Articles - Over the Limit 2: The End of the Loudness War

	Login RegisterTuesday, February 09, 2010
	Home Articles Archives Discussions News Events Contact Us

Over the Limit 2: The End of the Loudness War

Oct8

Written by:Rip Rowan
Thursday, October 08, 2009 10:58 PM

It's been almost seven years since Over the Limit was published, and very little has changed in the world of mastering.

Sadly, the Loudness Wars continue unabated. Last year, Metallica's Death Magnetic drew worldwide ire for its "sounds like dogshit" mastering job - and worldwide laughs when fans started ripping the better-mastered version of the music off the Guitar Hero game. When the video game version sounds better than the actual CD, you know something has gone terribly wrong. That story should silence anyone who still claims that over-limited music is just a "matter of taste". When it's too distorted for a Metallica fan....

Editor's Note: The problem with the commercial release of Death Magnetic was due to overcompression of the mix engineer's mix, and was apparently not due to the decisions of the mastering engineer. Sorry, Ted.

In this article I will tell you how the Loudness War will end, once and for all.

But first, some psychology.

The Pepsi Challenge

In Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking, Malcolm Gladwell reveals an interesting story about the problem of fragile judgments.

We're all familiar with the Pepsi Challenge: random consumers are asked to judge between two colas in a blind taste-test, and a majority choose Pepsi over Coke.

The Pepsi Challenge was started in the 1970s, and almost everyone in America has seen it. And, yet, decades later, Coke is still more popular than Pepsi.

Many would argue that this proves that clever marketing can convince consumers to choose an inferior product. But marketing studies prove that cola marketing does almost nothing to cause people to switch brands. It just causes people to consume more of their favorite cola. When Coke rolls out a new, effective advertisement, the effect isn't to convert Pepsi drinkers to Coke. It is to sell more Coke to Coke fans.

It turns out that there is another, more important reason for Pepsi's superiority in taste tests and inferiority in market share.

Pepsi is sweeter than Coke, and people will typically prefer the sweeter product when given a small taste. In the Pepsi Challenge, people don't guzzle a 32-ounce Pepsi and then follow with a 32-ounce Coke. They get a small sip of each.

Gladwell then points out that this test is only meaningful if people typically only drink a sip of cola at a time. Of course, anyone who has been to a convenience store in the last thirty years knows that, in the US, the individual serving size for cola is a vat. It turns out that when you ask people to drink a large quantity of cola, a majority do not prefer the sweeter cola after all.

This should all be common sense for anyone upon reflection. Something extremely sweet, or salty, or spicy really zings your pleasure centers. This grabs your attention. But gorge yourself on something particularly sweet, or salty, or spicy, and you'll feel overwhelmed by it relatively quickly.

Coca-Cola didn't get that point. Their answer to the Pepsi Challenge was to introduce a product that would beat Pepsi at it's own game - a product that has become symbolic with Getting It All Wrong: New Coke. New Coke beat original Coke **AND** Pepsi in double-blind sip tests. And yet, it was a complete and utter failure. Based on the science of double-blind taste tests.

Think about it. Isn't it fascinating that something as "scientific" as a double-blind taste test could actually produce such a flawed outcome? And, yet, there it is. What often seems to be sound science is, in fact, misinformation that drives bad decisions.

Back to the War at Hand

What has this to do with the Loudness War? Everything, it turns out.

When a listener compares two mastering jobs, the first and most obvious difference between the two is loudness. It is a well documented fact that, below the threshold of pain, listeners will almost always prefer the louder version if volume is the only difference (the reasons have to do with the equal loudness contour and other psychological factors).

Engineers have known this for years. When an engineer thinks they've got the mix just right, and the artist or producer criticizes some aspect of the mix - say, the vocals aren't loud enough - the engineer will pretend to twiddle a knob or two and bump up the master fader a couple of dB. "How's that?" asks the mixer. The client nods. All better now. The mix is the same. The only thing that was changed is that the volume was turned up a little.

Radio stations have also known about the importance of being loud for years. Of course, one reason radio stations compress and limit the music to make it louder is because a hotter signal overcomes background noise better. But the real reason is that when a listener is surfing channels, a loud station is more likely to get them to start listening.

But remember the Pepsi Challenge. It was a valid test, so long as the typical serving size was one sip. Likewise, overcompressed music is often preferable, as long as the listening duration is brief. When music is overlimited and lacks dynamics, it causes listener fatigue. The brain starts treating it like noise, and attempts to filter it. This is stressful on the brain, causes low levels of anxiety, and stimulates the listener to get away from the distressing sound.

So, in a blind test, comparing a few seconds of the same song, listeners will prefer the one that is overcompressed and "hot". But that loudness will also cause the same listener to be more likely to turn the song down (or off), probably before the song is over.

Over the last couple of years I have involved myself much more closely in the process my clients undertake when selecting mastering engineers. Most attempt to be rigorous and scientific about their selection, and A/B the music to compare it.

The problem is, like the Pepsi Challenge, the natural A/B test – which seems like such a good way to compare two mixes - is a flawed test. Listeners pick a song, and listen to a few seconds of Master 1, then a few seconds of Master 2, then back to 1, then back to 2, and so forth. It might tell them which version "jumps out at them more" but isn't likely to tell them which one a listener will still be listening to after an hour.

Solutions Proposed, Denied

Since 2002 many solutions have been proposed to deal with the Loudness War. They have almost all fallen on deaf ears.

Various groups like TurnMeUp! offer some sort of certification for mastering engineers and the material they produce. To qualify, mastering engineers must demonstrate that their product meets a minimum qualification for dynamic range. Certified engineers / product are entitled to use a label on their product certifying that it meets the groups standards. Other groups promote educational seminars and advertising as a solution.

