This issue has always been the same, people confuse the relationship with dynamic playing (what a soft note sounds like versus what a loudly struck note sounds like), dynamic music (music that incorporates, very low volume passages along with louder more bombastic passages), dynamic recordings (music where the overall average sound level is well below the peaks generates in the signal), and the relationship these have with loudness on digital playback systems (band limited with a noise floor well bellow that of human tolerance for SPL and distortion.)

This is not an argument you can have on a forum where people for whatever reason just can not agree on what the terminology means or choose to embrace their own definitions regardless. These threads will always derail into - I can get super loud and dynamic which using the terminology as intended is an oxymoron, and then a bunch of people wanting to know how they can catch magical unicorns that crap gold and rainbows.

Regardless of what people want, or say they want, the trend of hyper-compressed audio in media delivery is very much alive and for now doesn't seem to want to go away. Even media that has legally mandated limits options for highly compressed and limited at the limits of those standards rather than making a more dynamic delivery that would sound better and just not as loud.

TV commercials which either fall under ITU-R BS.1770 or EBU R128 are actually compresses a limited even harder now, they are just done so within the peak program loudness target and level requirements set.

Prime example in the U.S. is that if you are not looking at your screen Crab Fest, is actually CraP Fest because the plosive consonant is so crushed that is no auditory difference between a B and P.

It is going to be a while before any of this becomes an issue and the true test where dynamic music competes with loud music successfully is in volume normalized tests and in long tests where auditory fatigue becomes an issue. For a first listen on a random playback system where the listening interval is less that 40 minutes loudness will always win, unless the person listening is very experienced, metering, or in a normalized acoustically treated environment.

Long story short..... This discussion as well intended, meaningful, and important as it is, is a bit beyond the scope of what you can intelligently discuss on an internet board with a bunch of random people who for the most part can not make a difference between opinion and fact and do not even know how to properly use the terminology involved.

 

Well, thus far (IMHO) this discussion has yielded some very thoughtful, intelligent and non-argumentative opinions. "Opinions"; we all have them. Some are more 'technically' learned than others, however a great many of the people who frequent this forum are exceptionally knowledgeable about all aspects of music; engineering AND the prerequisite "terminology" included. And, I dare say, a sizeable portion of them, have been engaged in multi-facets of the business for a long time. I've been a member going on three years and have learned quite a bit about some of the more arcane elements of all things audio. I hardly think this discussion is a waste of time.

 

This paragraph alone justifies a thread like this one on a forum like this one. Where, if not here, can you reach those who actually make or produce music? Where, if not here, can you raise awareness? If only one of all readers thinks about other ways of mixing than with extreme compression/limiting, that's a good start. If only one starts to think of the fact that each listener of his/her music can just use a simple knob to raise the volume, but nobody can do the same to raise dynamics, that's a win.
And who cares about differentiations of the same term? Whatever you call them, in the end it is about dynamics! I not only don't differentiate, I say it is essential to think in terms of dynamic through the whole process of music creation! Take my hihat example from my earlier post: How silly would it be to first do that and then apply extreme compression that flattens all out again? I really am convinced that it all is related to each other.
Also, there's so much talk about what a listener prefers. How come that so many people enjoy classic dynamic music? Didn't they hear of all the tests that prove them wrong? Why am I constantly forced to lower the volume on over-compressed tv-channels? Didn't I hear of the tests that say I would prefer them?
I say there's too much technical terms. The more people can lose themselves in tech talk, the less they feel music. Let me compare it with cakes. There are tons of factory cakes that will always taste exactly the same, no matter how often you buy them. But the real joy comes from the cake your grandma baked with all her subtleties and peculiarities. She baked it especially for you and you notice it. And you love it.

 

Well said. That's why a discussion about this topic is essential. Gaining views on other people's perspective is always a valuable thing. After all, this IS essentially a forum and site (as it were) whose core theme is about music in all of its transient forms. If we can't open up the mics and let ideas flow, then what in hell is the point?

 

...oh..sorry, I thought this was the UFO thread.

