NOT SPAM -turnmeup.org-

[kubeek]

I didn´t mean quieter than ever. I was thinking of a complete new view of what is normal loudness. That would mean that for example your mp3 player will need to have higher maximum output power, so that the newly normalized (to -24dbRMS) audio will play at normal volume, and it wil still be able to play the peaks without distortion.
Heavy metal will still have crest factor of 12dB (taken from your example), but some other recording with the same volume can have crest up to 24dB.

It´s just a matter of redefining what is normal. Now it´s normal to use all the bits possible, and squeeze the track flat. New normalization could be maintaining some value of RMS.

We could also force that all music with too high RMS (more than few dB over the standard) will have to have "Danger - high volume! Can cause ear damage when played at usual volume setting!" written on the album in big letters, like warnings on cigarettes

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

We could also force that all music with too high RMS (more than few dB over the standard) will have to have "Danger - high volume! Can cause ear damage when played at usual volume setting!" written on the album in big letters, like warnings on cigarettes

Heck, that's true of anything played through a mePod with buds, regardless of RMS. Go back to normal dynamic levels, and the users will just turn up the volume to dangerous levels anyway.

I guess the way I see the Big Picture here is that the RMS wars are already starting to die of natural causes. There is already debate amongst the label record producers over this issue, with some of them switching to the dynamics side already. Granted, it's not all of them, probably not even a majority yet, but the tide is starting to turn. In hip hop, we're starting to see a maturation in technique and philosopy amongst the Big Boy producers with some of the best discs of last year coming out far more layerd, textured, and dynamic that we've been used to seeing. Amongst the engineers, mixing AND mastering, there is already majority consensus that the RMS wars are a bad idea. About the only ones that haven't caught on there yet are many just now jumping into the home recording game and are still a bit behind the curve on understanding the issue.

I'm not saying that we therefore just let the issue ride. I'm just saying that the answer, IMHO, is to educate, not legislate.

Defining "standards" or "certification levels" for RMS is an over-reaction to the problem, IMHO, that is as artificial and restricting an idea as the idea behind the RMS wars is. It also both displays and fosters an ignorance of how mixing and mastering actually works, and ignores the whole idea that is preached in these forums constantly: the content should drive levels, the levels should not drive the content.

Mastering by numbers is not the right answer for pushing dynamics any more than mastering by numbers is the right answer for pushing volume.


Here's my idea of a BETTER SOLUTION:

The public should be given a choice. But let them make the choice at their end, at playback time.

IMHO, we should stress *good technique and artistry* in our mixing and mastering, dialing in the dynamics to fit the vision of the song, letting the RMS fall where it wants to, getting back to actual high-fidelity product without the RMS wars.

If the user is that tin-eared that they can't hear the advantage or prefer listening to pancakes, or that lazy that they can't control the volume themselves, then let the manufacturers address that by resurrecting a modern version of the old AGC (automatic gain control) switch on the playback devices. This switch would basically be an On/Off switch allowing the user to select whether they are hearing the mixes au natural, or whether they are hearing them through what is basically an on-board limiter that allows them to hear everything at an RMS-normalized volume.

I'll bet you it wouldn't take too long before we found that most users wind up leaving that switch off after a while, after having the self-experience and self-education that the switch provides, and realizing that dynamics actually do sound better than pancakes.

In the meantime, that one little switch gives the engineers what they want (quality engineering and production), relieves the producers of having to fight the wars (let the users set the battlefield instead), gives the manufacturers a new feature they can market (our AGC is better than your AGC), gives the users personal choice as to how they want their music to sound (dynamic or flat), and it does it all without artificial legislation or bogus certifications. EVERYBODY IS HAPPY.

G.

 

[Freudian Slip]

We could also force that all music with too high RMS (more than few dB over the standard) will have to have "Danger - high volume! Can cause ear damage when played at usual volume setting!" written on the album in big letters, like warnings on cigarettes

That would work as well as Tipper Gores plan All the kids would be trying to be the first to get a cd with the warning lable to show thier friends

We need a "this cd sounds like crap" warning lable. No one would rush to show that off.

Regardless of what turnmeup.org is really attempting to do. The fact is the more groups like this make noise and hopefully get press. The more likely that things will tame down some without a new standard being put in place. At least I hope.

F.S.

 

[LogicDeLuxe]

Talking about warning messages, it's funny you suggest them for too loud CDs. I actually have a DVD with a warning for the opposite reason. It's "Sara K. Live Nautilus Tour 2002". The text says

Diese Tonspur wurde mit maximaler Dynamik aufgezeichnet, um die einmalige Atmosphäre der Liveaufnahme originalgetreu einzufangen. Um eventuelle Beschädigungen ihrer Komponenten, insbesondere der Lautsprecher, durch die starken Dynamik-Sprünge zu vermeiden, sollten Sie die Einstellung der Abhörlautstärke vorsichtig vornehmen.

