what do you think? a geek tag maybe?

down with idiotically over-compressed music!

Of course, most "artists" don't seem to understand this thing call dynamics in your music anyway...

Well, I mean, it's Paul McCartney, it's not like it was good before OR after.

I do recording and editing a lot as part of one of my jobs, and this is an especially notable video for me. When audio is being edited, one of the final things done to the audio is to "normalize" it, so that all the sounds are scaled up to take advantage of the full spectrum of available sound. Simply increasing the volume will result in "clipping" off the loudest parts of the song, and if too much of it clips, you end up with distortion and noise. Conversely, if you average out the loudest sounds so that the entire song is normalized louder, you lose the clarity of the song, as this video demonstrates.

Ideally, you'd employ a soft limiter to keep the loudest parts of the song, like those drum beats, from being too loud, and THEN normalize it. The result is a song with just as much "punch" as the original, but increasing the rest of it just loud enough to take as much advantage of this spectrum as possible. That way you get more data in the track, and the song will retain quality when you adjust the volume via a hardware knob during playback.

Nowadays, most recordings are done as multitrack recordings, with a microphone dedicated to each instrument. The recordings are pulled into a multi-track editor and then each track is tweaked to have the maximum effect on the song as a whole. So in the end, using limiters is often not necessary, as you can tweak the individual drum track (or whatever instrument has a particularly loud noise) to mesh more closely with the rest of the song, while retaining its punch.

I probably went into a bit too much detail there, but in any case, awesome find eric!

*geek to me.

Fascinating. I've actually noticed this and assumed it was because bands don't care as much about dynamics anymore (or MP3s aren't as good at reproducing my favorite, explosive sounds). Now I think maybe it's the producers or the labels, not the bands at all. Is it really about this kind or process? Sylvester -- can you tell me? Are MP3s robbing me of my dynamics? Or is it just a fact of modern life? Should I buy a player that can handle FLAC, or will that not help?

mp3's do a number on sound quality, but interestingly enough it's the subtle things that get removed, not the dynamic things like in the video. I saw a somewhat non-scientific study once (maybe in a music mag, I don't recall) that had various professionals listening to music (golden ear types) and only a small percentage of them could tell a raw recording from a 160 or 192kbps (again fuzzy on details) mp3.

Here's a good read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3#Audio_quality

As much as I'm not a fan of AAC, it is the successor, really, to mp3, as it was selected for the mpeg-4 protocol, as mp3 was for mpeg-1.

FLAC is lossless by design, so it should be better audio-wise than any lossy codec (mp3, aac, etc). Since it is digital though, there can still be a loss of fidelity compared to an analog recording (although probably an unhearable one). Since you'd probably find digital components in your newfangled turntable though, don't go off and achieve a placebo effect.

In addition to what arrendek said, mp3s are notable for cutting some of the higher frequencies. When comparing to other codecs, I always prefer the Ogg Vorbis codec, mainly because it's open source and uncumbered by patents, but also because there's less of a hassle with DRM. (DRM is often a major downside to AAC format, unless you create it yourself.) Plus Vorbis is one of the best sounding formats out there.

If possible, though, I recommend using Flac format for the basis of all your formats. Get the music in Flac, then convert it to other formats if you need it smaller.

As to the whole deal about digital vs analog, that debate has been going on for a long time. My stance is in support of digital. While digital does not have as perfect accuracy as analog, the sample rate of average cd quality sound is high enough that it can reproduce the sound waveform with a very high accuracy. However, what it does lack is the noise that comes with analog audio. Given the choice of whether I want the "analog richness" or no noise in my song, I always choose the latter, especially sinse you can run the sound through an equalizer to achieve the same richness you'd have in an analog recording.

And for all the naysayers, DVD-audio is slowly becoming a standard, and since it has a very high sample rate, it's almost impossible to tell the difference with analog. Except the lack of noise.

I have been using AC-3 encodes for my Pink Floyd and Richie Hawtin records for playback over 5.1 DDs and I love it. The audio fidelity is just unmatched.

