Talk:Loudness war

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Loudness war article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

My first attempt at any kind of wiki article. Comments? Corrections? Karl

Jan. 3, minor changes, added note about lack of emotional expressiveness caused by dynamic flattening, independent of distortion. Karl

Contents 1 headroom 2 Counterexamples? 3 Needs work 4 Digital Clipping 5 Don't merge please 6 Noriega 7 piracy section 8 Remasters section 9 Date of release of Original 'one of us' recording 10 'Warning Tag' OVERLOAD!!! 11 "No winners" section 12 Why No Sound Clips 13 Pictures 14 Other Media 15 Conspiracy Theory 16 Rewirte 17 Popular Examples 18 Article I wrote 19 Rewrite - NPOV Yet?

[edit] headroom

someone should mention the idea of headroom (which is basically the left-over space on the volume meter when the track reaches its highest level). songs with digital clipping have no headroom as there is no space between the peaks and the maximum possible levels of the track. songs without clipping may have headroom, but brick-wall limiting can still result in restrained dynamics. some argue that among "loudness war" records, those with ample headroom are more listenable than those without any, even if they are "squashed" just the same. lack of headroom in general means an improper representation of transients, so a cd that clips but is not so compressed may sound much worse than a cd that is heavily compressed/limited but has headroom to keep from clipping.

[edit] Counterexamples?

Can we get some examples of albums released during the years of the "loudness war" that dont subscribe to the loudness philosophy? For instance, I believe most of Brendan O'Brien's releases (Pearl Jam, Stone Temple Pilots, Soundgarden's "Superunknown") don't really have any clipping. There's a totally audible difference between Audioslave's first album (not engineered by O'Brien), which has over-the-top digital clipping, and their second album (engineered by O'Brien) which seems to substitute tape clipping for digital (correct me if I'm wrong but I definitely think I hear tape on that album). Even so, the dude clearly does use compressors and limiters extensively.

Tool has a few albums, such as Lateralus, which have tons of headroom.

David Gilmour's latest album, On An Island, seeme to be very dymanic (to my ears anyway as I haven't looked at any time domain plots of it yet). Neilius 01:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Counterexamples? Google for the "Honor Roll of Well Mastered CDs". Moreover, there's an opposite thread on hydrogenaudio.org that lists the well-mastered CDs (from users' opinions, of course) -andy 80.129.89.152 03:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Needs work

This article needs some work. It doesn't seem to be in a neutral POV and parts of it are wrong (or at least misleading.) There's a big difference between distortion caused by clipping and distortion caused by "companding," for example. It's unlikely that commercially produced CDs will actually have clipped waveforms on them; clipping is more likely to come from the playback hardware. People just assume that heavily expanded audio must be clipped but this is usually incorrect. Also, many of the concepts in this article do not apply to digitally produced (not recorded) music, especially purely synthesized music, where "louder" can actually improve the quality of the sound, at least in theory. Better general explanations of the concepts involved and fewer references to external sources would improve this article and make it more neutral. As it stands, it seems more like a magazine article to me.

I don't want to discourage you, but you did ask for comments... Please try to improve this article as it has some important concepts.

Actually, most of CD's have at least some clipping. Heavy dynamic compression and clipping became standard in audio mastering.

Agreed - I think this needs to be simplified or renamed. I too would like to kick the guy who mastered any of the RHCP's later CD's, but I think the article content is very subjective and POV. I'd say it should be a section of Audio_mastering, where it would be in context. --Jgritz 01:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't kick the GUY, but kick the LABEL. As this article gladly states, most ME guys are forced to do so, as if they had a gun sitting in their neck and a harsh voice bellowing, "LOUDER! NO, I SAID *EVEN* LOUDER!".It is about time a skilled cartoonist does a 2- or 3-part cartoon of this matter. Frankly, I think this'll be a good and not-too-exhausted topic to cartoonise. :-D -andy 80.129.89.152 03:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed about audio mastering. — Omegatron 06:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree also, and am slowly working through the article to make it more neutral. As a sound engineer though, the loudness race is a huge problem and I absolutely detest it! We should NOT be in the business of making square waves! ;-) Neilius 02:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, if that's what people want... — Omegatron 03:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe... But the target audience of most pop music, to which these loudness wars are a huge part of, are young kids who don't know any better (which isn't their fault) and don't tend very often get the chance to listen to a dynamic, naturally recorded piece, see an orchestra or big jazz performance etc. I personally find listening to heavily limited masters unbearable after a few minutes, even with the volume down, a bit like trying to read a sentence typed in capital letters. More importantly though, I do think the article needs work to 'neutralise' it and make it more factual as it seems very opinionated at the moment (and I do agree with those opinions!). Warm regards, Neilius 12:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree that this article needs some serious work. It does not have a neutral POV and is rife with weseal words. I'm going to go ahead and add the Weasel template to the page. Personally, I'm an audiophile and I absolutely can't stand the "loudness war," but it really needs to be NPOV. Its an encyclopedia article, not a rant. --Tom 07:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we're getting there slowly, more scientific fact regarding human perceptions of loudness is creeping in to help back up the more subjective woolly stuff :) Neilius 08:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I have started a restructuring/rewrite of the article, starting with the Introduction. Not only could it be more neutral, it could be a bit better written as well. Feel free to join in or criticize Illuminatedwax 02:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Digital Clipping