Which translates to English like this:

This audio track was recorded with maximum dynamics in order to truthfully capture the atmosphere of the original live recording. To avoid damaging your equipment, especially the speakers, due to the huge dynamic leaps, you should adjust the listening volume with care.

I'd say, this is really somewhat overstated. But certainly, it has the effect that people do think about what's going on.

I'm not saying that we therefore just let the issue ride. I'm just saying that the answer, IMHO, is to educate, not legislate.

That's exactly were such a certification comes in handy. Eventhough, it never can perfectly fit any case. It still would well serve the purpose that people become aware of the problem, and start thinking more before they buy their CDs.

It's similar to the THX certification program. The idea behind it is a good one, but it has and always will have its flaws, either. But it still serves the purpose that people start thinking what it's all about.

And since THX certification is expensive, such a non-profit organization really is a nice alternative.

 

[FALKEN]

so what if people have to turn down their mix to get certification? whats the problem?? how does this affect the music at all???

 

[LogicDeLuxe]

so what if people have to turn down their mix to get certification? whats the problem??

The problem is the potential for abuse. You could just use an overcompressed master and lower the volume, thus you might get a "remastered" version which, for instance might peak at -8 dB all the time, just to get a "norm"-RMS, but still sounds equally bad, of course.
However, as I wrote, I don't see this likely to happen.
If it does, the organization would need some kind of "doping test" in order to prevent this. Also excessive mid-range boost should be prevented, which can be used to increase the perceived loudness with little change in RMS. (At least, the latter isn't a destructive process.)

 

[Freudian Slip]

so what if people have to turn down their mix to get certification? whats the problem?? how does this affect the music at all???

Well if the mean rms was changed the music would get back some dynamics and the music would sound better because clipping and artifacts from sever compression would be reduced. At least that would be the hope. Rather than compressing the life and sound out of something and then bringing down the peak gain.

It's gotten to the point that mastering houses & lables are making the consciuos decision to sacrafice the quality of a recording for loudness.
I don't see how some mastering engineers could deny it. If they can deny it they have no place being in the job or they never test thier work on outside systems.

F.S.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

so what if people have to turn down their mix to get certification? whats the problem?? how does this affect the music at all???

It doesn't affect the music, it affects the quality of the recording. We're not just talking dropping the master faders here; we're talking having to meet arbitrary criteria for amount of dynamic content.

It's basically the same as if someone said, "Iif you want to be certified, you need to squash every song on your CD to -5dBFS RMS." The only difference is in the numbers selected.

I propose a "Free Dynamics" movement with it's own tag to put on CDs; one that requires no certification, and one that supports the freedom of the client/engineer/producer to choose dynamic levels that suit the content the best, with the intent to deliver to the listener the best sounding record thay can, without bowing to the the pressue or the desire to smash their stuff ito a pancake, and without the equal pressure or desire to follow some oversight organization's impersonal and unrealistic idea of what the dynamics should be in order to get "certified".

G.

 

[Freudian Slip]

I propose a "Free Dynamics" movement with it's own tag to put on CDs; one that requires no certification, and one that supports the freedom of the client/engineer/producer to choose dynamic levels that suit the content the best, with the intent to deliver to the listener the best sounding record thay can, without bowing to the the pressue or the desire to smash their stuff ito a pancake, and without the equal pressure or desire to follow some oversight organization's impersonal and unrealistic idea of what the dynamics should be in order to get "certified".

G.

Make the label something everyone (the consumer) would understand.
like "the volume of this cd may be slightly lower than that of other comparable CDs in an effort to bring you better sounding music. please feel free to adjust your volume knob to compensate."

F.S.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Make the label something everyone (the consumer) would understand.
like "the volume of this cd may be slightly lower than that of other comparable CDs in an effort to bring you better sounding music. please feel free to adjust your volume knob to compensate."

F.S.

Absolutely. Anybody with any ideas for the graphic?

G.

 

[FALKEN]

without the equal pressure or desire to follow some oversight organization's impersonal and unrealistic idea of what the dynamics should be in order to get "certified".
G.

How do you know its unrealistic? All the site says "significantly more dynamic".

 

[MCI2424]

Absolutely. Anybody with any ideas for the graphic?

G.

All you need are some great famous engineers to turn it down. All the rest will follow their heroes like in the past. Just like the minions follow the mix techniques of the rich and famous.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

How do you know its unrealistic? All the site says "significantly more dynamic".

