Turtlerock Forum

While you can argue about certain points in the article, I guess it's good it's getting out into public debate:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/ar ... 6054893862

I had to stop halfway through before I started writing emails..

I stifled a scream once it got to "Have you ever noticed a lot of recorded drums don't sound like a real drum kit?"

NO RECORDING EVER DOES! That's why we make it up!
And compression to extend reverb trails? That's a valid psychoacoustic technique we've been using since the 70's, less voltage more loudness, all of which is useful in communicating a sense of dynamics when, levels wise, the recording has none/not much.

Well as a drummer I have to say many drum sounds on contemporary releases, especially pop don't sound real.
I think this is a product of sampling, integration of drum sequencers and heavy editing more than a product of compression and the 'loudness wars'.
A modern drum track seems to have become a wall of loud noise made up of undynamic samples and a ton of fx.
I accept it, it's fashion. But a well recorded more naturalistic drum track is more timeless IMO.

lol...Death Magnetic remastered on Guitar Hero?

ChrisW wrote:Well as a drummer I have to say many drum sounds on contemporary releases, especially pop don't sound real.
I think this is a product of sampling, integration of drum sequencers and heavy editing more than a product of compression and the 'loudness wars'.
A modern drum track seems to have become a wall of loud noise made up of undynamic samples and a ton of fx.
I accept it, it's fashion. But a well recorded more naturalistic drum track is more timeless IMO.

From what i see and hear its the result of an overall approach that starts with mic technique, especially the use of close mics for the major component of the drum mix to the exclusion of the OH mics .The OH mics are then used to focus on the cymbals and not the whole kit. Drums in the studio are miced more like a live stage setup where high levels are blasting through the stage monitors...... Then comes the compression, bringing up an unnatural spill of shitty siblance from hats, cymbals and the top end click of each beat of the sticks..........., so gates, and/or editing with strip silence is then applied. Then because it often sounds shit, samples and drum replacer are applied ...........should just drum on cardboard boxes and saucepans to start with if you're going to go that way!

Yep, the game has mix stems.. import to your DAW of choice, set levels, export. Death Magnetic without the heavy handed limiter smashing.
I own the cd but on the very rare occasion that I listen to it I listen to the GH version.

kalkman wrote:lol...Death Magnetic remastered on Guitar Hero?

It's probably not a very neutral reference (since Ian Shepherd is one of the guys behind Dynamic Range Day), but this is an interesting series of rants related to Death Magnetic in which you can see the difference in the GH and commerical releases:

http://mastering-media.blogspot.com/2008/09/metallica-death-magnetic-sounds-better.html

"This loudness war stems from the illusion that, all things being equal, louder sounds better,"

This is not an illusion, it's a fact.

"However, the natural dynamic and life of music is being drastically sacrificed."

I thought we were keeping all things equal? If you're changing dynamics, you're no longer talking about loudness specifically, your talking about the use of signal processing, different argument entirely.

That's the problem with this whole farce of a debate. There is nothing, NOTHING wrong with loud records.

Loud bad sounding records are the problem, as are bad quiet sounding records. It is not the loudness of the record that makes it sound bad.

Top it off with a visual comparison, this article belongs on Today Tonight.

Anyone who displays a waveform as supporting evidence of the loudness wars has fundamentally missed the point of the discussion.

Ender wrote:It's probably not a very neutral reference (since Ian Shepherd is one of the guys behind Dynamic Range Day), but this is an interesting series of rants related to Death Magnetic in which you can see the difference in the GH and commerical releases:

http://mastering-media.blogspot.com/2008/09/metallica-death-magnetic-sounds-better.html

To quote the blog

"The first important thing to say is that although the mp3 example of the CD release sounds different to the actual CD, the overall degree of distortion is the same."

Impossible. I'm tired of people making shit up on this topic.

^ haha, most excellent.

Mark wrote:"This loudness war stems from the illusion that, all things being equal, louder sounds better,"
This is not an illusion, it's a fact.

Well I am clueless about mastering so I can only agree from my musician's perspective.
I know people who have set out to buck the 'loudness' system and their tracks appear to sound weak when played alongside contemporary mastered songs. Competition for sales is hard enough at the moment without cutting off your nose to spite your face.
KInda like Climate Change legislation, we need the majority of new music to go back to the pre 'loudness' processing, until then anyone who tries to act unilaterally will be perceived negatively by the listening public I think.

