Talk:Loudness war/Archive 1

message: I can't believe someone decided to remove my entry on non-clipping distortion in mastering.  Yes, it's possible for CDs to be distorted in loudness-oriented mastering without clipping, and is very common.  Open up a few very loud albums in a wave editor and you'll see sine waves that become bent near digital full scale rather than completely flattened.  I'm sure someone can find a reference to the use of analog equipment and digital "bitcruncher"/"soft clipping" plugins when trying to compromise between weak transient response and harsh odd harmonics. — Kuuenbu 02:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't remember taking this out, so if you want, go ahead and add information about this in the second paragraph in "Effects", but make sure to write about the difference between soft clipping (which tube amps do naturally, and is often a desired sound in rock music) and digital clipping, compression and limiting. Try to keep it concise and NPOV ;) Illuminatedwax 08:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-clipping distortion in audio CDs. 

message: Can we get some examples of albums released during the years of the "loudness war" that dont subscribe to the loudness philosophy? For instance, I believe most of Brendan O'Brien's releases (Pearl Jam, Stone Temple Pilots, Soundgarden's "Superunknown") don't really have any clipping. There's a totally audible difference between Audioslave's first album (not engineered by O'Brien), which has over-the-top digital clipping, and their second album (engineered by O'Brien) which seems to substitute tape clipping for digital (correct me if I'm wrong but I definitely think I hear tape on that album). Even so, the dude clearly does use compressors and limiters extensively. 
Tool has a few albums, such as Lateralus, which have tons of headroom.
: David Gilmour's latest album, On An Island, seeme to be very dymanic (to my ears anyway as I haven't looked at any time domain plots of it yet). Neilius 01:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Counterexamples? Google for the "Honor Roll of Well Mastered CDs". Moreover, there's an opposite thread on hydrogenaudio.org that lists the well-mastered CDs (from users' opinions, of course) -andy 80.129.89.152 03:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counterexamples? 

message: This article needs some work.  It doesn't seem to be in a neutral POV and parts of it are wrong (or at least misleading.)  There's a big difference between distortion caused by clipping and distortion caused by "companding," for example.  It's unlikely that commercially produced CDs will actually have clipped waveforms on them; clipping is more likely to come from the playback hardware.  People just assume that heavily expanded audio must be clipped but this is usually incorrect.  Also, many of the concepts in this article do not apply to digitally produced (not recorded) music, especially purely synthesized music, where "louder" can actually improve the quality of the sound, at least in theory.  Better general explanations of the concepts involved and fewer references to external sources would improve this article and make it more neutral.  As it stands, it seems more like a magazine article to me.
I don't want to discourage you, but you did ask for comments... Please try to improve this article as it has some important concepts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jared Grainger (talk • contribs) 01:49, January 10, 2006 (UTC)
: Actually, most of CD's have at least some clipping. Heavy dynamic compression and clipping became standard in audio mastering.
: Agreed - I think this needs to be simplified or renamed. I too would like to kick the guy who mastered any of the RHCP's later CD's, but I think the article content is very subjective and POV. I'd say it should be a section of Audio_mastering, where it would be in context. --Jgritz 01:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't kick the GUY, but kick the LABEL. As this article gladly states, most ME guys are forced to do so, as if they had a gun sitting in their neck and a harsh voice bellowing, "LOUDER! NO, I SAID *EVEN* LOUDER!".It is about time a skilled cartoonist does a 2- or 3-part cartoon of this matter. Frankly, I think this'll be a good and not-too-exhausted topic to cartoonise. :-D -andy 80.129.89.152 03:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed about audio mastering. — Omegatron 06:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree also, and am slowly working through the article to make it more neutral. As a sound engineer though, the loudness race is a huge problem and I absolutely detest it! We should NOT be in the business of making square waves! ;-) Neilius 02:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  On the other hand, if that's what people want... — Omegatron 03:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe... But the target audience of most pop music, to which these loudness wars are a huge part of, are young kids who don't know any better (which isn't their fault) and don't tend very often get the chance to listen to a dynamic, naturally recorded piece, see an orchestra or big jazz performance etc. I personally find listening to heavily limited masters unbearable after a few minutes, even with the volume down, a bit like trying to read a sentence typed in capital letters. More importantly though, I do think the article needs work to 'neutralise' it and make it more factual as it seems very opinionated at the moment (and I do agree with those opinions!). Warm regards, Neilius 12:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think we're getting there slowly, more scientific fact regarding human perceptions of loudness is creeping in to help back up the more subjective woolly stuff :) Neilius 08:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs work