Yes, although I am not professional, my understanding of the subject is that maybe masterers would occasionally allow clipping of maybe half a decibel, but more often, dynamic devices are used with brick-wall limiters on the end. Could someone in the industry please verify, but this information sounds like a description of mastering ten years ago. Nowadays mastering is often done completely digitally and the engineer is not guessing at the peak levels at all. Engineers rarely treat digital full-scale the same as analog saturation point. More often, they simply compress or limit the mix aggressively which causes the whole thing to pump with the kick drum. One reason why engineers are able to achieve high dynamic ranges is because with digital technology, the clip point is accurately known and not guessed at all. Peak metres are readily available, and an engineer can tell exactly when clipping will occur and is able to position a limiter so that it limits exactly at the threshold of clipping as opposed to the analog days when the line between clean and saturated was more blurry. I have generally noticed more compression during mastering in recent times, and less distortion. (there was some serious saturation in early Led Zeppelin albums).

Compression and limiting still decreases the quality in music though, and I do believe that there is little understanding of audio quality by consumers. It seems that people are quite happy to listen to low quality MP3 music. My opinion is that it is worthwhile sacrificing some RMS level and not always using all 16 bits of CD quality audio, however it may be a good idea to represent other people's ideas in the article. I think it would be advisable to place more emphasis on the fact that through decreasing the dynamic range of the audio, the 16 bit quality of CD is better put to use for more of a song. It is worthy of note that by digitally encoding a passage of audio six decibels louder, there are twice as many different levels used by the samples making up the waveform.

This is my understanding, but I do not pretend to be an actual masterer, just a hobbiest, so I think that we should wait for someone in the industry.

This goes in two ways, my friend. They like to listen to low-quality MP3s because they are sufficient! If the sound is squashed to death, a low-quality MP3 (128 - 160) WILL eventually sound like the CD! I do not kid you: I was hardly able to hear any difference between the 160 kbps MP3 and one of the extreme examples mentioned here and elsewhere. The difference was less than 1% as the dynamics were so destroyed. Crying out in pain might be a remedy. -andy 80.129.89.152 03:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don't merge please

I came across this page while trying to bring together all Sound recording and reproduction topics under the Wikipedia:Root page concept. This is a topic that causes me much grief and I think it is important enough to stand alone as a branch of the Root page, where it will be easily found by those looking at any audio page. It is of equal interest to the listener as to the recording engineer, and so I have not placed it under Post production. --Lindosland 16:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge request has been removed per majority opinion after reviewing the discussion pages both here and at Talk:audio mastering. -- Dept of Alchemy 21:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Noriega

I was thinking that this article was about the military use of loud music as a weapon. One example was the US Army attack by playing loud rock and roll against Manuel Noriega when he was refuged in the Nuncio residence in Panama City.

You'd want to categorize that method under "non-lethal weapons".--87.122.18.18 14:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] piracy section

Many have suggested boycotting recordings that they feel showcase the phenomenon to the point of significantly lessened satisfaction with the product (often to the point of lessened, or even nonexistent, listening as opposed to otherwise) to communicate the existence of disdain for the practice to the offending parties, though it is often stated that such an attempt would be interpreted by the music industry as wanton piracy.

This bit doesn't make sense to me. Is it a result of a section being chopped out? As I read it, the implication is that boycotting a recording is interpreted as wonton piracy. That is nonsensical. -- Jon Dowland 20:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually it makes perfect sense. The music industry is so arrogant nowadays that it simply refuses to believe that people won't buy CDs just because they sound awful. Instead they will (incorrectly) assume that just because sales are down "people must be downloading this music illegally". Totally unable of course to realise that because it sounds horrible and gives you a headache on the original CD, it's still going to sound horrible and give you a headache when ripped to MP3. -- Squirrel 09:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The text implies that in the belief of music fans the music industry will treat a boycott as equivalent to copyright infringement ("piracy"), which is of course ridiculous. What it means to say is that the recording industry will likely attribute any boycott-induced loss of sales to piracy.

The entire passage is horribly verbose, convoluted, and really says nothing more than "some music fans want to boycott lousy recordings." I'm axing it. -- Paul Richter 09:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Doesn't change the fact that music ruined by loudness wars is fatiguing to listen to for any length of time (even after volume levelling) due to the amount of compression. And all this treatment does is to make all recordings sound the same, flat and lifeless, and means nobody wants to spend their hard-earned cash on them. Squirrel 10:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The section has been de-weaselled, so I've re-added the comment about record labels attributing any loss of sales to piracy. Squirrel 08:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remasters section

First attempt was perhaps not neutral, but the removal of the first paragraph also removed the whole point of the remasters section.

