Talk:Loudness war/Archive 2

message: Dolby Digital has a defined and calibrated reference playback level and the DTS track will also follow this. It therefore is beneficial that the high resolution DVD-Audio soundtrack will be produced at the same reference level - and this indeed is normally the case.
As far as I'm aware, there is no agreed reference listening/playback level in the music industry. Enescot 20:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't. But Dolby Digital (and DTS) come from the movie industry - where there is a defined reference level. That reference level has been transferred across to the AC3 soundtracks on DVD-Audio releases, and is roughly equivalent to the 89dB de-facto standard applied by ReplayGain (and the de-facto reference level from the mid to late 1980s on CDs). Squirrel 21:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that reference level is the volume that Dolby film soundtracks are produced at in a dubbing theatre. What meaning does reference level have for DVD-Audio? What is the reference level you refer to for CD's? Enescot 17:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Wouldn't the RMS level of a CD depend on the content of the disc? For instance, I have a recording of Stravinsky's 'The Firebird', and this has quite a low average volume but the peak volume is very high - i.e. the recording has a large dynamic range. Would it be possible for you to explain what MP3Gain means when it reports those RMS levels? I'm more familiar with levels reported with reference to digital full-scale, 0 dB FS. Enescot 19:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would do - classical has a very wide dynamic range, so the RMS level will as a result have to be lower if the peaks aren't to clip. MP3Gain also has a "max no clip" value, on many 80s recordings the RMS level is 89dB and the max no clip is 0db - which means the full 10dB of headroom is being used. Squirrel 19:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a look at the wiki article on ReplayGain and now I understand that the loudness value in ReplayGain has a different meaning to signal levels relative to digital full-scale. Thanks for all the info. Enescot 19:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dolby reference level 

message: Possible Solutions
* The adoption of a common alignment level and enforcement by audio standards organizations. For example, the European Broadcast Union standards call for 18dB of headroom.
I'm not sure whether this is taken in the appropriate context. I thought that this -18 dB digital full-scale level was chosen to correspond to 0 dB level on the EBU IEC 268-10 PPM display. This meter would be used when making recordings using a digital recorder. I don't think that it is meant to be used (-18 dB FS) as a peak or rms maximum level on subsequent production (e.g. renormalization, compression or limiting) of that recording. Enescot 17:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  18 dB headroom 

message: I don't know if this is of any value, but Barenaked Ladies hits album, Disc One is an example of a remaster with an excessive amount of clipping and compression - particularly on tracks from their first (and progressively less on subsequent) CD from '92 which is notably lower in overall volume, and less compressed (similar for their 94 and 96 albums). If it's of any interest (especially because it's an example where both the original songs and the remaster were originally CDs as opposed to vinyl being remastered for CD, I could make screengrabs of the waveforms from that album if anyone thinks it would be a helpful example. TheHYPO 04:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another example? 

message: I removed the release date from the following line:
: "The first image is taken from the original 1981 Polydor CD release, where there is no clipping or distortion, and a good deal of headroom."
The CD hit the Asian market in late 1982. So I don't doubt that the image was taken from the original release of the CD. But that can't have been in 1981.
Unfortunately I was not able to research the original release date.
CaptainZapp 09:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put the dates back in. A bit of research will give you the original release date - 30th November 1981. It took me less than 30 seconds to find this information - see http://www.abbasite.com/music/album.php?id=25 Squirrel 16:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've amended the dates!  The CaptainZapp post was correct - CDs were NOT available in 1981.  This is when the album was first released on LP vinyl.  It took a lot of googling to actually get any site to specify media release dates.  Most just say released 1981 without specifying.  AMG would have us beleive this album didn't make CD until 1991!  The Wikipedia Visitors page says it was one of the first CDs but doesn't say when.  Finally found http://abba-world.server101.com/discs/albums/lpvisitors.htm which in the absence of other references I'll take as accurate in giving 1983 for the CD.  This is still very early, CD's didn't hit the shops properly until 1984.  Anyone got some definitive info?   Reszerve 01:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm changing the dates back again with some text to clarify. It was also released on cassette (and maybe even 8-track?) in 1981. The album was recorded digitally whilst CD was being developed (and the engineers had the then-new CD format in mind). It's a 1981 album, if the CD release came a little later that's a different matter. Squirrel 15:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abba CD could not have been released in 1981 

