no longer hold any meaning to the listener.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I would give you that "applying" to "get certified" that your music is at a puny level does seem a bit corny, but I think what is really happening is an attempt to protect the "value" of the tag. Just think what would happen if system of a down put that tag on their cd, it would become worthless because it would no longer hold any meaning to the listener.

I agree. Which is why the whole idea of such a tag is meaningless; in order to give it any meaning or value requires having to set some kind of arbitrary standard for attaining it. But the very arbitrariness of such a specification itself renders it mostly meaningless.

Example A: If you submit one of your works for "certification", and it falls a half dB short somehow, and therefore does not qualify for certification, does that mean that your work is too compressed, or that you don't care about dynamics, or that it doesn't sound as good as it could? No. Not at all. It means nothing other than you are a half dB short of some arbitrary number. Whereas if you submit the exact same production with an extra half-dB of dynamics, you do get certified and do get the tag. So what? The two productions will sound indistinguishable. The tag means nothing.

Example B: If I submit my work, and I submit a very loose mix that I have not at all tried to tighten up, and it therefore never reached it's potential, I have done a crappy job mixing and mastering. Yet it hurdles over the bar set by the quantitative measurements for TMU certification, without even breaking a sweat. If a production with crap post processing and dynamics can get the TMU tag, that renders the signifigance of that tag pretty meaningless in my book.

Example C: If Clyde works mostly in jazz club trios and Chauncey works mostly in angst metal, Clyde will find it much easier to get certification; not only because the music style makes it easier, but also because the Volume Wars competition is not as prevalent in that genre, and Clyde will not be as pressured to squeeze what he can out of the mix. Therefore there is a potential for a genre bias in awarding of the tag to different submissions. That would dilute the actual meaning and import of the tag itself.

Example D: What happens when the quality of the production environment (performance, tracking, production gear) plays a role - which it does? When pushed, amateur productions on so-so gear by amateur engineers fall apart faster than quality productions on top shelf gear. Should they all be held to the same quantitative standards for certification? It's pretty meaningless if they are, and pretty unmanagable if they are not.

G.

 

[chazba]

Green Music?????????

Help me out guys.....Why should it be anybody's business how loud my record is or how it got that way? Last time I looked every sound system in my house, car and studio had a volume control and eq in various forms. People who buy my stuff usually play it fairly loud, at least untill somebody complains. They also screw around with the eq. I don't care as long as they buy the next CD. Certification??? What for. Sounds like a scheme to get me to pay somebody some money for something (else) that I don't need.

Is Tipper Gore behind this?????? Maybe it's a twisted plot to get us to "Go Green" .

Fight organized crime...
Vote out ALL incumbants


chazba

 

[FALKEN]

I think you're thinking too hard. This seems to be targeted towards people who think they have to make their composition louder "just to compete". This tag will allow them to communicate to the listener that their composition isn't of a "lower quality" because its lower in volume. The people who are doing this obviously aren't out to make a buck, they're putting time and effort into an actual solution to the volume war, where currently there are none. I don't see any downsides to this at all.

 

[XLR]

I think you're thinking too hard.

Agreed. They're just starting out. Most likely a certification program will be awkward to implement. If they're around a year from now they'll probably have a whole different and more savvy way of lobbying the idea to labels and mastering facilities that it's better for the industry to preserve a reasonable level of dynamics. Maybe they'll have a better name too. But, whatever they do, anything that brings attention to the issue is good.

 

[snow lizard]

"Recent technological advances in marketing strategy have prohibited the mooks from interfering with the mastering process. This CD was engineered for good audio fidelity. Feel free to crank it up!"

Yeah right. That I'd like to see.


sl

 

[XLR]

Ummm... What?

 

[XLR]

(duplicate post for some weird reason)

 

[ofajen]

First I'll confess that this is not something I lose sleep over.

Now, I'm wondering if the "consumer" is really the deciding factor, here. I mean, you could probably give consumers a 1 to 10 rating (quiet to loud) and that would tell them to turn it up on quiet stuff. They'll figure it out anyway, but no harm in giving them a heads up, and it might help reassure some artists, if other factors work out.

But will artists and producers go along if distribution media (radio, internet radio, satellite radio, etc.) don't make similar adjustments? Artists will want their mixes to sound "normal" relative to the stuff heard before and after. And if you've got random selection of tracks on an iPod, you will want some level consistency even there.

Alternatively, could HD and satellite radios could be designed to have a setting where they would automatically adjust to a loudness code encoded in the track? Home CD and MP3 players could, I think. Then the listener could set the actual (average?) volume desired and the code would help maintain that from track to track, even on cuts of varying loudness. Just a thought.

Cheers,

Otto

 

[snow lizard]

The loudness wars have been a problem now for over a decade.

I don't need to preach to the choir here, but how can people explain that by having a dynamic CD with lower RMS levels, it's not broken?

The movie This Is Spinal Tap is a very brilliant philosophical work if for no other reason than the "But... this one goes to 11" mentality is exactly how people think. Even Jazz and Classical artists are starting to question why their products aren't as loud as the other guy.

If there's going to be a solution to the problem, people are going to need explainations. The certification thing might be a good idea for raising awareness about the problem and the solution.

