Talk:Loudness war

First attempt

My first attempt at any kind of wiki article. Comments? Corrections? Karl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karlchwe (talk • contribs) 06:59, December 31, 2005 (UTC)

Jan. 3, minor changes, added note about lack of emotional expressiveness caused by dynamic flattening, independent of distortion. Karl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karlchwe (talk • contribs) 17:54, January 3, 2006 (UTC)

Non-clipping distortion in audio CDs.

I can't believe someone decided to remove my entry on non-clipping distortion in mastering. Yes, it's possible for CDs to be distorted in loudness-oriented mastering without clipping, and is very common. Open up a few very loud albums in a wave editor and you'll see sine waves that become bent near digital full scale rather than completely flattened. I'm sure someone can find a reference to the use of analog equipment and digital "bitcruncher"/"soft clipping" plugins when trying to compromise between weak transient response and harsh odd harmonics. — Kuuenbu 02:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember taking this out, so if you want, go ahead and add information about this in the second paragraph in "Effects", but make sure to write about the difference between soft clipping (which tube amps do naturally, and is often a desired sound in rock music) and digital clipping, compression and limiting. Try to keep it concise and NPOV ;) Illuminatedwax 08:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

headroom

someone should mention the idea of headroom (which is basically the left-over space on the volume meter when the track reaches its highest level). songs with digital clipping have no headroom as there is no space between the peaks and the maximum possible levels of the track. songs without clipping may have headroom, but brick-wall limiting can still result in restrained dynamics. some argue that among "loudness war" records, those with ample headroom are more listenable than those without any, even if they are "squashed" just the same. lack of headroom in general means an improper representation of transients, so a cd that clips but is not so compressed may sound much worse than a cd that is heavily compressed/limited but has headroom to keep from clipping.

Counterexamples?

Can we get some examples of albums released during the years of the "loudness war" that dont subscribe to the loudness philosophy? For instance, I believe most of Brendan O'Brien's releases (Pearl Jam, Stone Temple Pilots, Soundgarden's "Superunknown") don't really have any clipping. There's a totally audible difference between Audioslave's first album (not engineered by O'Brien), which has over-the-top digital clipping, and their second album (engineered by O'Brien) which seems to substitute tape clipping for digital (correct me if I'm wrong but I definitely think I hear tape on that album). Even so, the dude clearly does use compressors and limiters extensively.

Tool has a few albums, such as Lateralus, which have tons of headroom.

David Gilmour's latest album, On An Island, seeme to be very dymanic (to my ears anyway as I haven't looked at any time domain plots of it yet). Neilius 01:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Counterexamples? Google for the "Honor Roll of Well Mastered CDs". Moreover, there's an opposite thread on hydrogenaudio.org that lists the well-mastered CDs (from users' opinions, of course) -andy 80.129.89.152 03:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Needs work

This article needs some work. It doesn't seem to be in a neutral POV and parts of it are wrong (or at least misleading.) There's a big difference between distortion caused by clipping and distortion caused by "companding," for example. It's unlikely that commercially produced CDs will actually have clipped waveforms on them; clipping is more likely to come from the playback hardware. People just assume that heavily expanded audio must be clipped but this is usually incorrect. Also, many of the concepts in this article do not apply to digitally produced (not recorded) music, especially purely synthesized music, where "louder" can actually improve the quality of the sound, at least in theory. Better general explanations of the concepts involved and fewer references to external sources would improve this article and make it more neutral. As it stands, it seems more like a magazine article to me.

I don't want to discourage you, but you did ask for comments... Please try to improve this article as it has some important concepts.

Actually, most of CD's have at least some clipping. Heavy dynamic compression and clipping became standard in audio mastering.

Agreed - I think this needs to be simplified or renamed. I too would like to kick the guy who mastered any of the RHCP's later CD's, but I think the article content is very subjective and POV. I'd say it should be a section of Audio_mastering, where it would be in context. --Jgritz 01:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't kick the GUY, but kick the LABEL. As this article gladly states, most ME guys are forced to do so, as if they had a gun sitting in their neck and a harsh voice bellowing, "LOUDER! NO, I SAID *EVEN* LOUDER!".It is about time a skilled cartoonist does a 2- or 3-part cartoon of this matter. Frankly, I think this'll be a good and not-too-exhausted topic to cartoonise. :-D -andy 80.129.89.152 03:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed about audio mastering. — Omegatron 06:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree also, and am slowly working through the article to make it more neutral. As a sound engineer though, the loudness race is a huge problem and I absolutely detest it! We should NOT be in the business of making square waves! ;-) Neilius 02:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, if that's what people want... — Omegatron 03:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe... But the target audience of most pop music, to which these loudness wars are a huge part of, are young kids who don't know any better (which isn't their fault) and don't tend very often get the chance to listen to a dynamic, naturally recorded piece, see an orchestra or big jazz performance etc. I personally find listening to heavily limited masters unbearable after a few minutes, even with the volume down, a bit like trying to read a sentence typed in capital letters. More importantly though, I do think the article needs work to 'neutralise' it and make it more factual as it seems very opinionated at the moment (and I do agree with those opinions!). Warm regards, Neilius 12:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree that this article needs some serious work. It does not have a neutral POV and is rife with weseal words. I'm going to go ahead and add the Weasel template to the page. Personally, I'm an audiophile and I absolutely can't stand the "loudness war," but it really needs to be NPOV. Its an encyclopedia article, not a rant. --Tom 07:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we're getting there slowly, more scientific fact regarding human perceptions of loudness is creeping in to help back up the more subjective woolly stuff :) Neilius 08:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I have started a restructuring/rewrite of the article, starting with the Introduction. Not only could it be more neutral, it could be a bit better written as well. Feel free to join in or criticize Illuminatedwax 02:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Digital Clipping

Yes, although I am not professional, my understanding of the subject is that maybe masterers would occasionally allow clipping of maybe half a decibel, but more often, dynamic devices are used with brick-wall limiters on the end. Could someone in the industry please verify, but this information sounds like a description of mastering ten years ago. Nowadays mastering is often done completely digitally and the engineer is not guessing at the peak levels at all. Engineers rarely treat digital full-scale the same as analog saturation point. More often, they simply compress or limit the mix aggressively which causes the whole thing to pump with the kick drum. One reason why engineers are able to achieve high dynamic ranges is because with digital technology, the clip point is accurately known and not guessed at all. Peak metres are readily available, and an engineer can tell exactly when clipping will occur and is able to position a limiter so that it limits exactly at the threshold of clipping as opposed to the analog days when the line between clean and saturated was more blurry. I have generally noticed more compression during mastering in recent times, and less distortion. (there was some serious saturation in early Led Zeppelin albums).

