[1]Now do correct me if I am wrong with the following interpretation, but I think loudness range refers to changes in loudness, perceived or actual, within a given piece of music? [1a] The swells of the chorus, the drop down during the verses?
[2] And loudness is more closely related to RMS, and more accurately to average loudness, which relates closer to how we actually hear, than it is related to peaks.
I'm not entirely sure I understand your description but it seems that you have it backwards. That's entirely understandable because the term dynamic range is rather poorly defined and in fact can mean several different things and additionally, the term "loudness" is very easily confused because although we all judge loudness and we all know what we and other people mean by "loudness", it isn't actually a "real" thing, it's a perception. We have to understand loudness first though because a definition of dynamic range depends on it:
Because loudness is a perception and not an actual property of sound waves, we can't measure it or rather, we couldn't measure it. Loudness is one of only very perceptions we can measure but this loudness measurement has only been available very recently and took many years of research. This research was basically the testing of numerous subjects for their judgement of loudness of various signals, collating all those judgements/responses along with other similar tests (dating back as far as the 1930s) to arrive at a mean/average response, then the design of a transfer function (type of filter) which we could apply to the sound waves to arrive at a measurement of loudness and then further human trials and tweaking of that transfer function until the measurement correlated with the perception of loudness. This transfer function and the resultant unit of loudness measurement (LUFS, Loudness Units relative to Full Scale) is defined in the EBU 3342 document to which the article refers and uses throughout.
This brings us to: What is dynamic range? As applied to music, "dynamic range" means; the range between the quietest note or bit of music and the loudest. This is where our measurement of loudness comes in; although I'm oversimplifying, "Loudness Range" (abbreviated to LRA) is essentially the range between the loudest sound and the quietest sound and therefore is essentially the same as "dynamic range".
With all this in mind, let's look at your statements:
1. Loudness range refers to the range of perceived loudnesses, within a given piece of music. There is no actual loudness, only perceived loudness.
1a. Loudness range is measured using a constant sequence of 3 second windows, so it not only measures variations between say choruses and verses but loudness variations within choruses and verses.
2. This is the part which appears to be backwards. The RMS measurement measures levels; the average voltage level over a given period of time/piece of music, it does NOT measure loudness and isn't directly related to how we hear at all, which is why we had to develop a measurement (LUFS) specifically to "relate closer to how we actually hear"!
[1] One of the things I gleaned from it was that while both dynamic range of recorded music went down, and amount of dynamics compression(DRC) went up, from 1990 to 2010, one item did not change significantly: something referred to in the article as "Loudness Range".
[2] Based on if my understanding of loudness range is correct, my takeaway from that is that there has been, over the last two decades, as much increased peak-limiting going on as there has been DRC. And while just peak limiting and applied makeup gain raises the entire measured RMS for a song, it does not affect changes in the loudness built into the musical arrangement: the softer verses and louder refrains, for example.
[3] All that said, I guess I am a 'peak preservationist' as well ...
1. This is where we run into the problem of different definitions of dynamic range. In addition to the common musical definition of dynamic range (range between what we hear as the quietest and loudest bits of music), the term "dynamic range" is also used as an audio engineering measurement: The range from the smallest voltage to the largest voltage. However, as before, voltage levels are not directly related to how we hear. In other words we should rephrase your statement to read: "
One of the things I gleaned from it was that while both the "dynamic range" of average voltage levels went down, and amount of DRC went up, from 1990 to 2010 "dynamic range" (LRA, what we hear as the range of quietest to loudness) did not change significantly"!
2. I'll deal with peak limiting below. I'm not sure if the rest of your statement is accurate, due to the wording, so I'll rephrase to clarify: What effectively happened with the new popular music genres, from around the early 1990's onwards, is that they were specifically composed/arranged to have a very large/extreme amount of DRC applied. For example, the verses are made deliberately far too quiet/sparse and the louder refrains very dense/loud. When very heavy compression/limiting is applied the verses become much louder, the refrains remain roughly the same or marginally quieter and the DESIRED/INTENDED dynamic range is achieved. What the article demonstrates is that these compositional techniques + very heavy/extreme compression results in a dynamic range which is broadly identical to the dynamic range of earlier popular music genres (which did not employ these compositional techniques + such extreme compression)! Hopefully now, you realise there's an obvious, serious problem if we just say "no extreme compression": With no heavy/extreme compression the compositional techniques which actually define most modern genres cannot be used and therefore these genres cannot exist!!
3. I'm afraid if you want to listen to music, you can't be! Even back in the early/mid 1960's, compressing/limiting peaks was essential, the instruments simply wouldn't sound as expected/desired if they weren't, particularly those with the biggest peaks, such as a drumkit for example. Compressing/limiting/shaping peaks is almost mandatory for virtually every instrument in a rock/pop song, although different instruments require different compression types, settings and amounts. In acoustic music genres, such as classical music, we don't have to specifically apply much or any peak compression/limiting, because it's already been applied (by the distance/air and acoustic absorption and reflections of the recording venue) before the sound waves hit the microphones. Whatever music you're listening to, "preserving the peaks" is almost always either very unnatural, very undesirable or both!
So in mastering, a balance must be achieved, based on the individual project, genre, and yes, client demand for loudness, etc, of how much DRC goes on vs how much peak limiting.
Yes but that's only a part of what mastering is. For example, it's the mastering engineers job to check for and fix errors, to apply EQ and other enhancements so that the intentions of the producer/artists actually work in practice for the target audience rather than only in the production/mix studio. And even with compression, there are numerous different types and settings. Some compressors/limiters effectively compress transparently but most have a particular character, they add some sort of additional distortion (often non-linear), colouration or flavour. Often, two or more different compressors are used during mastering, for a combination of flavours/colourations and some of the most prized vintage mastering compressors/limiters can go for as much as $50,000. For this and the other reasons mentioned, the suggestion of not applying compression and letting consumers "do it themselves" is simply impractical/impossible and musically highly undesirable, and no commercial artist/producer would allow such a mix to be released.
G
