[Don Hills]

Another reason for iTunes not wanting clipped input is that the encoding and eventual decoding process can result in "digital overs", where the decoded output can exceed 0dBFS. If the DAC digital output filter and/or the analogue stage don't have the headrooom to cope with this, additional clipping distortion can be generated.

 

[TheSonicTruth]

Another reason for iTunes not wanting clipped input is that the encoding and eventual decoding process can result in "digital overs", where the decoded output can exceed 0dBFS. If the DAC digital output filter and/or the analogue stage don't have the headrooom to cope with this, additional clipping distortion can be generated.

Which should be common sense!

I can't believe the production of digital audio has DEVOLVED to this state, where constant overs and clipping are condoned in the industry! All in the name of having the loudest CD or downloads. There are a lot of good and talentd acts out there today, but there's a difference between being talented and just plain DUMB. Have artistst and labels forgotten that volume controls still exist??

And engineers are equally complicit - for violating basic principles of digital audio production just to keep a paycheck coming in! We need more Bob Katz in this industry and less dogs rolling over.

This abuse of the best audio format of the last 100 years is no wonder that listeners are again seeking out vinyl records and tables to play them on. And you engineers can going saying the vinyl movement is just a "hipster phase", or a "nostalgia thing" for middle-aged and older music fans. Yes, there are those factors, but DON'T completely dismiss sound quality as a significant factor in the re-emergence of analog formats. Even cassette albums of select current releases are becoming available.

There's a reason you are called ENGINEERS. You are disciplined in a specific field or set of fields, with training on fundamental techniques to turn out a quality finished product. What if you were building highway bridges? Would you state that it's ok to regularly exceed the maximum design load even if you know the consequences? Same principle applies to digital media production.

As for me I appreciate the jagged peaks on my mid-1990s and earlier CDs. At least I know everything's there! The way digital audio was intended to be, and why early CD players had as much as 2V maximum outputs. They were loud enough, as long as basic digital production principles were adhered to when making albums or transfering legacy ones.

 

[gregorio]

Essentially we're making a mastering-engineer-in-the-box. How much we could expect such an algorithm, blessed by the industry, to avoid the same pressures that the actual engineers are facing now, I'm not sure.

That's not going to happen. In practice, mastering engineers do not just slap on a compressor and dial up the make-up gain. Typically there's at least one compressor, often more than one, plus a limiter and, the response of those compressors and limiters are very carefully set for each track. And, by "response" I don't just mean make-up gain but attack shape and duration, hold, ratios, release shape and duration, etc., there are loads of potential parameters and additionally, loads more parameters for dynamic EQs and multi-band compressions. These parameters are adjusted to create a "character" and creating a bespoke character for each track/album is what makes mastering an art rather than a simple turn the knob to 11 exercise. This is why some mastering engineers can't charge more than $100 to master an album and others can charge many thousands. Some mastering engineers still use vintage analogue compressors or limiters specifically because of their character, in fact, in top class condition, a vintage compressor can go for as much as $40,000! This is a specialist job, requiring specialist equipment, specialist skills and specialist monitoring environments, this is why there are mastering engineers in the first place and why artists making commercial releases always use them! Artist's are not going to sell a piece of unfinished art, and if finishing their art were just a case of choosing some generic compressor preset, why wouldn't the artists or producers be doing that themselves, instead of paying many thousands to a mastering engineer to do it?

Furthermore, the above ignores the fact that much/most of the compression as already been applied during mixing. Note that I specifically said DURING mixing and NOT AFTER mixing and that means that there is no mix without compression! The artists couldn't give/sell you a mix without compression even if they wanted to (and they definitely don't!). To go back to the stage before compression was added, effectively means to go back to the stage before the mix was started, in other words, effectively a hard disk of raw takes rather than an actual coherent piece of music!

BTW, my use of "you" is more in the sense of the plural, to those erroneously clamoring for compression free recordings, rather RRod specifically. Where it's appropriate, most classical and other purely acoustic genres, you're already getting compression free recordings or at least, so lightly compressed you wouldn't notice. And lastly, the analogy with TV and/or films doesn't work!! Films are not compressed (or use very light compression) and TV is compressed but compression in TV and film is relatively straight forward, just some basic settings with a compressor/limiter which is as transparent as possible. There's no creating compression/limiting "character", certainly no expensive "characterful" vintage compressors and there are no mastering engineers in TV or film! So, no big artistic issue with slapping on a generic built-in compressor for a particular listening situation in TV/Film, although we'd prefer that it wasn't employed as it can have some unwanted/unintended impacts.

G

 

[71 dB]

And engineers are equally complicit - for violating basic principles of digital audio production just to keep a paycheck coming in! We need more Bob Katz in this industry and less dogs rolling over.

I don't know about your priorities, but I think paychecks are far more important than dynamic CDs. Why should audio engineers sacrifice their livelihood for you to have your dinosaur rock dynamic? We need an anti-dumbing-down society where high quality dynamic sound is appreciated by masses and audio engineers are asked to produce that to their best capabilities.

