TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- More Dynamic Range = More Sales
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

More Dynamic Range = More Sales

No. Sorry. Correlation does not imply causation.

Seriously. You could use the prevalence of digital means of distribution and come up with the same result.

come on seriously? you think the only thing that's changed in music from 1967 to current is loudness? you think that's the only thing that effects sales...

This draws a rather large bow.

Show a chart of music sales from 2010. Perhaps the top ten selling albums and their dynamic range and a group of ten albums lower down (say 41-50).

Or a chart with all of the top 50 sellers last year, to eliminate any reason to think the examples were hand-picked to make a point rather than truly reflecting the situation.

quote:

Originally posted by derail Show a chart of music sales from 2010. Perhaps the top ten selling albums and their dynamic range and a group of ten albums lower down (say 41-50). Or a chart with all of the top 50 sellers last year, to eliminate any reason to think the examples were hand-picked to make a point rather than truly reflecting the situation.

There was this website that went through all of the top 10 albums of all time and they had dynamics like Thriller. I can't find it anymore.

You don't really need to look at any stats to figure out that compressed music is more fatiguing and it sounds terrible especially when they shove it through additional processing for the radio.

Dont wanna be a twat here but, really? youre gonna compare thriller and all with ellie goulding and justin bieber. C'mon I doubt its only a loudness thing who the fuck is ellie goulding anyways.

/rant

my 10 year old cousin bought the bieber album because of the dynamic range,

quote:

Originally posted by Beatflux There was this website that went through all of the top 10 albums of all time and they had dynamics like Thriller. I can't find it anymore.

Seriously dude, stop letting the Internet do your thinking for you.

quote:

Originally posted by Beatflux There was this website that went through all of the top 10 albums of all time and they had dynamics like Thriller. I can't find it anymore. You don't really need to look at any stats to figure out that compressed music is more fatiguing and it sounds terrible especially when they shove it through additional processing for the radio.

Again, correlation isn't causation. Those albums were high selling because they were released before the internet cannibalised sales.

Coincidentally, the rise of the internet occured at the same time as the loss of dynamic range. But that's not to imply that one caused the other.

quote:

Originally posted by Seandroid Correlation does not imply causation.

While I agree with you guys that correlation <> causation, the more overriding point here is that the OP's premise does not even rise to the level of correlation, and we're certainly not talking about bivariate correlation when considering the countless factors that affect record sales. We're talking very complex multivariate statistics here, where two similar trends among variables do not necessarily establish a correlation, and may only be weak covariates, at best.

�xactly, there are numerous scientific papers available that state that music with more perceived loudness are interpreted as sounding better which are based on emperical evidence/research. What the OP says is kind of the opposite. Is there more information available to this picture (research resources and angle, goals etc?)

so if this is the trend whats really the point of 24bit? nothing.

quote:

Originally posted by Beatflux There was this website that went through all of the top 10 albums of all time and they had dynamics like Thriller. I can't find it anymore.

You might be thinking of this:

http://web.archive.org/web/20050602...s/Dynamics.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20050602...Read/index.html

quote:

Originally posted by Storyteller �xactly, there are numerous scientific papers available that state that music with more perceived loudness are interpreted as sounding better which are based on emperical evidence/research. What the OP says is kind of the opposite. Is there more information available to this picture (research resources and angle, goals etc?)

If you have two songs, one compressed version and one left untouched and you match their volumes so they have the same perceived loudness, the uncompressed one will sound better.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles You might be thinking of this: http://web.archive.org/web/20050602...s/Dynamics.html http://web.archive.org/web/20050602...Read/index.html

Yeah.

quote:

Originally posted by Beatflux If you have two songs, one compressed version and one left untouched and you match their volumes so they have the same perceived loudness, the uncompressed one will sound better.

But that is not relevant within the context of the posted image.

quote:

Originally posted by Beatflux If you have two songs, one compressed version and one left untouched and you match their volumes so they have the same perceived loudness, the uncompressed one will sound better.

But the compressed one may well sell better. There's no evidence that overcompression causes lost sales.

quote:

Originally posted by derail But the compressed one may well sell better. There's no evidence that overcompression causes lost sales.

Take all of your favorite songs, compress them down to DR3 and then A/B them at comparable loudness.

That's all the evidence that is needed.

quote:

Originally posted by Beatflux Take all of your favorite songs, compress them down to DR3 and then A/B them at comparable loudness. That's all the evidence that is needed.

Evidence to my ears that it sounds worse, yes.

But that's not what I said.

I said there's no evidence that it causes lost sales.

quote:

Originally posted by Beatflux Take all of your favorite songs, compress them down to DR3 and then A/B them at comparable loudness. That's all the evidence that is needed.

Does this apply on a good, extremely loud soundsystem in a club? I have a feeling it isn't quite the same.

quote:

Originally posted by Beatflux Take all of your favorite songs, compress them down to DR3 and then A/B them at comparable loudness. That's all the evidence that is needed.

This comparison defeats the purpose of loudness and the way the way it is used in practice. Although this way the results might be in your favour it is not relevant to the real world, everything the public/audience hears is uber loud whichever way you want to put it, and louder stands out more. It's been proven.

I'm not sure, but I believe there's also quite a lot of people/papers that say loudness increases sales opposed to dynamic range. I think an audio freak (like a lot of TA's) might like some dynamic range, but on average nobody really cares. They either have lousy headphones, crappy soundsystem or listen to the music on their phone speaker or something.

They can't go over 0db!!

quote:

Originally posted by Beatflux Take all of your favorite songs, compress them down to DR3 and then A/B them at comparable loudness. That's all the evidence that is needed.

That logic only works assuming that poor sound can cause lost sales.

quote:

Originally posted by cristianokeller They can't go over 0db!!

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.