|
More Dynamic Range = More Sales
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Beatflux |
 |
|
|
| Seandroid |
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. |
|
|
| Zombie0729 |
| 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... |
|
|
| Fledz |
| This draws a rather large bow. |
|
|
| 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. |
|
|
| Beatflux |
| 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. |
|
|
| mathieu |
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 :stongue: who the is ellie goulding anyways.
/rant |
|
|
| LoveHate |
| my 10 year old cousin bought the bieber album because of the dynamic range, |
|
|
| cryophonik |
| 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. |
|
|
| kitphillips |
| 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. |
|
|
| cryophonik |
| 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. |
|
|
| Storyteller |
| Èxactly, 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?) |
|
|
|
|
