Vickers's Law: There are infinitely more ways to make sounds sound worse than there are to make them sound better.
(This assumes that we define "better" as being more similar (e.g., in a least squares sense) to some desired (clean) sound.)
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
Friday, September 20, 2013
A new DAFX article of interest: Alex Wilson and Bruno Fazenda, "Perception & Evaluation of Audio Quality in Music Production", http://dafx13.nuim.ie/papers/04.dafx2013_submission_47.pdf . From the abstract:
A dataset of audio clips was prepared and audio quality assessed by subjective testing.... A new objective metric is proposed, describing the Gaussian nature of a signal’s amplitude distribution. Correlations between objective measurements of the music signals and the subjective perception of their quality were found. Existing metrics were adjusted to match quality perception. A number of timbral, spatial, rhythmic and amplitude measures, in addition to predictions of emotional response, were found to be related to the perception of quality. The emotional features were found to have most importance, indicating a connection between quality and a uniļ¬ed set of subjective and objective parameters.
Thursday, June 6, 2013
I just noticed an article, "'Dynamic Range' & The Loudness War" by Emmanuel Deruty, in the Sept. 2011 SOS, http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep11/articles/loudness.htm .
This article is very interesting - not sure what to make of it. It claims to prove that music is not getting less dynamic.
My AES paper on the topic, http://www.sfxmachine.com/docs/loudnesswar/ , found a noticeable decrease of "dynamic range" from 1985 to 2010 (from almost 13 dB to less than 8 dB), but this used the "TT Dynamic Range Meter", which actually measures something more like crest factor than dynamic range.
I agree that the term "Dynamic Range" is ill-defined and maybe not relevant here - a statistical measure would be more appropriate. It would be surprising to me if the "Loudness Range" (http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=16254) has not decreased - I'd be curious to hear what the original creators of the Loudness Range measure would say about this.
Clearly more work is needed to figure out how musical dynamics have changed and which measures are most relevant.
This article is very interesting - not sure what to make of it. It claims to prove that music is not getting less dynamic.
My AES paper on the topic, http://www.sfxmachine.com/docs/loudnesswar/ , found a noticeable decrease of "dynamic range" from 1985 to 2010 (from almost 13 dB to less than 8 dB), but this used the "TT Dynamic Range Meter", which actually measures something more like crest factor than dynamic range.
I agree that the term "Dynamic Range" is ill-defined and maybe not relevant here - a statistical measure would be more appropriate. It would be surprising to me if the "Loudness Range" (http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=16254) has not decreased - I'd be curious to hear what the original creators of the Loudness Range measure would say about this.
Clearly more work is needed to figure out how musical dynamics have changed and which measures are most relevant.
Saturday, May 25, 2013
A new IEEE article quotes my loudness war paper and presents a linear and perceptually transparent method of reducing peak amplitudes by around 2.5 dB using an allpass filter chain. Clever idea.
Parker, J.; Valimaki, V., "Linear Dynamic Range Reduction of Musical Audio Using an Allpass Filter Chain," Signal Processing Letters, IEEE , vol.20, no.7, pp.669,672, July 2013.
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=6516022&sortType%3Dasc_p_Sequence%26filter%3DAND%28p_IS_Number%3A6515149%29
Parker, J.; Valimaki, V., "Linear Dynamic Range Reduction of Musical Audio Using an Allpass Filter Chain," Signal Processing Letters, IEEE , vol.20, no.7, pp.669,672, July 2013.
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=6516022&sortType%3Dasc_p_Sequence%26filter%3DAND%28p_IS_Number%3A6515149%29
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
The August, 2012 Electronic Musician magazine has an article on Jack White:
"One stipulation White had for mastering engineer Bob Ludwig was that he wouldn't use any dynamics processing in the mastering process. 'There was a study from Earl Vickers [sfxmachine.com/docs/loudnesswar] about the loudness wars,' [Vance] Powell says. 'As the loudness war escalated, record sales went down. I'm not saying we're killing the loudness war. But I think it's a very bold move for Jack to say, 'I realize there are records out there that are going to be louder, but I don't care....'"
He asked Bob if there was a way to make it louder without changing the dynamics of the song, and Bob said yes. 'So the master came back, and it sounded great. There's nothing squashed or lost in the dynamics, and it still sounded really loud.'"
To me, the music has a more open quality than many recent CDs - it breathes and feels less fatiguing. At any rate, this seems to be an existence proof that it's possible for artists to hit #1 on the Billboard charts without hypercompression.