It also wouldn't hurt to have a somewhat more standard outbound gain structure program for finished CDs. As a listener, yeah, I can adjust my volume knob to suit the individual CD that I'm listening to. I'm well aware of that because I need to every single time I change a CD. I've had people ask me why that is because they think it's a pain in the ass, and they're not even aware that smashing the audio ruins things.

*sigh*...

Flatfinger, that's a great link and a great idea.


Now if only it could happen...


sl

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

The fact is - and this doesn't require ANY thought - defining and judging whether any given recording is appropriate or not based upon some emperical formula is as inaccurate and as stupid as saying that any given recording should have a particular frequency response curve or panning scheme. It's legislating a Har-Bal-styled idea. And it is just as straightjacketing as the Idiotic Volume Wars.

I'll go along with a tag that advocates dynamics and is anti-Volume Wars, but not with requiring any kind of certification.

Isn't the important thing that the issue be advocated and explained to the artists and to the public? Isn't the important thing to spread the word to them about dynamics and actual music quality and letting everybody know that rather than being something to be afraid of, idynamics something to be embraced?

That can be done just as effectively without haing some self-appointed overloard committee pass judgement on every recording as to whether that particular recording meets some meaningless criteria as to whether that recording meets their particular acceptance or not.

It would be counterproductive for idiots like SysofaDown to put such a label on their own productions because they don't believe in it and they'd be'd be advertising against their own CDs. And even if they did, so what? It's more advertising for our side.

If there was an intermediate level that said I support the ideas behind the TMU initiative, but I do NOT support their certification process, that would be something I'd be the first in line to sign up for. I think XLR is right; I think the the folks behind TMU will find sooner than later that the whole certification criteria idea is simply unworkable.

It doesn't require thinking too much to come to that conclusion; just thinking about it at all will do.

G.

 

[snow lizard]

First I'll confess that this is not something I lose sleep over.

But will artists and producers go along if distribution media (radio, internet radio, satellite radio, etc.) don't make similar adjustments? Artists will want their mixes to sound "normal" relative to the stuff heard before and after. And if you've got random selection of tracks on an iPod, you will want some level consistency even there.

Alternatively, could HD and satellite radios could be designed to have a setting where they would automatically adjust to a loudness code encoded in the track? Home CD and MP3 players could, I think. Then the listener could set the actual (average?) volume desired and the code would help maintain that from track to track, even on cuts of varying loudness. Just a thought.

Cheers,

Otto

It's been around too long for anyone to lose sleep over.

Radio has never been a problem regardless of what any particular CD was mastered to. They could take something from 1986 and play it next to something from 2006 and it would come out at the same level. They've always had their own dynamics processing, and actually having really hot RMS levels doesn't help the extra punishment factor in the least.

Yes, consumers are smart enough to reach for the volume dial.

But what if record producers were smart enough to adopt reasonable standards that made it less likely that they would have to?

It's just a thought.


sl

 

[xkr]

Is Tipper Gore behind this?????? Maybe it's a twisted plot to get us to "Go Green".

yeah... it's an evil plot to make records sound good again.

 

[kubeek]

What about some new music standard? The same way that it's now standard to have peaks at -0.3dBfs (usually), a new standartd could for example be -24dbRMSfs.

That way all music would have the same loudness, and there will still be enough headroom for peaks, but you could still produce beating_white_noise_crap if you wanted to.
But this would require higher quality media to hold the wider dynamic range, beacause that needs two more bits compared to "normal" -12dbRMS recordings.

 

[LogicDeLuxe]

I agree with you, that it's in deed a big problem finding reasonable guidelines, as styles are just too different. I just target at -14 dBFS RMS sine as a guideline, but sometimes I go softer, when I feel it's necessary. And audio plays, I do at -20 dBFS RMS sine. A jury is probably no option for a non profit organisation. I don't think, the attempt in itself is worthless, though. Hopefully many music fans will notice and judge for themselves, and complain to the companies when they feel the recordings doesn't match the standards the certificate suggests.

I don't expect artists and producers signing, when they are not interested in dynamic recordings in the first place, as they don't expect their target group caring for any certification at all or even about quality. So I wouldn't worry about abuse that much.

Now, I'm wondering if the "consumer" is really the deciding factor, here.

There is only one way to find out for sure. Produce two versions of an album and release it at the same time for the same price and let them have the same cover (besides a very noticable note how it is mastered). Put them side by side in the shops.
One might be labeled as suggested by turnmeup. The other one could be changed into "To get rid of the excitement, emotion and dynamics of the original performances this record is intentionally as loud as possible. Don't even expect any enjoyment, simply Leave It Alone!"
Well, not really, but "mastered as usual" might do.

Alternatively, could HD and satellite radios could be designed to have a setting where they would automatically adjust to a loudness code encoded in the track? Home CD and MP3 players could, I think.

AC3 supports this as well. It's just a matter of the program director uses this feature properly.

What about some new music standard? The same way that it's now standard to have peaks at -0.3dBfs (usually), a new standartd could for example be -24dbRMSfs.

That way all music would have the same loudness, and there will still be enough headroom for peaks, but you could still produce beating_white_noise_crap if you wanted to.
But this would require higher quality media to hold the wider dynamic range, beacause that needs two more bits compared to "normal" -12dbRMS recordings.

That's exactly the reason why it is so difficult to define a standard. What's reasonable depends much on the style. While heavy metal usually would work fine at -12 dB RMS, it would certainly wreck a symphony. Also the goal certainly is not "quieter then ever".