The Pleasurize Music Foundation has an aggressive and comprehensive campaign that includes a special dynamic range rating system, a freeware metering tool that can be used to analyze dynamic range and produce a certified numerical rating, and an array of educational and promotional material to try to change the music world. Pleasurize Music also hopes to influence the development of a Blu-Ray audio standard.

Although I disagree with many of their strategies and ideas, ProRec supports all of these organizations. We support any organization attempting to bring sanity back to the field of mastering.

But none of them are doing any good. Nor will they.

The problem is that they all focus on attempting to convince the listener that Louder is Not Better. I suggest that the listener is not to blame, and thus the problem cannot be solved by trying to convince the listener of anything. This is not a problem driven by the consumer. Consumers have clearly spoken: they don't like the overcompressed music.

Besides, the only way for a consumer-based approach to work would be if different forms of mastering were provided - say, the TurnMeUp! version and the TurnMeDown! version - and consumers were allowed to choose. As long as only one version is offered, which is (and should be) the case for 99.9% of all recordings ever made, consumers don't have a choice so there's no point putting a label on the disc. It doesn't differentiate the product.

Nor is this a problem driven by the artist. Or, rather, if the artist is to blame, then it isn't a problem. After all, the product reflects the artist's intentions. When Billy Corgan said of Zwan's Mary Star of the Sea, "We set out to make the loudest fucking rock and roll album that was humanly possible," then he is making an artistic choice, just like the choice to scream his lyrics instead of croon. It's a totally valid choice and I support any artist who makes that choice, even if I find the music annoying and don't want to listen to it, which sometimes happens.

So trying to fix this problem by addressing education, catchy slogans, and cool certification labels at artists and mix engineers is a complete waste of time. If the artist and mix engineer wanted it annoyingly loud, then such information, education, and certification completely misses the point. And if they didn’t want it annoyingly loud, well, chances are that they were cut out of the loop anyway.

No, the Loudness War is not driven at the top of the production pipeline (by the artist) or at the bottom of the pipeline (by the consumer). It's being driven somewhere in the middle.

The Label is the Culprit. The Mastering Engineer, Too.

In Over the Limit I tried to walk a politically correct line, and lay the blame for the loudness war at the feet of the record labels. To be sure, they’ve earned most of the blame, if only because they are ultimately responsible for the product. But individual mastering engineers are also to blame.

Let’s explore further.

I experience the Loudness War on a regular basis, as finished mixes leave my studio and go into the hands of mastering engineers, sometimes coming back horribly disfigured. Over time I have discovered mastering engineers who I think "get it" and I steer record labels and clients their way, but sometimes other engineers get their hands on my mixes and try to win the Loudness War, and it makes me cringe - or cry - every time.

Note that nobody gave these engineers the direction to try to make the loudest fucking record ever made. They just took it upon themselves. We can’t blame the record label for that.

Strangely it is often a very hit-or-miss venture. When my studio sent a decidedly 70's-retro album for mastering at one of the world's most distinguished mastering facilities, it came back wrecked beyond all belief. In case you think it's a matter of my Louder-is-not-Better taste, let me point out that there were, in fact, technical problems with the mastering, including the fact that while the RMS level on the disc was around -8 dBFS, the peaks were limited at -2.3dBFS. If you understand the preceeding terms, then you know that the master was screwed up. After substantial back-and-forth with the engineer, and a couple of re-dos, it came back beautiful.

What happened? Did the engineer suddenly grow new ears and better taste? Did he switch off the "Suck" button? Hard to say. Warning lights were flashing down at Quality Control, for sure.

But here's the deal – the artist, the label, and the producer were ready to sign off on the original master! They couldn't tell there was a problem. I could tell the problem in literally five seconds of listening. Hell, I could look at the VU meters and tell that there was no way I would accept this mastering job. Fortunately for all involved, I had inserted myself deeply into this project and called "veto" on the master before the label rushed it into production.

Such vetoes by the mix engineer are rare. When I work with individual artists, they'll often ask my opinion on the masters, but then they'll make the final call. When I work with a label, it has been my frequent experience that neither the artists, engineers, or producers are involved in the mastering process. The label typically has someone that they use, the project goes to that person, and then to manufacturing.

And forget about trying to target mastering engineers with "education". Good mastering engineers have known about the problem for years and hate it, but are being driven to produce ever-louder CDs anyway. Bad mastering engineers are, well, bad, and don't want to hear your so-called "education".

A good mastering engineer groks the artistic intention of the source material and tailors the mastering to suit the material. For example, I've sent several projects to Dave McNair (now with Sterling Sound) with absolutely stellar results. One example is John Lefler's masterpiece powerpop solo debut Better by Design, which was a labor of recording and mixing love, where Dave took what I considered to be a perfect recording and made it even more perfect. I point all this out because Dave McNair has also mastered some Seriously Loud Shit, when it was appropriate. In other words, he doesn't view loudness - or dynamics - as ends in themselves, but rather understands that compression is one tool among many to make a recording "all that it can be."

Now, it's entirely possible that Dave’s work would disqualify him from being part of some of these LouderIsNotBetter cliques, because he does sometimes put out some Seriously Loud Shit. What an insult to Dave that he would be excluded from such a group. How could such an organization maintain credibility?

Most people have just given up on winning the Loudness War, maintaining that it's just unwinnable - that it is an unavoidable consequence of a broken recording industry and failed consumer market who prefers MP3s to CDs and DVD-As.

I have reached a far different conclusion.

The End of the Loudness War

I am prepared - not to continue to Fight the Good Fight against overcompressed mastering - but instead to lay down my arms and go home. The Loudness War is not only winnable, but it has already been made moot, although the fighting will continue for several years and it may be another decade before “Overcompression for Loudness Sake” stops altogether.