 

i hope it does turn out well, I really do, I would like to eventually use my amp past the 2-3 setting it has to be on with the stuff people are throwing out.

Perhaps we can even talk about normalization on streaming services and the youtube, even though they are somewhere between 12-14 LUFS the ingest material is pumped in at -6-7LUFS

 

I really enjoy the discussion so far!

For people who wonder what a "dynamic song" can sound like, listen to Michael Jackson - Earth song in full.
And dont listen too loud.

The guy behind this mix and also the recording is Bruce Swedien, he has a nice attitude towards this.

I think some people mistake dynamic sounding for quiet and not powerful.
its really a matter of what you're able to do as an engineer/band/artist/producer.
I think making something dynamic and powerful at the same time requires some skill!

 

Could not agree more, for me it all starts with the assumption that something is wrong about it in the first place

 

A valid point. There are two aspects to it:
1) If you're creating EDM, there's nothing wrong with it. EDM doesn't want dynamics, it is all about power. A EDM piece without over-compression is no EDM piece. (And no, I'm not cynical. It really is about least dynamics)
2) A whole generation grew up with loudness maximized songs everywhere. They would have to train their ears first to enjoy subtleties. This generation has a bad start if they are NOT into EDM.

For music that's not EDM, losing dynamics is just aweful. Here's an example of a song that was said to be the best master ever produced when it was released in 1986. It was "remastered" in 2006. The video plays both versions alternating and on matched playback level. Every ear that is not used to over-compression clearly hears the muddy sound of the remaster and the crystal clear, defined and vivid sound of the original:

Spoiler: Dire Straits - Money for nothing

I was very impressed by a video of Bob Katz talking about many aspects of mastering. It is not about loudness war, instead shares many insights:

Spoiler: Bob Katz @ SAE Institute Paris

Here's what engineers have to say, who are against over-used loudness maximization, should you be interested:

Spoiler: EN: What famous producers think about the loudness war

And finally this is a very interesting comparison that shows how radio stations actually alter your song. I wasn't aware that the effect is so severe in USA:

Spoiler: Loudness War: Lean On

I hope I could contribute interesting aspects to your statement?

 

The overuse of compression is another one of these 21st century problematic phenonema that has burrowed as some parasitic worm into the very skin of our shared ear flesh and has become a "normal", taken for granted "THING". Normal, but not in a good kind of way. I could spew for days until I'm dazed and confused and spin like a plate my angst and anxiety but still not come up with a viable solution to tip the tip of aural balance in favor of goodly goodness. But I can't so won' t. My only suggestion: Mix with your conscience, do that what you love, dynamic and balanced, to cherish and hold... your true heart's treasure trove.

Compress locally, mix globally.

This pertains NOT to EDM

 

right- edm has not many dynamics.
and people reference any music to that genre....

many kids these days listen to music on their bluetooth boomboxes on parties or on cheap earbuds in the subway.

when i make a track, i sometimes catch myself thinking:
"will the people loose interest in my music if it has a quiet passage or if it doesnt sound loud in the first place?"

 

Interior decoraters buy art to match the paint sample on a chip for the new color of the wall in a client's home, but not because it might be a beautiful piece of art but rather for just monetary gain . I think that is a shame even though an artist has sold a painting for it devalues the work itself and redefines the it as just a room accessory. People need to eat, so I guess rationalizations must have lots of calories.

 

I don't think so. The quiet passages do not disturb at all. Loudness isn't the thing. As mozee said, YT is about -13 LUFS, which isn't really loud. The thing is, that people are used to hard compression, hard sidechaining, all these artifacts, thath lead to low dynamics (in the loud passages). And they like it. I myself love it too to have the sound in your face, when the drop comes in. But i speak for all EDM like Genres. Not for heavy metal, not for live performances and particularly not for classical music. But when it comes to electronic dance music you have to have a "plank" (german translation, do not know haw they call it in the US) ;)

 

Very interesting discussion, nothing much to add, just wanted to say keep it going
interesting videos and post; thanks
edit: I usually look at the waveforms of old tracks (sometimes i rip them myself) and it's always surprising, especially because i'm not looking at a sausage (some progressive/hard tracks are fat though); i think they were a bit more careful back in the days

 

They needed to because too much bass or loudness would make the needle jump out of the groove of the record. Cutting masters was an artform.

