PDA

View Full Version : Loudness War!!!!!!



joetama
07-11-2007, 03:46 PM
Here is a very interesting little tid bit that I found today.

On lower quality speakers this really isn't that noticeable unless played a/b like they have done, BUT, when I play many of my Vinyl Records vs the same album 'digitally remastered' on CD there is a big difference. The Power Station is a perfect example of this. This is one of the reasons why.

Check it out...

Forum
http://www.htguide.com/forum/showthread.php4?t=26696

Article
http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/33549

Video
http://funl.blogspot.com/2007/06/loudness-war.html

djman37
07-11-2007, 03:50 PM
i had a couple of U2 Cd singles that were clipped to h3ll. BAD recordings. No headroom in digital.

wesl56
07-11-2007, 03:50 PM
yeah i heard that TV stations use that too... they brodcast the shows in the wider band and then play the commercials in a narrower i guess "compressed" format so they seem much louder than the show u were watching

1loudsuv
07-11-2007, 03:52 PM
This is exactly what I am getting while listining to a cd. I have to usually turn it up to loud to be able to enjoy the music.

but if both are mastered the same wont cd have the edge?

so pretty much all this is saying is the cd is getting ****** masters.

I know in the hd dvd/blu ray world some get better masters then others.

newusername
07-11-2007, 03:58 PM
This is exactly what I am getting while listining to a cd. I have to usually turn it up to loud to be able to enjoy the music.


I think you're misunderstanding the loudness war. The music is actually louder from the get go as the crest factor (or dynamic range) is reduced. You can't gain or lose any detail by turning your volume up, either, as it's lost.

What's really funny is when they take a quality mastering and re-master it into something worse. It's an ongoing issue rarely discussed outside of the production world.

1loudsuv
07-11-2007, 04:07 PM
I think you're misunderstanding the loudness war. The music is actually louder from the get go as the crest factor (or dynamic range) is reduced. You can't gain or lose any detail by turning your volume up, either, as it's lost.


No I get what they are talking about, I have to turn it up just to hear certain things. hands down any concert I have on hd dvd or blu ray sounds way better then on cd. Usually with cd I listining to it at volume -45 or so and If I really want to hear all the instruments I have to turn it up to about -30. Now while listning to a concert say on blu ray like NiN I usually have it at -33 or so, and it is not loud at all and sounds very detailed and smooth.

joetama
07-11-2007, 04:26 PM
Well LIVE is always going to be a whole different animal than studio.

A **** ton of live stuff ***** anus juice... However if you have a REALLY good FOH (Front of House, the guy who mixes the show) guy then it rocks. Primus Hallucino-Genetics is a perfect example of what I am saying. But, live also depends on the band being able to play live as well as their 'over processed' studio sound. Many bands today **** so much that if they had a live DVD it would sound terrible. But, most of the people that listen to those bands really have no clue so, whats the use.

Really actually what is causing this problem is producers and engineers relying so heavily on a compressor. Many people who have worked in the audio industry can hear the compressor 'sound' if you look for it and it amazes me when I listen to a CD and hear the squash sound. It just kills me...

CD may have much more dynamic range than vinyl, but **** vinyl usually uses it.. LAWL...

djman37
07-11-2007, 05:23 PM
yeah i heard that TV stations use that too... they brodcast the shows in the wider band and then play the commercials in a narrower i guess "compressed" format so they seem much louder than the show u were watching

TV STATIONS don't. The commercials' audio is like that, normalized and dynamic range reduced to seem louder. I hate it.

mtlhead
07-11-2007, 05:30 PM
Well LIVE is always going to be a whole different animal than studio.

A **** ton of live stuff ***** anus juice... However if you have a REALLY good FOH (Front of House, the guy who mixes the show) guy then it rocks. Primus Hallucino-Genetics is a perfect example of what I am saying. But, live also depends on the band being able to play live as well as their 'over processed' studio sound. Many bands today **** so much that if they had a live DVD it would sound terrible. But, most of the people that listen to those bands really have no clue so, whats the use.