Compression and limiting still decreases the quality in music though, and I do believe that there is little understanding of audio quality by consumers. It seems that people are quite happy to listen to low quality MP3 music. My opinion is that it is worthwhile sacrificing some RMS level and not always using all 16 bits of CD quality audio, however it may be a good idea to represent other people's ideas in the article. I think it would be advisable to place more emphasis on the fact that through decreasing the dynamic range of the audio, the 16 bit quality of CD is better put to use for more of a song. It is worthy of note that by digitally encoding a passage of audio six decibels louder, there are twice as many different levels used by the samples making up the waveform.

This is my understanding, but I do not pretend to be an actual masterer, just a hobbiest, so I think that we should wait for someone in the industry.

This goes in two ways, my friend. They like to listen to low-quality MP3s because they are sufficient! If the sound is squashed to death, a low-quality MP3 (128 - 160) WILL eventually sound like the CD! I do not kid you: I was hardly able to hear any difference between the 160 kbps MP3 and one of the extreme examples mentioned here and elsewhere. The difference was less than 1% as the dynamics were so destroyed. Crying out in pain might be a remedy. -andy 80.129.89.152 03:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the difference on some MP3 and CDs is smaller then one may think but there is a difference.--SciFrutto 18:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't merge please

I came across this page while trying to bring together all Sound recording and reproduction topics under the Wikipedia:Root page concept. This is a topic that causes me much grief and I think it is important enough to stand alone as a branch of the Root page, where it will be easily found by those looking at any audio page. It is of equal interest to the listener as to the recording engineer, and so I have not placed it under Post production. --Lindosland 16:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge request has been removed per majority opinion after reviewing the discussion pages both here and at Talk:audio mastering. -- Dept of Alchemy 21:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Noriega

I was thinking that this article was about the military use of loud music as a weapon. One example was the US Army attack by playing loud rock and roll against Manuel Noriega when he was refuged in the Nuncio residence in Panama City.

You'd want to categorize that method under "non-lethal weapons".--87.122.18.18 14:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

piracy section

Many have suggested boycotting recordings that they feel showcase the phenomenon to the point of significantly lessened satisfaction with the product (often to the point of lessened, or even nonexistent, listening as opposed to otherwise) to communicate the existence of disdain for the practice to the offending parties, though it is often stated that such an attempt would be interpreted by the music industry as wanton piracy.

This bit doesn't make sense to me. Is it a result of a section being chopped out? As I read it, the implication is that boycotting a recording is interpreted as wonton piracy. That is nonsensical. -- Jon Dowland 20:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually it makes perfect sense. The music industry is so arrogant nowadays that it simply refuses to believe that people won't buy CDs just because they sound awful. Instead they will (incorrectly) assume that just because sales are down "people must be downloading this music illegally". Totally unable of course to realise that because it sounds horrible and gives you a headache on the original CD, it's still going to sound horrible and give you a headache when ripped to MP3. -- Squirrel 09:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The text implies that in the belief of music fans the music industry will treat a boycott as equivalent to copyright infringement ("piracy"), which is of course ridiculous. What it means to say is that the recording industry will likely attribute any boycott-induced loss of sales to piracy.

The entire passage is horribly verbose, convoluted, and really says nothing more than "some music fans want to boycott lousy recordings." I'm axing it. -- Paul Richter 09:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Doesn't change the fact that music ruined by loudness wars is fatiguing to listen to for any length of time (even after volume levelling) due to the amount of compression. And all this treatment does is to make all recordings sound the same, flat and lifeless, and means nobody wants to spend their hard-earned cash on them. Squirrel 10:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The section has been de-weaselled, so I've re-added the comment about record labels attributing any loss of sales to piracy. Squirrel 08:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Remasters section

First attempt was perhaps not neutral, but the removal of the first paragraph also removed the whole point of the remasters section.

Some remasters do indeed sound better (eg very early CDs), but more recent remasters are just "oh, bit of smiley EQ and 4:1 above -10dB... and let's make it louder!" The ABBA examples mentioned are one of my favourite songs of all time, and it's tragic to see it destroyed in this way. So forgive me if my POV is a little less neutral than it could be on this particular track.

Squirrel 10:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I reworded most of the section, especially the initial paragaph. I believe most of the POV should be gone now. Let the pictures in the section do the work of showing how much of the quality of the CDs have been altered, not the words in the text. --Limetom 20:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Reworded slightly just to make the definitions clearer, hopefully still NPOV! Changed "clipping" reference to "compression", the track in the screenshot doesn't actually clip, it's just heavily peak-limited. Also a couple of grammatical corrections. Squirrel 05:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

That section was the most POV section in the article. Now, however... --Limetom 06:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that the reason for doing digital remastering should be made clear. Digital mastering equipment can have considerably better performance characteristics than analogue equipment. In particular, once a digital copy is made, it can be copied again without loss in quality. The result of digital remastering is sometimes CD's having greater treble energy, but this is closer to the original recording than an earlier analogue master. It is not simply a case of an 'artificial' treble boost. I understand the criticism in relation to excess compression of dynamic range, but you should make it clear that digital remastering can produce CD's with less noise and distortion. Analogue masters, particularly those replayed on vinyl records, may sound better than more accurate digital ones. This is sometimes because the playback equipment has poor bass extension, and the reduction in treble energy gives a more balanced sound. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.205.245.147 (talk) 12:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC).

If you can find some verifiable source for this, I would suggest adding this to the article. The article severely lacks things like this. --Limetom 08:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of making a revision to this section. It currently says:

'Recently many classic albums have been re-released in remastered form. In its most basic form, the current remastering practice is to boost the bass and treble frequencies (which does actually create a perceived improvement - see the Fletcher-Munson diagram) and to boost the average level with the aid of compression.'

I would like to revise this to -

'Many recordings have been re-released in remastered form. Tools used by recording engineers in the remastering process may be fairly complex. For example, pre-LP recordings may be remastered using 'Computer Enhanced Digital Audio Restoration' (CEDAR). Such tools are designed to improve the bandwidth of the recording and to remove background noise. The finished remaster, when compared to the original master, may subjectively be boosted in the bass and treble range. The critical response to remasters can be mixed. Sometimes an extended frequency response is welcomed, since this can improve the sense of clarity and ambience of the recording. Other times this improved sense of ambience may be counterbalanced by an unnatural and excessive sharpness to the recording (Greenfield et al 1990).

Sometimes engineers made decide to increase the average level of the recording with the aid of compression. This may improve the subjective sound quality in some instances, for example, when the recording is played back in noisy environments or on equipment having a reduced dynamic range capability.'

