Loudness wars
 

Article

I couldn't find a thread for this, which surprised me. I don't know how many of you are aware of this, but it's something that a lot of audiophiles are getting quite excited about, bless 'em.

Basically, a lot of records are being mastered to the point where they sound like shit. Thoughts? Opinions? Glib horseshit non-opinions based on spurious notions of 'humour'?

fucking seriously! I haven't been too happy with a lot of production in years.
I blame three elements:

1) digitalization and protools: Digital is great for remastering, but recording needs to remain on tape, it both expands and yet limits the process, creating cleaner sound with less add-ons. Recording straight to digital I believe was the beginning of the end for contemporary music

2) recording each party individually: Now people make albums having never even met! And not just someone coming into the studio later for some overdubs, no, shit, they are recording albums in several studios and sending the tracks to places to get mastered together.. it makes sterile, boring records. I miss Steve Albini recordings, fuck it all live in the studio.

3) the over-marketing/commercialization of music:
simply put, there are WAY to many records out there. complete and utter oversaturation.. It is just overwhelming, and it is no wonder that so much tripe and bullshit makes it out there. It is watering down the quality.

So artists (even good and respectable ones) are making shitty sounding records because they are using digital, they are not working with group dynamics in the studio, and they are just rushing it way to much to get it out there to compete with the rest of the crap

I heard all that shit when it came out. How can Metallica be too loud?????? It is supposed to be loud. I bought the CD the day it came out my first thought was not "this is too loud". Just a bunch of people bitching cause they have nothin else to do. I do not want a remaster!!!!!

i really don't mind a bit of loudness unless there's heaps of distortion/clipping and the dynamics are completely fucked.

Not being funny, but you should watch the article I linked above. It's kind of a misnomer calling it 'loudness' wars, because the argument from the audiophile's side is that the records lose their dynamic range, making them actually less loud because of shitty mastering.

Essentially you want a drum to make a MASSIVE BANG; what Death Magnetic has is a dissatisfying farty sound.

1) Digital in itself really isn't the problem. It's up to the people making the record. For the majority of bands, digital is more convenient and easier for editing. I've no real preference either way, but I would say that for the overwhelming majority of bands, digital makes more sense just because it's more economical and (generally) quicker.

2) Separated recording is nothing new; I'd be surprised if more than 70% of your (or anyone else's) record collection didn't feature a lot of this - it's pretty much endemic from around the mid-60s onwards. I tend to think that Albini likes to label himself as an 'engineer' because he doesn't want to take responsibility for the fact that his records more often than not sound like a pile of shit.

3) Meh. I'm not going to complain about having more choice than ever in the record market.

I can see what they mean. When the music gets over modulated and peaked out, then the intended tone gets all wacked. The bass gets all warbly and the drums sound stupid. Beyond that the instruments will start to bleed together and make it difficult to sort them out.

I've never taken a big consideration on how qualitative the sound of a record is with a handful of exceptions. But I have kind of a admitted hypocritical attitude towards the subject, since I prefer the shittier sounding GBV records to the higher-fi ones. But at least I'd say I'd want the record to sound competent.

I don't really know what Metallica was going for. If it really sounds like that just to make it louder then that's just dumb. The new Lightning Bolt record is a brawl of volume and it doesn't have those maxed out mistakes, that I can recall anyway.

So I dunno, it'd be interesting to hear what Metallica has to say about it, what they were thinking when they mixed the record.

I watched it before i posted. i just was happy to have some new music made for me i am in no position to judge recording shit I have minimal knowledge in this area. I was just happy with the sound so I did'nt understand the fuss

Ears are all the qualification you need to listen. I mean, if you're happy with it, that's fine, but it is comically poor, mastering-wise.

1) the key word there is editing, yes digital is better for editing, but for recording stick to tapes. Its not that terribly difficult to output a tape machine into a digital sound board on the mix down, and even on a DIY you can easily go from a tape-> 2-track analog mix down -> digitalize the copy -> edit and remaster on the computer

My major beef with digital recording is that people try to cram way to much into it, or even worse, they try to splice to many segments of good takes and make a horrible Frankenstein's monster out of it.. Go back to the Hendrix style of recording 38 takes and picking the best fucking one! Thats how I prefer it. When you splice and cut and paste too much, it comes out in the mix.

2) yes, I know multi-tracking was especially popular in the 60s and 70s, but I think the way they do it today is a bit of an overkill. In the 60s they were limited with what they could do by the number of tracks and quality of the machinery. They often recorded multiple pieces together on the same track at the same time. and at the least, when they went piece by piece on the tracks, they still did it together, in a studio and they rehearsed it all together in the studio, rather than perhaps at different studios as is commonly done on albums today. Many artists today go into the studio at completely separate times and record strictly to the tape. That shit sucks and you can hear the lack of togetherness, it sounds just as it is, cut and pasted together. The band should ALL go into the studio together, even if they are recording parts individually, and many bands and artists today simply do not do that, it has become a standard even!