Really actually what is causing this problem is producers and engineers relying so heavily on a compressor. Many people who have worked in the audio industry can hear the compressor 'sound' if you look for it and it amazes me when I listen to a CD and hear the squash sound. It just kills me...

CD may have much more dynamic range than vinyl, but **** vinyl usually uses it.. LAWL...

Yea, most producers rely on compressors now...and that "breathing" sound annoys the **** out of me when i hear it. You really need a good mastering engineer, otherwise they'll destroy a GREAT mix. I understand that compressors are needed to get the volume up to a reasonable level..but when it starts to effect the quality of the mix, thats when you know you have a bad mastering engineer.

Vinyl has a dynamic range of 64dB, whereas CDs are 96dB, but when you get digital distortion, it adds odd order harmonics, which gives you that nasty sound, as opposed to the analog (with tubes) distortion where it just gives that extra "bite" which a lot of people want

joetama
07-11-2007, 06:27 PM
Well Compressors were originally designed to increase the dynamic range.

If you had a PA with less dynamic range than you needed for example you used lets say a 2:1 compressor so that you could match the dynamic range of the mix to the PAs capabilities.

thylantyr
07-11-2007, 07:46 PM
My first CD player was in 1984, in a high powered, high SQ car audio system, full range of
course, not just boom boom bass like everyone else has.

Right away you can tell the difference between different recordings, some CD's
were bad, some were great.

... and this is news in year 2007 ?

:rolleyes:

lol

:santa:

Beat_Dominator
07-12-2007, 08:38 PM
I think I posted a link to one of those 3 articles a few months back.

It's a shame CD has that huge dynamic range capability but these ******* engineers are limithing it to less than 11dB of dynamic range most of the time!

azbass
07-12-2007, 08:39 PM
I ares louder then teh beat dominator

adam71
07-14-2007, 08:30 PM
i had a couple of U2 Cd singles that were clipped to h3ll. BAD recordings. No headroom in digital.

What?? No headroom?? The CD format itself has plenty of headroom, alot more than vinyl could ever dream of. It's the morons engineering these CDs that are doing it WRONG !!!

adam71
07-15-2007, 12:01 PM
Here is a very interesting little tid bit that I found today.

On lower quality speakers this really isn't that noticeable unless played a/b like they have done, BUT, when I play many of my Vinyl Records vs the same album 'digitally remastered' on CD there is a big difference. The Power Station is a perfect example of this. This is one of the reasons why.



One thing to note is that all formats can have bad recordings as much as all can have great recordings. I know for a fact that you have a very nice stand alone CD player which you would NOT own if there were NO good CD recordings. I know you know this but some guys on here might not. The CD format has/had the potential to be head and shoulders above vinyl but sadly this format has not been taken advantage of fully except for a few studios that decided to do it right.

In short: A CD recorded the right way blows away any vinyl recording. IMHO of course.;)


Discrete stereo >>> Matrixed stereo

bose301s
07-15-2007, 12:10 PM
This is very true, and a great example of this is Tool's newest album, 10,000 Days, absolutely compressed and terrible sound. Now on the other hand, Pink Floyd's CDs are absolutely amazing in their quality, The Wall, Dark Side of the Moon, Wish You Were Here, these are all benchmarks in how well CDs can sound, the problem is that studio engineers compress the hell out of the music to make it louder for radio and TV because the louder the music the more attention it will get. Anyway, I still prefer CDs to vinyl as you can play a CD 10 million times without a loss in quality whereas a vinyl becomes almost unlistenable after 100 uses.

ThomasG
07-15-2007, 12:16 PM
that was very ****ing interesting

adam71
07-15-2007, 12:26 PM
Dynamic range compression FTMFL !!

bose301s
07-15-2007, 12:31 PM
Dynamic range compression FTMFL !!
QFT

NYR36
07-15-2007, 12:37 PM
That video is awesome

joetama
07-15-2007, 05:18 PM
What?? No headroom?? The CD format itself has plenty of headroom, alot more than vinyl could ever dream of. It's the morons engineering these CDs that are doing it WRONG !!!