"One stipulation White had for mastering engineer Bob Ludwig was that he wouldn't use any dynamics processing in the mastering process. 'There was a study from Earl Vickers [sfxmachine.com/docs/loudnesswar] about the loudness wars,' [Vance] Powell says. 'As the loudness war escalated, record sales went down. I'm not saying we're killing the loudness war. But I think it's a very bold move for Jack to say, 'I realize there are records out there that are going to be louder, but I don't care....'"
He asked Bob if there was a way to make it louder without changing the dynamics of the song, and Bob said yes. 'So the master came back, and it sounded great. There's nothing squashed or lost in the dynamics, and it still sounded really loud.'"
To me, the music has a more open quality than many recent CDs - it breathes and feels less fatiguing. At any rate, this seems to be an existence proof that it's possible for artists to hit #1 on the Billboard charts without hypercompression.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Comments on the Loudness War
Just this morning I stumbled across this page of yours. . .
http://www.sfxmachine.com/docs/loudnesswar/
I found it one of the better presentations on the subject that's available online. I felt compelled to send you some of my own rambling thoughts on the subject. So here goes. . .
One of your more intriguing suggestions was that record companies could release recordings in both standard and premium versions. This has already begun to happen in a spotty, haphazard way, with vinyl LP records. The LP release is invariably more expensive than the CD, but has the advantage in cover art, liner notes, physical presence, and -- sometimes -- audio quality. There's irony, I think, in that CDs clearly have the capability to provide better sound than LPs. However, it's the limitations of the LP format that entice the recording engineer to make the most of the capacity that is available.
For example: A while back I got an audiophile LP release of Judas Priest Screaming for Vengeance. This was turned into a gatefold album, 2-record set, on 180-gram virgin (colored!) vinyl. It was apparently made into two LPs so that they could include two bonus tracks which had also appeared on later CD releases. I digitized some tracks from these records and compared them with the same tracks from an original (1980s) CD release. I found the CD had slightly more dynamic range than the LP, but the difference was minor. The LP sounds good. Who is buying this? (Aside from me, I mean!) It's definitely a premium package. Anybody shopping for 180g vinyl presumably has some concern about sound quality. They aren't looking for iPod fodder.
A counter example: I got the LP release ofChroma Cannon by Prizzy Prizzy Please "Lights from Paradise" by the band Quest for Fire [see correction in comment below...]. The cover art was nice, and the heavy record with colored vinyl looked and felt appealing, right until the moment when I lowered the needle on it. Sadly, it sounds like the recording engineers simply took the hyper-compressed CD master and fed it into a record cutter. To fit the whole thing into the running time of a single LP, it was necessary to go with shallow grooves, thus lowering the overall signal levels. The result was an auditory disaster; it sounds like mud. I know this was intended as a premium product, but it was a failure -- unless it was intended as a collector's item for Prizzy Prizzy Please fans who may not even have a turntable? Maybe they just want to hang that colored platter on their wall? I really don't know.
Whenever we talk about audio quality, we have to fend off the specters of SACD and DVD-A. (Technically those formats aren't dead, but they might as well be.) Well. . . I'm honest enough to admit that I can't hear any difference between a well produced CD and a DVD-A, with my moderately degraded ears and my mid-level stereo equipment. To me SACD and DVD-A came across as scams to try and foist draconian DRM schemes onto consumers while getting them to re-purchase their music collections -- plus a "format war" thrown into the mix to make them even less appealing.
When it's used properly, the standard CD red book format is capable of superb performance. In the late 1980s -- after recording engineers had learned their way around the red book, and after good digital editing and mastering tools were widely available, but before the loudness war took off -- even common pop-and-rock releases were coming out with excellent audio quality, routinely. I don't think the CD format should be allowed to die, undercut by digital downloads and replaced at the high end by archaic LPs. The CD does need a makeover, though.
Here's my prescription for a premium CD package: First, ditch the jewel box! They look and feel cheap, they break easily, and they limit the size of artwork and liner notes that can be included. My suggestion is to take the standard plastic DVD movie case and widen it into a true square -- about the same size as a 45 RPM single. This ought to make a good compromise between jewel box and LP size.
Second, impose some kind of requirement for dynamic range! You hinted at something like this in your presentation, with a sort of sticker or logo that would indicate the dynamic range of the recording. I don't think it even needs to be that sophisticated. We could simply place a limit on the average power level - which has the advantage of simplicity and being very easy to set and measure, anybody can check it. If anybody wanted to make a super-compressed recording with very little dynamic range (for some sort of perverse artistic reasons, perhaps), they'd still be able to do that -- but they wouldn't get any benefit from it. It wouldn't sound louder, because they'd be required to lower the level across-the-board and keep it within the specified limit.