My source for the first paragraph is:

Greenfield, E. et al. (1990). The Penguin Guide to Compact Discs, Preface, pages viii - x. Penguin Books, London.

I do not have a source for the second paragraph.

Enescot 16:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Date of release of Original 'one of us' recording

I was under the belief that the first audio CDs were not released until 1982 or 1983. It seems baffling how one could rip a recording from a CD which hadn't been invented in the 'one of us' section. Perhaps someone could clarify.tommylommykins 07:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

ABBA's final recordings (The Visitors album and the 1982 sessions) were all digitally recorded. The Visitors was one of the first CDs released when the format was launched in early 1983. Digital recording has been around since the late 70s but was still expensive, so most studios didn't have digital multitracks back then.

The CD I have here says on the spine "DIGITAL STEREO", and in the booklet "Digitally recorded and mixed at Polar Music Studios, Stockholm". The CD format was under development in 1981 when this album was released, but it looks like they had CD in mind when it was being recorded. Either way, it says on the back cover and on the disc itself "© 1981 Polar Music International". So it's fair to assume that the original Polydor release of the CD was taken straight from the 2-track digital master.

My friend has the 1997 remaster of this album (which is also heavily compressed), this says © 1997 on the back cover.

Hope that clears things up. Squirrel 10:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

'Warning Tag' OVERLOAD!!!

Can we think of some other 'warning tags' to throw up here...? Thus far we have an article that BOLDLY! claims to have "compromised" "neutrality" by "weasel words", is "in need of attention from an expert on the subject" AND has some information which "has not been verified" and "might not be reliable"...

It isn't as if Wikipedia 't have enough of these $%*#@! tags all over the place (more so recently); as this article is regarding the "Loudness War", I really do not think it warrants all this special attention. doesn Where do you think the folks over at Britannica 'draw the line'? Nothing is perfect; this article is informative, and covers a 'pop-cultural' term/idea. Do we really need to warn the reader of possible bias in this article? Aren't they old enough to 'handle it'?

Obviously, we should extend a warm welcome to the record company apologists (employees?) who added the tags. Branden 02:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories huh? Actually I'm inclined to agree. Something tells me those tags were put there by apologists or even employees. I'm axing them. Squirrel 09:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I consider myself an audiophile, and I added the weasel tag (see Needs Work, above). I don't like the degradation in audio quality, but this Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox (WP:NOT) All the other tags are necessary. I'm sorry if you don't like the number, but this article does qualify for all of them.

The weasel tag was the last one added, and in the month since I added it, almost no work on the POV/weasel problems has been done. The "Remasters" section and the "No Winners in the Loudness War" section (including the latter section's title) probably the worst of the article. (WP:Weasel)

Technically, there are no citations at all in the article, and if those in the external links section mean to be, they need to be firstly reviewed, secondly moved into a Notes or References section, and thirdly, footnotes might be a nice style addition.(WP:CITE).

If I did not actually want to save the article, it would be the first I would ever consider to nominate for deletion. According to the Deletion Policy (WP:DEL) the only thing this article does not violate is copyrights. However, since I do want to save it, I will not nominate it for deletion.

There seems to be some consensus that there were too many templates, but I feel there should have been some more discussion before they were summarily deleted, but I'm not going to make a big deal out of it. However, I am going to add the weasel and factual templates back in, because this article is in serious violation of both of them. It did not, in my opinion, need the expert tag. I'll leave that out, for the time being. --Tom 02:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a highly emotive subject, and one about which views are very subjective. I find myself turning off "loudness mastered" music after only a few minutes as the distortion and compression is actually fatiguing. If you've actually listened to the 2005 ABBA remasters you'll find yourself turning them off after a few minutes (unless you're deaf as a post). Squirrel 07:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that the "Weasel" and "NPOV" tags were removed. I'm putting them back, as my original reasoning for them being there still stands. Please utilize the talk page before removing them, and please have a reason if you want them gone. --Limetom 08:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, removing such tags by no means counts as a minor edit. --Limetom 08:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall removing those. However I still maintain this article has far too many tags. Perhaps the expert tag should stay - but the other two give complete overload.

Audio and indeed music is a highly subjective topic. I'd argue that there can't truly be NPOV with this topic, for that reason - it's so subjective.

So far only one person's objected to the tags being removed. If nobody else objects then I'm taking them out. Squirrel 19:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The edit history shows that you did remove them. However, I never even said I was talking about you. I'm not sure why you responded the way you did.

I looked at the edit history and compared versions. I don't remember removing them though. It's possible I left myself logged in... or it's equally possible that I removed them and didn't remember doing it. I'd normally have posted a comment on the talk page when making a change that was anything more than a spelling correction. Anyway... Squirrel 08:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, its possible for any article to hold a neutral point of view. Once again, I suggest that you read WP:NPOV. If you don't feel like it, then let me paraphrase: "[an article] must represent all significant views fairly and without bias." NPOV is a policy, and means it needs to be upheld whether you like it or not. Make no mistake, the Loudness War has made a lot of music into utter crap, but we need to handle just what it does. The article on Hitler never said he was a bad guy, it just states his deeds. That's how an encyclopedia works. --Limetom 05:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

There are three significant views here:

Record company: "No, louder. No, LOUDER. I SAID LOUDER."

Casual listener: "This music is boring, I can't be bothered."

Audiophile: "This music is so compressed and limited it's hurting my ears."

There is an interesting piece in What Hi-Fi magazine's buying guide. They reckon that if you have a badly matched system you won't actually realise you've bought a lemon. Instead your desire to listen to music will disappear and you'll just end up switching the hi-fi off and the TV on. CDs that have been compressed like this, regardless of musical content, have the same effect. The loudness war just makes all music sound like the same wall of noise, the end result being that casual listeners switch off without actually knowing the real reason why. Indeed it's been suggested that this is one of the main reasons for falling CD sales (can't remember the source but I'm sure it was in one of the articles linked to at the bottom of the page). Squirrel 08:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

When looking at your first section and the article, right now really only the audiophile is covered, and not even in encyclopedic terms. The purpose of the tags is to make sure people know that, and that hopefully someone will come along and fix it.

I fail to see the relevancy of the second part, aside from furthering one, maybe two, POVs. --Limetom 10:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

So far nobody else has objected to removing the tags. I'll leave the expert tag in for now, but I'm taking the weasel and NPOV tags out. Squirrel 10:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

If someone else reverted your change, I think that compromises an objection aside from mine. Furthermore, you have failed to show any proof that they should be removed.

Several people and myself have stated the article holds a point of view. That is enough to have the NPOV tag.