The Loudness War is going to end because it has been rendered technically obsolete. Not thanks to some propellerhead technology like Blu-Ray. No, the technology that is going to end the war has been around for years and is already in widespread acceptance. The Loudness War is not going to end thanks to a major educational campaign. No education will be needed. Fancy logos and certifications might be helpful but they aren't necessary, and the ones we have now aren't the right ones.

No, if all we do is sit back and do absolutely nothing, this problem will go away within the next decade. Because that's how long it's going to take for the compact disc to become obsolete. Not to be replaced by some new DVD or Blu-Ray audio disc, either, but replaced by the very technology that has been making physical media obsolete for a decade: downloadable music.

In short, the MP3.

As far back as 1999 – two years before the iPod made the MP3 a truly viable alternative - I was laughing at the pro audio industry for trying to push the DVD-A. DVD-A was trying to solve a problem that didn't exist - the "CD's don't sound good enough" problem. The explosion of MP3 onto the music scene demonstrated that not only were CDs just fine for most listeners, but actually they were probably better than they needed to be, since the vast majority of consumers - myself included - either couldn't tell the difference between a well-encoded MP3 and a CD or just didn't care.

In 1999 most (if not all) pro audio evangelists were busy decrying the lousy sound of MP3s (which only meant that the encoding was lousy or the bitrate was too low) and were terribly excited about the possibility of 24/96 DVD audio, a format which flopped worse than the 8-track. Meanwhile, the technically inferior MP3 was gaining widespread acceptance and the technically superior CD was becomingly increasingly compressed and distorted thanks to the Loudness War.

And now, in a fantastically ironic twist, the problem has become "CDs don't sound good enough" (due to the Loudness War) and the solution is a technically inferior product, the lowly MP3. In fact, to add to the twist, if DVD-A had caught on, the Loudness Wars would continue unabated.

At this point, you're thinking, "He's smoking crack. How can this be?"

The answer is less about the format than the player. The ubiquitous iPod, its various MP3 playing cousins, and their associated software like iTunes are the true answer to the problem.

The Format is (Not) the Answer

The downloadable format is going to end the Loudness War, but not because it is a magic format. Instead, it’s the answer because it has fundamentally changed the way we listen to music.

CD jukeboxes have been around for two decades. But even the best and biggest CD jukeboxes pale in comparison to a nicely-stocked iPod. The typical CD jukebox plays 1000 songs. The typical iPod plays over 10,000. The typical CD jukebox shuffles songs with a 5-second gap. The typical iPod shuffles songs with no gap. CD jukeboxes hold entire albums. iPod listeners often collect singles – meaning, more music from different and diverse sources. So listeners hear lots of very diverse music back-to-back. And the typical iPod user may spend hours creating playlists - the 2000's answer to the 1980's mix tape - which just don't happen with a CD jukebox.

In the 1980s, the responsible mix tape creator would watch the VU meters on the tape deck and level the volumes of songs as he recorded the tape. The iPod / iTunes listener cannot do that when creating a playlist. Fortunately, they don't have to. Because in 2001 – the same year the iPod was introduced - David Robinson introduced Replay Gain, the first volume leveling algorithm for MP3s. And now most MP3 library software including iTunes will automatically perform volume leveling, analyzing the audio and writing normalizing value into the MP3's metadata – a technique that does not affect the fidelity of the audio itself. And now, most playback devices are designed to use that metadata and adjust playback volume accordingly.

What Replay Gain / volume leveling technology has done is render the Loudness War completely obsolete: when mastering engineers crank up the compressors and limiters, the audio doesn't get louder at all! It just loses dynamics.

So, interestingly, the Loudness War ended in 2001, the year that Replay Gain and the iPod were introduced. These two technologies – massive MP3 jukeboxes combined with volume-leveling software – render the Loudness War null and void.

Of course, practically all music going to mastering engineers is still being mastered for CD. And as long as the target media is CD, then the Loudness Wars will rage. But CDs are doomed. MP3s (and other downloadable formats) have clearly demonstrated that they are here to stay, blending a combination of low price, instant availability, utter portability, and very good (if imperfect) sound quality. The future will see bitrates increase and encoding improve - including the lossless formats now showing up - which is a good thing for music. But music as an individually-packaged, physical widget is a dinosaur. And the death of that dinosaur means the end of the Loudness War. For good.

At some point, hopefully in the near future, mastering engineers will stop considering the 16 bit, 44.1 KHz CD the "target" and will start mastering for downloadable formats. I propose that the mastering process of the future will include some sort of plug-in or device that mimics the sort of volume analysis performed by Replay Gain and adjusts the playback volume for the mastering engineer in real time. In other words, the mastering engineer sets the "master volume" on his console and the playback volume stays at that volume regardless of what the engineer does in the digital or analog signal path - even if it means cranking up the gain on his outboard LA2A all the way to 11.

Mastering for a Volume-Normalized World

It's beyond the scope of this article to propose a design for such a device. I'm sure someone out there is making it already. The key isn't the magic device. The key is mastering for a volume-normalized world. When you, as a mastering engineer, realize what that limiter is going to do to your track when the playback software analyzes it and turns it down 11 dB, it will change the way you master. Forever.

But first we're going to have to get rid of all those pesky CD players in car dashes, home-entertainment systems, and - most importantly - in the offices of record industry mooks.

It's going to take time. First of all, users need to become convinced that volume normalizing is a good thing, and that isn't going to happen until volume normalizing works better. Replay Gain is slow. It doesn't always work correctly. Some volume levelers actually rewrite the MP3 file at a lower volume (instead of just tweaking the metadata) resulting in poorer fidelity. As a result some people don't trust their software and won't use this feature.

The thing is, when it works, it really makes your MP3 collection a lot more listenable. When you can switch from Bob Dylan to Crystal Method without having to touch your volume knob, you become a believer instantly. When it works, it works well, and it adds a lot of value to your collection. The bigger (and more varied) your collection, the more valuable this technology is. From personal experience, I have tens of thousands of songs on my computer, and I use Media Monkey (which I highly recommend) to manage my library. My entire collection has been volume normalized. I couldn’t live without it.