Hate Vinyl do we?


One thing to note is that all formats can have bad recordings as much as all can have great recordings. I know for a fact that you have a very nice stand alone CD player which you would NOT own if there were NO good CD recordings. I know you know this but some guys on here might not. The CD format has/had the potential to be head and shoulders above vinyl but sadly this format has not been taken advantage of fully except for a few studios that decided to do it right.

In short: A CD recorded the right way blows away any vinyl recording. IMHO of course.;)


Discrete stereo >>> Matrixed stereo

I disagree... Example, Little Feat "Dixie Chicken" on 'Waiting for Columbus'. Have it on LP and CD. Played them back to back. Vinyl > CD Example, Don Fagen Nightfly album, back to back on CD & Vinyl. Vinyl > CD. I can go on...

You do realize that it would super retarded on the part of the mix guy to use a full pan. Which means that there really is no major gain between Discrete or Matrixed stereo.

IMHO of course. :viking2:


This is very true, and a great example of this is Tool's newest album, 10,000 Days, absolutely compressed and terrible sound. Now on the other hand, Pink Floyd's CDs are absolutely amazing in their quality, The Wall, Dark Side of the Moon, Wish You Were Here, these are all benchmarks in how well CDs can sound, the problem is that studio engineers compress the hell out of the music to make it louder for radio and TV because the louder the music the more attention it will get. Anyway, I still prefer CDs to vinyl as you can play a CD 10 million times without a loss in quality whereas a vinyl becomes almost unlistenable after 100 uses.

Ummm..... Why is Vinyl unlistenable after 100 uses? Honestly this is the most retarded thing I have ever heard.

To those people who for some reason hate on vinyl, if you don't own them don't ***** about them. I for one own them and I love them. Everyone I know who owns them loves them.

adam71
07-15-2007, 08:36 PM
Hate Vinyl do we?

Absolutely not. I own more than 100 vinyls and a turntable.




I disagree... Example, Little Feat "Dixie Chicken" on 'Waiting for Columbus'. Have it on LP and CD. Played them back to back. Vinyl > CD Example, Don Fagen Nightfly album, back to back on CD & Vinyl. Vinyl > CD. I can go on...

I don't really think you're comparing your vinyl to a "CD recorded right" as I stated earlier. I stick by my word that a CD recorded the right way is better than a vinyl recording. Just for the simple fact that it's a superior format. No maintenance. No wear and tear after every playback. Best stereo seperation. And MUCH BETTER dynamic range and frequency response.

Next time compare your vinyl to a "reference quality" CD. Like maybe something from Sheffield labs or Telarc.



To those people who for some reason hate on vinyl, if you don't own them don't ***** about them. I for one own them and I love them. Everyone I know who owns them loves them.


I agree totally. It's all a matter of taste. I let my buddy borrow my DVD audio of the Alan Parsons Project's "Eye In The Sky". He listened and said it sounded better than CD but didn't sound like vinyl. My response was this. "Why is vinyl necessarily RIGHT?? " I agree vinyl sounds different. It has warmer sound than CD does. Some find this pleasing and some don't. I like the sound of vinyl too but that doesn't make it the "correct" sound. It's just different. That is why I have vinyl in my collection. So I have a variety of sound.

joetama
07-15-2007, 10:17 PM
I am not saying that Vinyl is the end all be all of formats for ever, it has restrictions and limitations. Just as CD does, and SACD, and DVD-Audio. Every format will, until they create a perfect format. But, with the state of the recording industry and the R-Tards who run it I seriously doubt it will ever happen.

That said, adam71 I defiantly respect your opinion and you aren't a vinyl basher but some folks are. And, it is just irritating because most of them don't have a clue.