grimtraveller
If only for a moment.....
Putting aside the "competition" aspect for a moment, are 'the loudness wars' a mixing or mastering issue ? If a mixing issue, how so ? And if a mastering one, how would that influence the way one mixes ?
iqi616
Yet another Mike
It's a customer issue. And an end-user issue. The customers are worried that if their album isn't at least as loud as everyone else's, it won't sell. This is partly rubbish but partly true. Other than the auto-level features on their iWhatevers some end-users don't like tracks that are too quiet or tracks that are too loud (e.g. the adverts on TV). So, either because they want to be loudest or they're frightened of being the quietest, the customers pay the mastering engineers to provide loud masters.
This is where I lose patience with the Turn It Up brigade - when you're driving in your car or out for a run, you don't want to futz about with a volume control. The campaign isn't going to work and hasn't worked so far because people don't listen to music the way they used to 20+ years ago. The minority that do actually sit down to listen to music, don't need to be told to adjust the volume knob.
So, it's not the fault of either the people mixing (unless they go so loud that the mastering engineer is stuck with crap to start with) or the people mastering.
The way it should effect how you mix should be "not at all". Forget about loudness, focus on a great mix. Leave headroom and don't sweat "using all the bits" or "getting as close as possible to 0 dBFS without clipping" - both ideas are long gone.
This is where I lose patience with the Turn It Up brigade - when you're driving in your car or out for a run, you don't want to futz about with a volume control. The campaign isn't going to work and hasn't worked so far because people don't listen to music the way they used to 20+ years ago. The minority that do actually sit down to listen to music, don't need to be told to adjust the volume knob.
So, it's not the fault of either the people mixing (unless they go so loud that the mastering engineer is stuck with crap to start with) or the people mastering.
The way it should effect how you mix should be "not at all". Forget about loudness, focus on a great mix. Leave headroom and don't sweat "using all the bits" or "getting as close as possible to 0 dBFS without clipping" - both ideas are long gone.
J
jaddie
New member
Well said, Mike!
Fact is, unless the mastering customer is worried about his music being too quiet when played on a non-volume-controlled system, there's little point to the war, everybody looses. What's a non-volume-controlled system? Good question! Even background music in restaurants is re-processed and leveled. Radio is reprocessed and leveled. Digital music players have volume normalizers.
Then there's this gadget that consumers have and use fairly often. It's usually a round knob, but might be a couple of buttons or something, but it controls the play volume. If it's too loud, the user will turn it down, if it's too low, they will turn it up, and there's nothing a any of us can do about it. If your music is played on radio, they smash the dynamics aggressively one more time, so it all comes out even in their mix. Again, no point to the mastering loudness war.
We should have all learned long ago that music sales are all about content. I'd be willing to bet that you could count on one hand the number of records or CDs that have been returned for a refund because they were mastered to low. But I'll bet there's a few more returned because they are mastered so loud as to be distorted. Conversely, nobody refuses to buy a song or record because it's not as loud as another. There are no duplicates, each is song is unique. It's not about loud or soft, it's about content. Content is king, always was, always will be. It's why AM radio stations still have an audience (some pretty big ones too) even though their quality is far inferior to FM. It's what they have on the air, not the audio quality of it that drives an audience to listen.
Same is true for recorded music for sale. So, why ruin quality by smashing it to death to make it loud when it would sell just as well without all that?
Oh, that's right, it's that ego thing. Such a shame.
Stepping of the soap box now.
Fact is, unless the mastering customer is worried about his music being too quiet when played on a non-volume-controlled system, there's little point to the war, everybody looses. What's a non-volume-controlled system? Good question! Even background music in restaurants is re-processed and leveled. Radio is reprocessed and leveled. Digital music players have volume normalizers.
Then there's this gadget that consumers have and use fairly often. It's usually a round knob, but might be a couple of buttons or something, but it controls the play volume. If it's too loud, the user will turn it down, if it's too low, they will turn it up, and there's nothing a any of us can do about it. If your music is played on radio, they smash the dynamics aggressively one more time, so it all comes out even in their mix. Again, no point to the mastering loudness war.
We should have all learned long ago that music sales are all about content. I'd be willing to bet that you could count on one hand the number of records or CDs that have been returned for a refund because they were mastered to low. But I'll bet there's a few more returned because they are mastered so loud as to be distorted. Conversely, nobody refuses to buy a song or record because it's not as loud as another. There are no duplicates, each is song is unique. It's not about loud or soft, it's about content. Content is king, always was, always will be. It's why AM radio stations still have an audience (some pretty big ones too) even though their quality is far inferior to FM. It's what they have on the air, not the audio quality of it that drives an audience to listen.
Same is true for recorded music for sale. So, why ruin quality by smashing it to death to make it loud when it would sell just as well without all that?
Oh, that's right, it's that ego thing. Such a shame.
Stepping of the soap box now.
