Butterworth article on loudness wars

[Randy Bessinger]

Interesting read...I have no opinion on it really but thought some May be interested...

http://stereos.about.com/b/2014/02/26/why-audiophiles-might-be-wrong-about-the-loudness-war.htm

 

[rbbert]

I find these results a little hard to believe, for the simple reason that if the tracks are matched for equal rms average level then the less compressed track will always sound louder and therefore preferred. And there will almost always be a volume above which the more compressed track will start sounding worse whereas that won't happen for the less compressed track until a higher volume is reached.

Also unanswered is whether there were differences in the masterings besides the degree of compression.

 

[Bruce B]

I find these results a little hard to believe, for the simple reason that if the tracks are matched for equal rms average level then the less compressed track will always sound louder and therefore preferred. And there will almost always be a volume above which the more compressed track will start sounding worse whereas that won't happen for the less compressed track until a higher volume is reached.

Also unanswered is whether there were differences in the masterings besides the degree of compression.

Degrees of compression are differences in the mastering. When you compress something, it's not just one button. There are multiple things involved with compression, like Threshold, Attack, Release, Make-up gain, Ratio and a whole slew of others that affect frequencies differently.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Sorry if I'm sounding a little jaded but,

1) Ho hum, another article on compression?

2) Why didn't they carry out the test using a boom box?

3) The test was pretty much a fait accompli......

4) How can you estimate perceived depth when there was none on these recordings? Geez I'm shocked by the outcome.

5) As Amir has pointed out in the past, it's there if one knows what to look for. Since can't access the paper, Brent doesn't say whether they used MP3s or at leat 16/44 files.

6) Preference is different than hearing a difference between the tracks. Hell if all you ever ate was McDonalds, I'm sure that food at The French Laundry would be unpalatable too. Or as they say in the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.

7) So basically the test was rigged in every way possible for the authors to get the results they were looking for.

 

[rbbert]

Degrees of compression are differences in the mastering. When you compress something, it's not just one button. There are multiple things involved with compression, like Threshold, Attack, Release, Make-up gain, Ratio and a whole slew of others that affect frequencies differently.

Of course, but if they were just using commercial releases it's highly likely that there was remastering beyond just the compressor. More than that, I would say that hard limiting in addition to a compressor is not uncommon

 

[Shaffer]

Sorry if I'm sounding a little jaded but,

1) Ho hum, another article on compression?

2) Why didn't they carry out the test using a boom box?

3) The test was pretty much a fait accompli......

4) How can you estimate perceived depth when there was none on these recordings? Geez I'm shocked by the outcome.

5) As Amir has pointed out in the past, it's there if one knows what to look for. Since can't access the paper, Brent doesn't say whether they used MP3s or at leat 16/44 files.

6) Preference is different than hearing a difference between the tracks. Hell if all you ever ate was McDonalds, I'm sure that food at The French Laundry would be unpalatable too. Or as they say in the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.

7) So basically the test was rigged in every way possible for the authors to get the results they were looking for.

I love science, don't you?

 

[Randy Bessinger]

Sorry if I'm sounding a little jaded but,

1) Ho hum, another article on compression?

2) Why didn't they carry out the test using a boom box?

3) The test was pretty much a fait accompli......

4) How can you estimate perceived depth when there was none on these recordings? Geez I'm shocked by the outcome.

5) As Amir has pointed out in the past, it's there if one knows what to look for. Since can't access the paper, Brent doesn't say whether they used MP3s or at leat 16/44 files.

6) Preference is different than hearing a difference between the tracks. Hell if all you ever ate was McDonalds, I'm sure that food at The French Laundry would be unpalatable too. Or as they say in the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.

7) So basically the test was rigged in every way possible for the authors to get the results they were looking for.

Skepticism is the sadism of embittered souls

 

[Shaffer]

Skepticism is the sadism of embittered souls

I suppose that's one way of looking at it. The other option exists as an insult to one's intelligence.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

The operative prediction, already reaching fruition:

The results will surprise and probably infuriate audiophiles who've decided dynamic range compression is the greatest evil since -- well, whatever they were upset about last year.

The answer:

One study doesn't prove anything. No, it doesn't. But it does put the onus on the other side in the "loudness war" to present scientific evidence to support their case.

I've gotten caught up in the loudness war stuff myself, then I listened again. A tuning point, for me, was a year or so ago when Bruce, who should know, told me that Jorma Kaukonen's "Blue County Heart" was pretty compressed. It's a wonderful recording. So I started paying close attention to all my remasters. Could I hear "compression?" Maybe. They were louder than the originals, and yes, sometimes it seemed like everything in the mix was closer to the same volume. But they didn't lose their all dynamics either. The soft passages were still soft. The small dynamics -- string attack, the pop of the head of a drum, the crack of a rim shot...all that was intact. And many of them just plain sounded good, maybe even better than my older vesions. So I'm not surprised by this at all. Not surprised that the loudness wars aren't really ruining music. Not surprised that the notorious Metallica recording is an awful exception to that rule. Not surprised that the remasters of some of my classic recodings are louder, may have lost a touch of dynamic range...but still sound great, sometimes better. But then again, I don't listen to Metallica.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that the loudness wars are a tempest in a teapot. I think there are some real offenders out there and I think it is a bad trend that needs reversing. But I think, just maybe, the problem has been blown out of proportion a bit.