I don't agree with your "stick to tape" idea. Just use digital (your computer) more like a tape machine and then you got something! Analog is dead or dying...

bullshit! A computer cannot possibly catch the nuances and subtleties of things like feedback and harmonics, and it rarely catches the true dynamics of the instruments. It makes drum tracks sound like drum machines, and makes vocals sound like shit shit shit.

I fucking despise all digital recording, it is the lazy and irresponsible way to cut an album.

analog is not dying at all, in fact it is having quite the comeback as people realize how useful and great it really ease, and also how well it synchronizes with the digital editing and mastering technology. I honestly love the best of both worlds, record on tape, mix down and produce on computers.

This.

A number of artists' entire back catalogues have been rendered almost unlistenable as a result of this. Now it seems that there's a whole industry providing 'sensitive' rermasters (as is being discussed in terms of Death Magnetic, which does sound terrible) that try to correct the mistakes in the previous ones. I don't understand the technology involved, but why they can't simply take the masters closest to the original, transfer them to CD and have done with it, I'll never know. Unless of course they simply want fans to keep buying the same albums over and over again ... surely not!

Metallica and bad sounding together what's so surprising about that? Have they even learned how to play those instruments yet?

start a thread about classic rock i'll contribute.

yeah chicka, come on. start one about muscle cars, too. i wanna know whether people prefer camaros or mustangs. i'd do it myself but a thread like that, started by an englishman, just seems absurd. come on chicka, play the white man. start some cool threads, goddammit

Dude knows his shit when it comes to southern rock/classic stuff...for real. He puts me to SHAME.

+ as far as muscle cars....

http://www.gmphotostore.com/1969-Bui...info/53217712/

I helped someone restore one of these once...which really just boiled down to a 14 year old Swa(y) sitting around and watchin'. Fell in love w/ that car.

i'm not messing around either. this has to happen. southern rock and muscle cars or there's no point in anything anymore. So help me God.


I don't even have a driving licence, and I'm totally not inspired to have one over here, but I see something like that, or one of these ... I'd refuse to walk anywhere.

All that Detroit rock I listen to has made me want one....riding around w/ '69 Buick GS w/ the '5 blastin' full volume w/ wittle Sway behind the wheel is my idea of sexssez.

I dunno, I just turn the volume down a bit if it's too loud. Doesn't seem like a huge deal.

I've never understood audiophiles. Tons of classic albums sound like shit (Loveless, Trout Mask Replica, even tons of Albini-produced albums). It really makes no difference as far as my enjoyment of the actual songs go. I know a dude who only listens to music on vinyl because he said "that's the only possible way to hear the songs for real." Huh?!

...Anyway, I've yet to hear a cd produced so loud that it produces clipping to the point where it obscures the music or something -- without it being intentional and perhaps necessary (Merzbow, Coachwhips, Hospitals). Death Magnetic sounds amazing. There are quiet parts, loud parts, there's a good dynamic range, every instrument is clear in the mix (though the bass should be a bit louder).

Digital has caught up and surpassed analog. You forget... analog = friction. Where there is friction there is unneeded noise. Not so with digital. Analog is on its way out my friend. Sorry to be the bringer of bad news.

seriously. those cars sound the way every guitar ought to.

art is like a person's individual taste in food, drinks and women, it is best not to try to understand it, it only cheapens the moment ;)


not true. the digital remastering can more easily remove tape noise then it can overcome its own inherent flaws in regards to clipping and its limits in audio capacities. Sounds waves vibrate at much more minute frequency differentials then computer technology can convert such things into 1s and 0s (trust me, your ear should be able to hear the difference) .. sure, the technology can reproduce a recorded sound with crystal clarity, but I have yet to hear a purely digital recording of analog, live instruments (hip-hop and electronic music is different of course) that can reproduce the same true-to-ear sound that a good tape can capture..

but I am a musician, my bias is trying to capture obscure sounds out of my head and a few peak moments on my instruments and get them on tape, and in my experience, listening to both live music, listening to bands recording and rehearsing, and in my own recording efforts, I rarely hear straight-to-digital recordings what I hear in real life with my decent two ears.
like I said, I prefer the best of both worlds. Record on tape to get the best sound possible, then use digital tools to sharpen it up, its not really that much an issue, it is the preference of many many folks already, despite what Bobby Digital told y'all ;)

Uhm... suchfriends, aren't you the one who listens to all his mp3s at 56kbps and can't notice the difference? I don't understand how you can see the audible differences in digital and analog recording but can't hear how shitty a 56kbps mp3 sounds like.

You might want to speak up there, Derek, he's deaf from the....

LOUDNESS WARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

...

For some reason, I can just see Beavis and Butthead screaming this. You know, like on those Friday night episodes? "IT'S FRIDAY NIIIIIIIIIIIGHTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!" Yeah.

