Loudness has nothing to do with volume, unless your reference loudspeaker is an iPhone. SPL and Loudness are not the same thing.

 

Oh no no don't worry, I was talking more in general and that was not directed at you in any way or shape

I don't know about Skrillex to be honest because I do not listen to dubstep or other similar genres.
I studied every single song in one of the last compilation from Technobase.fm, in particular Technobase 16: it's a compilation of hands up music, from Germany. These tracks kinda need to be very loud, you don't have much space for dynamics. When the kick and bass hits, the waveform usually looks like a big sausage lol, and the song is loud during the overall length. Now I know not many people are familiar with them but that's the first example that came to my mind.

Yeah this is kinda what I'm saying, taskforce. If it's music supposed to make you dance, I think making it louder - and not a huge wall of sound at 0db - is not gonna make people complain. And again mate, I think we both agree on not overcompressing: I'm merely talking about making sure that when the bass and kick hit the song has a good RMS. I think if any of the tracks posted above were slightly less "loud" I wouldn't really complain, as long as they are good tracks that's all that matters. As someone else said (I think it was @mozee), and as you said as well, if I don't like the song I'd rather not have it playing obnoxiously loud

 

This is loud (SPL) but actually has a large dynamic range.



Loudness =/= SPL

 

the vast majority listen to pop music or a variety of such.
dynamic range is alive and well in areas it serves a purpose ( movies) {ya know when your woman screams at you that their whispering one second and next second a car explodes and is 1000 times louder?
in areas where dynamic range cannot really accomplish anything valuable (songs,ep and album music) mixing and mastering engineers use tools to cap the loudest sounds (listen at lower volumes) and most important
the music sounds the same on many different playback systems.
if YOU would like to make a nice dynamic album of your own music do it ill enjoy it (unless it is at night when i want to keep the volume down, or i have an expensive system where im worried im going to blow the speaker baskets out on yer kicks nicca.)
i love old jazz because it is dynamic as hell but you also hear the sound and the room it was captured in giving a natural sound.
modern music , is not mean to capture the 3d depth of the room because it is not played in a room homie. it is played on a joystick and square box with buttons haha

i am interested in nice acoustic music that is meant to capture the room and is very dynamic make some for me my lamb brother!
makes me think some incredible high end audiophile speakers in a nice room mic'ed off from your record player (playing modern electronica) wound sound sweet recorded with high dynamic range

 

Guys i just cleaned up the thread from personal attacks, Please stay on topic.

Op Please stop trolling your own thread or i'll be forced to closed your thread.

Thank you all for understanding and always if any issues feel free to PM any Mod.

 

Every music player should have a compressor feature.
Just like modern TVs have "night mode sound" which is nothing more than a compressor.

I know. A real-time compressor can't give the same quality than an engineered one. So for music that benefits of compression (EDM?) all-out compression ))

 

Can't say I agree with the subject - Pros don't hate DR, they usually understand the concept and most cherish it IMO.
It's the client who want to have the music louder, pros only do their work according to client's contract and wishes.

 

What I find interesting in all this is that people say they make it louder when it's actually not louder. By decreasing the dynamic range you are actually making your track softer, not louder and it shows when you compare the same song, one limited and one dynamic, at the same RMS level. A heavily limited track is also not able to drive the speaker cones as *loud* as it should, due to lack of peaks. A proper dynamic kick will hit the speaker cones really hard and make it move, whilst a flabby, limited one will not. Think about it.

I always tell people to just do that and you'll ears and eyes will open. Digital audio dynamic range is not supposed to be used like we use it today. We should use more of it than just peak couple of dBs.

It's a huge shame, really. But the biggest shame is when I hear some music I like distorted to bits by limiting. That's nasty. It really takes away a lot from my listening pleasure. Makes me want to turn it down...

 

It's not always just a technical decision. It could also be a creative one. If you want it to sound like this (and you know what you're doing), then it's fine maybe.

For example, here's "love the world" from Perfume's "⊿" (Japan, 2009):



Doesn't look too good, but it sounds the way it's meant to sound.
OK, Japan is the land of rising limiters, so many J-pop productions look like this, but it's still a deliberate artistic choice. The HD versions (e.g. from mora) are brickwalled identically...

 

Interesting, but either nonsense (meaningless) or wrong; math quiz:


Which has the greater RMS:
1. Constant signal @ maximum amplitude (no dynamic range)
2. Signal as shown above (high dynamic range)

In which world?

Edit: All kidding aside, RMS is got to be the most misused TLA on in the inteweb. Think of RMS as the colored-in pixels in the pic below: moar non-white pixels = higher RMS. Brought to you by Wikipedia, the free encyclopædia.

 

Last edited: Dec 10, 2017

No,real pros love DR.

 

*dead pros
RIP

 

To the risk of sounding ridicoulous but I'll try to explain anyway: maybe what's more important and what others are trying to say is that with a better dynamic range you hear more peaks (since there's more difference in volume between the peaks and the quietest parts) so it's perceived as "louder" ? While in a squashed track, yes, everything is LOUD but there's no peak so it's all flat and a continous stream of sound at the same volume

 

I am not certain if you are just being pedantic to troll or if you misunderstand the old-man speak. I don't want to put words in anyone else's mouth but I think Mr. @SineWave is referencing matched output volume or RMS of the output of the power-amp not the line level measurement of the output signal. Which is actually one of the few proper valid uses of RMS when using it as a relative measure of relative loudness.

Also, the integration time and window functions require (t) time. I don't need a quadratic mean or a transform to get the average of a sample with 4 discreet waves. Root means square is also heavily dependent on the integration window, which is why it's such as shit measure of line level loudness - that along with human hearing being non-linear etc...

Since we are getting on that pedantic track once more.

In this one.

If you are talking about maximum produced impulse from a loudspeaker, larger changes in potential will produce a larger peak.

The resistance of the magnet and the membrane is less from a static point in one direction and is non-linear. Even the best designed and built loudspeaker still has a hard time reproducing square waves with sound.

In a pure mathematical sense there should be no difference in impulse generation but in our physical world the membrane has a resistance to deflection and recoil, the magnet has mass and momentum and on each change in direction it must overcome these resistances + the total energy and momentum it has as polarity changes. This is why we have speaker cones of different sizes, larger ones have trouble making sharp quick movements required for high frequency waves, and small ones have trouble making big slow waves that move a lot of air.

It gets a little more complicated than that, but honestly this is beyond splitting hairs and outside the scope of this discussion and unless curated outside the scope of this forum.

I agree. RMS does have uses past or before the input stage in analog devices but outside of that it is generally an anachronism and archaic term.

The root mean square of a voltage was never meant to represent a value of loudness, on the average voltage of a signal in defined integration window and inside of a limit. The LU units are a bit better, not perfect... but a step in the right direction.

 

Not sure what you mean. I said his post is either wrong, or it makes no sense:

...so walk me through this:

At the same RMS level, all other variable being equal, the song would be neither louder nor quieter. It may be quiet-loud-quiet-loud instead of moderate-moderate-moderate-moderate, but the sum total will remain the same. I.e. "bad math.".

OTOH, people don't typically compress just to waste headroom (keeping the song volume moderate moderate & wasting bit depth). People compress to make songs LOUDER. To increase RMS. I.e. "nonsense"

See above.

Please re-read what I'm responding to. I'll save you the trouble & quote:

Are you suggesting that a heavily-limited track will generate content beyond the capabilities of a speaker system? Are you telling me that overdriving a guitar amp makes it quieter? This is all very interesting, go on...

 

Last edited: Dec 10, 2017

lampchop does this pass your test brother?