To me this would be better than trying to bring back LPs. The production costs would be lower, and it would take advantage of the world's huge CD production capacity (as compared with the surviving LP pressing plants that are wearing out), and ultimately provide a better-sounding and more durable product. It would just be a marketing problem. We could call it, I dunno. . . CD Plus? CD Extra?
Incidentally, the JVC XRCD format (or quasi-format) could be regarded as a tentative jab in this direction. The problem, from my viewpoint, is that XRCD has been aimed at the niche audiophile market with mostly classical and jazz releases. Thus, XRCD is living in a space where the loudness war was never a problem. XRCD is really the logical answer to the failures of SACD and DVD-A, but not to the loudness war.
I think rock music has been hit hardest by over-compression. Particularly frustrating to me, some of my old favorite "classic rock" bands (Styx, Blue Oyster Cult, ZZ Top) have continued to put out new CD releases, and some of the music is actually quite good, but the compression has been brutal. After being burned with a few of these ruined recordings, I became so disgusted that I decided not to buy any more CDs released after the year 2000. That applies equally to iTunes Music Store, since (as far as I know) their music is generally sourced from the CDs. (Although otherwise I quite like what Apple have done with ITMS.)
Right now I've got a pre-order in for the newest Yes album, Fly from Here. I'm getting the LP version. I think it's very cool, but also sort of perverse, that I can pre-order a new studio recording from Yes, on vinyl, in 2011. Anyhow, I really am looking forward to this one, and I see it as sort of a test case. Will it be good, or will it be a disaster likeChroma Cannon [Lights from Paradise]? And assuming it's good, will it be an anomaly or a harbinger? I've got my fingers crossed.
You might like this. . . http://floweringtoilet.blogspot.com/2011/06/loudness-war-research.html
The graphic is particularly interesting. I don't think the dashed line drawn through it is helpful, though. The main message I take away is not the overall upward trend, but more importantly the long period of stability through the 1980s and 1990s, followed by the huge spike around 1999-2000 when compression suddenly became objectionable. Also intriguing is the sudden drop at the very end. I have to wonder if that's real or just an artifact of insufficient data?
There have been a few people rushing to declare an end to the loudness war. The rationale seems to be that since iTunes and the iPod now have Sound Check (and other players have similar features), that heavy compression no longer makes sense, and therefore it will go away. To which I have to respond: Forgive my skepticism, but I'll believe it when I see it. I don't think the loudness war ever made any sense to begin with. It'll go down in history as a sort of mass delusion, like tulip bulb mania. Mass delusions have to run their course, they can't be deflated with a mere pinprick of logic.
- Tony Belding, Hamilton Texas
http://www.sfxmachine.com/docs/loudnesswar/
I found it one of the better presentations on the subject that's available online. I felt compelled to send you some of my own rambling thoughts on the subject. So here goes. . .
One of your more intriguing suggestions was that record companies could release recordings in both standard and premium versions. This has already begun to happen in a spotty, haphazard way, with vinyl LP records. The LP release is invariably more expensive than the CD, but has the advantage in cover art, liner notes, physical presence, and -- sometimes -- audio quality. There's irony, I think, in that CDs clearly have the capability to provide better sound than LPs. However, it's the limitations of the LP format that entice the recording engineer to make the most of the capacity that is available.
For example: A while back I got an audiophile LP release of Judas Priest Screaming for Vengeance. This was turned into a gatefold album, 2-record set, on 180-gram virgin (colored!) vinyl. It was apparently made into two LPs so that they could include two bonus tracks which had also appeared on later CD releases. I digitized some tracks from these records and compared them with the same tracks from an original (1980s) CD release. I found the CD had slightly more dynamic range than the LP, but the difference was minor. The LP sounds good. Who is buying this? (Aside from me, I mean!) It's definitely a premium package. Anybody shopping for 180g vinyl presumably has some concern about sound quality. They aren't looking for iPod fodder.
A counter example: I got the LP release of
Whenever we talk about audio quality, we have to fend off the specters of SACD and DVD-A. (Technically those formats aren't dead, but they might as well be.) Well. . . I'm honest enough to admit that I can't hear any difference between a well produced CD and a DVD-A, with my moderately degraded ears and my mid-level stereo equipment. To me SACD and DVD-A came across as scams to try and foist draconian DRM schemes onto consumers while getting them to re-purchase their music collections -- plus a "format war" thrown into the mix to make them even less appealing.