Chris H wrote:
From what i see and hear its the result of an overall approach that starts with mic technique, especially the use of close mics for the major component of the drum mix to the exclusion of the OH mics .The OH mics are then used to focus on the cymbals and not the whole kit.

Oh ok.
I must say my experience has been different.
The un-naturalistic, overbearing, one dimensional drum sound is created by using a lot of sampled drums to replace or enhance the original recording, then the whole thing is smothered with a huge room sound, often highly compressed, which masks the quality (or not) of the original kit.

On the other hand, I have never listened to a cd and thought, "It isn't load enough, so I shan't buy it" I have also never listened to a cd and thought "Wow, this is amazingly super loud, I must own it"

I use replay gain on my computer and soundcheck on my iPhone so all my music has the same perceived loudness. I set the volume on my cd player to a comfortable level, regardless of the loudness of the cd, some I turn down, some I turn up.

Yes, louder sounds better, but if you turn down a louder recording to match a quieter one, as I do, then I think the more dynamic one sounds better. I have the original Iron Maiden cds and bought one of the remastered ones, the original is more dynamic and exciting once the loudness is matched.

ChrisW wrote:

Mark wrote:"This loudness war stems from the illusion that, all things being equal, louder sounds better,"
This is not an illusion, it's a fact.

Well I am clueless about mastering so I can only agree from my musician's perspective.
I know people who have set out to buck the 'loudness' system and their tracks appear to sound weak when played alongside contemporary mastered songs. Competition for sales is hard enough at the moment without cutting off your nose to spite your face.
KInda like Climate Change legislation, we need the majority of new music to go back to the pre 'loudness' processing, until then anyone who tries to act unilaterally will be perceived negatively by the listening public I think.

ChrisW wrote:

Chris H wrote:
From what i see and hear its the result of an overall approach that starts with mic technique, especially the use of close mics for the major component of the drum mix to the exclusion of the OH mics .The OH mics are then used to focus on the cymbals and not the whole kit.

Oh ok.
I must say my experience has been different.
The un-naturalistic, overbearing, one dimensional drum sound is created by using a lot of sampled drums to replace or enhance the original recording, then the whole thing is smothered with a huge room sound, often highly compressed, which masks the quality (or not) of the original kit.

ok

Mark wrote:Top it off with a visual comparison, this article belongs on Today Tonight.

Anyone who displays a waveform as supporting evidence of the loudness wars has fundamentally missed the point of the discussion.

Funny you should say that. Years ago, there was a report on Today Tonight about the supposed loudness of ads. The report "proved" that TV ads are not louder than TV programs using a peak meter!

And not a mention of rules about not overmodulating FM signals!

Kurt wrote:On the other hand, I have never listened to a cd and thought, "It isn't load enough, so I shan't buy it" I have also never listened to a cd and thought "Wow, this is amazingly super loud, I must own it"

I think the issue is with radio, tv and the internet where neither you or the artist controls the relative volume knob.
When you place your dynamically mastered track back to back, alongside a bunch of other tracks that have been smashed, it's felt the dynamically mastered track sticks out as being weaker, weedier sounding.
That's the perception anyway.

audioio wrote:

Mark wrote:Top it off with a visual comparison, this article belongs on Today Tonight.

Anyone who displays a waveform as supporting evidence of the loudness wars has fundamentally missed the point of the discussion.

Funny you should say that. Years ago, there was a report on Today Tonight about the supposed loudness of ads. The report "proved" that TV ads are not louder than TV programs using a peak meter!

And not a mention of rules about not overmodulating FM signals!

Yeah, ads have the same maximum peak level as programs. That MUST mean they have the same loudness right?

Still, what do you expect from that show, really?

i just roll my eyes at the " loudness war"

i just took the long way home from the middle east yesterday because of no fly zone put up over "amon" wherever the f@#$ that is because of some emerging conflict that isnt front page news yet
there is no "loudness war" no conspiracy no emerging interest
just a bunch of people making things sound shitty without guidance or merit

adam dempsey is quoted in that piece , he is a guy that knows what he is talking about and on this forum

but really any reports of this "war" are usually dumbed down by necessity of ease of understanding for the punter
i read this article as more of the same


you can make loud records sound great without distortion - i do it every day

the waveform screen shots are always good for a laugh in these debates , showing 96 db of dynamic range in 2cm high plot is sure to cause a few issues of the scale of the problem

rick wrote:there is no "loudness war" no conspiracy no emerging interest
just a bunch of people making things sound shitty without guidance or merit

That's it folks, nothing more to say on the issue.

