An end to the loudness war ?

One of their ideas is to introduce a DYNAMIC RANGE METER witch represents the grade of compression of released music in a standardized whole number system.

Could this be start of the end of the loudness war ?

Two aspects.

Firstly the music that is issued in the most compressed masterings is mostly designed for listening via the workplace radio or by young people with earpieces using MP3 transfers [etc.].

The numbers of people listening to the most compressed issues via Hifi is a tiny minority of the market, and so I suspect that the market as a whole [ie. the majority of customers] are making no demand for any change at the moment.

Secondly, how could one ever actually quantify the dynamic range or degree of compression in a numerical fashion? Some music has inherently a small dynamic range. The acoustic guitar is not a very loud instrument, and at least without amplification has a dynamic range from failry quiet to a bit quieter. A piano has a massive dynamic range potential.

_______

Even classical music issues tend to have a degree of compression, though some companies do issue [allegedly] true dynamic recordings - BIS is one example.

In practice the level of domestic ambient back ground noises, tends to make listening to lightly compressed recordings much easier and musically informative [at least in most classical music] even with the very best replay sets.

The ambient noise of a good concert hall is much lower than most homes ...

So I doubt that there will be a great move to more naturally dynamic pop recordings, or even classical if it comes to it.

Replay is a lithograph of a usually idealised live performance, but it can never replace the live experience in purely sonic terms.

Though it can be at least as engrosing in musical terms ...

ATB from George

I think the main reason for this loudness stuff is the belief by record companies that this is required to make the "product' stand out on the radio. Of course when every one does it no one stands out.

Amusingly for those engrossed in digital versus analogue trivia, it actually started in radio and was aN annologue phenomena achieved via anologue compression. It accelerated because cd had a larger dynamic range than vinyl etc that initially went unused and so a few were able to exploit it.

Interestingly, the "war" itself is pretty much over. If you look at most modern releases they are bad but nowhere near as bad as they were. The Greg Milner book is excellent on this.

Mike

[Warning: layman talking outside his knowledge-zone alert!]

Although the 16/44.1 CD offers scope for large dynamic range, if you want store music or sounds approximating their true dynamic range you face a problem.

Although a CD might use 16 bits to represent a sample, if the album has 'really loud' sections (boom, crash, wallop), and you don't want to artificially increase the volume of the quieter parts through compression, you're forced to accept a reduced digital resolution for the quieter majority of the music. Effectively, the quieter portions are forced to be stored in low-res.

Hi-res formats help, giving better resolution for the quiet portions, but isn't there a better solution, that even hi-res could benefit from?

Why yes: log-rock! Like prog-rock, just woodier.

I've always wondered why digital representations of musical waveform amplitude is linear, especially when our perception of 'loudness' is so logarithmic: simplicity of implementation, I've presumed.

If you use some logarithmic representation of the amplitude, you're (effectively) cutting down on the number of bits used to represent higher amplitudes, and saving them for better resolution of smaller amplitudes.

I reckon you'd get the effect of hi-res, in low-res storage. You'd have a digital representation that can capture monumental dynamic ranges, with only a titchy compromise on the resolution of the quieter parts that matter most.

Of course, if you wanted to play music that was recorded, and reproduced with its full dynamic range, you'd probably need a monster amp and scary speakers to capture those uber-realistic transients.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank both GFFJ and Mike Hughes, for two of the most considered and rational posts I have ever seen on this subject.

Thank you gentlemen

Dear King Size,

Thanks for you kind comment. I have been thinking that my current "Broken Carlton" thread about my old bike in the Padded Cell might well have marked my retirement from the Forum, but I think I'll post very rarely from now instead! Thanks for the confidence boost.

ATB from George

I didn't think I'd posted with any great profundity but I shall accept the compliment in good grace. This place can be so civilised.

Mike

No problem guys,
I work for a major record company and that pays the bills; but i'm also someone who cares about music reproduction.

So while I understand (and share) the high end consumers concerns about the loudness wars I am also frustrated at the continual blaming of record companies for this issue. Your posts touch on some of the other factors involved, which is much appreciated as not many people are aware of, or consider these. One other factor that many people don't acknowledge is the artists role in what their records sound like.

Anyway, thanks.

Ah. I'm sure you'll be constrained to some extent by your role but it would be really interesting to hear more from you on this topic, or indeed many others related to the current state of the music industry

Mike

Hi Mike
Sorry for the delay in replying. I've just read an interview in the new issue (#29) of Tone Audio that touches on this subject. While it may not answer all your questions I think its a good read and starting point.

Cheers
Chris