I don't think I have seen this before, and it's pretty informative.
Beatflux
interesting, but how does it relate to dance musak where the ideal volume is ing loud?
jayxthekoolest
no relation to dance music really
also, that guy is the biggest whiner i have ever heard. he practically starts crying when he has to mention how loud records are in the year 2000.
Looney4Clooney
i run all my audio especially the classical thru a chain so that there is less dynamic range because i don't want to turn it up or turn it down when i'm listening on my ipod. Dynamic range is fine if you are in a quite place with a nice system.
I find most of these guys just hate modern music and find reasons for explaining why in a objective way.
I thought Californication was a great album. It used clipping and compression in a way i found pleasing and i suppose you would call artistic. Some people go too far but some times , it is neat. Like Justice. Over compressed but it worked.
The loudness war is so 2008. The russians lost.
vikernes
I feel like most of the whine about the "loudness war" is from older producers/audio engineers and the like, that worked in the analog domain for the most of their careers. Essentially, time has passed them. No one likes an over the top mix; not even the casual listener. But those tracks from 1980s are ing ridiculous - some of them are not even normalized to 0db FFS! They sound retarded by today's standard and 9 out of 10 people will prefer they louder version (even after longer listening periods). I have argued the so called loudness war on too many forums to count and have yet to see proof of any actual "war". Apart from those 2 Metallica and RHCP albums which most people would agree are too loud, no one has shown me any more albums that would be as loud or louder.
In fact I think music is getting quieter each year. Let's take 2 of the biggest hits this year: Gotye and Adelle; now find me 1 casual listener that would say he can't listen to it because it's too loud. I've said it all along - the "loudness war" is so overly exaggerated it's ridiculous. Btw, this is right now on billboard no 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWNaR-rxAic. Is this too loud?
Every time the snare hits my heart skips a beat. Bob Katz can shove this crap of is ass if he likes that. This is annoying as . A mix should be (as far as loudness goes) evenly distributed and not have a snare or some other be 6 db louder than the rest of it. No one liked that back then and no one likes it now.
And like this was pretty much standard for all music back then. Here's another example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOg5VxrRTi0
Never mind the fact the mix is so ty you couldn't even hear the vocals if you played this in your car, but the annoying loud hits just had to be 3x louder then everything else (listen at around 50 sec mark). The reason people bought all the "re-mastered" version of the same tracks in the 90s was because it was better sounding, period.
And the most important thing these "loudness war" always forget to mention (although he did touch a part of it in the video) is the fact that the way we listen to music has completely changed and the last 10 years. It's the reason DVD audio failed: no one today listens to music while sitting on a sofa and staring into a stereo. We listen to music in the car, on mp3 players, on the pc, etc... And to be able to enjoy music like that (and hear it properly), each part needs to be loud to be heard. Download that Duran Duran song and play it in your car with the windows down - you'll pretty much have to crank it to the max in order to hear the music and the lyrics properly through all the city and car noise. And then when that snare hit at 50sec comes you'll either crash your car or your pants.
And another thing he mentioned was about classical music. I have a small collection of classical music that I listen to every now and then and I can't even explain how pissed off I get when I have the ing speakers at 11 just to hear a solo violin which plays at like -40db and then when the timpani hit I get ear ringing for the rest of the ing day. Yes, this is how it sounds live, but I am just a casual listener not some old british dude sitting on my couch with my eyes closed, sipping on scotch and listening to mozart. To ME, that's annoying as and I would gladly listen to the "re-loudified" version if they made them. Even classical music could use some limiting to be more enjoyable - think movie soundtracks.
God I hate this 80s crap. Interestingly though, there's wasn't a lot of this extra loud transient hits in the 70s AFAIK.
I should have known it was a whine about the 'good ol times' since he posts a lot on gearslutz. http://i.imgur.com/UaFPQ.jpg
Looney4Clooney
there was a trend. It started going the other way. Which is why i mentioned the war was over. That video is so old. And it was a big issue.
Now regarding your opinion on certain old mixes, well i would say you have no idea what a good mix is. And bob katz is respected by every engineer , perhaps not liked but at least respected.
Regarding classical, the dynamic range is great when you have a hifi system which really is what many classical people listen to it on. Comparing filmscores to classical recordings is ridiculous. There is absolutely no detail in a filmscore mix for obvious reasons. And def leapard was your choice for 80s track ? lol
This might be news to you but no mixes are normalized to 0 dB. Mixes are not normalized , and the filtering required to turn that digital data to analog for cds would clip even if the signal was not 0.
I think where i agree with Katz is that the loudness should be done at the listening stage, so that you have the option. If you want no dynamics, your choice. I would say he is right on everything except he doesn't take into account the methods of play back. I also don't think he cares for those methods as he is an audiophile.
But ya, you don't really know what the you are talking about.
EddieZilker
quote:
Originally posted by vikernes
And the most important thing these "loudness war" always forget to mention (although he did touch a part of it in the video) is the fact that the way we listen to music has completely changed and the last 10 years. It's the reason DVD audio failed: no one today listens to music while sitting on a sofa and staring into a stereo. We listen to music in the car, on mp3 players, on the pc, etc... And to be able to enjoy music like that (and hear it properly), each part needs to be loud to be heard. Download that Duran Duran song and play it in your car with the windows down - you'll pretty much have to crank it to the max in order to hear the music and the lyrics properly through all the city and car noise. And then when that snare hit at 50sec comes you'll either crash your car or your pants.