I was an MP3 early adopter. It was a miracle for me. I had a sprawling CD collection, and I'm bad at keeping up with physical widgets. But I am a whiz with a computer, and in 1999 I had five computers, so one week it just made sense for me to rip every CD I own onto what was at the time the largest hard disk I could buy. After a week-long CD-ripping frenzy I had my entire collection available at my fingertips, categorized, and easily transported. I have handled - and purchased - very few CDs since then. Instead I buy online through iTunes or (preferably) Amazon. What CDs I do buy come home, get ripped, and go on the shelf. Folks, I’m an audiophile. I love MP3.

Since I was an early adopter, I forget that most people still live in a CD+MP3 netherworld. I've had my car wired for my iPod since 2000. Although many people today have iPod-capable car radios, most don't. Most people use their MP3 players as portable listening devices - like a Walkman with a really long tape - instead of megajukeboxes to contain all their music. But that is all rapidly changing and the endgame - the complete obsolescence of the CD - is inevitable and in sight.

And over time, everyone will level the volume of their MP3 downloads, because it works and makes the jukebox concept work better. And when making a record louder doesn't actually make it louder, but just more compressed, people will master differently. Eventually, mastering engineers will start mastering for MP3 instead of (not "in addition to") mastering for CD.

Perhaps a standard will emerge, and downloaded music will come with the volume normalization level already set in the metadata. Perhaps mastering engineers will be asked to set that metadata, much as they're asked to write CD-Text today, because it will just make sense to produce final work output that's ready for download.

When Will It End?

How long will this take?

I predict another decade.

Consider the transition from vinyl to CD as a case in point. The CD became commercially available in the early 1980s. But for about a decade, mastering practices remained virtually unchanged. You would "master" to tape, and then "transfer" to digital. It wasn't until the mid-1990s that mastering practices that exploited the digital domain (specifically, heavy application of brickwall limiting) became prevalent.

I would venture to say that the transition from CD to MP3 will be somewhat more gradual than the transition from vinyl to CD was. For the average consumer, CD represented an obvious and substantial improvement from vinyl: smaller, better sound quality, more durable, more resistant to damage. Vinyl would last for years, but a CD would last a lifetime.

By comparison, MP3s are somewhat more of a mixed, incremental improvement over CD. Sound quality is diminished. Portability is greatly improved. Costs are lower, but still high (especially considering there is no manufacturing, warehousing, or shipping involved). MP3s are more durable than a CD in one aspect (they are "virtual" and can be copied or backed up) but also more fragile (drop your iPod in the lake without a backup, and you've lost everything). Whereas playing a CD was as simple as playing a record or a tape, MP3s are still complicated for non-technical users and require a computer and at least some computer skill. And a lot of people still like the idea of a physical product and prefer to buy their favorite music on disc.

Retailers had already bailed on vinyl by the mid 1990s - ten years after the CD had become widely available. MP3 as a music format has been available since the end of the 1990s, and ten years later, the CD - while clearly waning - is still quite viable. So I think it's safe to conclude that while the CD is ultimately doomed as a mass-market music media, the transition from CD to downloadable media will be a slower one than the transition from vinyl to digital disc.

So what does this mean for mastering?

Back in the 1980s, mastering changed from being a process of getting the signal onto vinyl and became a process of getting a signal onto CD. The difference in the target format drove a change in mastering practices which, over the course of a couple of decades, became the Loudness War we face today. It took about seven years for the new format to substantially replace the old and another seven or so years before the industry changed to fully exploit the new format's capabilities and weaknesses, leading to the Loudness War.

Now a new target format - downloadable media combined with jukebox players - has gained acceptance. It hasn't eliminated the CD format, but a tipping point has been reached, and the CD's days are numbered. Mastering engineers are already marketing their services towards the new media. And over the coming decade, mastering engineers will adopt new practices and technologies to exploit the capabilities of this format.

And the Loudness War will end forever.

The question then will simply be - do we need to buy yet another copy of the White Album?

Trackback Print

Location: Blogs

ProRec Articles

Rip Rowan

Tags:

29 comment(s) so far...

Mr. Rowan seems to be fed up with the Loudness War. :)
I'm bored with it as well. I don't even write and bash about it anymore.
Lossless formats seems to be on the rise, especially FLAC.
But there will still be audiophiles swearing by Vinyl records, no matter how much you talk about Nyquist.

By ilter on Friday, October 09, 2009 12:43 AM

Sorry, but the engineers can't be fully blamed for this loudness mess. The Customer is king, and if the customer says "make it loud", we engineers have to make it loud, else we loose our jobs.

To blame are a lot of parties. And to them I'd count the radio stations as well. If they wouldn't press the volume as much (in digital transmission, it's not that important anymore), it would be a bit different. It's still printed in the head "louder is better" thanks to the media.

The loudness war will never be over if the people do not start to think about what they are actually doing. The Pleasurize Music Foundation and defenders of the K-System (myself included) already to a fair portion for it. And after the debacle with "Death Magnetic", "Black Ice" and the last album from Paul McCartney, a lot of people reacted and finally hit the brakes.

Granted we will never get as low as old vinyls anymore. This is way too branded into the heads to use as less headroom as possible to keep noise down (back from multitrack tape recording days), but if an album is at least 1-2dB more dynamic than the last album, this is a huge improvement.

Personally I think MP3 is the end of everything but the Loudness War. The encription ignores properly mastered tracks, pushes the material back over the boundaries again (HID clipping, no peak headroom - especially if the material is pressed to it's limits) - so this is definitely not the future unless the tracks are encoded with a peak headroom of 6dB at least. If "next generation audio media" (like MP3 or MP4) uses different bitrates as standard rather than 16bit, it might be the end of one part of the loudness war. But I fear we will have that one for at least another decade to come. Especially if there are new inventions and no real set standards.

