Firstly: I am 100% convinced that the louder is the better. That's not my point. My point is YouTube. Music these days mostly is auditioned via YT. That is fact. And YT "maximizes" loudness to -13 (my measurement) or -14 db(official) LUFS. So one could come up with the idea of doing less compression to hit that level without forcing YT to make it quieter and gathering the advantage of having more dynamics. So far so good, but: YT doesn't affect the .mp4 or.mp3 or .wav file itself. It makes things just quieter (less volume) while playing back. If anyone does download the file via jdownloader, Firefox add-on or whatever he gets the original file and original loudness. Plus i recently figured out that when sending the YT link via Telegram to a friend, the video is played back in the original loudness and volume (at least on a mac). So does it in the end really make sense to throttle the loudness of a track and gathering more dynamics at the cost of being not loud enough when being downloaded or the link is forwarded. In other words: What worth is the more of dynamics really ?

P.S. Sorry 4 my English, i'm Bavarian

 

well, from a business perspective the problem is downloading itself,
youtube Deezer or whatever,

From a technical perspective, I'm not entirely convinced that the mp3,4 or whatever is lowered in volume.
however, most encoders/converters for mp3 normalize the file delivered (but someone should test this with youtube-dl)
so it could be the actual file was lowered in volume, but raised again by the third party for downloading from youtube.

 

trust me, youtube is (just) lowering the volume of a video while playing it back. Not more and not less. The file itself is not affected.

 

I'm happy that, like myself, more and more people all around the world disagree.

more dynamics for the benefit (of sound).

Aside from a better sound of a not to death squashed track, there's maybe just a judicial reason not to change the track itself.

 

man, sorry to say that but you are so stuck in 1990. You are exactly the one that i didn't want to reply to my post. If you ask 100 people, 99 of them will tell you that the louder music sounds better. That is fact. Period. I do not need any avenger to tell me that more dynamics is better. I personally love dynamics but i am not counting at all. Counting is just the mass.

 

Here we go.......Again

Just Personal opinions Guys/Gals, but i like to hear some reference music to all these opinions

IMO I love Dynamically Musical (meaning sounds good, not the act) Music, i blame the receiver's end if its not loud enough, upgrade your system

 

No prob, I'm out.

 

Did i warm up an old thread ? Sorry, didn't mean to. Just provide me with the link.

 

offended ?

 

I think the squashed sound has become part of modern sound, regardless of loudness wars. People compress and saturate everything, not necessarily for volume, but because it adds energy, movement and power to the music that gets lost in the production process. As long as limiting is done reasonably, I think it can benefit the music.

 

Nope, not at all. That's why I wrote "No prob".
It's your thread and if you don't want to hear this, it's ok for me.

 

I understand what both are saying and think that... while technically louder sounds better as the Fletcher Munson curves suggest... dynamics in music are an essential part that the loudness war denied for a long time. We should aim for balanced tracks and crank them up in our systems. that's my point of view at least.

Also I think that Gwydion is being a little... hmmm... energetic! with his comments. Hope I don't pull any strings with my comment. Also praise to No Avenger for his respectful approach. Peace!

 

Always have and always will. We may be accused of being stuck in the 90s but I recall it being annoying then too. OP might need to go back further.

As for Youtube.. it has a native HTML5 player which sits in a browser that sits in a mixer. It's not going to sound the same as playing it through another media player. And that default media player, on default settings, won't sound the same as another. They'll probably have slightly different settings in the system mixer as well as their own individual quirks.

If YT do, in fact, adjust volume for some reason and you're using it to reach an audience in a specific way then stick to that method using a YT mix for that purpose. Have a separate link in the description to a cleaner site/download. Don't try to find a single-version middle ground.

 

True, however they'd tell you same thing if you just turn up the volume knob.

 

IMO -14 LUFS should be more than enough for everyone. But if you insist on punishing your listeners maybe do what some TV ad companies are doing now and try adding doorbell sounds to your video. Or really just any high pitched randomly timed bell-like sounds, like that one ad with a cacophonic "triangle solo" to truly capture the viewers attention.

 

It is, just not in the context of artificial compression.

Dire Straits - Brothers in Arms
I don't think that one could sound good with any sort of additional compression on it.

Just a sidenote, I have never used any sort of dynamics processor on my tracks, is it time to start?

 

Last edited: Jan 1, 2018

the thing is: when a listener doesn't touch the volume knob and listens to two songs of the same style, but one is limited a bit harder, the one that is "louder" will sound "better", that's all. of course you can always use the volume knob (if knobs exist anymore... sob)

 

Yep, IMHO multiversions is the way to go (when you really want or need to compete in "loudness").

What YT is doing is some kind of external normalization analysis which is used to hint the player at the "correct" loudness for playback to get a kind of unique loudness when playing multiple tracks after each other. But of course this procedure can be tricked by using compression. So again the personal loudness impression (not the max values) will "bump" when playing different tracks.

 

Last edited: Jan 1, 2018

However, ask your same 100 person of your generation what they think of the recordings and music released in the 90s-80s-70s, 99 will tell you it sounds way better than most of the commercial shit released today.

ALSO, they will tell you that the music from this era was way more creative and entertaining than the same shit mentioned above. In my surrounding, all the young people listens to their parent's record more often than the new shit.

And please, don't take me wrong, I don't say that all new stuff is shit but to be conservative I would say 80% of it is.

My opinion and my observation.

Have a nice day!

 

There are two drivers behind the international loudness standards. The first was the problem of adverts being very much louder than the programs they were inserted into. That’s where the decision to implement loudness standards originally came from. That’s now been extended to apply to all forms of broadcast sound. Additionally, the resurgence of vinyl has forced changes in the way sound is maximised because you simply can’t etch a groove onto acetate that’s been levelled to a -5dBFS RMS square wave.

So, you can produce music to whatever loudness you want. The problem you will face is that however loud you think is good, an automated levelling system at most points of distribution, will level you to whatever standard the distributor works for. If you slam the wave to its limits, it will be levelled down, and in that condition, of equal loudness with all comers, your squashed track will sound absolutely dreadful compared with an unsquashed track.

So, you choose.