Though still even now I love to play vinyl on needles, there is nothing that replaces the warmth of sound that gives my ears.

AAC beats AC-3, by the way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC3#Applications_of_Dolby_Digital

This is such a ham-fisted example of what is done.
No engineer worth their salt would maximize the volume in that manner at the mastering stage. First off, there would be extensive use of multi-band compression, that affects specific frequency ranges, instead of the whole thing, as well as instrument-level adjustments.

The one downside to simply "turning up your volume", is that you're also turning up the volume on any hiss in your system.

I was complaining about this just yesterday.

I'm sick of the amounts of compression that's being used. They don't really care about how it sounds at home - they care about how loud it sounds relative to everything else on the radio. The reason TV ads sound so loud is because they compress the sound over and over again.

So much of the impact is lost in this process. not only that but the recordings are fatiguing to listen to.

different strokes for different folks. in our studio, when we make drumnbass, we compress a lot. when we record a female singer songwriter, we don't.

it's similar to saturation on a photo, sometimes you want bright rich colours, sometimes you want shades of pastel. neither is "right" or "wrong", it's just another tool in the box which can be used for good or bad.

i agree that adverts being louder than the programmes is BAD but then, i don't watch telly, because the adverts are annoying at ANY volume (and everyone is speaking lithuanian anyway)

what i really hate is poppy "progressive" housey type tunes where the bass kick is so squeezed it actually replaces the rest of the sounds, every beat, with a long release so it takes a while for the rest of the song to come back. it's like "B...wwwWWWB...wwwWWWB..." over and over again.

when stuff is played on the radio sometimes it sounds bad because the radio station is recompressing everything again. that's why people do alternative masters for radio play as opposed to consumer release or vinyl pressing. you do what is appropriate.

and about vinyl... i love vinyl, even if it is a placebo effect, i don't care, it is still an effect isn't it. and noise is GOOD. listen to Robert Johnson recordings until you learn this

and about dynamics on the radio... they are totally paranoid about "dead air" (silence) to the point that they won't play a tune that goes quiet at any point. it would sound like your radio had turned off.

btw... if you are a dj, you can't "turn up the volume" because you are probably playing at the loudest possible setting, and the club control the amps.

so that's why we compress drum and bass. it sounds better.

if all music sounded like the music in this video i would have to drown myself.

I'm not saying that compression is bad - just that it gets way too abused way too often.

I was listening to an emo album yesterday (don't ask) and it struck me that the compression induced slaughtering of the dynamic range was completely killing the impact of the choruses. After 30 mins of everything at the same level I felt really drained. That's pretty typical of mainstream production these days.

stevi albini talked about this in relation to recording of nirvana's in utero. can't find the article. basically, albini loves drums and used a 70s type recording style for them.

To Add my .02 worth:

I'm a professional Mastering Engineer, this is the most asked question I get these days from people who notice such things. They usually ask how I stand on the idea of all this, and I usually say that it has its place. The last Green Day Album would be a perfect example of an album that having a "brickwall" or "2x4" waveform is fine, but put that same kind compression on re-mastered CSN or Grateful Dead and we have a problem.

I was saying just today at lunch when this question was raised that it's a shame that more of today's young engineers haven't had to deal with analogue tape. Tape was on it's way out as I got my start in the biz, but at my first job the fellas there MADE me work in analogue to get used to the care that it takes when it comes to levels and compression. Much like learning to draft, you have to learn with paper and pencil first to get a "feel" for it.

Great vid! Thanks for sifting it.

The worst part of the loudness war is that kids are growing up thinking that this is the way music is supposed to sound. I'm a huge fan of Kate Bush, and her recent album "Aerial" is beautifully mastered, and has a wide dynamic range - literally everything from birdsong to guitars and and drums. And I've actually heard people complaining that the album wasn't "loud enough" to hear on their headphones while exercising.

Ignoring the fact that some music was mean to actually be paid attention to rather than serving as wallpaper for your life, there are things one can do:

Get more efficient headphones
Get a louder player
Download CDEX and Audiacity to rip and compress the music to your heart's content.