There are several places rife with weasel words, and because they can sometimes be hard to miss, I have given them here (also, please review WP:Weasel). Some of these may qualify as an exception, but they are so overused that it really hurts the article.

All taken from the Introduction section:

• "To educated ears..." Who are educated ears?
• "Some have petitioned..." Who are some? This section provides a reference, but using weasel words detracts from its value.
• "Others have even said..." Who are these others? See the above.
• "Many have suggested..." Who are many? See the above.
• "It should be made clear..." This sentance should be reworded.

All taken from the History section:

• "...depending on whom you inquire." Who is whom?
• "In addition, one should note..." Why is this important? This holds importance, but using weasel words detracts from its value.
• "And while some..." Who are some?

All taken from the Interpretations section:

• "Many hold the opinion..." Who are many?
• "...other, more fanatical types believe..." Who are these others? How are they fanatical?
• "Some consider..." Who are some?
• "...others find themselves..." Who are these others?

There are many, many more examples, and I don't think I need to list all of them.

The expert tag isn't even there anymore. You removed the tags and you didn't even notice it. Currently the not verified template is on the page. I see at least one usage of the citiation needed template within the article, so it should be there. Furthermore, I think the Primary sources template should be added. Even the sources that claim to come from the same organization are from different websites, and many of them overlap. --Limetom 08:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

So... why not reword the relevant sections? Do we really need all these damned templates in? I refer to the earlier comment - where does Britannica draw the line?

What we've got here is a given fact - loudness mastered music sounds fatiguing. We've also got an opinion - clipping and compression is what causes it to sound fatiguing.

Do we REALLY need to have 3 lots of templates in here? I think people are old enough to make their own minds up. Squirrel 22:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on an entire rewrite for the article in an attempt to get it to some semblance of neutrality. Doing so is only a little less work than removing the POV in the current article. However, if you want me to remove them now, I'd be glad to.

I'd just like to invite you to reread the information relevant to the templates, because they can be confusing. For the NPOV template, see WP:NPOV. For the Weasel template, see WP:Weasel. And for the Not Verified template, see WP:VERIFY.

Where Britannica draws the line is irrelevant. Where Wikipedia draws the line is quite clear. If you read WP:Weasel, then you should remember the few exceptions. I'll repeat them here for clarity:

• When the belief or opinion is actually the topic of discussion.
• When the holders of the opinion are too diverse or numerous to qualify.
• When contrasting a minority opinion.

I pointed out that several of the weasel words could fit into these exceptions, but the sheer number of them in the article detracts from the article's quality and neutrality.

I'm afraid your second paragraph is entirely opinion. Although I wouldn't, as easily as you could say that loudness mastered music sounds fatiguing, I could say that it sounds good. The only given fact here is that the record companies master albums at higher and higher levels of compression, and in some people's opinion, this reduces the quality of the music.

We "REALLY" do need 3 templates. If you can point out some actual reason why they shouldn't be included, please point it out, and if I agree, the templates can be removed. Furthermore, I think we need a 4th template, Template:Primarysources. Please read over WP:VERIFY and WP:RS for relevant sources and give me some sort of reason why you would agree or disagree with adding it. --Limetom 02:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the warning tags, to me, the whole ting reads like an essay bashing loudness war, sounding very un-encyclopedic. Sure, I agree that a loudness war isn't good for the consumer, but the fact that it sounds like an essay arguing a point gives the NPOV and weasel words tag, and the lack of citations gives it the verification tag. Now I don't see why people are all old enough to not need tags, or else we might as well take safety labels off everything. They are here as warnings, just like there are warning labels on hair dryers that tell you not to take showers while using them and there are warning labels on packets of cigarettes saying that they kill you: it's a good reminder for people anyways, and some people treat Wikipedia as a definitive resource--they need to be reminded that Wikipedia is still made by the common people and that the information on it isn't always accurate.

One of the largest problems that I see in this article is the lack of citations: with citations, many of the things said would make sense; I know nothing about the history of the recording industry so I cannot help here, but there are details about specific albums and musicians that I'm sure can be looked up.

Oh yeah, and I'm tempted to add a "cleanup" tag to this because it doensn't sound quite right, but I won't do it right now, because then we'd have 4 tags... Iamthebob 04:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Instead of tagging the whole article, why don't the dissenters use section-tags. Better still, why don't they join the spirit of this medium and offer replacement text to satisfy their gripes; or even write their own version.

Of course there is a bias in this topic, it is highlighting a destructive phase in recording history. By clipping and/or compressing music it is losing quality, which can't be restored.

I challenge the detractors to write an unbiased article about "murder", or "child-abuse". Are you saying that ALL topics must present benefits for both sides of the argument? --81.157.74.113 12:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Others and myself have disputed the neutrality of the article on the talk page, therefore, the {{NPOV}} tag belongs there. I can point out non-exception weasel words in every single section of the article (see my comment above for a partial list). Therefore, the whole article needs the {{weasel}} tag. Some of the information throughout the article is not cited, and other sources violate WP:V, so the tag belongs there.

ALL topics must present both sides of the argument, it is part of the WP:NPOV policy, which I recommend that you read. (This section of the NPOV FAQ is relevant as well.)

I am currently working on a re-write of the article, which you can find here. There's not much there now, simply because I have a lot of reasearch to do, but I plan to keep working on it. I invite others to join in if they want. --Limetom 02:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

"No winners" section

Have changed the title of this section back to the original. It is the loudness "war" after all, and wars have winners and losers. Except this one, where everyone loses. Squirrel 07:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to have to disagree with your decision for two reasons. The first is, as I stated previously, because the title itself is POV. Again, even though I don't like low-quailty music, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and we must be as neutral as possible.

The second is simply because the title that it was given, while a little awkward sounding, describes the section as it should. The section is not about how no one wins in the loudness war, it is about what software can undo loudness.

I'll leave it in, for now. I'd much rather have constructive discussion, like this, as opposed to the alternatives. --Limetom 12:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

No software can "undo" the effects though. It might reduce the volume to that of pre-loudness war tracks so you don't get blown out of your seat when the disc changes in the car CD changer, but it won't restore the dynamics, nor will it remove the clipping.

I'd actually argue that it does show how nobody wins, as once a loudness-mastered track is processed with MP3Gain it ends up being quieter than a track mastered before the days of the loudness war. Squirrel 20:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I have found an article which is "pro loudness" by Tom Oliver. I don't know how to cite it. It's at http://www.prosoundnewseurope.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=108&Itemid=50. July edition, section "Recording, Post & Mastering" page 5 of that section, or page 11 of the magazine.