This isn't a good reason. You're literally arguing that, because consumer audio technology has qualitatively degraded, the quality of mastering shouldn't be held to any best-practice standards. Furthermore, listening to a ty little mp3 player (it makes the first iPod Nano look like a Droid Razor), right now, I can hear the difference between a good recording and one that's over-limited.
vikernes
quote:
Originally posted by Looney4Clooney
Regarding classical, the dynamic range is great when you have a hifi system which really is what many classical people listen to it on. Comparing filmscores to classical recordings is ridiculous. There is absolutely no detail in a filmscore mix for obvious reasons. And def leapard was your choice for 80s track ? lol
This might be news to you but no mixes are normalized to 0 dB. Mixes are not normalized , and the filtering required to turn that digital data to analog for cds would clip even if the signal was not 0.
First of all what I'm arguing is the _fact_ that listening to music has changed over the course of 10 or so years with the invention of mp3, portable mp3 players, everyone having a pc/laptop etc... and my opinion that the so called loudness war is completely over exaggerated (mostly by audiophiles but also by many well known engineers like bob katz). Regarding classical music read my post again.
So peak limiting to 0db is not normalization? And Metallica's Death Magnetic doesn't clip you say?
quote:
Originally posted by Looney4Clooney
I think where i agree with Katz is that the loudness should be done at the listening stage, so that you have the option. If you want no dynamics, your choice. I would say he is right on everything except he doesn't take into account the methods of play back. I also don't think he cares for those methods as he is an audiophile.
I'm kinda disappointed to hear this actually. Especially as this is the production forum I would imagine any type of producer would WANT his songs to sound the way he wants it and not leave it to some noob ing up his mixes at the listening stage with whatever method.
Bob Katz is a classic example of someone that just nags and nags about the good old times. As I said before, these are people that started and fell in love in music when it was not only made in a completely different way, but also listened in a different way than today. It's the same kind of 'gearslutz' breed that argues that you can't make good sounding music without analog synths, the same people who claim they can hear a difference in 2 eqs, the same people who will argue till death that they can _feel_ different dithering settings etc...
quote:
Originally posted by Looney4Clooney
Now regarding your opinion on certain old mixes, well i would say you have no idea what a good mix is. And bob katz is respected by every engineer , perhaps not liked but at least respected.
What a good mix is, I think is completely subjective. If you find those clips I posted to be good sounding (by today's standards) then so be it.
And I'm not saying bob is clueless, Bob Katz was respected by mostly everyone and today by mostly audiophiles and analog hipsters. Today's generation looks at Dr Luke, the neptunes and dr dre for what a good mix is supposed to sound today.
Also, as I said many times; show me some proof of the loudness war in action. The amount of press this is getting you would imagine it would be easy to find an over the top squashed mix, yet I've provided 2 of the biggest songs this year that sound more like that 80s crap then what some people, like katz, are telling us is happening.
btw, is anyone is interested, this is the video that will blow your mind. God I love this guy; you can catch him on gearslutz calling on their bull and then disproving it. Just start at around the 10 minute mark if you don't wanna watch the whole thing.
Originally posted by EddieZilker
This isn't a good reason. You're literally arguing that, because consumer audio technology has qualitatively degraded, the quality of mastering shouldn't be held to any best-practice standards. Furthermore, listening to a ty little mp3 player (it makes the first iPod Nano look like a Droid Razor), right now, I can hear the difference between a good recording and one that's over-limited.
Not only qualitatively degraded but also the way and the place you listen to it has changed. And mastering is much more then just making it louder. I'm arguing that extremely dynamic mixes, like was the norm in the 80s, don't have a place in today's world because a) where we listen to music has changed and b) how we listen to music has changed. If you're a good mastering engineer you should these two into account and produce a master that sound decent on all these systems/conditions. Isn't this exactly what mastering engineers are supposed to do?
I have to say, I somewhat agree with vikernes, even though the examples aren't really great.
Katz is a legend for a reason, and certainly respected but he is a bit of a whiner, and the loudness war thing has been so done to death, it's not really a valid argument anymore.
Sure, it did happen, and for commercial tripe, is really brickwall limited and over compressed with hardly any dynamics, but the argument here (and even the example on the wiki for the loudness war) is mainly about comparing pop of the 60's (beatles) to pop of today.
For a start, they used tape which actually only has a usable dynamic range of about 60db, so they had to be really careful in those days not to push things too hard or they got too much distortion.
Technology is just one part of it though; it's really a sign of the times, the times are more crass, and so is the music - pop or commercial music back then was often written by great songwriters, and performed by amazing musicians and orchestrated by incredibly talented people. Now it's written by muppets just looking for an ear bug to passify the ADHD generation for a few fleeting seconds. Dynamic range, subtlety and audio quality is not a prime requirement for this demographic or it's music.
However, most engineers, producers and artists working with real talent or on any projects of serious musical substance, don't just ing drive that compressor on the master. Sure, the big labels with big releases (and that's what happened with adele) but on releases with a bit of integrity, the production team don't go there.
Katz does have a point, but IMO he's more arguing about times changing in terms of content - engineers and producers know what they're doing when they're doing - now it's a concious decision to push too hard and not some kind of competitive frenzy which was the trend a few years ago, and realistically you can actually thank the loudness war moaning for that awareness.
Katz is a ninja, no question, but one thing I don't like about Katz though is the whole apogee debacle: he spends years at apogee designing clocks and timing protocol methods to become the industry standard and push of a lot of sales, backed up by his reputation, only to later (once he had left apogee), turn around and say their products (both new and old) are flawed and you should really buy ________or use ______.
Kind of damaged his stock in my eyes, at least from a commercial sense.