When it's used properly, the standard CD red book format is capable of superb performance. In the late 1980s -- after recording engineers had learned their way around the red book, and after good digital editing and mastering tools were widely available, but before the loudness war took off -- even common pop-and-rock releases were coming out with excellent audio quality, routinely. I don't think the CD format should be allowed to die, undercut by digital downloads and replaced at the high end by archaic LPs. The CD does need a makeover, though.
Here's my prescription for a premium CD package: First, ditch the jewel box! They look and feel cheap, they break easily, and they limit the size of artwork and liner notes that can be included. My suggestion is to take the standard plastic DVD movie case and widen it into a true square -- about the same size as a 45 RPM single. This ought to make a good compromise between jewel box and LP size.
Second, impose some kind of requirement for dynamic range! You hinted at something like this in your presentation, with a sort of sticker or logo that would indicate the dynamic range of the recording. I don't think it even needs to be that sophisticated. We could simply place a limit on the average power level - which has the advantage of simplicity and being very easy to set and measure, anybody can check it. If anybody wanted to make a super-compressed recording with very little dynamic range (for some sort of perverse artistic reasons, perhaps), they'd still be able to do that -- but they wouldn't get any benefit from it. It wouldn't sound louder, because they'd be required to lower the level across-the-board and keep it within the specified limit.
To me this would be better than trying to bring back LPs. The production costs would be lower, and it would take advantage of the world's huge CD production capacity (as compared with the surviving LP pressing plants that are wearing out), and ultimately provide a better-sounding and more durable product. It would just be a marketing problem. We could call it, I dunno. . . CD Plus? CD Extra?
Incidentally, the JVC XRCD format (or quasi-format) could be regarded as a tentative jab in this direction. The problem, from my viewpoint, is that XRCD has been aimed at the niche audiophile market with mostly classical and jazz releases. Thus, XRCD is living in a space where the loudness war was never a problem. XRCD is really the logical answer to the failures of SACD and DVD-A, but not to the loudness war.
I think rock music has been hit hardest by over-compression. Particularly frustrating to me, some of my old favorite "classic rock" bands (Styx, Blue Oyster Cult, ZZ Top) have continued to put out new CD releases, and some of the music is actually quite good, but the compression has been brutal. After being burned with a few of these ruined recordings, I became so disgusted that I decided not to buy any more CDs released after the year 2000. That applies equally to iTunes Music Store, since (as far as I know) their music is generally sourced from the CDs. (Although otherwise I quite like what Apple have done with ITMS.)
Right now I've got a pre-order in for the newest Yes album, Fly from Here. I'm getting the LP version. I think it's very cool, but also sort of perverse, that I can pre-order a new studio recording from Yes, on vinyl, in 2011. Anyhow, I really am looking forward to this one, and I see it as sort of a test case. Will it be good, or will it be a disaster like
You might like this. . . http://floweringtoilet.blogspot.com/2011/06/loudness-war-research.html
The graphic is particularly interesting. I don't think the dashed line drawn through it is helpful, though. The main message I take away is not the overall upward trend, but more importantly the long period of stability through the 1980s and 1990s, followed by the huge spike around 1999-2000 when compression suddenly became objectionable. Also intriguing is the sudden drop at the very end. I have to wonder if that's real or just an artifact of insufficient data?
There have been a few people rushing to declare an end to the loudness war. The rationale seems to be that since iTunes and the iPod now have Sound Check (and other players have similar features), that heavy compression no longer makes sense, and therefore it will go away. To which I have to respond: Forgive my skepticism, but I'll believe it when I see it. I don't think the loudness war ever made any sense to begin with. It'll go down in history as a sort of mass delusion, like tulip bulb mania. Mass delusions have to run their course, they can't be deflated with a mere pinprick of logic.
- Tony Belding, Hamilton Texas
Welcome
I've recently posted my Audio Engineering Society convention paper, "The Loudness War: Background, Speculation and Recommendations". This paper discusses the audible effects of hypercompression and looks at the loudness war in terms of game theory. After presenting evidence questioning the idea that louder recordings sell better, it suggests some possible ways to de-escalate the loudness war.
A shorter, updated paper, "The Loudness War: Do Louder, Hypercompressed Recordings Sell Better?" was published in the May 2011 Journal of the Audio Engineering Society. (Not a free download, but author's copy available on request.)
A shorter, updated paper, "The Loudness War: Do Louder, Hypercompressed Recordings Sell Better?" was published in the May 2011 Journal of the Audio Engineering Society. (Not a free download, but author's copy available on request.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)