Some remasters do indeed sound better (eg very early CDs), but more recent remasters are just "oh, bit of smiley EQ and 4:1 above -10dB... and let's make it louder!" The ABBA examples mentioned are one of my favourite songs of all time, and it's tragic to see it destroyed in this way. So forgive me if my POV is a little less neutral than it could be on this particular track.

Squirrel 10:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I reworded most of the section, especially the initial paragaph. I believe most of the POV should be gone now. Let the pictures in the section do the work of showing how much of the quality of the CDs have been altered, not the words in the text. --Limetom 20:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Reworded slightly just to make the definitions clearer, hopefully still NPOV! Changed "clipping" reference to "compression", the track in the screenshot doesn't actually clip, it's just heavily peak-limited. Also a couple of grammatical corrections. Squirrel 05:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

That section was the most POV section in the article. Now, however... --Limetom 06:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that the reason for doing digital remastering should be made clear. Digital mastering equipment can have considerably better performance characteristics than analogue equipment. In particular, once a digital copy is made, it can be copied again without loss in quality. The result of digital remastering is sometimes CD's having greater treble energy, but this is closer to the original recording than an earlier analogue master. It is not simply a case of an 'artificial' treble boost. I understand the criticism in relation to excess compression of dynamic range, but you should make it clear that digital remastering can produce CD's with less noise and distortion. Analogue masters, particularly those replayed on vinyl records, may sound better than more accurate digital ones. This is sometimes because the playback equipment has poor bass extension, and the reduction in treble energy gives a more balanced sound. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.205.245.147 (talk) 12:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC).

If you can find some verifiable source for this, I would suggest adding this to the article. The article severely lacks things like this. --Limetom 08:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Date of release of Original 'one of us' recording

I was under the belief that the first audio CDs were not released until 1982 or 1983. It seems baffling how one could rip a recording from a CD which hadn't been invented in the 'one of us' section. Perhaps someone could clarify.tommylommykins 07:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

ABBA's final recordings (The Visitors album and the 1982 sessions) were all digitally recorded. The Visitors was one of the first CDs released when the format was launched in early 1983. Digital recording has been around since the late 70s but was still expensive, so most studios didn't have digital multitracks back then.

The CD I have here says on the spine "DIGITAL STEREO", and in the booklet "Digitally recorded and mixed at Polar Music Studios, Stockholm". The CD format was under development in 1981 when this album was released, but it looks like they had CD in mind when it was being recorded. Either way, it says on the back cover and on the disc itself "© 1981 Polar Music International". So it's fair to assume that the original Polydor release of the CD was taken straight from the 2-track digital master.

My friend has the 1997 remaster of this album (which is also heavily compressed), this says © 1997 on the back cover.

Hope that clears things up. Squirrel 10:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Warning Tag' OVERLOAD!!!

Can we think of some other 'warning tags' to throw up here...? Thus far we have an article that BOLDLY! claims to have "compromised" "neutrality" by "weasel words", is "in need of attention from an expert on the subject" AND has some information which "has not been verified" and "might not be reliable"...

It isn't as if Wikipedia 't have enough of these $%*#@! tags all over the place (more so recently); as this article is regarding the "Loudness War", I really do not think it warrants all this special attention. doesn Where do you think the folks over at Britannica 'draw the line'? Nothing is perfect; this article is informative, and covers a 'pop-cultural' term/idea. Do we really need to warn the reader of possible bias in this article? Aren't they old enough to 'handle it'?

Obviously, we should extend a warm welcome to the record company apologists (employees?) who added the tags. Branden 02:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories huh? Actually I'm inclined to agree. Something tells me those tags were put there by apologists or even employees. I'm axing them. Squirrel 09:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I consider myself an audiophile, and I added the weasel tag (see Needs Work, above). I don't like the degradation in audio quality, but this Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox (WP:NOT) All the other tags are necessary. I'm sorry if you don't like the number, but this article does qualify for all of them.

The weasel tag was the last one added, and in the month since I added it, almost no work on the POV/weasel problems has been done. The "Remasters" section and the "No Winners in the Loudness War" section (including the latter section's title) probably the worst of the article. (WP:Weasel)

Technically, there are no citations at all in the article, and if those in the external links section mean to be, they need to be firstly reviewed, secondly moved into a Notes or References section, and thirdly, footnotes might be a nice style addition.(WP:CITE).

If I did not actually want to save the article, it would be the first I would ever consider to nominate for deletion. According to the Deletion Policy (WP:DEL) the only thing this article does not violate is copyrights. However, since I do want to save it, I will not nominate it for deletion.