Tim

 

[Shaffer]

I'm always astounded when audiophiles rationalize the lack of dynamic range on many of the recent releases. I mean, we pride ourselves on our ability to discriminate, yet when one recording sounds as it does at a given volume level and the next blows one out of the room with its compression, where everything sounds like one big blob of sound, how is one gladly tolerant of the experience? Instead of a bodily-felt exercise - say, with drums - we get a mild thwack on what kinda sounds like a toy and blends in with the rest of the processing. How does that even serve the music, rhetorically speaking?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I'm always astounded when audiophiles rationalize the lack of dynamic range on many of the recent releases. I mean, we pride ourselves on our ability to discriminate, yet when one recording sounds as it does at a given volume level and the next blows one out of the room with its compression, where everything sounds like one big blob of sound, how is one gladly tolerant of the experience? Instead of a bodily-felt exercise - say, with drums - we get a mild thwack on what kinda sounds like a toy and blends in with the rest of the processing. How does that even serve the music, rhetorically speaking?

I don't think audiophiles do rationalize the lack of dynamics on many recent recordings. On the contrary, I think they have exaggerated the phenomenon until, reading the forums, you'd think every release in the past decade is as you've described above. I've found that, while the loudness trend has had an impact on most new releases, at least for the kind of music I listen to, it is relatively few that come anywhere close to what you're talking about.

Tim

 

[Shaffer]

I don't think audiophiles do rationalize the lack of dynamics on many recent recordings. On the contrary, I think they have exaggerated the phenomenon until, reading the forums, you'd think every release in the past decade is as you've described above. I've found that, while the loudness trend has had an impact on most new releases, at least for the kind of music I listen to, it is relatively few that come anywhere close to what you're talking about.

Tim

Perhaps that's the crux of the matter. I mostly buy and listen to new music. The difference in dynamic range, and the overall sound quality stemming from the same, can exist on an order of magnitude.

Edit: as a working example, just look at the last NIN record. The difference between the compressed CD and the much less compressed LP are startling. And I mean that with respect to the performance, itself.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Perhaps that's the crux of the matter. I mostly buy and listen to new music. The difference in dynamic range, and the overall sound quality stemming from the same, can exist on an order of magnitude.

Edit: as a working example, just look at the last NIN record. The difference between the compressed CD and the much less compressed LP are startling. And I mean that with respect to the performance, itself.

That may very well be the crux of the matter. Look at the examples in the article. No new music. And while I buy new music, I don't buy much in pop, no metal, no electronica...maybe its genres like these that are getting slammed the hardest.

Tim

 

[Bruce B]

I'm amazed by anyone that can determine how something sounds just by the DR rating or FFT.

 

[Randy Bessinger]

I suppose that's one way of looking at it. The other option exists as an insult to one's intelligence.

Could very well be, but I haven't read the paper so I will withhold judgement. I don't listen that much to the type of music that is supposedly compressed (a few but very few) so again no opinion but no rush to judgement either.

 

[GaryProtein]

When you are used to listening to earbuds on an iPod, you are used to compression and it doesn't sound bad to you.

The subjects were "a group of 22 university music students with a median age of 29 years" and that's about all that age group has ever listened to.

It's no wonder they had no preference in recorded music. They don't know what recordings could or should sound like.

 

[rbbert]

I would hope that a group of university music students with a median age of 29 would have more than a passing acquaintance with the sound of live acoustic music...

 

[Randy Bessinger]

When you are used to listening to earbuds on an iPod, you are used to compression and it doesn't sound bad to you.

The subjects were "a group of 22 university music students with a median age of 29 years" and that's about all that age group has ever listened to.

It's no wonder they had no preference in recorded music. They don't know what recordings could or should sound like.

Be interested in Sean olives thoughts based on his research.

http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2012/05/more-evidence-that-kids-even-japanese.html

 

[Shaffer]

That may very well be the crux of the matter. Look at the examples in the article. No new music. And while I buy new music, I don't buy much in pop, no metal, no electronica...maybe its genres like these that are getting slammed the hardest.

Tim

They used titles that were remastered with additional compression, the choice of which may well have been dependent on the old fart who put this insult to science in play.

 

[Shaffer]

I would hope that a group of university music students with a median age of 29 would have more than a passing acquaintance with the sound of live acoustic music...

I've been on our local music scene since I was 15. I'm 50 now. If you think droves of folks in their mid-20 attend live shows, at least the kind where they actually hear the band, you may be grossly mistaken.

Edit: Let me give an example from just last night. I was at an acoustic singer/songwriter showcase - a bi-weekly event - held at a recording studio. Nice room. Other than the 4 performers and the few significant others that accompanied them, I was the only person in the audience. This is common, IME.