R
rodger
New member
I agree 100% with the responses. Since the overall loudness increase is usually done in the mastering process, it is a mastering issue in my mind. It doesn't affect at all the way I mix... I never consider it during the mixing process. I try to achieve a mix that blends all instrumentation and vocals the way I want to hear them and don't worry if the song will "compete" in a loudness war at that time. Afterward, if I am concerned about the loudness, I believe that can be achieved by the mastering engineer. I would worry that the limiting and compression used during mastering would affect the blend I achieved during mixing, but there is probably nothing I can do in the mix to address that.
Massive Master
www.massivemastering.com
It has been and always will be a pissing contest between bands and labels. The public never asked for it, mastering engineers were certainly never in favor of it.
As much as I hate "standards" it sure has worked in the film industry. A 'reasonable standard' in the audio industry would have nipped this all in the bud a long time ago (right about the time I was saying that I was against a "volume standard" in an interview because I didn't think anyone would actually purposefully trash their mixes just for the sake of volume. How naive of me).
As much as I hate "standards" it sure has worked in the film industry. A 'reasonable standard' in the audio industry would have nipped this all in the bud a long time ago (right about the time I was saying that I was against a "volume standard" in an interview because I didn't think anyone would actually purposefully trash their mixes just for the sake of volume. How naive of me).
C
Captain Ego
New member
My friend uses his computer for his home stereo. I'm sure he is not a rarity in this. He cues up huge playlists when he has people over hanging out having beers whatever. When a track is squeezed in between hundreds of other tracks and it is on shuffle, if it doesn't come in loud he just hits skip. I gave him a mp3 self-produced recording of a band I know and he stuck it in the playlist mix too. When the track came up and was too quiet after following Black Sabbath and They Might Be Giants (so it clearly isn't a matter of the style of music) sure enough he just skipped it rather than mouse around for the volume level on the computer. I don't think this is uncommon. I guess what I am thinking is that being louder to stand out is bad, but in a situation like a playlist of various artists, being loud enough of comparable percieved volume level to everything else at least means your music will be given a listen, instead of annoying the person having to fiddle with the volume levels.
Like with TV commercials, nobody likes how boomy loud they are, but most people dont ride the remote up and down every 15 minutes either, just just put up and deal with not liking it. Asking the listener to do as little as possible to adjust means it is more likely to be listened to. Not everyone is an audiophile, some people just don't have the patience to adjust their stereo every few songs.
Like with TV commercials, nobody likes how boomy loud they are, but most people dont ride the remote up and down every 15 minutes either, just just put up and deal with not liking it. Asking the listener to do as little as possible to adjust means it is more likely to be listened to. Not everyone is an audiophile, some people just don't have the patience to adjust their stereo every few songs.
N
NYMorningstar
Recording Modus Operandi
I'd rather annoy a drunken lazy dj than have the dynamics in my music compromised but that's just me.
gecko zzed
Grumpy Mod
Many years ago I used to do DJ work, playing music for parties, weddings, clubs and stuff.
I noticed (obviously) that some tracks were softer than others . . . and I would adjust accordingly.
Never once did it enter my head to think that softer was somehow inferior to louder . . . I just thought that it was the nature of music and recording that there would be variations in level.
I noticed (obviously) that some tracks were softer than others . . . and I would adjust accordingly.
Never once did it enter my head to think that softer was somehow inferior to louder . . . I just thought that it was the nature of music and recording that there would be variations in level.
SafeandSound
New member
Hi Gecko, conversely did you ever think the "loud tracks" were worse sounding than the quiet?
cheers
cheers
G
Greg_L
Banned
Audio snobs unite!
Bubba po
Tiny Stonehenge Moment
I had no idea that this kind of thing was going on. The world has pockets of insanity I never even dreamed of.
gecko zzed
Grumpy Mod
No . . . I didn't think that loud tracks were worse sounding.
However, you should note that a DJ environment is not a listening environment. The task is to entertain the crowd.
rayc
retroreprobate
"...don't like tracks that are too quiet or tracks that are too loud (e.g. the adverts on TV)..." & so respond by making everything else as loud as the TV adverts. Whilst it's true that folk are annoyed by the perceived "loudness" of adverts but it is also true that many of those same people want louder in their own & bought music.
No sense whatsoever.
It's also interesting to note that when I quieter song comes on - whether it's a ballad or not max'd out the usual response it to max it out!
This may suggest that, for all our concern about retaining dynamics & flow & pacing & loud/soft frisson, the person with the hand on the dial in many situations cares not a jot for our arcane angst.
I think we also need to carefully consider playback devices.
I played a CD rather quietly last night for a host of reasons &, through lack of decent bottom end repro used the "loudness" button. Now - in a way that's a consumer getting into the war. I suppose I just should have turned it up until I had the response I wanted. many "stereo systems" do need a decent bit of grunt to get a good response from the speakers. Some songs need a decent bit of grunt to get their message across - emulating the bass gtr & kick drum thump in the chest of being at a gig for example.