There seems to be some consensus that there were too many templates, but I feel there should have been some more discussion before they were summarily deleted, but I'm not going to make a big deal out of it. However, I am going to add the weasel and factual templates back in, because this article is in serious violation of both of them. It did not, in my opinion, need the expert tag. I'll leave that out, for the time being. --Tom 02:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a highly emotive subject, and one about which views are very subjective. I find myself turning off "loudness mastered" music after only a few minutes as the distortion and compression is actually fatiguing. If you've actually listened to the 2005 ABBA remasters you'll find yourself turning them off after a few minutes (unless you're deaf as a post). Squirrel 07:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that the "Weasel" and "NPOV" tags were removed. I'm putting them back, as my original reasoning for them being there still stands. Please utilize the talk page before removing them, and please have a reason if you want them gone. --Limetom 08:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, removing such tags by no means counts as a minor edit. --Limetom 08:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall removing those. However I still maintain this article has far too many tags. Perhaps the expert tag should stay - but the other two give complete overload.

Audio and indeed music is a highly subjective topic. I'd argue that there can't truly be NPOV with this topic, for that reason - it's so subjective.

So far only one person's objected to the tags being removed. If nobody else objects then I'm taking them out. Squirrel 19:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The edit history shows that you did remove them. However, I never even said I was talking about you. I'm not sure why you responded the way you did.

I looked at the edit history and compared versions. I don't remember removing them though. It's possible I left myself logged in... or it's equally possible that I removed them and didn't remember doing it. I'd normally have posted a comment on the talk page when making a change that was anything more than a spelling correction. Anyway... Squirrel 08:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, its possible for any article to hold a neutral point of view. Once again, I suggest that you read WP:NPOV. If you don't feel like it, then let me paraphrase: "[an article] must represent all significant views fairly and without bias." NPOV is a policy, and means it needs to be upheld whether you like it or not. Make no mistake, the Loudness War has made a lot of music into utter crap, but we need to handle just what it does. The article on Hitler never said he was a bad guy, it just states his deeds. That's how an encyclopedia works. --Limetom 05:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

There are three significant views here:

Record company: "No, louder. No, LOUDER. I SAID LOUDER."

Casual listener: "This music is boring, I can't be bothered."

Audiophile: "This music is so compressed and limited it's hurting my ears."

There is an interesting piece in What Hi-Fi magazine's buying guide. They reckon that if you have a badly matched system you won't actually realise you've bought a lemon. Instead your desire to listen to music will disappear and you'll just end up switching the hi-fi off and the TV on. CDs that have been compressed like this, regardless of musical content, have the same effect. The loudness war just makes all music sound like the same wall of noise, the end result being that casual listeners switch off without actually knowing the real reason why. Indeed it's been suggested that this is one of the main reasons for falling CD sales (can't remember the source but I'm sure it was in one of the articles linked to at the bottom of the page). Squirrel 08:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

When looking at your first section and the article, right now really only the audiophile is covered, and not even in encyclopedic terms. The purpose of the tags is to make sure people know that, and that hopefully someone will come along and fix it.

I fail to see the relevancy of the second part, aside from furthering one, maybe two, POVs. --Limetom 10:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

So far nobody else has objected to removing the tags. I'll leave the expert tag in for now, but I'm taking the weasel and NPOV tags out. Squirrel 10:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

If someone else reverted your change, I think that compromises an objection aside from mine. Furthermore, you have failed to show any proof that they should be removed.

Several people and myself have stated the article holds a point of view. That is enough to have the NPOV tag.

There are several places rife with weasel words, and because they can sometimes be hard to miss, I have given them here (also, please review WP:Weasel). Some of these may qualify as an exception, but they are so overused that it really hurts the article.

All taken from the Introduction section:

• "To educated ears..." Who are educated ears?
• "Some have petitioned..." Who are some? This section provides a reference, but using weasel words detracts from its value.
• "Others have even said..." Who are these others? See the above.
• "Many have suggested..." Who are many? See the above.
• "It should be made clear..." This sentance should be reworded.

All taken from the History section:

• "...depending on whom you inquire." Who is whom?
• "In addition, one should note..." Why is this important? This holds importance, but using weasel words detracts from its value.
• "And while some..." Who are some?

All taken from the Interpretations section:

• "Many hold the opinion..." Who are many?
• "...other, more fanatical types believe..." Who are these others? How are they fanatical?
• "Some consider..." Who are some?
• "...others find themselves..." Who are these others?

There are many, many more examples, and I don't think I need to list all of them.

The expert tag isn't even there anymore. You removed the tags and you didn't even notice it. Currently the not verified template is on the page. I see at least one usage of the citiation needed template within the article, so it should be there. Furthermore, I think the Primary sources template should be added. Even the sources that claim to come from the same organization are from different websites, and many of them overlap. --Limetom 08:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

So... why not reword the relevant sections? Do we really need all these damned templates in? I refer to the earlier comment - where does Britannica draw the line?

What we've got here is a given fact - loudness mastered music sounds fatiguing. We've also got an opinion - clipping and compression is what causes it to sound fatiguing.

Do we REALLY need to have 3 lots of templates in here? I think people are old enough to make their own minds up. Squirrel 22:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on an entire rewrite for the article in an attempt to get it to some semblance of neutrality. Doing so is only a little less work than removing the POV in the current article. However, if you want me to remove them now, I'd be glad to.

I'd just like to invite you to reread the information relevant to the templates, because they can be confusing. For the NPOV template, see WP:NPOV. For the Weasel template, see WP:Weasel. And for the Not Verified template, see WP:VERIFY.