message: Gentlemen, this page constitutes a violation of policy guidelines in many respects: External links, NPOV, conflict of interest, and rampant corporate promotion and advertisement. Wikipedia is not a forum to express your personal views or opinions. If you disagree, you need to speak out and state your reasons as to why WP needs this article page. If you fail to so, the article will be deleted. Jrod2 21:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the talk page: there has been a long standing controversy over NPOV with this article. Please be more specific about the offenses (corporate promotion? conflict of interest? what?!) and please take into consideration the work that has already been done before lambasting it. This article is very useful because it describes a phenomenon very prevalent in popular music mastering, as our references indicate. A lot of work has gone into keeping this article NPOV, and I feel that the current article represents the facts rather than opinions. Since you, being an audio engineer, are knowledgeable about this subject, I would ask that you do your best to enhance this article rather than tear it down. Illuminatedwax 22:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Definitely, this is a valid article that objectively describes an actual fad in the music industry. The reason this article is objective is because the subject matter it describes can be measured ( via waveforms ), so it's silly to suggest that this article be deleted. WACGuy 00:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me remind you all that WP is not a indiscriminate collection of external links and an opportunity to promote names and commercial websites. Read " Conflict of Interests" and "Links to be Avoided" . Several reference links on this article, violates pretty much almost all 13 rules! And, although rule #13 states "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article", all these so called "supporting link references" listed by  all of you, are nothing but articles written AFTER the creation of this WP "Loudness War" article page. Raising the concern that because of Wikipedia, this "Loudness War" is becoming notable and verifiable in the first place. The only way this article could advert deletion is if: 1/ All external links to said interviews, are gone 2/ All names and claims of owning the word "Loudness War", GONE. 3/ Rename the article to something a lame person can understand, or be able to make a correlation. I suggest: Music Compression, Over-compression or Hyper-compression. 4/ If you prefer, I will be happy to put this on review to both my Anti-Spam and Counter-vandalism Unit. The choice is yours. Please let me know if we can arrive at a compromise.Jrod2 05:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So clean the links.. :) --Kjoonlee 05:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per Kjoonlee, I have started the clean up. I realize that it would take me all night to sort it all through, make revisions, and link clean ups. But, I started with the first sections on top. I urge all of you to comment on my revisions and improve it if you like, but bringing back the links, will have to have a very good argument. So please, proceed with caution. Thanks for your attention .Jrod2 06:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  Only some of the links you marked as "spam" are spam. What's wrong with pointing to a Mix Magazine article if it is perfectly relevant to the topic and (as I see it) pretty much free of advertising? That's a very important article that shows industry opinion. Even if it was made after the WP article, there's no reference of WP in the article. I'm putting the references back after editing them. I agree with you about some of the links, though, especially some added after May 10. I also kept a lot of your copy changes. I am keeping the mrichter post about the death of dynamic range, because it provides a more in-depth look at the visual section of the article, and adds rather than detracts from the article, and isn't really spam. Illuminatedwax 07:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Mix magazine article was written on December 1, 2005. "Loudness War" was created on December 31, 2005 and the external link was also added on that date. That's a month exactly to the date of the creation (See: ) This was the only contribution this user {Mirror Vax) did to "Loudness War" (See: his contributions). Next, he went elsewhere at WP to link the article page to other WP pages, so in other words, he had an agenda and it's all consistent to the job of a good sock puppet. A quick history of the person that posted the link {Mirror Vax) indicates a pattern of bad behavior. See his block history. The point really is that the possibility of that Mix Mag article being put there to spam WP is very probable. Who would be interested? It wouldn't be impossible to believe that it could be either the publication, or the engineer that is being featured. So, why take chances? If, even after I've said all this, you still don't get it, then for the last time, read " Conflict of Interests" and "Links to be Avoided" Bye. Jrod2 16:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This kind of crap is why I quit Wikipedia. This busybody, Jrod2, comes in with his baseless accusations and tries to destroy other people's work (flawed, to be sure), either out of sheer stupidity or malice, or some combination. And it's people like jrod2 who run Wikipedia. Mirror Vax 02:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mirror Vax, are you the kind of person who goes to a movie theater to watch a show, and once the show is over,  sneaks in to another one only to catch few minutes before the end? Why don't you read all the comments before assuming all that? I actually ended up contributing to this article, making it read more comprehensibly (So far, no one has reverted anything). Nothing of relevance has been deleted either, and your name was not smeared with false accusations. The Loudness war is doing just fine and several users promised to make sure it remains free of nonsense. So, congratulations on your contribution to WP and come back, don't be a sour-puss :-). Jrod2 05:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm confused...was it some other Jrod2 who tried to delete this article, and accused me of being a "sockpuppet", spammer, etc. without the slightest bit of evidence? Are those not your words above? Mirror Vax 00:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. So, for the record, I no longer feel that way about you or the article. I guess your absence after the posting of your Mix Mag link, made me a bit too suspicious. Sorry about that. Have a good one. Jrod2 04:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page has been Proded 