Apart from the attempt to stand out from the rest by being as loud as the rest, or at least not NOT as loud as the rest as a marketing strategy is there any value for the general consumer - as opposed to the audiophile or pseudoaudiphile - in the processing of music with reduced dynamic range but increased apparent volume?
No sense whatsoever.
It's also interesting to note that when I quieter song comes on - whether it's a ballad or not max'd out the usual response it to max it out!
This may suggest that, for all our concern about retaining dynamics & flow & pacing & loud/soft frisson, the person with the hand on the dial in many situations cares not a jot for our arcane angst.
I think we also need to carefully consider playback devices.
I played a CD rather quietly last night for a host of reasons &, through lack of decent bottom end repro used the "loudness" button. Now - in a way that's a consumer getting into the war. I suppose I just should have turned it up until I had the response I wanted. many "stereo systems" do need a decent bit of grunt to get a good response from the speakers. Some songs need a decent bit of grunt to get their message across - emulating the bass gtr & kick drum thump in the chest of being at a gig for example.
Apart from the attempt to stand out from the rest by being as loud as the rest, or at least not NOT as loud as the rest as a marketing strategy is there any value for the general consumer - as opposed to the audiophile or pseudoaudiphile - in the processing of music with reduced dynamic range but increased apparent volume?
Last edited:
kcearl
I see deaf people
i skip quiet tracks on my MP3 player...I listen to a lot of old 60s soul and garage stuff and unless I listen to it as a separate genre in a mix it just generally gets skipped, unless I really want to hear a track
I reckon half the music listening world is like that...dynamics are out the window if Im on the crosstrainer at the gym..geez even tracks from albums recorded in the eighties dont make it to the playlist
my own tracks can generally stand next to commercial ones in loudness, not in quality, so if one of them pops up its OK...but I dont play rock
I dont care who started the loudness...its there...if everyone had stayed at a late 80's level it would have been great..but they didnt and its not going back anytime soon
anyway back to the OP...I blame the children
I reckon half the music listening world is like that...dynamics are out the window if Im on the crosstrainer at the gym..geez even tracks from albums recorded in the eighties dont make it to the playlist
my own tracks can generally stand next to commercial ones in loudness, not in quality, so if one of them pops up its OK...but I dont play rock
I dont care who started the loudness...its there...if everyone had stayed at a late 80's level it would have been great..but they didnt and its not going back anytime soon
anyway back to the OP...I blame the children
bouldersoundguy
Well-known member
A band I work with just got a song played on a podcast. It sounded low compared to everything else in the program. I suspect the producer isn't aware of the need to match perceived levels of the different material used in his program, and that he just downloaded the file and played it as is. I think it's safe to assume most small productions like his won't have the technical savvy to normalize RMS levels of all the songs. I'm not suggesting anything, just pointing out one of the problems with with the lack of standards, and why it's so tempting to master hot.
aaronmcoleman
The truth is out there!
I think movies are too dynamic. I hate watching them at home and having to turn the TV all the way up to hear dialogue and then get blasted when Bruce Willis walks out of a ball of fire.
I too skip quiet songs...so does everybody. Dynamics are from the past, welcome to the 90's!
I too skip quiet songs...so does everybody. Dynamics are from the past, welcome to the 90's!
R
RAMI
Guest
If only we could get volume with dynamics. 
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
No one wants to fuck with their volume knobs...they expect every song to come in at almost the same perceived loudness...which has been around forever. Radio stations always used some form of AGC to take care of this.
What I don't understand is why that "sameness" ended up having to be at the absolute outer limits of audio technology loudness, and why the audio industry allowed itself to be put in that outer-limit position...and to now bitch about it and point fingers at each other.
If they had imposed a loudness standard...people STILL could set their own volumes as high/low as they liked. I mean, it is somehwat of a PITA when you are listening to consecutive songs (or like TV commercials VS movie dialog) and the loudness is all over the place. I mostly hate the one or two video clips that will come on at earth shattering levels when you are all comfy on the couch and have already found YOUR preferred loudness. That...there really out to be a law against, 'cuz it ruins my mood....
What I don't understand is why that "sameness" ended up having to be at the absolute outer limits of audio technology loudness, and why the audio industry allowed itself to be put in that outer-limit position...and to now bitch about it and point fingers at each other.
If they had imposed a loudness standard...people STILL could set their own volumes as high/low as they liked. I mean, it is somehwat of a PITA when you are listening to consecutive songs (or like TV commercials VS movie dialog) and the loudness is all over the place. I mostly hate the one or two video clips that will come on at earth shattering levels when you are all comfy on the couch and have already found YOUR preferred loudness. That...there really out to be a law against, 'cuz it ruins my mood....
B
bassman1441
New member
If only we could get volume with dynamics.
All least we still get this for live sound.
I couldn't imagine going to going to a concert that only had a dynamic range of 3dB.
M
Murdersgalore
New member
I fucking knew it! It's Bruce Willis' fault!!!