Where Britannica draws the line is irrelevant. Where Wikipedia draws the line is quite clear. If you read WP:Weasel, then you should remember the few exceptions. I'll repeat them here for clarity:

• When the belief or opinion is actually the topic of discussion.
• When the holders of the opinion are too diverse or numerous to qualify.
• When contrasting a minority opinion.

I pointed out that several of the weasel words could fit into these exceptions, but the sheer number of them in the article detracts from the article's quality and neutrality.

I'm afraid your second paragraph is entirely opinion. Although I wouldn't, as easily as you could say that loudness mastered music sounds fatiguing, I could say that it sounds good. The only given fact here is that the record companies master albums at higher and higher levels of compression, and in some people's opinion, this reduces the quality of the music.

We "REALLY" do need 3 templates. If you can point out some actual reason why they shouldn't be included, please point it out, and if I agree, the templates can be removed. Furthermore, I think we need a 4th template, Template:Primarysources. Please read over WP:VERIFY and WP:RS for relevant sources and give me some sort of reason why you would agree or disagree with adding it. --Limetom 02:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the warning tags, to me, the whole ting reads like an essay bashing loudness war, sounding very un-encyclopedic. Sure, I agree that a loudness war isn't good for the consumer, but the fact that it sounds like an essay arguing a point gives the NPOV and weasel words tag, and the lack of citations gives it the verification tag. Now I don't see why people are all old enough to not need tags, or else we might as well take safety labels off everything. They are here as warnings, just like there are warning labels on hair dryers that tell you not to take showers while using them and there are warning labels on packets of cigarettes saying that they kill you: it's a good reminder for people anyways, and some people treat Wikipedia as a definitive resource--they need to be reminded that Wikipedia is still made by the common people and that the information on it isn't always accurate.

One of the largest problems that I see in this article is the lack of citations: with citations, many of the things said would make sense; I know nothing about the history of the recording industry so I cannot help here, but there are details about specific albums and musicians that I'm sure can be looked up.

Oh yeah, and I'm tempted to add a "cleanup" tag to this because it doensn't sound quite right, but I won't do it right now, because then we'd have 4 tags... Iamthebob 04:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Instead of tagging the whole article, why don't the dissenters use section-tags. Better still, why don't they join the spirit of this medium and offer replacement text to satisfy their gripes; or even write their own version.

Of course there is a bias in this topic, it is highlighting a destructive phase in recording history. By clipping and/or compressing music it is losing quality, which can't be restored.

I challenge the detractors to write an unbiased article about "murder", or "child-abuse". Are you saying that ALL topics must present benefits for both sides of the argument? --81.157.74.113 12:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Others and myself have disputed the neutrality of the article on the talk page, therefore, the {{NPOV}} tag belongs there. I can point out non-exception weasel words in every single section of the article (see my comment above for a partial list). Therefore, the whole article needs the {{weasel}} tag. Some of the information throughout the article is not cited, and other sources violate WP:V, so the tag belongs there.

ALL topics must present both sides of the argument, it is part of the WP:NPOV policy, which I recommend that you read. (This section of the NPOV FAQ is relevant as well.)

I am currently working on a re-write of the article, which you can find here. There's not much there now, simply because I have a lot of reasearch to do, but I plan to keep working on it. I invite others to join in if they want. --Limetom 02:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "No winners" section

Have changed the title of this section back to the original. It is the loudness "war" after all, and wars have winners and losers. Except this one, where everyone loses. Squirrel 07:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to have to disagree with your decision for two reasons. The first is, as I stated previously, because the title itself is POV. Again, even though I don't like low-quailty music, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and we must be as neutral as possible.

The second is simply because the title that it was given, while a little awkward sounding, describes the section as it should. The section is not about how no one wins in the loudness war, it is about what software can undo loudness.

I'll leave it in, for now. I'd much rather have constructive discussion, like this, as opposed to the alternatives. --Limetom 12:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

No software can "undo" the effects though. It might reduce the volume to that of pre-loudness war tracks so you don't get blown out of your seat when the disc changes in the car CD changer, but it won't restore the dynamics, nor will it remove the clipping.

I'd actually argue that it does show how nobody wins, as once a loudness-mastered track is processed with MP3Gain it ends up being quieter than a track mastered before the days of the loudness war. Squirrel 20:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I have found an article which is "pro loudness" by Tom Oliver. I don't know how to cite it. It's at http://www.prosoundnewseurope.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=108&Itemid=50. July edition, section "Recording, Post & Mastering" page 5 of that section, or page 11 of the magazine.

It starts: "Aren’t you fed up with competitive mixing and mastering? The demand from all areas to make our ‘product’ louder than everyone else’s at the expense of musical nuance? To push our precious complex waveforms to virtual square-ness? Know what I’m talking about? Actually, I’m not fed up at all. I’m more fed up with hearing people moan about it. How albums don’t sound the same anymore because they don’t have the luxury of drawing listeners into their extended dynamic range. How record companies are only interested in making sure their output wins over their competitors on the radio. How so tiring and in your face the latest releases are that you can’t listen to them more than once.