 

[TheSonicTruth]

I don't know about your priorities, but I think paychecks are far more important than dynamic CDs. Why should audio engineers sacrifice their livelihood for you to have your dinosaur rock dynamic? We need an anti-dumbing-down society where high quality dynamic sound is appreciated by masses and audio engineers are asked to produce that to their best capabilities.

"Why should audio engineers sacrifice
their livelihood for you to have your dinosaur
rock dynamic?"

If you want to earn my respect, keep statements like ^that out of the dialogue.

As far as 'dumb-down society' goes, that's a thread unto its own. In the musical sense, those limited and squashed late-90s remasters of legacy albums were advertised as 'new & improved', dangled in front of consumers' noses like carrots, and they bought into it. So there are two parties complicit in the dumbing down of any society: A seller with a product, and a body of consumers who failed to THINK of the pluses and minuses before adopting it. You appear to be from another country, surely an outside observer of how the American government managed to convince its citizens that Saddam Hussen and Iraq were somehow responsible for the 9/11 attacks on NY and Washington - even though most of those terrorists themselves were Saudi-born! And at that time, a majority(not including me!) believed it, and a sovereign nation was destroyed based upon pure quackery! People. Just. Don't. Think.


It's the same principle with selling music: Convince the public that they need remastered versions of music and movies, or studio-grade resolution to hear them back. Then crank up the color of the movies, and smash the CD sound super loud, and sell as "better than before". BS!


Knowledge(most anyway) in this internet age, is free and readily available, even on a Sunday in a town where the libraries are all closed. Right on that internet tablet. It's how, ten years ago, I learned the real nature of what was being sold as 'remastered', and began the process of rejecting it and making changes accordingly to my music collection. And I get comments all the time from people who visit us: "Hey Sonic, how come your mp3s of the same songs sound better than mine?" "What's your secret?" And then they see my CD collection: few or no remastered versions, mostly original, first generation releases. Knowledge passes on. People learn to reject that carrot in front of them.

 

[gregorio]

So there are two parties complicit in the dumbing down of any society: A seller with a product, and a body of consumers who failed to THINK of the pluses and minuses before adopting it.

Exactly, so why are you blaming a third party? The engineer who built that product to the seller's specifications?!!!

G

 

[OddE]

The paragraph actually ends:
"While some feel that overly loud mastering ruins music by not giving it room to breathe, others feel that the aesthetic of loudness can be an appropriate artistic choice for particular songs or
albums."

And, of course, the prime example would quite possibly be Iggy and the Stooges' "Raw Power". Loudness Wars database entry for one of the releases attached below.

 

[RRod]

This is a specialist job, requiring specialist equipment, specialist skills and specialist monitoring environments, this is why there are mastering engineers in the first place and why artists making commercial releases always use them! Artist's are not going to sell a piece of unfinished art, and if finishing their art were just a case of choosing some generic compressor preset, why wouldn't the artists or producers be doing that themselves, instead of paying many thousands to a mastering engineer to do it?

Right, one rationale behind my posts was to get people thinking about just what it means to 'end the loudness wars' from various possible angles of attack. The 'automatic compression' angle is rife with potential problems, perhaps none bigger than what artists and their handlers expect from their own music these days.

 

[bigshot]

I can't believe the production of digital audio has DEVOLVED to this state, where constant overs and clipping are condoned in the industry!

It's a double edged sword. It's possible now for just about anyone to put together a home studio and record a record. That is good because musicians who probably wouldn't have had an opportunity to record in the past can make their own album in their living room or garage studio. The bad part is that DIY freedom also means that they aren't hiring professional recording engineers. They're grabbing performances on the fly and sometimes they aren't getting everything down perfectly clean. It's pretty much only an issue with pop music, but it can also affect big name bands who want to go back to their roots and make a down and dirty record themselves. This isn't an issue in other genres of music. The quality of engineering in classical music and jazz is higher than it's ever been.

Where it's appropriate, most classical and other purely acoustic genres, you're already getting compression free recordings or at least, so lightly compressed you wouldn't notice.

That's because hall ambience and mike placement are accomplishing natural compression. The closer the mike the more compression is required.

By the way, does anyone really think that Iggy Pop didn't want his music heavily compressed? That's the aesthetic they were going for.

 

[castleofargh]

It's a double edged sword. It's possible now for just about anyone to put together a home studio and record a record. That is good because musicians who probably wouldn't have had an opportunity to record in the past can make their own album in their living room or garage studio. The bad part is that DIY freedom also means that they aren't hiring professional recording engineers. They're grabbing performances on the fly and sometimes they aren't getting everything down perfectly clean. It's pretty much only an issue with pop music, but it can also affect big name bands who want to go back to their roots and make a down and dirty record themselves. This isn't an issue in other genres of music. The quality of engineering in classical music and jazz is higher than it's ever been.



That's because hall ambience and mike placement are accomplishing natural compression. The closer the mike the more compression is required.

