I understand your point and I think you chose your musical genre correctly given your taste for loudness.

If you would like even louder music , you ould try to listen to a musical genre named ''Noise''.
Its not always super loud but when they want it to be ...it is more then anything else in the world for any given system at same settings.

Goodthing about this is that they chose their name accordingly....because at a certain level, music is not music anymore and it become just noise....like another one said...its just a big bar.

It might be good for teenagers and even adults with destroyed eardrums but when it ome to audiophile, textures and dynamis replace the whole process.

WHat I mean is that I dont judge people drinking a bottle of beer with a funnel but I can also understand that beer enthusiast drink beer by sipping it.
We rarely judge the quality of a beer by the saying of someone that an barely make the difference between an over foamy keg beer threw a funnel and another that carefully drop it in a special glass for that type of beer.

One thing i could suggest is for you tolisten to 128kbps or 64kbps mp3.....that will be much louder and perfect for you !

 

Last edited: Dec 16, 2016

LOL. Like I said, if it doesn't sound "better" to people then it isn't "better".

I love dance music, and I love how it sounds MASSIVE. The tech is essential to the sound. Distortion started as a problem on a mixing desk, no? It wasn't supposed to be "like that".

Preferably everyone could get a mix they like, rather than one size fits all. I like sweet coffee, others don't. It doesn't bother me, but it does bother others. ;)

 

I have plenty of MFSL.

 

Yeah, they're nice. But they don't go LOUD. At least not without a PA imo.

Frankly there's two different things - 1) how "technically" good a recording is (an objective measure, maybe), and 2) how good it sounds to someone (a completely subjective measure - nobody can tell someone else that A B or C sounds "better").

If a squashed hyper maximised track "sounds better" to individual X, Y or Z, then it *is* better - to XYZ.

 

I totaly agree with you.
Thats why I never judge overweight people when they tell me they think nothing can beat a BigMac .

 

This discussion reminds me of the central debate in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance - is "quality" Objective or Subjective?

Most everyone always asserts it's subjective, as in "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". [That's my point about whether music is "better" maximised or not - it's up to the listener to decide and whichever they decide is the "better" *is* better - for them.]

Whereas the argument about greater dynamics and less limiting asserts that quality is objective and intrinsic to an object or phenomena. It doesn't matter whether people realise it or not, a Porsche engine-piston is "better" than a "Dahaitsu" one etc.

I always pile-on with the Objective argument usually, because the subjective version is often automatically adopted by everyone. Here it's not.

Still, it remains the case that people can choose and will choose what (they think) they like, and they treat others telling them different as condescension.

 

I'm so very happy that you share your opinion with us about this subject.

As a counter weight though I'll keep my opinion for myself and bring Facts into the balance.



As you might already know, Psycoacustic and Electro-Acoustics are sciences.

The first one study the chemical reaction of brains when put up to certain tonal situation.

The second one is some kind of electronic engineering involving the goal to perfectly recreate sound......so far, no one never recreated a perfect recording or sound emission device.

As you mght know( or not ) in both world, there is tools that are based on human perception of sound. The perception in therms of loudness and frequency range vary quite a bit depending on the ears condition of the listener. This is a fact you might want to remember here when talking about Quality as if it could be classified simplistically as Quantity like you mentioned in your opinion based text.
See, the thing here is that were talking about a science. The science of sounds. Youre talking about Music wich is not a science but an artistic expression.

So when talking about quality in sound, keep in mind that there is fundamentals behind, a Science. ....just like Biochemistry is the fundamentals behind Nutritionism.

If you want to talk about Musical genre and composition.....we're talking a totaly different subject here and you could point tiesto as the best quality artist ever and I wouldnt mind you liking anything in fact. That is subject to taste.

The science of sound is not and thats why its a science.

Look up THD ratio for example.....you might understand a couple facts that relate to ''quality'' into loud music/tone signals.

So those were facts.
Tell me about your next opinion now.

 

Psychoacoustics isn't a science in so far as we have no theory of mind.

Anyway, I was just saying that people decide for themselves what sounds "better". If you're producing for an audience, best you know. You can scorn their lack of distinction (I often do) but you can't tell someone else what *sounds better*.

Knowledge of the science of light does not necessarily provide for better painters or paintings - certainly not for more *popular* ones.

Somebody had earlier posted that people only liked LOUD because it had been foisted upon them. Well, why doesn't some bright spark at the military-industrial-music complex try *not* making LOUD shit? Because folks like to hear it LOUD. And because they're listening on crappy little audio devices.

LOUD sells. Because people like it. I do. I like dynamics too - I love classical music. But nothing bangs like modern stuff does. Or rather, did.

If everyone could get a mix they like, we'd be all happy? I don't want everything in one size........but LOUD is popular for good reason - it sounds good to people.

I'd much prefer to make something people like rather than a scientific recording that is perfectly engineered whatever.

And I'd much rather listen to a great tune badly recorded than a crappy tune brilliantly recorded. There's no science for that at all, no objective measures you can put to it. Nobody can even say we all hear sound the same. You can take all the measurements you want, but you won't find anything telling you what people like - apart from statistics telling you what people like.

The science of sound is distinct to what people make of sound. At some point the physical system of hearing waves hits "the mind". At that point, nobody can say what is "better", only the mind in question can decide. In that sense, saying more dynamics is better is an arbitrary distinction, justified by an arbitrary numerical measure. Who says more dynamics is "better"? That's like saying ocean waves are better when they change more? Better for who?

The listener decides, no matter your measurements (which I don't doubt).