Get over it. It’s a fact of life: loudness makes tracks immediately sound better by impression. Compression and limiting gets songs jumping out of the speakers and if Much is down to the ease and everyday practice of compiling personal playlist CDs and the fact that any loud tracks stand out as being subjectively better. Radio has certainly hotted things up a lot with some radical squashing and the result of that is that listeners are getting a taste for heavy compression, it’s become a modern sound, so to go on about what a disaster it is to musical culture is like the memories of hearing my dad going on about the ‘noise’ I’m listening Loudness Wars have quite the cultural significance of the Punk Wars, but we have to look at it as progress and be led by this consumer demand. And from that point find techniques to achieve the results that fit this modern idiom. After all, there are new tools appearing by the week to pump sounds up with minimal artefacts: Plug-in after plug-in to max your tracks, or for the high-end buff, the same thing in an expensive box...." Wonderofitall 09:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yup, read that. Sounds like a whole load of excuses. What engineers, record labels, producers etc need to get through their collective heads is this - when you rip that uber-loud CD with iTunes and stick it on your iPod, the level will be reduced. So it'll sound as loud/quiet as that track from 1982 which still has all the peaks intact.

Only... the 1982 track won't have been brick-wall limited, so will still have the peaks intact. And more importantly, it will have more "punch" and jump out more than the brick-wall limited track.

Are we making sense yet? Squirrel 18:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

To qualify as an encyclopedic article a viewpoint must have a counterviewpoint ESPECIALLY as this is titled as a WAR. A war MUST have two sides or otherwise it's called something else: Why go into a war where no one can't win (ie gain something)? In other words: There MUST be positive sides to this that must be acknowledged in the article even if YOU personally don't like them.

Just like in a "real" war, the benefit is dubious and short sighted. Back in 1999, when RHCP's Californication was released, not everything was loud yet, so extremely loud albums *did* stand out. Put one track from Californication in a playlist with most other things from that year, and it'll certainly make it jump out of the speakers, and make anything that comes after it seem weak. However, this benefit is short lived, partly because sound of this nature is fatiguing, and partly because now "EVERYONE" is doing it. Thus, nobody can stand out loudness-wise anymore, because it really can't get any louder than it is. The war is over, nobody won, and everybody painted themselves into a corner! Does this answer the previous statement? I believe the *only* way out of this is loudness control in playback devices - and I'm not sure ReplayGain alone is enough.

I renamed the "No Winners" section (again). With the removal of POV from the section, it is truly about reducing perceived loudness, hence the title. --Limetom 23:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Before you go changing the title please do a simple test. Rip both versions of the examples given then apply ReplayGain. Play both rips back to back. The remaster sounds quieter as all the dynamics have been chopped off. Squirrel 07:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how "No Winners in the Loudness War" would be a better title. In fact, looking at it they way you just put it, I don't think the title I gave it was the best either. However, I think mine was much closer as it didn't contain a POV. --Limetom 22:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why No Sound Clips

First off, this is a pretty poor article. It reads like a magazine article and the tone is very point of view. Secondly, it doesn't even illustrate the point well enough.

There are no sound clips of the CDs. Now, call this crazy - but if you are talking about mastering of sound, shouldn't you argue your point with SOUND as opposed to pictures of SOUND? I'm not saying delete the images of the waveforms, but it comes off as very odd that you don't present your case with the sound. If the article isn't going to come off as POV, you're going to need to let the sound speak for itself. --THollan 18:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I own a copy of Rush's Vapor Trails. If I can figure out how to upload a sample, I will. Also I'm sure there are copyright restricstions, so I'm going to have to look into that as well.Bcirker 04:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

If you upload a small sample of the song, you'd be cover under fair use laws, since you are using it for an educational purpose. Granted, you couldn't upload a whole track - but you can upload a sizable enough portion to proove your point. --THollan 18:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

If it comes under fair use then I'll rip some sound clips and upload them, perhaps the chorus of "One Of Us" from the original, ReplayGained remaster and non-ReplayGained remaster. The ReplayGained original needs no volume adjustment. Squirrel 07:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I am confident that sound clips will be a waste of time. Assuming they are good enough quality, assuming the downloader plays them on something decent enough, what will the result be? The loud one sounds better. Remember, that's why they do it! If the clips are perfectly volume matched the majority won't be able to hear a difference. Probably the only people who won't agree are those familiar with the music in the clips, and those who have well trained hearing. Also, while pictures show facts, sound clips leave us back in the realm of opinion.

Does this mean this article is a waste of time? Hardly. That most listeners don't understand phyco-acoutics and can't consiously identify volume maximised CD's doesn't make them immune to them. Clipping and to a lesser degree compression distortion IS fatiguing. So while the first impression is good, how many of the loud CD's go the distance? Who is listening to the same album regularly after six months? Unfortunately, I know of no research on changes in listening patterns since this war began.