message: Hi, we need to use free & open source software to take screenshots. We can only upload screenshots of non-free programs onto articles about the programs themselves. --Kjoonlee 04:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I could supply screenshots that would never be subject to copyright violations. However, I don't want to do it so that later on, somebody comes back to revert. Jrod2 00:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Another thing, If WACGuy objects, then I won't do this. You would have to win the argument (And I do see your concern), however, that's not in my view, a priority. Besides, you should give him the chance to amend all that himself. BTW, I don't feel partcular about your choice for "levelling" over "leveling", but since we are in America, I thought we should keep it all American English. I am not opposed to British English, though. Cheers --Jrod2 00:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry. Be bold in updating pages. BTW, I like to keep titles the way the author wrote them. I don't have a preference for British/American English in titles. --Kjoonlee 03:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No problem Kjoonlee. I will try my best to keep all your suggestions in mind. As for editing the text, I am not sure, but I think there is still much to be phrased or arranged in a way that is easier to understand. Don't you think? Thanks for your comment. Jrod2 04:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whoa! Why was I singled out here? I post a couple of comments and already I've made enemies? I hope not! WACGuy 06:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it's because you were the "original author," so to speak. Here's another reason not to worry: nobody owns articles or images at Wikipedia. WP:OWNERSHIP. --Kjoonlee 10:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wasn't the author of anything, and I feel awkward that my opinion would prevent Jrod2 from supplying screenshots, which I'd actually support (did I misunderstand?). All I contributed to this article was adding my own screenshots to provide visual proof for the popular examples that asked for citation. However those screenshots were taken from proprietary software, but the intent was to demonstrate the waveform not the software. Again, I was just surprised that I received such attention for contributing so little to this article.WACGuy 17:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  True, but maybe Jrod2 felt he needed to get your permission to replace images that you had uploaded... or am I misunderstanding something..? --Kjoonlee 17:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples need to be redone 

message: From a request at WP:3O. Summary: No.
*The section name, Popular Examples is bad already. Who says these examples are popular?
*Most of the sources were forums and other self-published media. These are not reliable sources, and should be removed.
*Though citation needed tags were present, one must be very careful with statements about active music groups, akin to statements about living persons.  Only when a reliable source can be found, a group should be listed.
*Because of the above, I have taken the liberty of applying some changes to the article, removing unsourced statements.
*The 3O request mentioned spam. I have looked at all the links, but I found none particularly fitting the definition of spam. Most were unreliable indeed, and therefore should be (and were) removed. The external links section contains no spam as far as I can see.
*Another topic of interest is the amount of WP:OR in the article, which leads the reader to a WP:POINT. The waveform images are probably OR (unless licensed from a reliable source - I could not find such a thing on the image pages), and the comparison between original and re-mastered versions definitely is original research. Please remove it, or find a reliable source.
*Do not introduce "citation needed" and "original research?" tags in the article as a way to keep unsourced information in. If it is highly unlikely a reliable source can be found, just delete it, instead of applying a tag.
*Remove weasel words. The article contains unattributed statements (unsourced as well) like "Many mastering engineers claim..." (which mastering engineers claim?), "record label executives are said to be..." (who says they are?) and "Many renowned producers and engineers have expressed" (which renowned producers and engineers?).
--User:Krator (t c) 08:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Third Opinion