*sigh*. Which part of "We're currently considering a measurement that will be precise, scientific, and 100% repeatable. It will not be a subjective or interpretative measurement in any way" sounds realistic to you?

Which part of that has anything whatsoever to do with taking the actual content of the recording and the artistic intent of the artist/producer/engineer into account?

Which part takes into account the need to drive levels based upon the song's context within a CD and not just the levels of the song itself?

And just how can one make a JUDGEMENT on whether a recording is certifiable or not and at the same time avoid being subjective or interpretive? It is, by definition, a subjective judgement to say that something that has a content of "x" level is certifiable, but something that has a level of "x + 1" is not. It's a completly arbitrary decision, and one that does not take into account the actual mixing and mastering process whatsoever.

That's what I call unrealistic.

You call it whatever you want. I'll just be happy to hear your description of it the first time you apply for their certification and for some unrealistic reason you do not pass.

Then you'll be all over the "Free Dynamics" idea like ants on a picnic.

G.

 

[FALKEN]

well they say they are targeting a level from about the late 80s to the early 90s, which I think is not only reasonable, but I shouldn't have any problem getting "certified" at that level, if I chose to. I think all in all this is a positive step, though I do see your points, I dont see why so much negativity and so many assumptions.

 

[TexRoadkill]

Why is a technical standard so damning? A simple requirement of more then 6-12 db of RMS to peak would be a huge improvement over the current mastering methods.

 

[kubeek]

It doesn't affect the music, it affects the quality of the recording. We're not just talking dropping the master faders here; we're talking having to meet arbitrary criteria for amount of dynamic content.

I think you misunderstood me. It won´t be a criteria of dynamic content, it should serve as standard for apparent volume. You still can produce less dynamic tracks which will peak far below 0db, but you have the possibility to create much more dynamic mix and still have the same volume.

 

[Freudian Slip]

I think you misunderstood me. It won´t be a criteria of dynamic content, it should serve as standard for apparent volume. You still can produce less dynamic tracks which will peak far below 0db, but you have the possibility to create much more dynamic mix and still have the same volume.

Now that's totaly intagible. I'm not sure you understand what apparent volume is?


F.S.

 

[Freudian Slip]

Ok I think I understand what your trying to say. You would make smashed mixes be only able to peak at -4db but, a dynamic mix could peak at 0db?

Very intangable when you throw in over hyped midrange as another method of achiving apperant loudness. There is simpley no way to measure apperant loudness. It's also in the ear of the beholder.

EDIT: Excuse me. I went back and read your previous post. Yes a rms standard would still allow for smashing and give dynamic mixes a chance. But you would still have the midrange exploitation that is going on now to see who could have the loudest apperant volume at (fill in the blank) db.

The fix is the first huge producer that thinks he'll be the coolest cat about town if he saves music and brings back dynamic range and has a hit record at the same time. The 19 year old fake english accent singing band can then go on to say "well you know it's a decision we all made together because ya know it's like all about the music man"

A grass roots movement never hurts though. Someone can steal the idea and do the above.

F.S.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I dont see why so much negativity and so many assumptions.

I have made no assumptions that I can see. I have read their website and understood their intent to set a certification criteria for loudness based upon some numbers game that below which they approve, and above which they don't.

The only difference between the idea behind their certification idea and the idea behind the Volume Wars is which actual numbers are plugged into the statement, "The ideal RMS/apparent volume level for all musical recording is ____."

Whatever number or range of numbers one plugs into that statement, the statement will still be wrong, because that's not how it works. One should NEVER mix or master by the numbers.

To be fair, I would accept one option: if they "certified" EVERYBODY who applied, but all that certification did was to publish a reading, like average RMS level or something like that, not unlike the MPG rating on a car or the wattage rating on an amp. "This disc has an average RMS of -14 with an average crest factor of 9" or something like that. That would be informative without being judgemental, would be all inclusive and not arbitrarily exclusive, would actually supply some information with actual intrinsic meaning and some value to the user (It could even help radio stations with their leveling settings), and would do nothing to promote bad engineering habits.

G.

 

[FALKEN]

The only difference between the idea behind their certification idea and the idea behind the Volume Wars is which actual numbers are plugged into the statement, "The ideal RMS/apparent volume level for all musical recording is ____."

Whatever number or range of numbers one plugs into that statement, the statement will still be wrong, because that's not how it works. One should NEVER mix or master by the numbers.

why not?

the problem with the volume wars has nothing to do with the act of striving for any specific volume level. It has everything to do with butchering audio to acheive that goal. Where did you form the opinion that simply striving for a specific level is bad?