Also, don't we have a right to the best possible quality CD when we pay big bucks for them? -- Reszerve 08:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'v been thinking about this as well. Perhaps the best answer would be to have two sound clips of One Of Us, one from 1981, one from 2005, but ReplayGained so one isn't "louder" than the other. They'll both be as "loud", but the 1981 clip will be far more dynamic. This will also demonstrate how destructive the whole loudness war business is. Squirrel 12:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I put a link to a clip of One Little Victory on Rush's Vapor Trails album. If someone could provide some discussion for this clip, that would be brilliant.Bcirker 15:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

I think its about time we discussed each and every single one of the pictures in their relation to the article.

First and foremost, what is the purpose of the Fletcher-Munson curves diagram at the beginning of the article? After reading through the description of Equal-loudness contours, they image seems to have some relevance, but is divorced from anything that it would illustrate.

Second, I feel that the images of the songs in WAV format is completely unessecary, and should be replaced by sound clips (see above).

I'm going to leave them in for now, but since this is about audio, I think that the images of One of Us are completely insufficient and sould be replaced with an audio files following a similar pattern. --Limetom 00:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Leave the images as it represents visually what you can hear. I'll get some sound clips uploaded in the next few days. That way you've got the "what" (the sound clips) and the "why" (the images). Squirrel 07:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand that they visually represent what you hear, but the sound clip ones really should just completely be dropped once we get sound clips.

I really think that the Fletcher-Munson curves should be removed unless there is something really in the article which they represent. From looking through articles about Equal-loudness contours and the Fletcher-Munson curves, I don't really see anything in the article, especially close to the picture, that really necessitates it being where it it. It is nessecary to the article, it just isn't really helpful to a reader where it is now.--Limetom 23:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

No, the sound clip images should stay in, for one simple reason. If you download sound clips and listen through PC speakers then you may well not hear any difference. The images need to be there to back up the audio - see my comments above about "what" and "why". Squirrel 19:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

If you look in "The Death of Dynamic Range" article linked at the bottom of the page, there are two kinds of diagrams given. The first are the kind on the page, they really don't give much information above and beyond this sounds louder than that. However, the second kind which are in "The Death of Dynamic Range", but not in the article. I think its just a very zoomed in picture that specifically shows peaks being cut off. I don't have the capability to replace them, but I think they would make a valuable addition. --Limetom 05:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other Media

Does this type of compression affect music media other than audio cds? Does it affect DVD-Audio, SACD, or (legal) online mp3 downloads? Does it affect the audio portion (especially music videos, concerts, musicals, music in ending credits?) of videos on DVD-Video, HD-DVD, or BD? Does it affect broadcast media in tv, radio, and their new digital forms? Just curious if uncompressed versions of pop songs are ever heard by the general public (assuming the masters are not compressed). 128.61.58.122 01:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The compression seems to take place in CD mastering. I've got several albums on DVD-Audio which have a much wider dynamic range than the CD equivalents (Faith Hill's "Cry" for example).

Downloaded MP3s will almost certainly be encoded from the audio CD version, which means they'll be compressed also. Ironically many people use MP3Gain even on legal MP3 downloads, which means they won't sound any louder than pre-war tracks. Squirrel 20:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You cited Depeche Mode's "Playing the angel" album as an example of over-compressed record. It's true for the CD edition, but the SACD version has a far better dynamic range. On hybrid SACD edition, the difference betwwen the SACD and the CD layer is spectacular.

What about vinyls? Perhaps this is why there are avid proponents of vinyl records even though the other factors (egs. poor recording and playback equipment) for the inferiority of CDs have been solved? 128.61.58.122 04:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The Vinyl Edition of Depeche Mode´s album "Playing the angel" sounds as horrible as the CD IMHO. So the overcompression may have happened at the mixing or general mastering stage. If the SACD really sounds better, there might also be a chance, that they took the same bad mastering for both the CD and the vinyl edition, but did a better work on the SACD. Kleinholgi 00:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Have added a new section for "other formats". DVD-Audio appears to have a standard defined replay reference level (Dolby AC3, present on virtually all DVD-Audio discs, and DTS, present on a large number, certainly does), it's also a high-end format so any attempt to "squash" the music on DVD-A or SACD would be self-defeating.

I've also mentioned DualDisc. This gives the best of both worlds, compressed loudness mastered CD Audio on one side for the car/iPod etc and unsquashed music on the DVD side, usually with a choice of AC3, DTS (available on all DVD players) and 24-bit PCM (for DVD-Audio players) in stereo or multichannel mixes. Got a few of these and they do sound really good. Squirrel 06:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The part of the article about HDCD is not completely correct.

Especially : "When played back on a normal CD player the sound will be compressed and "loud". When played back on a CD player equipped with HDCD decoding, a dynamic range expander is brought into play, reversing the compression applied at mastering."