By Fox on Friday, October 09, 2009 12:46 AM

Very interesting point, Rip.

I have been pestering about the loudness war for years now. I have to agree that the automatic loudness normalization done by iTunes et al makes the loudness war look stupid. But as you have said yourself, mastering engineers are still doing it and will continue doing so for years. I'm afraid that the younger generation is finding clipping and distortion desirable and nice to listen to...

So, automatic volume normalization or not, mastering engineers will continue indulging in loudness war because, well, people like the resulting audio (even if we cannot stand it ourselves!)

By Avinash Meetoo on Friday, October 09, 2009 5:00 AM

I don't agree with your replay-gain statement. Most people are unaware that you can embed "album art" into MP3 metadata. Also, most people are unaware of replay gain usage as well.

The MP3 format has gained a very good platform-support, it is playable on just about any technical system nowadays. This IMO is it's biggest advantage.

The problems lie within the fact that there are no "standardized" encoding recommendations for MP3's. I know that it makes a world of difference is you encode an MP3 with lame, using 320 CBR (and staying outta joint stereo!). But try explaining that to anybody else.. To them, an MP3 is an MP3, no matter if it's normalized to 0/joint stereo/64kbps or 320CBR/stereo. They will _NEVER_ get the point.

What might change all this is MP4. The general public still doesn't know videly of it's existence. So if the industry makes a stand now and defines "industry standard guidelines" for encoding MP4 audio files (minimum bitrates required for certain fidelity, specified amount of headroom etc). All that would be required after this would be to start claiming "yeah, MP3s were good, but now listen to this MP4!", and if all MP4 content at that time would be encoded according to these new standards, people might get the point.

By mp3-is-not-the-answer on Friday, October 09, 2009 5:44 AM

The new scheme may just mean that a new strategy will be found to obviate the leveling. Convince me otherwise at AES this weekend.

By Ty Ford on Friday, October 09, 2009 6:09 AM

Where to begin...

@ilter: whaaa?

@Fox & @mp3-is-not-the-answer: two points. One, MP3 isn't the answer. "Downloadable media with volume metadata combined with volume-leveling jukebox software" is the answer. MP3 just happens to fit that requirement. Two, both of you seem hellbent on demonstrating the technical weaknesses of the MP3 format. Newsflash: people love MP3! The quality is good enough. It has beat the CD. Move on.

@Avinash: if mastering engineers and listeners like the sound of limiting, then they should use it. I limit all kinds of stuff all the time. But what will end is this "We're going to make the loudest fucking record ever" nonsense because all the recordings will be the same volume in the player. In other words, if the limiting sounds good - independent of the volume effect - then engineers will (and should) use it.

@Ty Ford: You can't beat intelligent volume leveling. At least, not in any meaningful way. I will see you at AES!

By Rip Rowan on Friday, October 09, 2009 7:25 AM

@R.Rowan: Tracks are mastered the same way for long time, because everyone is used to it. I don´t know about MP3 technical stuff but simple volume normalizing (it still sounds crap) is not the answer if it doesn´t include dynamics recovery (which is ofcourse stupid thing to even think about). And if something is 10dB too low then the listener takes the algorithm off.

By MP5 on Friday, October 09, 2009 8:42 AM

I by and large agree with your post, Rip. Here's a a somehow relevant quote from Bob Weston (member/engineer/'producer' for Mission of Burma, Shellac and countless records) about the new remastered Jesus Lizzard records:
"Proof that the lossy encoders (like mp3, aac, etc) do a much better job dealing with material that retains wide dynamics and is not crushed with limiters. The encoding algorithms for these lossy formats were designed to work with non-crushed program. It's a common misconception that if something is to be made into an mp3, you need to make it really "fake loud" first, for it to survive and sound awesome after being encoded. The opposite is true. The mp3 encoders do a poor job at encoding very loud, heavily limited material with a low crest factor (distance between average level and peak level)."
This is from a thread over on the electrical audio forums.

By digital lofi on Friday, October 09, 2009 10:29 AM

Sorry Rip, but MP3 is NOT fiting ANY requirement. People love it since it's portable yet simple. Quality wise it's udder crap, since it's using psychoacoustic algorithms to "blend out" what we engineers carefully mixed in. It has maybe beat the CD in terms of portability, nothing to say against that. But sound and quality wise it's not comparable. And "autogain" metadata neither.

I admire your tries, but bashing people like Friedemann Tischmeyer or Bob Katz with both their systems, and on top of that blaming us engineers who are "forced" to work that way from both the customer and the labels is not the way to go for. We all do mistakes, and I blame the listeners/consumers and engineer customers as well.

By Fox on Friday, October 09, 2009 12:27 PM

What a pleasure to read such an optimistic article. The end of the loudness war can't come soon enough for me. Music should have dynamics and feeling, even if it's loud! I only use compression as a means to an end, not as a cure all sledgehammer, and I find that the end product is so much better for it. The end to waveforms that look like bricks can only be a good thing. If the mix is done right then the power will be there without crushing it to death.

By Ron Green on Friday, October 09, 2009 12:44 PM

If the mastering engineers have the power to set the replay gain, the labels will ask them to set the average low so that the software turns it up artificially high. Now, that is still a better scenario as it can be fixed (new replay gain calculated) and the dynamics are still present.

By hogiewan on Friday, October 09, 2009 1:07 PM

You still can pull a lot of crap with that technique to still be the loudest on the market.

I'm all for making tracks more quiet, and for this, the Pleasurize Music Foundation and the K-System by Bob Katz do their fair share already. Pity only that still a lot of engineers close their eyes from it. And there is still the factor "customer is king".