It starts: "Aren’t you fed up with competitive mixing and mastering? The demand from all areas to make our ‘product’ louder than everyone else’s at the expense of musical nuance? To push our precious complex waveforms to virtual square-ness? Know what I’m talking about? Actually, I’m not fed up at all. I’m more fed up with hearing people moan about it. How albums don’t sound the same anymore because they don’t have the luxury of drawing listeners into their extended dynamic range. How record companies are only interested in making sure their output wins over their competitors on the radio. How so tiring and in your face the latest releases are that you can’t listen to them more than once.

Get over it. It’s a fact of life: loudness makes tracks immediately sound better by impression. Compression and limiting gets songs jumping out of the speakers and if Much is down to the ease and everyday practice of compiling personal playlist CDs and the fact that any loud tracks stand out as being subjectively better. Radio has certainly hotted things up a lot with some radical squashing and the result of that is that listeners are getting a taste for heavy compression, it’s become a modern sound, so to go on about what a disaster it is to musical culture is like the memories of hearing my dad going on about the ‘noise’ I’m listening Loudness Wars have quite the cultural significance of the Punk Wars, but we have to look at it as progress and be led by this consumer demand. And from that point find techniques to achieve the results that fit this modern idiom. After all, there are new tools appearing by the week to pump sounds up with minimal artefacts: Plug-in after plug-in to max your tracks, or for the high-end buff, the same thing in an expensive box...." Wonderofitall 09:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yup, read that. Sounds like a whole load of excuses. What engineers, record labels, producers etc need to get through their collective heads is this - when you rip that uber-loud CD with iTunes and stick it on your iPod, the level will be reduced. So it'll sound as loud/quiet as that track from 1982 which still has all the peaks intact.

Only... the 1982 track won't have been brick-wall limited, so will still have the peaks intact. And more importantly, it will have more "punch" and jump out more than the brick-wall limited track.

Are we making sense yet? Squirrel 18:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

To qualify as an encyclopedic article a viewpoint must have a counterviewpoint ESPECIALLY as this is titled as a WAR. A war MUST have two sides or otherwise it's called something else: Why go into a war where no one can't win (ie gain something)? In other words: There MUST be positive sides to this that must be acknowledged in the article even if YOU personally don't like them.

Just like in a "real" war, the benefit is dubious and short sighted. Back in 1999, when RHCP's Californication was released, not everything was loud yet, so extremely loud albums *did* stand out. Put one track from Californication in a playlist with most other things from that year, and it'll certainly make it jump out of the speakers, and make anything that comes after it seem weak. However, this benefit is short lived, partly because sound of this nature is fatiguing, and partly because now "EVERYONE" is doing it. Thus, nobody can stand out loudness-wise anymore, because it really can't get any louder than it is. The war is over, nobody won, and everybody painted themselves into a corner! Does this answer the previous statement? I believe the *only* way out of this is loudness control in playback devices - and I'm not sure ReplayGain alone is enough.

I renamed the "No Winners" section (again). With the removal of POV from the section, it is truly about reducing perceived loudness, hence the title. --Limetom 23:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Before you go changing the title please do a simple test. Rip both versions of the examples given then apply ReplayGain. Play both rips back to back. The remaster sounds quieter as all the dynamics have been chopped off. Squirrel 07:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how "No Winners in the Loudness War" would be a better title. In fact, looking at it they way you just put it, I don't think the title I gave it was the best either. However, I think mine was much closer as it didn't contain a POV. --Limetom 22:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Why No Sound Clips

First off, this is a pretty poor article. It reads like a magazine article and the tone is very point of view. Secondly, it doesn't even illustrate the point well enough.

There are no sound clips of the CDs. Now, call this crazy - but if you are talking about mastering of sound, shouldn't you argue your point with SOUND as opposed to pictures of SOUND? I'm not saying delete the images of the waveforms, but it comes off as very odd that you don't present your case with the sound. If the article isn't going to come off as POV, you're going to need to let the sound speak for itself. --THollan 18:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I own a copy of Rush's Vapor Trails. If I can figure out how to upload a sample, I will. Also I'm sure there are copyright restricstions, so I'm going to have to look into that as well.Bcirker 04:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

If you upload a small sample of the song, you'd be cover under fair use laws, since you are using it for an educational purpose. Granted, you couldn't upload a whole track - but you can upload a sizable enough portion to proove your point. --THollan 18:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

If it comes under fair use then I'll rip some sound clips and upload them, perhaps the chorus of "One Of Us" from the original, ReplayGained remaster and non-ReplayGained remaster. The ReplayGained original needs no volume adjustment. Squirrel 07:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I am confident that sound clips will be a waste of time. Assuming they are good enough quality, assuming the downloader plays them on something decent enough, what will the result be? The loud one sounds better. Remember, that's why they do it! If the clips are perfectly volume matched the majority won't be able to hear a difference. Probably the only people who won't agree are those familiar with the music in the clips, and those who have well trained hearing. Also, while pictures show facts, sound clips leave us back in the realm of opinion.

Does this mean this article is a waste of time? Hardly. That most listeners don't understand phyco-acoutics and can't consiously identify volume maximised CD's doesn't make them immune to them. Clipping and to a lesser degree compression distortion IS fatiguing. So while the first impression is good, how many of the loud CD's go the distance? Who is listening to the same album regularly after six months? Unfortunately, I know of no research on changes in listening patterns since this war began.

Also, don't we have a right to the best possible quality CD when we pay big bucks for them? -- Reszerve 08:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'v been thinking about this as well. Perhaps the best answer would be to have two sound clips of One Of Us, one from 1981, one from 2005, but ReplayGained so one isn't "louder" than the other. They'll both be as "loud", but the 1981 clip will be far more dynamic. This will also demonstrate how destructive the whole loudness war business is. Squirrel 12:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I put a link to a clip of One Little Victory on Rush's Vapor Trails album. If someone could provide some discussion for this clip, that would be brilliant.Bcirker 15:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

What is the One Little victory soundclip good for? There should be at least another soundclip for comparision or some explanation. --Abdull 10:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

I think its about time we discussed each and every single one of the pictures in their relation to the article.

First and foremost, what is the purpose of the Fletcher-Munson curves diagram at the beginning of the article? After reading through the description of Equal-loudness contours, they image seems to have some relevance, but is divorced from anything that it would illustrate.

Second, I feel that the images of the songs in WAV format is completely unessecary, and should be replaced by sound clips (see above).

I'm going to leave them in for now, but since this is about audio, I think that the images of One of Us are completely insufficient and sould be replaced with an audio files following a similar pattern. --Limetom 00:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Leave the images as it represents visually what you can hear. I'll get some sound clips uploaded in the next few days. That way you've got the "what" (the sound clips) and the "why" (the images). Squirrel 07:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand that they visually represent what you hear, but the sound clip ones really should just completely be dropped once we get sound clips.