Once again Rick's summed the entire debate up in a sentence. I'll pay you to come into one of my classes and say just that sentence, then leave.

It's now my signature.

Well maybe a right of reply is warranted.

Rick pretty much hit the nail on the head... ("any reports of this "war" are usually dumbed down by necessity of ease of understanding for the punter. I read this article as more of the same").

Mark wrote:"This loudness war stems from the illusion that, all things being equal, louder sounds better,"

This is not an illusion, it's a fact.

"However, the natural dynamic and life of music is being drastically sacrificed."

I thought we were keeping all things equal?

Agreed, Mark. read: "the impression is that, all else being equal, louder sounds better."


fwiw, yes the article doesn't go into clarifying over-compression, or clipping per se, or drum replacement, or obviously that Death Magnetic's damage for CD was done in mixing - with artist approval.

While I had limited input (no pun intended) and we weren't sure if it would be open for added comments, the writer, Andrew, did have a strict word limit and asked to use a few bits of mine quoted from an older piece in which I make it clear that compression, itself, is not "evil"; a piece which begins: "this issue's been done to death so let's get it over with and get back to the music".

One major upside, however, with mp3 having become a euphemism for digital music, it might be celebrated that such a thing as "much higher quality than CDs and MP3s" even gains a mention in a national publication, along with any discussion of dynamic range, to a broader music-listener base. I'd encourage letters to The Australian to keep the issue running in the public eye, but it's perhaps a little late now.

In any case, while there's little new there for those already in the know, the article seeks a completely different (and necessary) target audience.

Yanto wrote:While you can argue about certain points in the article, I guess it's good it's getting out into public debate: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/ar ... 6054893862

With regard to peak level measurements & commercials... I remember that too. Take it up with the ACMA – they rely on complaints actually being made re Codes of Practice before any action or investigation can be taken:
http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/pc=PC_90096

http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/1001/pc=PC_311577

Hey Adam, I agree with you on most points and certainly understand the limitation of the article, I guess that's the art of writing succinctly.

In regards to the loudness of adverts, unless the advertisement is determined (by some known entity) to be
a) excessively noisy or strident
b) or found to be exploiting the sensitivities of human hearing to again be excessively noisy or strident
then it's perfectly acceptable.

I wrote my master's thesis on perceived loudness of broadcast material in which I spent a good amount of time researching loudness in television ads. In regards to complaints, they refer to the legislation detailed below.

"Many countries have introduced legislation to try to control the broadcast loudness problem. The Australian Broadcasting Authority begun an investigation into loud advertisements following a private members' bill dubbed The Quieter Advertising Happier Homes Bill. ‘The authority has ordered commercial television broadcasters to come up with a code’ ‘to be included in the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice’ that would ‘provide that broadcasters must do everything reasonably possible to ensure that advertisements do not sound louder than adjacent programming’ (Banham 2002, p. 1). The authority also directed the then governing body the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations (FACTS) to provide ‘clear limits’ on the use of common techniques used to increase perceived loudness including compression, limiting and equalisation. FACTS was later replaced by Commercial Television Australia (Free TV).

In January 2007, Free TV Australia released an Operational Practice [OP] document, OP-48, to the media which was centred on ‘Audio Levels and Loudness’. It set out the requirements for television advertisements (commercials) in relation to audio levels and loudness’ (‘FreeTV Australia Operational Practice OP-48’ 2007, p. 1). It applies to all television commercials, regardless of delivery format covering both digital and analogue. It requires that producers of commercials comply with the OP ‘as a condition of acceptance for broadcast’ (‘Free TV Australia Operational Practice OP-48’ 2007, p. 1). In considering loudness, the OP highlights the ‘correct alignment of audio levels’ and the ‘careful management of dynamic range and spectral content’ as ‘key factors in preventing extreme variations in loudness’ (‘Free TV Australia Operational Practice OP-48’ 2007, p. 1).