 

Most of the audience is not looking at the waveforms

 

I agree and cutting vinyl masters may be still an artform. But YT is not interested in vinyl cutted masters and YT is the way to go now

 

Since I knew about this Dynamic Range thing, I started to pay attention to my mix (and with the help of the TT meter) to not overpass the 10db of DR in my productions, and my last album I just made, that is mainly techno, got exactly that range, and yet I think sounds almost as loud as any other EDM production, but with the difference that mine has a lot better dynamics.
Even Ian Sheperd, responsible of the"Dynamic Range Day" in his website says that the 10db DR limit is the limit to go for any production, maybe a little bit more for electronic music for example, but almost all the songs with that DR will sound excelent, even now that sites like Spotify with its feature to adjust automatically the volume to be the same in your whole playlist actually diminishes the volume of songs that has less dynamics, making the ones with better dynamics sound as loud as those but with the high quality that a good DR can make.

 

The above post is basically saying something that I understand to be true. Electronic Dance Music and I'm talking about all genres, as in the old school term, and not the aberration that is called EDM now does not need to be processed to death. IMO the over processing that goes on in music today, is what makes it sound shite. Being older, I can remember when good dance music had dynamics. So I reloaded TT meter in offline mode and put some mp3's through it. In offline mode it gives the DR reading of the whole track as an average. Her's some results and the tracks.
Statistics for: Yello-More (Rockabilly Mix)
Number of Samples: 16450560
-----------------------------------------------

left right

Peak value: -0.00 dB --- -0.00 dB
Avg RMS: -14.14 dB --- -14.52 dB
DR channel: 12.19 dB --- 12.52 dB
-----------------------------------------------

Official DR value: DR12

Statistics for: Prodigy - Music For The Jilted Generation - 1994-No good
Number of Samples: 16667370
-----------------------------------------------

left right

Peak value: over --- 0.00 dB
Avg RMS: -12.44 dB --- -12.91 dB
DR channel: 10.61 dB --- 11.09 dB
-----------------------------------------------

Official DR value: DR11

Statistics for: Paffendorf - Crazy Sexy Marvellous (Driftwood Remix).
Number of Samples: 19500233
-----------------------------------------------

left right

Peak value: -0.00 dB --- -0.00 dB
Avg RMS: -11.61 dB --- -12.13 dB
DR channel: 10.14 dB --- 10.64 dB
-----------------------------------------------

Official DR value: DR10

Statistics for: 01 Mantra to the Buddha (Hardfloor mix).
Number of Samples: 19512028
-----------------------------------------------

left right

Peak value: -3.04 dB --- -2.83 dB
Avg RMS: -14.49 dB --- -14.42 dB
DR channel: 10.08 dB --- 10.06 dB
-----------------------------------------------

Official DR value: DR10

So, is this conclusive proof? Not really.
Why? As I don't know how these were mastered I can't call it proof, just interesting. So, what I did was play a track which I'm currently working on, which was recorded from my hardware setup live with no post processing. As I watched the meter it ranged from DR 14 all the way down to DR 6. The DR 6 was happening when a bass part was playing, which is a very low bass. I did change this last night while I was working on it. I'll check it tonight when I'm working on it to see the difference. Anyways, here's the result from that recorded track.
Statistics for: Experiment 64.mp3
Number of Samples: 11379454
-----------------------------------------------

left right

Peak value: -0.96 dB --- -0.99 dB
Avg RMS: -13.89 dB --- -13.97 dB
DR channel: 10.01 dB --- 9.70 dB
-----------------------------------------------

Official DR value: DR10
===============================================

 

Curiously, low frequency management is still in play the same way. Too much bass and you eat up your headroom, causing clipping and horrible distorsion. Of course, today's playback systems can play lower frequencies than yersteryear's turntables.

True, but oversquashed masters sound too harsh in small playback systems. I guess people have just grown accustomed to listening to music that way.

Very revealing info.