I really think that the Fletcher-Munson curves should be removed unless there is something really in the article which they represent. From looking through articles about Equal-loudness contours and the Fletcher-Munson curves, I don't really see anything in the article, especially close to the picture, that really necessitates it being where it it. It is nessecary to the article, it just isn't really helpful to a reader where it is now.--Limetom 23:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

No, the sound clip images should stay in, for one simple reason. If you download sound clips and listen through PC speakers then you may well not hear any difference. The images need to be there to back up the audio - see my comments above about "what" and "why". Squirrel 19:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

If you look in "The Death of Dynamic Range" article linked at the bottom of the page, there are two kinds of diagrams given. The first are the kind on the page, they really don't give much information above and beyond this sounds louder than that. However, the second kind which are in "The Death of Dynamic Range", but not in the article. I think its just a very zoomed in picture that specifically shows peaks being cut off. I don't have the capability to replace them, but I think they would make a valuable addition. --Limetom 05:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Other Media

Does this type of compression affect music media other than audio cds? Does it affect DVD-Audio, SACD, or (legal) online mp3 downloads? Does it affect the audio portion (especially music videos, concerts, musicals, music in ending credits?) of videos on DVD-Video, HD-DVD, or BD? Does it affect broadcast media in tv, radio, and their new digital forms? Just curious if uncompressed versions of pop songs are ever heard by the general public (assuming the masters are not compressed). 128.61.58.122 01:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The compression seems to take place in CD mastering. I've got several albums on DVD-Audio which have a much wider dynamic range than the CD equivalents (Faith Hill's "Cry" for example).

Downloaded MP3s will almost certainly be encoded from the audio CD version, which means they'll be compressed also. Ironically many people use MP3Gain even on legal MP3 downloads, which means they won't sound any louder than pre-war tracks. Squirrel 20:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You cited Depeche Mode's "Playing the angel" album as an example of over-compressed record. It's true for the CD edition, but the SACD version has a far better dynamic range. On hybrid SACD edition, the difference betwwen the SACD and the CD layer is spectacular.

What about vinyls? Perhaps this is why there are avid proponents of vinyl records even though the other factors (egs. poor recording and playback equipment) for the inferiority of CDs have been solved? 128.61.58.122 04:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The Vinyl Edition of Depeche Mode´s album "Playing the angel" sounds as horrible as the CD IMHO. So the overcompression may have happened at the mixing or general mastering stage. If the SACD really sounds better, there might also be a chance, that they took the same bad mastering for both the CD and the vinyl edition, but did a better work on the SACD. Kleinholgi 00:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Have added a new section for "other formats". DVD-Audio appears to have a standard defined replay reference level (Dolby AC3, present on virtually all DVD-Audio discs, and DTS, present on a large number, certainly does), it's also a high-end format so any attempt to "squash" the music on DVD-A or SACD would be self-defeating.

I've also mentioned DualDisc. This gives the best of both worlds, compressed loudness mastered CD Audio on one side for the car/iPod etc and unsquashed music on the DVD side, usually with a choice of AC3, DTS (available on all DVD players) and 24-bit PCM (for DVD-Audio players) in stereo or multichannel mixes. Got a few of these and they do sound really good. Squirrel 06:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The part of the article about HDCD is not completely correct.

Especially : "When played back on a normal CD player the sound will be compressed and "loud". When played back on a CD player equipped with HDCD decoding, a dynamic range expander is brought into play, reversing the compression applied at mastering."

This is not true IMO. This is a behaviour of old Dolby Companders for analog tapes and noise reduction purposes, but not HDCD. A HDCD medium will perform at least like a conventional CD on a non HDCD certified player/converter. A HDCD capable machine uses additional information (from the subchannel) and can deliver a better performace by higher resolution (on the dynamic axis). More details on the HDCD website. Perhaps someone can include a link (www.hdcd.com seems to be down) Kleinholgi 00:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I have several HDCD encoded discs, and my CD/DVD player (Arcam DV79) has HDCD decoding. When playing an HDCD encoded disc the dynamic range is much increased compared to either a non-HDCD loudness mastered disc or playing the same HDCD disc on a non-HDCD player. The best way to prove this is to make an analogue copy with HDCD decoding and compare against a non-decoded digital copy. I feel some more graph plots coming on. Squirrel 15:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

DVD-A and SACD are aimed at audiophiles - this is a fact, not POV. Any hi-fi magazine will confirm this. Most people couldn't tell the difference between 16/44.1 and 14/38 sampling, never mind 24/96. Squirrel 15:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory

Is it worth adding a section on the conspiracy theory? While likely to be rubbish in itself (I just can't believe record companies can get their act together enough for this!), it does raise some questions. Although it is of course just some people's opinion, the factual presentation of it as just that seems justified to me.

In short, it goes like this - recording companies are deliberately turning all new CD's into high distortion low dynamic discs to effectively make them the cassettes of today, ie a second rate, second teir media. In five or so years, maybe less, they will be only too happy to sell you all your music all over again in a high quality, digitally rights managed format. A double win, they get to sell it again, and you can't copy it this time.

Proponents will cite the way re-issue series such as "Restock Your Rock" have since about 2000 been churning out low quality loud versions of many, many titles where perfectly good well mastered discs had been available for years. It also explains why record companies ignore the auto-gain adjusting features used by many portable device users, and the compression FM radio already uses, persisting in this nasty practice - they don't care, it's not actually about loudness, it's about selling low quality discs. As an etra benefit - home theatre 5.1 sure does sound good after listening to those "inferior" CD's! --Reszerve 09:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

If you can write it up in a neutral fashion and include a vaild and reputable source, it could be included. I'm not sure it deserves its own section, beucase if it isn't several paragraphs long, it could easily fit into either the Interpretations section or the No Winners in the Loudness War section. --Limetom 01:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite

I'm currently working on a rewrite of the article, which you can find here. Feel free to contribute or even just let me know what you think of it. --Limetom 06:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Popular Examples

I'm cutting the Popular Examples section. There is no possible way this can be justified as NPOV. --Limetom 20:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

How is it not NPOV? They are examples of heavily compressed, EQ'ed and brick walled albums. Perhaps the word "popular" can be removed but the example section is vital. I am restoring it. Abacab 05:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

They are not netural for several reasons. Foremost, only 3 are sourced, and the sources for each are dubious at best because none of them come from a credible publication, two come from websites, while the third comes from a message board. The paragraph describing the list itself claims that they are the "most extreme examples", and it itself is not sourced (and tagged as such). Simply removing "Popular" from the title does nothing to affect the neutrality (or lack thereof). The section itself is in no way vital to the article. There are several cited examples within the article itself, which seriously lessens the value of this list.