message: I am neither an engineer nor an audiophile, so I had to study the background of this dispute in the article history after seeing the listing on Wikipedia:Third opinion. 
The beginning of this thread cited user Illuminatedwax's  07:36, May 14 2007 (UTC) edit, which had "Re-adding links to authorities, other useful information, re-adding references list, removing most references for "Popular Examples" just for now" in the edit summary.  The changes in this edit (I might have missed some) included:
;Inline citations removed:
# "Mastering engineer Vlado Meller brutally distorted (Califonication) into gratituous, sustained clipping" at Airwindows Compact Disc Mastering
# "What do you all do with LOUD discs?" at Hydrogen Audio forum
;Inline citations not removed:
# www.petitiononline.com/RHCPWBCD/petition.html Petition to remaster Califonication  at PetitionOnline.com
# "Dynamics and Dynamic Range" at StereoPhile (page 1 of letters to the editor, commenting on John Atkinson's "As We See It" in December 1999)
# "Dynamics and Dynamic Range" at StereoPhile (page 2 of those letters)
# What's the worst DVD-A or SACD that you purchased? (stevehoffman.tv forum thread)
;References/external links removed from Popular examples section:
# David Bowie albums - (reference: one.fsphost.com/roiotrade/loud.html)
# Depeche Mode albums - (reference: brianstagg.co.uk pta clipressed) (reference: sharoma.com, trading/loudness
# Front Line Assembly album - (reference: side-line.com blog comments)
# John Mayer album - (reference: hydrogenaudio.org forums)
# Muse album -(reference: museabuse.com topic)
# Red Hot Chili Peppers albums - (reference: forum.doom9.org thread)
# Rush album - (reference: prorec.com article)
# Slayer album - (reference: hydrogenaudio.org forums)
;Two links added to External links section:
* 1. The Death of Dynamic Range (mrichter page mindspring.com)
:* The full title of the article is "The Death of Dynamic Range: A Chronology of the Compact Disc Loudness Wars."
:* A note on the mindspring page says it is a capture which is no longer available from http://rvcc2.raritanval.edu/ktek9053/cdpage/
:* The article analyses six albums from 1983, 1987, 1988, 1991, 1995 and 1999, followed by "The Radio Loudness Fallacy" section and additional examples in "Meanwhile, in Europe..."
:* End notes include: "Questions? Comments? Criticisms? Present them in the rec.audio.pro newsgroup, or e-mail me at: k e v t r o n i c s @ y a h o o . c o m  Disclaimer: I'm not a professional audio engineer, I only play one on TV."
* 2. The Big Squeeze: Mastering engineers debate music's loudness wars (MIX Professional Audio and Music Production magazine)
:* December 1, 2005 article by Sarah Jones, full title: "The Big Squeeze: Mastering Engineers Debate Music's Loudness Wars"
:* Note:  whether of not it is a reliable source, MIX online is cited in quite a few Wikipedia articles (Linksearch for *.mixonline.com)
I'm posting this to learn if I'm beginning to understand the genesis of the dispute as the two users involved see it.  — Athaenara  ✉  08:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, basically the entire dispute is over whether those last two references constitute link farming or spam Illuminatedwax 09:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The claim that "the entire dispute" is about "those last two references" is inaccurate.  You are editing the article too aggressively (WP:DE) while this editorial dispute is not yet unresolved.  You should refrain from that.  — Athaenara  ✉  10:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, I figured that since it's pretty clear none of the links are spam and that I didn't readd the two links that were removed from my changes that I pretty much had the go-ahead to implement a third party's (in this case Krator's) suggestions and remove the spam tags. Illuminatedwax 11:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per user Athaenara, I have tagged the article for removal of links that promote web sites and people's names. I also urge the contributors to the text, to improve on the definitions.Jrod2 16:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion (2)