This is not true IMO. This is a behaviour of old Dolby Companders for analog tapes and noise reduction purposes, but not HDCD. A HDCD medium will perform at least like a conventional CD on a non HDCD certified player/converter. A HDCD capable machine uses additional information (from the subchannel) and can deliver a better performace by higher resolution (on the dynamic axis). More details on the HDCD website. Perhaps someone can include a link (www.hdcd.com seems to be down) Kleinholgi 00:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I have several HDCD encoded discs, and my CD/DVD player (Arcam DV79) has HDCD decoding. When playing an HDCD encoded disc the dynamic range is much increased compared to either a non-HDCD loudness mastered disc or playing the same HDCD disc on a non-HDCD player. The best way to prove this is to make an analogue copy with HDCD decoding and compare against a non-decoded digital copy. I feel some more graph plots coming on. Squirrel 15:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conspiracy Theory

Is it worth adding a section on the conspiracy theory? While likely to be rubbish in itself (I just can't believe record companies can get their act together enough for this!), it does raise some questions. Although it is of course just some people's opinion, the factual presentation of it as just that seems justified to me.

In short, it goes like this - recording companies are deliberately turning all new CD's into high distortion low dynamic discs to effectively make them the cassettes of today, ie a second rate, second teir media. In five or so years, maybe less, they will be only too happy to sell you all your music all over again in a high quality, digitally rights managed format. A double win, they get to sell it again, and you can't copy it this time.

Proponents will cite the way re-issue series such as "Restock Your Rock" have since about 2000 been churning out low quality loud versions of many, many titles where perfectly good well mastered discs had been available for years. It also explains why record companies ignore the auto-gain adjusting features used by many portable device users, and the compression FM radio already uses, persisting in this nasty practice - they don't care, it's not actually about loudness, it's about selling low quality discs. As an etra benefit - home theatre 5.1 sure does sound good after listening to those "inferior" CD's! --Reszerve 09:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

If you can write it up in a neutral fashion and include a vaild and reputable source, it could be included. I'm not sure it deserves its own section, beucase if it isn't several paragraphs long, it could easily fit into either the Interpretations section or the No Winners in the Loudness War section. --Limetom 01:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewirte

I'm currently working on a rewrite of the article, which you can find here. Feel free to contribute or even just let me know what you think of it. --Limetom 06:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Popular Examples

I'm cutting the Popular Examples section. There is no possible way this can be justified as NPOV. --Limetom 20:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

How is it not NPOV? They are examples of heavily compressed, EQ'ed and brick walled albums. Perhaps the word "popular" can be removed but the example section is vital. I am restoring it. Abacab 05:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

They are not netural for several reasons. Foremost, only 3 are sourced, and the sources for each are dubious at best because none of them come from a credible publication, two come from websites, while the third comes from a message board. The paragraph describing the list itself claims that they are the "most extreme examples", and it itself is not sourced (and tagged as such). Simply removing "Popular" from the title does nothing to affect the neutrality (or lack thereof). The section itself is in no way vital to the article. There are several cited examples within the article itself, which seriously lessens the value of this list.

I'll leave it in for the time being, but I see no real reason to keep it. Since I'm leaving it in, I cleaned it up as well. --Limetom 08:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed most of the unsourced songs on the Popular Examples list, leaving in some very well-known artists, and artists that were already used in the article. I also added the {{fact}} tag to those that remain unsourced. Feel free to add them back in if and only if you have a verifiable source saying that they have some audio degrediation. Please remember to follow WP:VERIFY. The list, without sources, is original research. I know someone is going to complain, but seriously, this article can be NPOV. There just needs to be a little give and take to get it to that point. --Limetom 06:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing the {{fact}} tag from the ABBA example. The example refers to the 2005 remaster (and possibly the 1997 remaster as well although I haven't done an analysis on this) - there's a great big screenshot in the Remasters section showing exactly what they've done to it! Squirrel 11:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article I wrote

I wrote a short article several months ago that relates to the topic of this article. I don't want to add it to the external links myself, as that would be vanity and against Wikipedia policy. However, I thought that I would post the link here, and if someone thinks it's interesting/relevant, that they would like to add it to the page. [1] –Comics (Talk) 21:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It's error-ridden and incomplete, as if you read about it, got half of it, and then wrote an article yourself. And you're not the only one. Many more articles just don't get it right. I can try to give some constructive feedback if you want. --Jonathanvt 23:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite - NPOV Yet?

I made some major overhauls to the page whlie still retaining the basic format and information. Hopefully this article has some kind of NPOV now; if people agree, we should remove both the weasel and NPOV tags Illuminatedwax 05:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I am fine with it. I'll go ahead and remove the tags - they've been there forever. I doubt anyone is going to quarrel with your much appreciated revisions. Abacab 09:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It's close enough now. The history section still needs some major work, perhaps a complete rewrite, but the rest of the article is looking much better. Perhaps the section-specific tags should be added to it? Otherwise, its an improvement. --Limetom 01:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Have added some qualifying text in the "possible solutions" section - volume levelling won't bring back dynamics or get rid of clipping, but it will stop your ears getting blasted when your iPod finishes playing a 1985 album and starts playing a 2006 album. Squirrel 07:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)