I'll leave it in for the time being, but I see no real reason to keep it. Since I'm leaving it in, I cleaned it up as well. --Limetom 08:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed most of the unsourced songs on the Popular Examples list, leaving in some very well-known artists, and artists that were already used in the article. I also added the {{fact}} tag to those that remain unsourced. Feel free to add them back in if and only if you have a verifiable source saying that they have some audio degrediation. Please remember to follow WP:VERIFY. The list, without sources, is original research. I know someone is going to complain, but seriously, this article can be NPOV. There just needs to be a little give and take to get it to that point. --Limetom 06:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing the {{fact}} tag from the ABBA example. The example refers to the 2005 remaster (and possibly the 1997 remaster as well although I haven't done an analysis on this) - there's a great big screenshot in the Remasters section showing exactly what they've done to it! Squirrel 11:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Article I wrote

I wrote a short article several months ago that relates to the topic of this article. I don't want to add it to the external links myself, as that would be vanity and against Wikipedia policy. However, I thought that I would post the link here, and if someone thinks it's interesting/relevant, that they would like to add it to the page. [1] –Comics (Talk) 21:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It's error-ridden and incomplete, as if you read about it, got half of it, and then wrote an article yourself. And you're not the only one. Many more articles just don't get it right. I can try to give some constructive feedback if you want. --Jonathanvt 23:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite - NPOV Yet?

I made some major overhauls to the page whlie still retaining the basic format and information. Hopefully this article has some kind of NPOV now; if people agree, we should remove both the weasel and NPOV tags Illuminatedwax 05:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I am fine with it. I'll go ahead and remove the tags - they've been there forever. I doubt anyone is going to quarrel with your much appreciated revisions. Abacab 09:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It's close enough now. The history section still needs some major work, perhaps a complete rewrite, but the rest of the article is looking much better. Perhaps the section-specific tags should be added to it? Otherwise, its an improvement. --Limetom 01:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Have added some qualifying text in the "possible solutions" section - volume levelling won't bring back dynamics or get rid of clipping, but it will stop your ears getting blasted when your iPod finishes playing a 1985 album and starts playing a 2006 album. Squirrel 07:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Added a Citaion for U2 HTDAAB

There is no direct reference but on the page http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_big_squeeze/ there is a section dealing with "Dynamic Range: Then and Now". Four waveforms are displayed. The waveform with caption "with this 2005 hit" ( http://mixonline.com/images/Mastering3_lg.gif ) is Vertigo. (Personally crosschecked. Furthur crosschecking is welcome but I'm sure others will testify the same.) 54UV1K 17:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Please Stop Preaching

I did a good deal of work on making this entry factual as opposed to a pulpit decrying the horrors of loudness increase. I know how much all of you hate loud CDs, but the fact is many producers, bands, and listeners don't mind or prefer loud CDs. If you have a negative point against loud CDs, add it in a factual way. You can do it in a way that isn't POV or weasly (look at the sections on clipping). Show, don't tell, people! Illuminatedwax 08:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Who are you accusing of preaching? You seem to think you have some ownership of this page by virtue of doing 'a lot of work', but you say nothing factual here and present no debate! I suggest that you should state what you object to and why. If you think something is POV, then it only takes a citation showing that someone said it to make that a fact, and I suggest that many respected people are saying the things I added. I could quote from professional journals and radio industry magazines if you wish. Work on it please, don't just delete. --Lindosland 23:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please do quote from professional journalists and radio industry magazines! This article is severely lacking in citations! You'll notice that I did so in the "Opponents" section. It would also be great if you could find citations that show that engineers are being forced to make CDs loud (in another section). However, adding exasperated commentary about how awful the loudness war is is decidedly preachy. If you would like to add more debate, please frame it in the format of a debate instead of informing the reader the side they should agree with. In general, I'm saying stop preaching in the article. I think that modern pop music is destroying our culture, but you don't see me editing Britney Spears' page to start out "Britney Spears is the most destructive force in music culture today." Illuminatedwax 00:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have deleted a whole section on the Tragedy of the Commons, without debate or reason, simple saying 'who are you kidding'. I am deeply involved in evolutionary psychology as well as being an audio professional, and I'm very serious. I think that section was extremely important. Of course, if you want to just kid yourself that there is no real solution that's up to you, but I suggest you need lateral thinking and should not force that view here unless you are familiar with what has been written on similar problems concerning psychology. You do accept that this is about psychology, do you? You won't find the answer on Google in the form of a quick fix program, as was the only previous suggestion! --Lindosland 23:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You changed an entire section to state your opinion, which was that the only solution to the loudness war is government intervention. I kept your basic argument and added it to the "Possible Solutions" section. You didn't even bother to cite any sources that said this was the "only solution". In short, the entire paragraph was POV, original research, highly European/England centered, and unencyclopedic. I think the term "arms race" is more accurate than "tragedy of commons". In addition, "tragedy of commons" also implies that loud CDs are a tragedy. Please expound on the bullet point in the Possible Solutions section instead of changing your solution to being the only solution and calling the others "workarounds". And try not to tell the readers what they should believe. Illuminatedwax 00:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You may think this is about CD's, but from discusions and articles I suggest that the initial driver for loudness was radio, and the main facilitator was Optimod, which was primarily sold to radio stations. Do you agree? If not, what is your evidence? If you agree, then can we have that reason back in the first paragraph please? --Lindosland 00:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, go ahead and put that information back in the first paragraph, but please keep it to like a sentence and don't add things like "it makes sense for FM but not CDs" there. If you can put it in a NPOV way, put that information in the "Effects" section. If you want, expound on the factual history of FM loudness wars in the "History" section. Illuminatedwax 00:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Factual errors

I think this page got off to a wrong start, with an assumption that it was to be primarily about CD's. Loud CD's are certainly a problem, now, but I believe that many of the reasons given in the article for a loudness war on CD's are false, contrived in search of a reason.

The loudness war began, according to many sources, with radio. Ask any broadcast engineer and he will pinpoint the culprit as 'Optimod'. This did not give a better sound by making it sound louder, it gave a more 'punchy' sound - one in which the content of each frequency band was adjusted dynamically to pack in more sound without increasing the peak amplitude. Then fast limiters were added to reduce fast peaks, such as from cymbals, because these set the limit to modulation depth on FM. The large high frequency noise content of FM had led to the use of hf pre-emphasis at the transmitter, and this meant that high frequency content had to be kept down - as was done with automatic high frequency limiters at the transmitters. So fast peaks (cymbal crashes in particular) had to be suppressed before the transmitter if they were not to trigger the high-frequency limiters there. On FM, dynamic range is precious, since the noise floor for most listeners will be rather high, and allowing headroom makes the music disappear in the mush for many listeners. Here comes the driving force - economics, and market share. It wasn't a battle between bands, but between stations seeking advertising revenue.