message: I came across this page while trying to bring together all Sound recording and reproduction topics under the Wikipedia:Root page concept. This is a topic that causes me much grief and I think it is important enough to stand alone as a branch of the Root page, where it will be easily found by those looking at any audio page. It is of equal interest to the listener as to the recording engineer, and so I have not placed it under Post production. --Lindosland 16:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't merge please 

message: I was thinking that this article was about the military use of loud music as a weapon.
One example was the US Army attack by playing loud rock and roll against Manuel Noriega when he was refuged in the Nuncio residence in Panama City.
:You'd want to categorize that method under "non-lethal weapons".--87.122.18.18 14:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noriega 

message: I was under the belief that the first audio CDs were not released until 1982 or 1983. It seems baffling how one could rip a recording from a CD which hadn't been invented in the 'one of us' section. Perhaps someone could clarify.tommylommykins 07:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of release of Original 'one of us' recording 

message: Is it worth adding a section on the conspiracy theory? While likely to be rubbish in itself (I just can't believe record companies can get their act together enough for this!), it does raise some questions.  Although it is of course just some people's opinion, the factual presentation of it as just that seems justified to me.
In short, it goes like this - recording companies are deliberately turning all new CD's into high distortion low dynamic discs to effectively make them the cassettes of today, ie a second rate, second teir media.  In five or so years, maybe less, they will be only too happy to sell you all your music all over again in a high quality, digitally rights managed format.  A double win, they get to sell it again, and you can't copy it this time.
Proponents will cite the way re-issue series such as "Restock Your Rock" have since about 2000 been churning out low quality loud versions of many, many titles where perfectly good well mastered discs had been available for years.  It also explains why record companies ignore the auto-gain adjusting features used by many portable device users, and the compression FM radio already uses, persisting in this nasty practice - they don't care, it's not actually about loudness, it's about selling low quality discs.  As an etra benefit - home theatre 5.1 sure does sound good after listening to those "inferior" CD's!  --Reszerve 09:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can write it up in a neutral fashion and include a vaild and reputable source, it could be included.  I'm not sure it deserves its own section, beucase if it isn't several paragraphs long, it could easily fit into either the Interpretations section or the No Winners in the Loudness War section.  --Limetom 01:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conspiracy Theory 

message: I'm currently working on a rewrite of the article, which you can find here.  Feel free to contribute or even just let me know what you think of it.  --Limetom 06:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: I wrote a short article several months ago that relates to the topic of this article.  I don't want to add it to the external links myself, as that would be vanity and against Wikipedia policy.  However, I thought that I would post the link here, and if someone thinks it's interesting/relevant, that they would like to add it to the page.   –Comics (Talk) 21:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article I wrote 

message: I made some major overhauls to the page whlie still retaining the basic format and information. Hopefully this article has some kind of NPOV now; if people agree, we should remove both the weasel and NPOV tags Illuminatedwax 05:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am fine with it. I'll go ahead and remove the tags - they've been there forever. I doubt anyone is going to quarrel with your much appreciated revisions. Abacab 09:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's close enough now.  The history section still needs some major work, perhaps a complete rewrite, but the rest of the article is looking much better.  Perhaps the section-specific tags should be added to it?  Otherwise, its an improvement.  --Limetom 01:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite - NPOV Yet? 