By Fox on Friday, October 09, 2009 3:16 PM

[[ POST REMOVED DUE TO SPAM ]]

DO NOT POST SPAM ON PROREC. IT WILL BE REMOVED.

By Tanner on Thursday, October 15, 2009 1:54 PM

"Loudness war is getting to me too! any resolutions??? studio recording" -Tanner
Hmm, perhaps if you read the article, you'd know it was about a resolution. Of course, you didn't read it. You came here to post a link to yourself from this site with the anchor text "studio recording". Nice comment spam, budd. Thanks for being an ass.
"Sorry Rip, but MP3 is NOT fiting ANY requirement. People love it since it's portable yet simple. Quality wise it's udder crap, since it's using psychoacoustic algorithms to "blend out" what we engineers carefully mixed in. It has maybe beat the CD in terms of portability, nothing to say against that. But sound and quality wise it's not comparable." -Fox
Yes, people do love it, and that's the point. The battle is over. "People", as in the populace, by and large aren't complaining about MP3 quality. Some audiophiles are, but what you're failing to understand is that audiophiles like yourself aren't representative of the general public. I agree with your tastes, but that doesn't change the fact that regardless of how you, me or the next 500 mixing or mastering engineers feel about it, the public has already crowned it king. Which do you think is a more likely scenario, that the public at large will eventually move completely away from CD's as is speculated in the article, or, that the public will suddenly, out of nowhere, decry MP3 audio quality and boycott downloads until the format is improved? In short, Rip is correct in that MP3's ARE fitting the requirement - the requirement of the audio recording buying public. And lest you think they aren't part of the equation, it's their money and therefore their preferences that fuel the industry. The simple fact is that MP3's, regardless of whatever faults they possess, are so significantly more easily obtained and portable than older formats that they are already the future. It's no less clear than the deifference between getting up to change the channels and using a remote control.
...and P.S., the word is "utter", not "udder". "Udders" are found underneath cows.

By Jack on Thursday, October 15, 2009 2:15 AM

@MP5: You're completely wrong. Volume normalization like Replay Gain cannot "sound like crap" because all it does is TURN DOWN THE VOLUME. If it does more, or less, then it isn't "normalization" by definition.

@FOX: "Quality wise it's udder [sic] crap" I bet you have never taken a double-blind listening test (much less a spelling test). A well encoded MP3 does not "sound like crap" and I can demonstrate that only an infinitely small percentage of people (<1%) can even distinguish it from the source. And it really doesn't matter what we think, the public has spoken: MP3s sound fine.

@hoagiewan: I agree with you. Mastering engineers prob won't be setting the volume level of MP3s. The great thing is that even if they try to jack with the level, all you have to do is re-scan the levels with your software. Instant Loudness War Removal.

EVERYONE: You need to re-read my article. I make the point several times: it's not the MP3 format per se, but the downloadable format + the jukeboxes with volume normalization that are going to end this war. It just turns out that currently, the MP3 is the king of the downloadable format. I'm not married to MP3.

By Rip Rowan on Thursday, October 15, 2009 1:53 PM

@TyFord and @FOX: I don't think you can do much to make your music louder if they user is using Replay Gain or another good volume leveling software. There are some games you can play - such as recording silence or having super-quiet parts to attempt to lower the average level, but the normalization software can usually figure that out and ignore it. In actual practice is is pretty foolproof. I have tens of thousands of MP3s that all play at essentially the same level.

Instead, I would argue that - with volume held constant - the way to make your recording stand out is to MAKE IT SOUND BETTER by not hyping the mids and leaving dynamics in it that give it movement and energy.

By Rip Rowan on Thursday, October 15, 2009 2:01 PM

Intresting read here at ProRec again: Thanks

Whilst i agree on the most part, there are like mentioned 'grey areas' which can never be fully traced/explained.
Spot on regarding the somewhat suspect QC of even the most regarded mastering houses - that is just bad practice in my book (although i am no mastering engineer by a long shot). I think personally as a guy whom still buys CD's oppose to downloads that the dual-format approach is probably the most desirable and i remember an article (or rant) in an issue of TapeOp mag talking about the same approach. Although that means two seperate masters (maybe even mixes) of the same record would have to be done, it offers us people whom shell out a good amount of cash each month (forgetting about the technical engineering side of me for a moment) as fans of music *regardless of style/genre* the freedom to choose which of the two we listen to and i would not mind that much if that would add to the end RRP of the package. Well whether that road is ever explored or not i guess i will have to wait and see...

Again thanks for an interesting read on something that matters a great deal to me

*I myself am a die hard heavy death/thrash/doom/black...etc. metal 'lifer' FWIW*

Nekro

By Nekro on Friday, October 16, 2009 7:28 PM

@R.Rowan: What I meant was MUSIC is still sounding crap with or without the Replay Gain. The real problem is not the level itself but the waveforms completely crushed. So the result is still crap but lower level. And who uses Replay Gain anyway, it´s off by default?

By jv on Sunday, October 18, 2009 8:14 AM

Not that I'm really anything special when it comes to music, I'm just one of countless electronic musicians on the rise thanks to easy-to-use DAWs.. But from a technical standpoint, it's my humble opinion that an artist should learn to master their own tracks over time so they can get the best feel for their music and truly make all the decisions when it comes to their design. As for what that sound is, it's 100% subjective; it's not worth worrying one's self over. The sound that comes out of an iPod is ultimately limited by the capabilities of it's audio card, mostly, you can't tell the difference between different MP3 players. But some players just sound better, and it's because they have a higher fidelity audio chip. They can process a greater range of frequencies- they have a better frequency response.