In addressing alignment levels, the OP states that ‘commercials must be preceded by a one kilohertz tone having a constant relationship to and representing the normal level of the audio material the follows it’ (‘Free TV Australia Operational Practice OP-48’ 2007, p. 1). In analogue systems this tone will equate to 0dBVU, in digital systems -20dBFS.

The OP does not discourage the use of compression, rather it states that it ‘should be used appropriately throughout the production process to constrain the dynamic range of vocal and music tracks to produce a controlled and consistent sound track [emphasis added]’ (‘Free TV Australia Operational Practice OP-48’ 2007, p. 2). However, the ‘aggressive use of compression’ (that is commonly used to increase the apparent loudness of advertisements), ‘must not be used for the purposes of producing excessively noisy or strident material’ (‘Free TV Australia Operational Practice OP-48’ 2007, p. 2). Audio limiting (commonly referred to simply as ‘limiting’) is also not discouraged and is highlighted in the OP as a ‘useful tool that can prevent distortion’ and in a similar fashion to compression ‘must not be used for the purposes of producing excessively noisy or strident material’ (‘Free TV Australia Operational Practice OP-48’ 2007, p. 2).

As detailed earlier, the human hearing system does not perceive all frequencies with equal amplitude. The auditory canal alone provides a boost of over 10dB to frequencies centred on 4.5kHz (Everest 2001, p. 45). The OP addresses this phenomenon by stating that the ‘alteration of the spectral response of the audio system [through the application of equalisation] to emphasize those frequencies to which the ear is most sensitive, must not be used for the purposes of producing excessively noisy or strident material’ (‘Free TV Australia Operational Practice OP-48’ 2007, p. 2).

Riedmiller et al. (2003) found that an increase in subjective loudness of ‘two to three decibels’ above the previously determined comfortable reference level is enough to move a programme out of a listener’s Comfort Zone, and perhaps into the ‘excessively noisy’ area. Moreover, listeners are extremely sensitive to changes in dialogue levels, agreeing ‘...with each other to within 1dB’ (Riedmiller et al. 2003, p. 6). Thus quantifying what constitutes as ‘excessively noisy’ and ‘strident’ may prove difficult and will certainly yield disagreement amongst viewers when dealing with sounds such as footsteps (Riedmiller et al. 2003, p. 6)."

(Bassett, 2010).

The subsequent AES paper can be found here: https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/conve ... elib=15340

oh wait a minute ,hang on ...


nah... its alright

i thought i cared about tv regulations for a minute

then i remembered i dont


mark when did you become all complicated and broody ?

Is this a trick question? When I heard my first Cure record?

arhh good
he's back

Mark wrote:Is this a trick question? When I heard my first Cure record?

best response I've seen in a long time...

Mark wrote:In regards to the loudness of adverts, unless the advertisement is determined (by some known entity) to be
a) excessively noisy or strident
b) or found to be exploiting the sensitivities of human hearing to again be excessively noisy or strident
then it's perfectly acceptable.

I wrote my master's thesis on perceived loudness of broadcast material in which I spent a good amount of time researching loudness in television ads. In regards to complaints, they refer to the legislation detailed below.

Thanks for posting those details, Mark. I suppose it's worth noting for others that (to the best of my knowledge – correct me if I'm wrong) the ABA (now the ACMA) since made the Codes of Practice and its terms legally binding, where they were previously guidelines. Additionally, the Codes (which are different for community, commercial and government broadcasters) are complementary and additional to a licence as part of the Broadcasting Services Act (1992). So the onus is on viewers/listeners making formal complaints to activate any process. This was highlighted well by Media Watch a few months ago in relation to Code breaches wrt content and political imbalance.

Mark wrote:Yeah, ads have the same maximum peak level as programs. That MUST mean they have the same loudness right?

Still, what do you expect from that show, really?

Suffice to say they were back on it again, citing peak level within regulatory limits (tested only between 6-8pm, ie louder prime time programming anyway):
http://aca.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8267504

(And no I generally don't watch it either. I think I recall a time when 60 Minutes was a little more different than ACA).

Horseshit. How much money did they waste making that story?

My guess would be they didn't waste any money. Their business is making news magazine stories, they made one. The only part of the story that seemed improbable to me is that someone would bother muting the tv every time the ads came on.

Compression makes things seem louder is hardly a surprise, an untruth, or any type of animal shit.

I mute adds daily so I guess I have a "hearing problem". Actually i have a "listening problem".