but at the same time still supports the compressed-to-shit version for radio/streaming services. Guess this would require some kind a dual mastering within a single file. Maybe DDR “Dual Dynamic Range”. Probably a stupid concept, but we need some way out of the loudness wars.
I still blame the iPod revolution; once people primarily started listening through tiny earbuds, the industry reacted trying to make the music sound better through those.
So even though it's called "loudness war", I think it's really just "mastered for the masses".
@rlow, I think you are confusing some things. There is probably plenty of dynamic range available on the audio equipment that we've been using for the past few generations. Using it is another matter, "Compressed to shit" is not an equipment limitation, it is a producer/commercial decision.
Listen to orchestral classical, where they /have/ to leave the dynamic range alone.
What I’m referring to is the high compression “loud” mastering going on where labels and artists are basically trying to compete with each other on volume in order to get attention and try to standout on radio or streaming services.
This makes it impossible to use our systems to the fullest since there is really no dynamic range being utilized in modern popular music recordings. Even though the medium and our playback systems support huge dynamic range, the music doesn’t have it.
So come up with something where the file has a default compressed to crap version, but also another version within with a high dynamic range that can be accessed with the right trigger from the playback system. Sort of like a file that contains both a low rez MP3, but also a high res FLAC and your system can decide which one to read.
However I’m not taking about file compression in this case, I’m taking about dynamic range compression which happens mostly at the mixing/mastering stage.
@rlow, "I’m taking about dynamic range compression which happens mostly at the mixing/mastering stage."
Quite. It is an engineering decision, and nothing to do with formats. I don't know, but probably even 64-bit MP3 would support more dynamic range than music that has been loudness-war compressed has. We don't need any other format: we need good mastering.
@Thad E Ginathom no doubt. But here’s the thing, mastering engineers (many at least) know they are compressing DR excessively but have no choice due to competition. In many cases they and even the artist know the higher DR master sounds better, but they need it to be “loud” to compete. We need something where both sides can win.
And by “format” I’m not referring to a file compression scheme, I mean something where a higher DR master is available along with the general use, low DR master.
Oh right, @rlow, ok. But why don't we just persuade them to give up the useless low-dynamic-range mastering. Well, I suppose people have been trying, and it didn't work.
But this loudness-war thing originated on the airways: does it actually serve any purpose today? Have the ignorant masses actually come to want their music like that?
@Thad E Ginathom I think it continues because of things like earbuds, noise, and portable devices limited power and overcoming ambient noise. I also think this is why people buy vinyl for the myth that vinyl sounds better or has more DR. I think it is great that YouTube is using reduced volume on encoding based on"perceived loudness" and low DR tracks have the volume reduced.
The Spotify playlist is the modern equivalent of the radio station - if my track isn’t as loud as the one before it, people will skip my track (or so the thinking goes)
I don't believe in "high-resolution" digital audio. But when remastering to proper standards comes as part of the deal, it is probably worth buying, regardless of the sample rate. Or belief in it,
Read these "rules" AND introduce
yourself before your first post
Being true to what the artists intended
(opinion / entertainment piece)
Comments on Profile Post by rlow