And even then, it must go through the audio jack itself where it will pick up some small amounts of static, no matter what. This will be true for as long as audio, digitally played or not, is ultimately analog. Even then the sound must then be put through the monitors, which have their own frequency responses and loudness factors. And past that, there's the listener's ear and brain to account for. We all see and hear things a little differently, we just don't realize it. The only conceivable way I can imagine for an artist to be able to know for certain exactly how something will sound to every given listener is for absolutely every audio player setup to be completely standardized with a zero percent discrepancy, and for every listener to be of the exact same physiology. It's just not reasonable, so the whole thing was moot from day one. But that's been more or less covered already.

Ultimately, I think the day we can plug the music directly into our brain is the day we'll get past all this nonsense, but I think it's safe to say that's a ways off. Good article though! :D

By Kyle Stanley on Sunday, October 25, 2009 10:30 PM

Like someone else said this is a very optimistic article, in the good sense of the word. But first this volume leveling will have to become much more intelligent than what media monkey (i don't really like it) and the ipod can do right now. I don't think Apple would be interested in creating a new standard because i don't think they can make any money from it.

But indeed i expect to be coding my mp3's some time in the next 5 years. It will probably take a week of cataloging/coding frenzy and a state of the art computer. Of course there will be many more features like bpm count, key extraction and so on

By Tony Dubshot on Friday, November 27, 2009 6:34 AM

Thank you, Rip, for this important update to what I consider a seminal treatise on the Loudness War. I hope your prediction that the debate will be rendered moot by tools like Replay Gain comes true.

One thing I hope to see that you didn't discuss, however, is a user-friendly endpoint dynamic range compression standard for different listening environments. The Loudness War took place at the same time that our listening environments migrated from speakers in a quiet living room to headphones on a noisy bus or a car stereo on a noisy street. Sadly, that ridiculously distorted Iggy Pop remaster is more suited to those environments. I'd like to see a return to fully dynamic masters, Replay Gain to even out differences, and a `listening environment' switch added to the list of options on the typical MP3 player - from 'Quiet/Bypass' to 'Loud/Construction Site.' The last step would simply be a brickwall limiter (maybe with a multiband compressor?). Best of both worlds.

Lastly, I can't believe people are still repeating the "MP3 is always crap" mantra. Have these people actually taken blind tests with well-ripped, well-encoded high bit rate MP3s?

By Chuckies on Sunday, December 06, 2009 12:51 PM

Good Part II, Rip. I concur with at least the possibility of your prediction. Frankly, I thought radio would end it, if not by exactly the same route. One would have thought the crapulent sound of compressing already flat-topped mixes would have been a huge problem.

As you know, I have a lone skeleton in my own loudness closet...the bizarre story of the CD whose name shall go unmentioned. Pity that it happened, and that the entire thing was triggered by an accidental gain setting which led to an avalanche of questioned trust and overcompensation by all parties.

All that to say, as you know, that taste, knowing better, good ears, good gear, and every other seemingly positive attribute fail to overcome the problem once it has taken hold. Once there's a loudness war on, even an internally driven one, good men (and women of course) can fall. I have a scar on my ass to prove it.

By Bruce Richardson on Saturday, December 26, 2009 6:51 PM

Good Part II, Rip. I concur with at least the possibility of your prediction. Frankly, I thought radio would end it, if not by exactly the same route. One would have thought the crapulent sound of compressing already flat-topped mixes would have been a huge problem.

As you know, I have a lone skeleton in my own loudness closet...the bizarre story of the CD whose name shall go unmentioned. Pity that it happened, and that the entire thing was triggered by an accidental gain setting which led to an avalanche of questioned trust and overcompensation by all parties.

All that to say, as you know, that taste, knowing better, good ears, good gear, and every other seemingly positive attribute fail to overcome the problem once it has taken hold. Once there's a loudness war on, even an internally driven one, good men (and women of course) can fall. I have a scar on my ass to prove it.

By Bruce Richardson on Saturday, December 26, 2009 6:52 PM

Dude, you rock.

100% Right on.

By LandStander on Saturday, January 02, 2010 2:41 AM

bob ludwig did a great service by giving bands 3 different versions, insofar as loudness goes: punchy (big dynamic range), moderate squeezing, and "industry loud". he made them have equal *average* levels and asked them to pick the one they liked. they all picked the punchy (i.e., least amount of processing, biggest most natural dynamic range). bob's a friend; i used the same technique on bands during the past 2 years and was able to convince them not to go for a smashed record.

the only time loud records are an issue is when someone has songs in iTunes or some mp3 playlist on Shuffle mode (or rewind 15 years and have a CD changer in the trunk); then they simply don't know why they have to change volume, and it bugs them. they are not supposed to know, they are consumers and simply want to enjoy their songs.

in the record store at the listening bar, no one ever listens to records, then tells their buddy "hey i'm buying this one because it's the loudest record i found today!"

they never buy a record because someone used a certain microphone or guitar amp, or use pro tools, or don't use pro tools; they buy it because they like the song/singer/band/groove/feeling. and certainly never because it is loud.

the A&R people at labels are part of the issue, and then the bands also think they need to be "as loud as" some record they refer to. but listeners never make these demands, never have these expectations, would never pick a smashed record over something with punch and drive and extension. the bands don't either!

i master records, compose music, mix bands, teach audio engineers, and help create audio tools. it grieves me to see people take a tack on such an issue and i work all the time to help educate the musicians themselves about *what they lose* by smashing the dynamic range out of music. that said, i can affirm there are musics which should have be wall of sound, but it should be a technique to be utilized, not a one-size-fits-all.

the issue is indeed we don't have a reference point. the movie industry is the only place where audio is truly standardized for decades: the movie *theatre* is calibrated so you'll have a relatively dependable playback, a nearly guaranteed experience. but people don't want that in their homes because music is more of a utility. average classical buffs will go to concerts and experience up to 110dB from an orchestra but you can bet your bottom dollar they will not allow their stereo systems to go anywhere near that level. enjoy a jazz band but never let it part your hair at home. it seems out of place somehow, and it is, in a way. people want the music to be contained and dependable, like the music from the kitchen radio.

so there's at least 2 issues to address: music as utility (requires dynamic range control) and music as an experience or great entertainment (like the way the movie soundtrack works at a subconscious level). sometimes, when requested, i master records two ways: one for the CD (big range), one "competitively loud" for the band's web site and downloads. it could be confusing to the consumer, but the bands put a little paragraph on the CD saying "this CD sounds better than our downloads and may be 'softer' than your other CDs, so Turn It Up and feel the power!" the listeners get it.

after all they are the customer, and if they want it loud, then i will give it to them, but not without a little education on what they're giving up....

to read the great article by bob about Chinese Democracy, go to his website, gatewaymastering dot com.