Thankfully there are still artists in this world who produce their own music and pay attention to the way the final CD sounds.

arrendek
FLAC is lossless by design, so it should be better audio-wise than any lossy codec (mp3, aac, etc). Since it is digital though, there can still be a loss of fidelity compared to an analog recording (although probably an unhearable one). Since you'd probably find digital components in your newfangled turntable though, don't go off and achieve a placebo effect.

FLAC is recording-quality. Absolutely no data is lost -- the only reason audiophiles prefer CD/SACD/DVDA/Vinyl is because high-end CD- and Vinyl-players tend to be better than high-end DACs (though there are some awesome DACs out there).

sometimes
The one downside to simply "turning up your volume", is that you're also turning up the volume on any hiss in your system.

Any system that has hiss is unacceptable. You have to have a pretty awful system to have audible hiss -- I don't even hear hiss with Bose systems (for the record, never buy Bose products). Maybe worse-than-average stock computer speakers would have hiss.

just a quick one:

i don't understand any of the comments on this page.

On a similar note, movies have been going crazy with their sound lately also. It seems like every time I rent a movie the action scenes shake my house and yet I can barely hear the dialogue. Very annoying.

Hiss is a result of interference in your system or poor connections. Cheap systems or bad wiring are usually the cause. Also, if you're near a high-powered radio source or any significant source of electricity, you may need to shield your wires. (They act as antennae.)

Deputydog, that's cause this video attracts audiophiles like flies to honey, and there ain't nobody that can understand those guys. Not even themselves.

And ValiantCoward, that's because movies nowadays have their audio boosted in the low (bass) frequencies to have more "impact," mainly in theaters. That results in a poor quality of all the other audio in the movie.

nibiyabi
FLAC is recording-quality. Absolutely no data is lost -- the only reason audiophiles prefer CD/SACD/DVDA/Vinyl is because high-end CD- and Vinyl-players tend to be better than high-end DACs (though there are some awesome DACs out there).

Anytime you take an analog signal (aka sound) and record it with digital equipment (aka a 44Khz digital recording device) you are going to lose data. I'd say high end digital is going to be so well sampled and at such a high rate that you can't tell the difference, but some people talk about high frequency harmonics in an analog recording (ie a record, which is analog) that you can't catch at digital sampling rates. Anyways, yes, data is lost one way or another.

QuickTime: http://www.digido.com/components/com_remository/Loudness_War-small.mov

Do note that with analog recordings, the physical properties of the media recorded to often introduce a lot of granularity to the music, so with regards to accuracy, both have their losses. Also note that all digital recordings are converted back to analog during playback, and with decent playback equipment, the waveform is quite accurate right up to some of the higher frequencies. Granted there will be something missing, but more often than not this is out of the human hearing range. (Humans can hear up to 20khz, which leaves a good 2 samples per period for approximating the waveform.)

But most high-quality digital recording is done at 96khz nowadays, and that's more than enough to get an accurate waveform when it's converted back to analog. Granted you need the proper playback equipment, but that's becoming more plentiful as time goes on.

I think that in the end, digital recording will reach the same result as digital cameras have in relation to their counterparts. The accuracy will be sufficient to surpass an analog recording easily enough. (And some consider 96khz to be that point.)

All good points, Sylvester.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'music' to 'music, compression, distortion, clipping, volume, waveform' - edited by fissionchips

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Tuesday, June 5th, 2007 12:41am PDT - promote requested by fissionchips.

See http://www.videosift.com/video/Loudness-War-Education-Video for a longer one.

Happy Dynamic Range Day today - I'd *promote it if I had the ability.

Invocations (promote) cannot be called by Zawash because Zawash is not privileged - sorry.

NiN audiophile version - Audiophile or AudioFAIL has been added as a related post - related requested by Trancecoach on that post.

Skrillex + Dynamics = WIN! (The Loudness War) has been added as a related post - related requested by Zawash on that post.