message: There is no direct reference but on the page http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_big_squeeze/ there is a section dealing with "Dynamic Range: Then and Now". Four waveforms are displayed. The waveform with caption "with this 2005 hit" ( http://mixonline.com/images/Mastering3_lg.gif ) is Vertigo. (Personally crosschecked. Furthur crosschecking is welcome but I'm sure others will testify the same.) 54UV1K 17:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added a Citation for U2 HTDAAB 

message: I did a good deal of work on making this entry factual as opposed to a pulpit decrying the horrors of loudness increase. I know how much all of you hate loud CDs, but the fact is many producers, bands, and listeners don't mind or prefer loud CDs. If you have a negative point against loud CDs, add it in a factual way. You can do it in a way that isn't POV or weasly (look at the sections on clipping). Show, don't tell, people! Illuminatedwax 08:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who are you accusing of preaching? You seem to think you have some ownership of this page by virtue of doing 'a lot of work', but you say nothing factual here and present no debate! I suggest that you should state what you object to and why. If you think something is POV, then it only takes a citation showing that someone said it to make that a fact, and I suggest that many respected people are saying the things I added. I could quote from professional journals and radio industry magazines if you wish. Work on it please, don't just delete. --Lindosland 23:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, please do quote from professional journalists and radio industry magazines! This article is severely lacking in citations! You'll notice that I did so in the "Opponents" section. It would also be great if you could find citations that show that engineers are being forced to make CDs loud (in another section). However, adding exasperated commentary about how awful the loudness war is is decidedly preachy. If you would like to add more debate, please frame it in the format of a debate instead of informing the reader the side they should agree with. In general, I'm saying stop preaching in the article. I think that modern pop music is destroying our culture, but you don't see me editing Britney Spears' page to start out "Britney Spears is the most destructive force in music culture today." Illuminatedwax 00:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You seem to have deleted a whole section on the Tragedy of the Commons, without debate or reason, simple saying 'who are you kidding'. I am deeply involved in evolutionary psychology as well as being an audio professional, and I'm very serious. I think that section was extremely important. Of course, if you want to just kid yourself that there is no real solution that's up to you, but I suggest you need lateral thinking and should not force that view here unless you are familiar with what has been written on similar problems concerning psychology. You do accept that this is about psychology, do you? You won't find the answer on Google in the form of a quick fix program, as was the only previous suggestion! --Lindosland 23:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You changed an entire section to state your opinion, which was that the only solution to the loudness war is government intervention. I kept your basic argument and added it to the "Possible Solutions" section. You didn't even bother to cite any sources that said this was the "only solution". In short, the entire paragraph was POV, original research, highly European/England centered, and unencyclopedic. I think the term "arms race" is more accurate than "tragedy of commons". In addition, "tragedy of commons" also implies that loud CDs are a tragedy. Please expound on the bullet point in the Possible Solutions section instead of changing your solution to being the only solution and calling the others "workarounds". And try not to tell the readers what they should believe. Illuminatedwax 00:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You may think this is about CD's, but from discusions and articles I suggest that the initial driver for loudness was radio, and the main facilitator was Optimod, which was primarily sold to radio stations. Do you agree? If not, what is your evidence? If you agree, then can we have that reason back in the first paragraph please? --Lindosland 00:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, go ahead and put that information back in the first paragraph, but please keep it to like a sentence and don't add things like "it makes sense for FM but not CDs" there. If you can put it in a NPOV way, put that information in the "Effects" section. If you want, expound on the factual history of FM loudness wars in the "History" section. Illuminatedwax 00:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please Stop Preaching 

message: The article states that ReplayGain etc cannot restore lost dynamic range, then goes on to say that HDCD contains information for a range expander to restore the lost range. Surely, if it were technically possible to restore the lost dynamic range on HDCD, it would be possible to do it via software too? Mojo-chan 22:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: HDCD is a method of encoding more information on a CD that is then decoded by the CD player or receiver, thus provided the added detail. ReplayGain works with the source material (standard Redbook CDs) and therefore cannot restore that lost information as it was never there to begin with. Abacab 00:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicting information on HDCD/ReplayGain 

message: In the sort-of recent Oasis documentary, Owen Morris (regrettably) claims to have started the 'Loudness War' when he worked on Definitely Maybe.  Seems relevant.  Thoughts? Gamiar 23:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps. Though one might contend he is being a touch ego centrinc by blaming himself for an industry wide phenomenon. Granted, the work with Oasis is "arguably" the start of it....Abacab 21:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right. I just watched it. He called it "brickwalling". Keeping the levels constant with no dynamics. I think it's worth mentioning that Definitely Maybe was one of the albums that started the trend. WACGuy 23:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  By regrettably, did he say that he regrets it?  AJUK </font>Talk!! 16:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Owen Morris 

message: Equalization plugin in Audacity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sub6 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another possible solution?