By seva on Monday, January 04, 2010 10:30 PM

Rip, you had better get your facts straight before placing the blame for the Loudness War so heavily on the shoulders of mastering engineers in general. Ted Jensen has stated again and again in various interviews that the mixes received from Rick Ruben and Metallica were already so distorted and crushed dynamically that there was really nothing he could do.
Certainly there is "bad" mastering going on, but there is plenty of "bad" recording and mixing going on as well. The Metallica situation not only brings the Loudness War to the attention of the public but it SHOULD make the industry recognize the fact that the Loudness War is NOT solely a result of bad mastering. Thinking that mastering is the primary technical cause of the Loudness War simply reveals a shortsighted, uninformed view point. The Loudness War is fought as all stages of production, not just mastering.
Professionally I am obligated to educate myself then educate my clients and give them options. I record, mix and master records for a living and have done so for over 11 years. There are numerous pitfalls to look out for in all stages of production. The Loudness War is just one. Whatever the stage of production the main thing that is driving the Loudness War are uninformed and/or arrogant humans making bad decisions. As engineers we can either be part of the solution or part of the problem. To me, your attack upon engineers is part of the problem, not part of the solution. Knowing that the public doesn't care about sound quality doesn't mean that I'm going to lower my standards to the lowest common denominator by changing what I do. If their choice to listen to bad sound via poor quality media or equipment, that's not my problem. We as engineers cannot account, nor should we have to account, for all the possible stupid decisions made my the consumer. When it is the artist themselves pushing for an extremely loud record all we can do is inform them as to the potential problems and then give them what they want, since we are service providers and they are paying the bills.
Personally I could really care less about all this format talk. I listen primarily to CDs, vinyl and high resolution digital and analog masters because I am an engineer but also because I am someone who desires to hear recorded music in it's highest fidelity whenever possible. When I do listen to something less than CD quality, it is because the quality doesn't matter at that moment e.g in the car, when babies are screaming, when mowing the lawn, etc. When it comes to music, quality is always more important than quantity, at least to me. I own a 30GB iPod, but everything is encoded at CD quality or higher. By my calculations I can get around 100 hours of CD quality music on my iPod Classic. If you need more quantity than that I have to question your true interest in the music. Music may be disposable to some, but not to me.

By tucktuck on Friday, January 08, 2010 11:14 AM

This is one of those issues were no one wants to take the blame...yet, no one seems to agree with either. One of those "hey, I don't like it but, I have to do it..." mysterious events that seem to take over mind and body of all involved.

It's also one of those problems that is caused (in part) by necessity: if you "mildly pumped" record plays right after a beefier one it will in fat disappear. so to speak.

In the end, I can blame clients because the ONE and only complaint I have every received has been "it's not loud enough". And believe me, I am not one to master timidly... I do what the clients ask and that's it. End of story...

By G P on Friday, January 08, 2010 4:25 PM

@jv : "What I meant was MUSIC is still sounding crap with or without the Replay Gain. The real problem is not the level itself but the waveforms completely crushed. So the result is still crap but lower level. And who uses Replay Gain anyway, it´s off by default?"

I think you're missing the point. ReplayGain does not solve the loudness war in itself. What it does is makes the loudness war irrelevant. Secondly, the article did point out that this may take many more years to happen.

Basically, picture 10 years time from now. You import music into iTunes and it's automatically volume levelled (without you having to turn any settings on). You stick them on your iPod, Zune or Zen and they're volume levelled by default. You load a few songs into Media Player and they're volume levelled by default. In other words, imagine a time when ReplayGain is just the de facto standard for levelling volume on pretty much all hardware and software and it's accepted by most people out there (even if they don't know what it is).

Now, imagine you're a mastering engineer in this future time. What's the point of crushing the waveform and sapping all the dynamics out of it? It's still going to sound just as loud as any other track. Basically, what ReplayGain will hopefully achieve (ultimately) is that it'll make the loudness war redundant. No matter how much you brickwall a song, it won't sound any louder. However on the flip side, if you make it rich and dynamic, it won't sound any quieter either. Once we get to this situation, it should hopefully result in a change of direction for mastering as we go back to the ideals of "Make it sound as rich and powerful as possible" instead of the current "Make it sound as loud, flat and lifeless as possible".

By DaveyK on Saturday, January 09, 2010 5:22 AM

@tucktuck, you are absolutely correct in everything you say.

*HOWEVER*

1. If I were given a wrecked CD to master, I'd send the mix back. I would NEVER put my name on that product. Maybe Ted Jensen doesn't have that luxury, I can't speak for Ted. But he is the last engineer in the quality control process and the buck stops with him.

2. I have sent dozens and dozens of my *UNWRECKED* mixes to mastering engineers - many of them "name brand" mastering engineers - only to have them returned wrecked. I am in the position to know: the mastering industry is fully bought into "louder is better" and you have to fight with many mastering engineers to get them to not wreck your product.

By Rip Rowan on Thursday, January 21, 2010 8:08 AM

by Date