By the way, does anyone really think that Iggy Pop didn't want his music heavily compressed? That's the aesthetic they were going for.

Iggy is an advocate of the untouched sound like you're with the artist, he explained it clearly years ago:

So messed up I want you here
In my room I want you here
Now we're gonna be face to face
And I'll lay right down In my favorite place

 

[bigshot]

He said he was a fan of brick wall compression applied by those dum dum engineers!

Now I'm looking for
The dum dum boys
The walls close in and
I need some noise

 

[OddE]

By the way, does anyone really think that Iggy Pop didn't want his music heavily compressed? That's the aesthetic they were going for.

-That was kind of, sort of my point.

It is a stellar album in which compression-to-death, dynamics-be-damned, everything-goes-to-eleven is utilised to great artistic effect, clipping pretty much from the first chord to the last, even.

And yet, I doubt anybody who've ever listened to the album would have wanted it any other way.

Heck, I'll put it on right now. Just got to go get a beer first. (Past 8PM in my neck of the woods)

 

[71 dB]

You appear to be from another country, surely an outside observer of how the American government managed to convince its citizens that Saddam Hussen and Iraq were somehow responsible for the 9/11 attacks on NY and Washington - even though most of those terrorists themselves were Saudi-born! And at that time, a majority(not including me!) believed it, and a sovereign nation was destroyed based upon pure quackery! People. Just. Don't. Think.

Yeah, it may seem surprising, but there are people living outside your country, more than 20 times the population of your country in fact. You can clearly see where I am from and sometimes we "outside observers" can see better than the average Joe of your country what's going on, because we aren't brainwashed by bought corporate media only.

However, dumbing-down culture isn't a problem only in your country. Loudness war is international. Finnish pop is just as clipped as American pop and Finnish teenagers use the same iPhones to listen to music. People don't think enough anywhere in the world!

 

[amirm]

I enjoy your posts too amirm. You have done a good job of explaining your position.

You know it's just that when I read posts like someone linked from Rob Watts, about the benefits 200-300db of noise level (and why stop there, why not 500db?), I choke. When you do the (basic) math, and realize what is being said/written, well hopefully you can see why some are dubious when it gets into the 120db range. The numbers really don't convey the extremes being talked about.

Thanks Darren. As to Rob Watts, he gives a new meaning to the word "overboard." At RMAF I sat in his presentation and it was mostly good until he got into number of taps, distortions down in -200 db and such. Sadly he says he doesn't believe in blind listening tests so I can see how he has followed that path unimpeded.

 

[amirm]

SPL charts like this are all in reference to peak SPL since average SPLs can vary widely based on the variety of quietest sounds.

No. They may think they are telling you "peak" numbers but that is not what they are. True peak values may last a PCM sample or two. As such, you need to capture the audio and have a microphone that you know has no limiting.
Random pointing of an SPL meter at sound may not apply I am afraid.

I mean really. You don't even know who came up with those numbers yet you are defending their exact nature???

Here is Fielder talking about how majority of such numbers come from average SPLs:

Rest of the paragraph below.

Do you include the parts of the singer talking to the audience when averaging a rock concert?

What? Of course not. For determination of peak SPL, you want peak loudness. What does your question has to do with that? Peak is peak. It is the absolute loudest something gets because that is what we need to store in our digital samples. We then need to allow for quietest sound we can hear and that sets the lowest level. Take the ratio of these two, express it in log db numbers and you have your dynamic range.

It's a grey area, so people refer directly to peak. Look closely at the 105db number for classical music, its says during “loud passages”. That means peak. I

No, it means nothing because it is not a proper study. A random survey does not make for scientific data. You are just going by anecdotal data that serves your point of view. I understand that but for heaven's sake, you can't dismiss authoritative, peer reviewed study for this specific purpose and chase random charts like that. We would all be dead if the medical industry researched drugs that way.

BTW, that study is filled with holes, I can’t understand why you treat it as the gold standard besides the selfish reason that its the only document in existence backing you up. For one thing, they made their very own SPL meter! Did they document how they designed it or calibrated it? Nope! This study lacks transparency, and its data is an outlier. It’s simply not valid, and has made very little attempt to establish its own validity.

Oh really? Where is there calibration data for the list you provided?

You haven't even read the paper yet have all of these objections? Here is the paragraph before what I quoted to you on the work that others had done prior to Fielder doing his own work:

This is a 17 page paper has a whopping 67 references at the end. Here is the last ones:

It ends with his bio at the time:

I have not only read all of his papers but a bunch of the underlying research he references. You have read what on this topic? Some random things you googled???

Answering your question anyway, that data is in another peer reviewed paper in J. AES by Fielder references in the above paper:

There is tons and tons of detail in the papers.

Really, you have not post one line of authoritative research like this. Nor has anyone else who is complaining. Now that you have the real data, it is time to show that you care about learning about audio science. Isn't that what we ask subjectivists to do? Yet when it is our turn we cling to anecdotal onliners online instead over real data???