heywood on 16/9/2009 at 17:15
Fingernail's point about headroom is valid and important. See this:
(
http://www.tcelectronic.com/media/Level_paper_AES109.pdf) http://www.tcelectronic.com/media/Level_paper_AES109.pdf
That's why you will often see peak sample levels at less than 0 dBFS even on CDs where there is obvious peak limiting or clipping.
And what I meant by playback volume level is the volume level in dB that's coming out of your speakers/phones. If you take two versions of the same recording mastered at different average levels, you will obviously have to turn the volume control up higher to achieve the same average playback level with the quieter mastering. But, in both cases, the average signal level through the amplifier and speakers is the same. What's different is the signal level between the CD player/DAC and the volume control, which is generally insignificant unless you have to turn the volume control way up on really poor quality equipment.
Your point about noise is a good one if you're comparing two different recordings made at different levels. But if you take the same recording and master it at two different levels, then the noise captured in the recording also rises when you master it at a higher level.
Muzman on 16/9/2009 at 21:15
I see. Mostly they use SPL when talking about that though don't they?
At any rate, I think you're underestimating the effect of turning up the volume on even marginally quieter productions, thanks probably to using decent equipment far too much (*tsk tsk*). The typical home or car system is still garbage, its power rating a filthy lie, its system noise floor more of a ceiling and its distortion and saturation rampant. Anything a self respecting engineer can do to keep people from turning that volume knob past about a third of its capability they should probably do.
That paper is interesting though. I guess some margin of caution is always wise when dealing with the limits of anything, so here it's no different.
Normalising to zero has never really caused any trouble for me, then again I don't deal in stuff that is consistent in volume very much.
Paz on 17/9/2009 at 00:12
let's talk rekindled love: i fuckin love Helter Skelter
I GOT BLISTERS ON MY FINGERS!!!
Fingernail on 17/9/2009 at 11:01
The thing is, we're mostly talking about 2 - 3 notches on most volume controls between stuff mastered in the 80s and the present day.
I think I'm mostly assuming that the kind of attitude of "let's use the maximum possible whatever..." was the kind of thinking that led to the loudness war in the first place.
I'm definitely going to pick up a few of these albums later, I've been listening to some Beatles tracks for a few days and am reminded of how I fell in love with them about age 6, and for three or four years they became an actual obsession, which is kind of sad for a child of the 90s, and yet can there be a better grounding in pop music?
Muzman on 17/9/2009 at 12:42
It's true about 'turning it up' to an extent. But fashion plays a pretty big part as well. The idea has been there for a while, with Phil Spector's 'Wall of Sound' stuff being essentially in the same spirit (ie specific techniques to 'make our tracks the loudest on the jukebox').
I'm not really sure why older recordings, from the late seventies to about 1990, just didn't care at all about bass in the way we expect now. There's probably some trends in technology and technique behind it. Maybe everyone wanted to be Martin Hannett. I'm thinking the influence of hip-hop and reggae changed peoples minds a bit.
Broadcasting has a lot to do with the loudness factor, of course. From memory FM radio is narrower band than hi-fi and slightly compressed by its nature. So it's kind of win win to give people the sound they know and make it more attention getting at the same time. The same sorts of tricks are why ads on TV are so much louder-seeming than the programme too.
I don't really think Death Magnetic is really part of any loudness war for all that, despite being the thing that's helped it get mainstream attention. They're using the same methods, but usually it's not used in a manner that's so obviously destructive. It was an artistic choice. A stupid one but a choice all the same.
(soz Paz. I nerd therefore I am)
Anyway: I get the significance of 'Sgt Pepper's, but I could never really get past some sort of alienating factor about it. I'm not sure what it is. And maybe that's the point. At any rate it was always about 'Revolver' and 'The White Album' for me. Is there something the matter with me?
PigLick on 17/9/2009 at 13:16
No, those two were far superior to Sgt Peppers.
fett on 17/9/2009 at 13:16
I don't think there's a cooler drum part in existence than Ticket to Ride.
Muz, Sgt. Pepper's is supposed to alienate a bit, IMO. It's one step removed from some of the warmth of the Beatles personalities because the idea was for them to become someone/thing else. Still, with songs like When I'm 64, they can't help but shine through in places.
uncadonego on 17/9/2009 at 22:39
She' Leaving Home, Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds, A Little Help From My Friends, Within You Without You, A Day In The Life.....
I agree Revolver is a great album, but Sgt. Pepper is the Beatles' "Sgt. Pepper"! Crap, it's become an expression, "this is my Sgt. Pepper". I listened to that album so stinking much one summer when I was a teenager. I was born in '62, so it wasn't my time frame either. Then we got a copy of Rock'N Roll Music, full of re-issues. I listened to the crap out of that too. Then Hollywood Bowl, etc. Next thing you know I had a milk crate full of just Beatles' albums.
polytourist97 on 18/9/2009 at 01:13
Quote Posted by fett
I don't think there's a cooler drum part in existence than Ticket to Ride.
I love that song, one of my favorites. The drums syncopate with the guitar strums so DELICIOUSLY...
Ringo is one hell of a drummer. I never understood why he became the punchline to so many jokes.
uncadonego on 18/9/2009 at 06:00
Chalk another one that thinks Ringo's drums were great. A lot of the time too much in the background.