message: I have reverted to the last concise, clean and spam free version I edited. I've also placed a waning tag to protect the page from further disruption by user Illuminatedwax. Removing this tag will land you at the Community Sanction Notice Board. Thanks for  your cooperation. Jrod2 17:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, real "protection" can only be done by admins. Also, please see WP:OWNERSHIP if you haven't done so already. --Kjoonlee 19:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't issue empty threats. The Community Sanction Notice Board is for requesting permanent bans; banned (not blocked) users are forever banned from editing Wikipedia; anyone who spots their edits can revert them on sight, by just saying the edits are from banned users. I don't think that you want people to get permabanned and reverted on sight just for disagreeing with you... --Kjoonlee 19:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Incorrect again, the Community Sanction Notice Board does block users (Not every guideline is set in stone, I guess). See my first case: . You should do research before making this kind of comments as well as supporting the inclusion of spam links. I am sorry Kjoonlee, but to the trained eyes,  your contribution history is being hampered by all of the latest actions committed by you. If you had only seen that is futile to have spam links, whether they are subtle or overt, supporting them and not working towards a suitable replacement, will be scrutinized when you apply for adminship (That's of course, if you ever want that). Good luck. Jrod2 18:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Not very convincing" again, IMHO. But tell me, where have I been incorrect before..? --Kjoonlee 18:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page has been protected 

message: The most obvious links that come to my attention for deletion are: Mix Magazine, for all the reasons listed above, and Stereophile magazine. Now, on the other hand, I believe we have plenty of references already, but for those who think it's not enough, you are welcome to propose links that: Do not mention an engineer's name and his website. If it mentions an engineer's name, then he must not be a living person. If you mention a website, it must be non-profit, i.e. org, learning institutes or a University page. These are my proposed links I find acceptable. Jrod2 07:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we only had links to non-profit pages, we would have no resources at all on Wikipedia. Please don't presume to be in a position to dictate policy. There is no reason to avoid mentioning engineers' names as it is necessary to avoid weasel words. There is no reason to remove resources because we "have enough already." There is no reason to remove the Mix Magazine and Stereophile or revert the changes I just made. Please, we've had like 4 other editors come on here and say that those links are not spam. Your proposition is unacceptable and it will hurt this article. Illuminatedwax 08:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, there is no reason to have this page in the first place. You just don't realize that a year from now, this page will be vandalized by every ME who has, from a web page in GeoCities to a fancy flash site, arguing that he has the right to be included in the article because he spoke about a "Loudness War" in such and such occasion, and all these interviews that prove their claims are going to pop out of nowhere. We don't need that at WP, OK? Either you see that this page meets these reference conditions, or better yet, I'll have no choice but to PROD it. Jrod2 12:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You've already prodded it and it was rejected. We've already removed any potentially unreliable sources like forums and non-notable user pages anyway, so your complaints are entirely unfounded. The engineers listed are notable in their field. Please don't threaten us with your made-up reference conditions (i.e. "non-profit"). Illuminatedwax 13:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Links to be avoided

message: A rather snide introductory paragraph could be written about the beginnings of the Loudness war, blaming station managers, program directors, and advertisers, all demanding of the engineering staff that the station has to "sound louder", and the gradual progression from an average modulation of 25% to 99%, and then having the record companies getting into the act, trying to make the records sound "more like radio", but I don't have any real source for it, and it would just be venting at those who used to be my bosses.  htom 20:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be neat if someone could get more resources about the broadcast history of loudness wars. I think we had someone a while back who wanted to write more about it but didn't. Illuminatedwax 21:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broadcast Beginnings 

message: Slashdot covered the loudness war today: http://slashdot.org/articles/07/06/09/0526201.shtml --Kjoonlee 06:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They covered it again, this time with the ieee.org link: http://science.slashdot.org/science/07/08/23/1219205.shtml --MinorContributor 17:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  From Slashdot 

message: I clipped these sample images for the article - If anyone thinks they'd be useful, they can add them - I created the files myself from screencaps of Sony SoundForge. There shouldn't be any fairuse issues.
The songs are all from Barenaked Ladies' 1992 Gordon, and their 2001 remastered Disc One. I thought they'd be good examples because, unlike some other examples in this article, both sources are the original recordings on CD - there's been no vinyl or audio tape transfer or reprinting. It's also notable that these aren't particularly 'loud' songs (not like a rock album), and it's still clear that the album is clipping.
*  If I Had $1000000
*  - Enid
*  - Be My Yoko Ono
If anyone wants to use any of them, feel free to grab them. I can over-write with the original quality image if any are used. TheHYPO 16:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Samples