I have a recording of Shostakovich's 13st by the Netherlands Radio Phil conducted by Mark Wigglesworth. (BIS SACD 1543). It's the best-recorded CD I own. Honestly, it's fucking incredible the range they get out of it. It's the sort of CD I wish I had a properly top-of-the-range-stereo for. And it's recorded DDD. I really think it's a very old-world attitude that says that analogue recording is the best. If digital is good enough for the classical world - and these are the people who can often perceive intervals smaller than 1/128th of a tone, just to give you an idea of their ear-capacity - I think it's probably good enough for some goit with a guitar.

OT, In case anyone's interested in their hearing, this is a test to find out how good your pitch perception is, and there's links to other tests. I got 0.4875 Hz as my final score. There are other tests for other musically related things as well.

I only really mention this because I sort of sympathise with people saying it doesn't really matter; except to say that Death Magnetic is one of the most shocking examples of a record sounding like a pile of shit. Herr Park's mentioning noise reminds me of when I used to work in an office where we could listen to music. I listened to Merzbow's 1930 at a fairly loud volume; I followed that with Avril Lavigne's second, and it was unbearably loud. 'Noise' is sort of a misnomer, in a sense, because Merzbow is quite keen on keeping his huge dynamic range, while most major labels bands are habitually obliterating that.

I want to name my next album 'Some Goit with a Guitar'.

Go for it, no credit requested.

Argh, I got 0.975 but there are 2 tvs on and I'm listening with no headphones and with not enough attention, I think.
I'll look into those tests, seems like a nice link, even if I haven't got the time to investigate how reliable the tests and the results can be considered.

Loudness war: I can't think about something meaningful to add, except that production is more important than most people think.

I'm wise.

gotta go, next week your package will leave my country.

ha ha I just told my brother to take the test and I noticed there's a "replay" button, I didn't use it before...oh well, I'm going to bed anyway-

1.275... wahhhhh.

I exaggerated a bit, but I was waiting for you to add this to the mix ;)




You are right I suppose, the catch for me with all-digital recording is that it has to be done fucking superbly, with top notch equipment and a bad ass motherfucking engineer and an even better production crew. A lot of the all digital shit I hear is crap, at any bit rate. And I just can't enjoy digitally recorded vocals..

but I must admit I am a 2-3 years behind on digital recording technology, and that shit has been evolving at light speed so they just may have gotten better, but I hang around a bunch of analog cats..

Surprised you could even notice it was in the mix har har har.

Eh, if you're listening to music that is reliant on production, then yeah. I think Slowdive... and quite a few electronic groups... rely on good production... but very very few bands treat a studio like a tool, and just usually use it to go in and record and that's that.. there'll always be little beefs I have with records.. "oh, the bass is too quiet.. oh the vocals are too loud" But like I said, a good song with shit production is still worth listening to, for me..

See, I'd say that whether a band cares or not, production is inseparable from the song. It's that thing of hearing demoes versus the finished product - it's rare the demo is better than the finished tune. It's that thing of how lo-fi started off as an 'anti-production' thing, but quickly became little more than a production preset. I wouldn't say there's nothing left to do with songs any more - but I'd also say that the differences between one three-chord pop song and another are largely down to production - whether it's choice of effects pedal or production processing thereof. Partially, this is why I'm quite precious about my own music - I fucking hate self-producing, because I'm shit at it, and I can't really afford the sort of equipment I want, and I haven't the inclination to work at it (playing takes up enough of my time as it is, without adding production to 'musical things I'm learning').

Like that Daughter of Darkness record - it's great, but there's peaks and stuff all over it that always make me wish they'd spent a bit more money on it. I think that's part of the charm for a lot of people, but I suspect it's a bit overlooked because of little imperfections like that.

I usually prefer demos. And Daughters of Darkness... some of the "peaks and stuff" might be because of the shitty tape rip.

Usually when I think about production and how important it is, I tend to think about that Slint record Tweez. I don't really think a whole lot of that record though some of the tracks are pretty cool. But I have some live shows on the computer here where they play those Tweez tracks and they aren't um, Albini-ized like they are on Tweez and they're much more enjoyable to listen to. To go further, comparing the version of Rhoda that's on Tweez to the version that's on the EP, I can't imagine anyone NOT picking the EP version.

So that's usually the example I think of when I want to convince myself that yeah, the production is important.

yeah but they did a lot of stupid things on Tweez like record them throwing dishes around and shit.

Albini has this habit of wrecking records. I don't know if it's bands not telling him what they want or just him, but he's made some utterly shockingly bad records. That Stooges record was just hideous.

It'd be really interesting to hear the results of a producer working completely out of their genre, like Rudy Van Gelder working with Eyehategod, or Albini recording a symphony orchestra. It'd be interesting to see just how much (or little) difference it would actually make to the final recording.

Since symphonies are often recorded with two mics in an acoustically excellent room, Albini might do just fine.