3 ms·

It always puts me a bit off when I see people trying to apply science to an aesthetic issue like this one (this article is way less guilty than many others on t

It always puts me a bit off when I see people trying to apply science to an aesthetic issue like this one (this article is way less guilty than many others on the subject). There is no doubt that engineers are mastering pop music "louder" now than in decades past, but it's too easy to jump to the usual conclusions of there being some kind of Volume Arms Race, with each successive album attempting to be louder than the others surrounding it. There's a hard limit of 0dB that digital recordings can reach before digital distortion, and it's not like professional audio engineers are trying to push the envelope there, curious to see what happens. The real reason pop music (and we're only talking about pop music) is mastered so loud these days has much more to do with the general trendinesses of pop music than some kind of unscientific and unjustified commercialism. In other words... In 2009 Kanye West is a popular musician. When asked why they like Kanye West's music, people often say things like "it's got a good beat to it," or "I like dancing to it." People think Kanye West's music has a good beat because of the overall mid-scooped equalization of the track, and the effect of compressed and "loud" mixes coming out of large speakers. It makes people want to dance, and the dancing makes them happy. But, when they get home from the club, exhausted and tired of being on their feet all day, they put on a relaxing Sufjan Stevens (or whatever the kids are listening to these days) album. The mastering is far lower in perceived volume, and the same person who was dancing to Kanye West because it "had a good beat" is now saying how much Sufjan Stevens lets him "mellow out." Think of the difference between top-selling pop music today versus 20 years ago. I think that alone does a better job justifying common engineering practices than conspiracy theories of being the loudest song on the jukebox, or on a radio segment or whatever. Especially considering that there's a volume ceiling that is already being reached.

antiform 18y ago
No way. It's not just a matter of people liking to listen to both Kanye West and Sufjan Stevens. I do like people listening to different types of music, but I don't think this is something that you can just attribute to "trendinesses" of pop music. Reducing dynamic range is a problem. Try and listen one of the albums notorious for overcompression, like Red Hot Chili Pepper's Californication. You get "tired" listening to the music at such a high level of compression and volume, and the dynamics prevent the songs from having the impact that they could have. For example, on that album, the track "Parallel Universe" has essentially no change in volume between the verse and chorus and so the whole song sounds hollow and empty through a good pair of headphones or speakers, yet it sounds great live (even on tape). The songs sound fine if listened through cheap iPod earbuds or the radio, but if the album sounds exactly the same on the radio and in a home CD player, I think there's something wrong there. The problem is that if it takes overcompression and loudness to get people to notice your music, music will continue to become louder and more compressed. If only those songs get peoples' attention and get radio play, pretty soon every song you hear will essentially have the same volume. That's not only terribly limiting to the artist, but a disservice to the fans who listen to the music. Now, most music producers are aware of this and take pains to make a good mix, but raising awareness about this certainly would help stop this process in much of commercial music, especially as recorded music gets more popular.
- swivelmaster 18y ago
  I agree, and the newer Red Hot Chili Peppers albums are a perfect example of this. Ever look analyze a Muse CD? The audio looks like a solid block zoomed out. Not that Muse isn't awesome. The article seems to simplify the clipping issue a bit much, and it looks like some users here are confusing compression with maximization. Compression is the relatively simple process of reducing dynamic range above a certain threshold by a certain ratio. If the ratio is 2:1 and the threshold is -10db, then 0 db would end up at -5, -8 would end up at -9, etc. Then you'd just make up the loss in volume by boosting it an equivalent amount. There's also the attack and release, where attack allows the volume to rise above the threshold for a given amount of time (measured in milliseconds) before it is compressed, and release will raise the volume up over a period of time after the source has returned below the threshold. What's going on here, it's important to note, isn't quite compression. It's a much more complicated process involving potentially lots of different plugins and rack-mounted magic boxes that all sell for thousands of dollars. They focus specifically on the qualities of sound that make us perceive loudness, not just simple dynamic range. (Though, to be fair, one of the most interesting mastering tools is the multiband compressor, which splits the audio based on frequency, compresses each band separately, then mixes them back together.) Anyway, the focus of a 'loudness maximizer', as opposed to a compressor, is pure... loudness. That's where the clipping comes from, and that's actually how you get clipping without the sound actually sounding distorted and clipped. It's pushing the edge of distortion a little bit, and you can kind of hear that on poorly mastered loud recordings. It's a lot harder to get the same effect with a compressor and a hard limiter (which prevents the audio from going above a certain level no matter what - basically a compressor with an infinite ratio). edit: By the way, because of imperfections in the original compression hardware (and modern software simulations of said imperfections), the compression process isn't actually as straightforward as I said. In theory, that's how it works, but compressors are generally known to 'color' the sound a bit while they compress. In other words, the compressor that the Beatles ran vocals through is not capable of also giving you that pulsing, compressed sound you get from One More Time by Daft Punk. For example.

antiform 18y ago

No way. It's not just a matter of people liking to listen to both Kanye West and Sufjan Stevens. I do like people listening to different types of music, but I don't think this is something that you can just attribute to "trendinesses" of pop music. Reducing dynamic range is a problem. Try and listen one of the albums notorious for overcompression, like Red Hot Chili Pepper's Californication. You get "tired" listening to the music at such a high level of compression and volume, and the dynamics prevent the songs from having the impact that they could have. For example, on that album, the track "Parallel Universe" has essentially no change in volume between the verse and chorus and so the whole song sounds hollow and empty through a good pair of headphones or speakers, yet it sounds great live (even on tape). The songs sound fine if listened through cheap iPod earbuds or the radio, but if the album sounds exactly the same on the radio and in a home CD player, I think there's something wrong there. The problem is that if it takes overcompression and loudness to get people to notice your music, music will continue to become louder and more compressed. If only those songs get peoples' attention and get radio play, pretty soon every song you hear will essentially have the same volume. That's not only terribly limiting to the artist, but a disservice to the fans who listen to the music. Now, most music producers are aware of this and take pains to make a good mix, but raising awareness about this certainly would help stop this process in much of commercial music, especially as recorded music gets more popular.

swivelmaster 18y ago
I agree, and the newer Red Hot Chili Peppers albums are a perfect example of this. Ever look analyze a Muse CD? The audio looks like a solid block zoomed out. Not that Muse isn't awesome. The article seems to simplify the clipping issue a bit much, and it looks like some users here are confusing compression with maximization. Compression is the relatively simple process of reducing dynamic range above a certain threshold by a certain ratio. If the ratio is 2:1 and the threshold is -10db, then 0 db would end up at -5, -8 would end up at -9, etc. Then you'd just make up the loss in volume by boosting it an equivalent amount. There's also the attack and release, where attack allows the volume to rise above the threshold for a given amount of time (measured in milliseconds) before it is compressed, and release will raise the volume up over a period of time after the source has returned below the threshold. What's going on here, it's important to note, isn't quite compression. It's a much more complicated process involving potentially lots of different plugins and rack-mounted magic boxes that all sell for thousands of dollars. They focus specifically on the qualities of sound that make us perceive loudness, not just simple dynamic range. (Though, to be fair, one of the most interesting mastering tools is the multiband compressor, which splits the audio based on frequency, compresses each band separately, then mixes them back together.) Anyway, the focus of a 'loudness maximizer', as opposed to a compressor, is pure... loudness. That's where the clipping comes from, and that's actually how you get clipping without the sound actually sounding distorted and clipped. It's pushing the edge of distortion a little bit, and you can kind of hear that on poorly mastered loud recordings. It's a lot harder to get the same effect with a compressor and a hard limiter (which prevents the audio from going above a certain level no matter what - basically a compressor with an infinite ratio). edit: By the way, because of imperfections in the original compression hardware (and modern software simulations of said imperfections), the compression process isn't actually as straightforward as I said. In theory, that's how it works, but compressors are generally known to 'color' the sound a bit while they compress. In other words, the compressor that the Beatles ran vocals through is not capable of also giving you that pulsing, compressed sound you get from One More Time by Daft Punk. For example.