To say that louder CD's sound more impressive because of the frequency response characteristics of the human ear is wrong. Reference to Equal-loudness contours shows that while some bass and treble boost may help at low levels, the curves flatten at the sort of levels most people would listen at (80 to 100dB SPL instantaneous) - other than as background music.

I also have doubts about the whole issue of clipping on CD's which gets too much blame. Some of the waveform plots shown on the web-links show clipping that only lasts for under 1ms, and from my special interest in the derivation of the ITU-R 468 noise weighting curves I know that the ear takes time to respond to brief bursts of high frequency, as generated by individual clipping events. The ear responds to a 1ms burst as if it were attenuated by over 15dB, as reflected in the 468 quasi-pk response specification. While clipping is bad, it is the fast limiting used to eliminate peaks that causes not only distortion, but a huge loss of 'sparkle'. I have done measurements on a live band to try to get to the truth, and find that cymbals and drums have peaks to at least 130dB SPL the preferred listening distance. Most audio systems cannot reproduce above 100dB SPL at the listening position, so any attempt to record live music uncompressed and reproduce it realistically results in 30dB of clipping. This is where the real problem of clipping occurs. Even rattling a set of keys produces remarkable levels of brief peaks - a demonstration Lindos likes to do at exhibitions! Of course, you can't start to explore these things unless you first know you have a mic and measuring system capable of going to these levels. Forget A-wtd levels and sound level meters - they are far too sluggish. It is the very high intensity of brief peaks that enables them to contribute 'sparkle' to live sounds, despite the ear's insensitivity to them (which probably stops them causing hearing damage too). I was shocked when I first made a calibrated recording and tried to listen to it. Even on a top system, I realised I had to play it at an unacceptably low level if I wanted no clipping in the power amp. So, given that fast peaks on modern CD's have been reduced by 20 or 30dB just to bring them into range, does it really matter if they are clipped again? They are totally clipped already, as there is no way to soft limit to this extent in a way that is much better than just clipping!

The real problem lies in failure to assign headroom - 18dB at least, and even that is nowhere near enough for the real thing (hence the reason for 24-bit in studios - it's to get more headroom, not lower noise). A punchy sound works better on poor equipment because it PREVENTS clipping at the power amp. It also works better on FM because most listeners will be receiving with a very high noise floor (see programme levels) and broadcasters cannot afford to let the signal get lost in the noise in order to leave headroom. Why CD's got louder is another matter, I suggest, and probably started with marketing folk wanting the punchy sound that Optimod had given to FM. After that, engineers couldn't resist the temptation to press the new 'normalise' button on their editing software, as it seemed a good idea to fill all available levels. Then the players started to omit 'overvolume', as the latest CD's came blasting out anyway; and now we can't play old CD's, or classics, on new equipment because they sound too quiet at full volume, and never even drive the power amp to full capability.

A final twist is that bit-rate compression works best on clean signals. Signals that have been compressed contain many more frequency and make the codec less effective at 'masking' and force it to allocate bits to stuff that was never there in the first place. The result is the abominable sound of DAB. (not POV - I've never heard anyone in audio describe DAB otherwise).

As you may gather, this has been my specialist subject for a long time. Perhaps we can put back some of my contributions now. I'm happy to work at reducing the appearance of POV, but its best to write first and then discuss and look up material to cite. --Lindosland 01:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way. I well remember a demonstration I attended at University in 1967, given by a man from Dolby. He impressed us by playing the master tape for a current single, and then played us the final version, which sounded rough, and told us that we were wasting our time with hi-fi because heavy compression was being used on records to make them more marketable to the average customer with cheap equipment. That was long before CD's were dreamt of!

It is certainly the case that loudness wars were going on before CDs - in fact I believe the article mentions that vinyl records did the same thing! I realize that you are very knowledgeable on the subject matter, and I really look forward to your contributions. I wasn't quite sure how to add them into the article. Also, I disagree with your conclusions about the reason CDs are currently mastered the way they do - it is because people think they sound better.

Since you are the expert on the topic, I would suggest a few things: 1) Add the stuff about FM stations in the history section. Make sure you are explaining to the reader why stations started making things louder, and keep your opinion out of it. 2) If indeed the reason that "louder" music sounds more impressive is currently incorrect on the article, fix it. 3) Try to stay within the outline of the current article. Your previous edits were a bit rambling. Stay clear, concise, and on topic. 4) Don't get too technical. The page, as it currently stands, is relatively readable by non-audiophiles. 5) If you are unsure, introduce topics on the talk page, and go over them point by point. I'd like to retain some semblance of structure in this article. 6) Most of all, try to stay factual. "The ear responds to a 1ms burst as if it were attenuated by over 15dB" is good. Sentences that start off with "The sad fact is that..." are not. I am really impressed by your audio expertise (Lindos Electronics looks very impressive), and I really think you could add a lot to this article. I'm just trying to keep this article from becoming a rant against heavy compression. Illuminatedwax 02:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

That's reasonable, and thanks for the support. I agree that "the sad fact is that .." is POV of course. POV creeps in and must be edited out. This is a very difficult topic, perhaps because the truth IS very technical, and it is easier to latch onto common myths rather than get to the truth of the matter. I also think the problems developed step by step sequentially, and this needs to be put over. I'll try again later. --Lindosland 12:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Conflicting information on HDCD/ReplayGain

The article states that ReplayGain etc cannot restore lost dynamic range, then goes on to say that HDCD contains information for a range expander to restore the lost range. Surely, if it were technically possible to restore the lost dynamic range on HDCD, it would be possible to do it via software too? Mojo-chan 22:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

HDCD is a method of encoding more information on a CD that is then decoded by the CD player or receiver, thus provided the added detail. ReplayGain works with the source material (standard Redbook CDs) and therefore cannot restore that lost information as it was never there to begin with. Abacab 00:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Owen Morris

In the sort-of recent Oasis documentary, Owen Morris (regrettably) claims to have started the 'Loudness War' when he worked on Definitely Maybe. Seems relevant. Thoughts? Gamiar 23:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. Though one might contend he is being a touch ego centrinc by blaming himself for an industry wide phenomenon. Granted, the work with Oasis is "arguably" the start of it....Abacab 21:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Right. I just watched it. He called it "brickwalling". Keeping the levels constant with no dynamics. I think it's worth mentioning that Definitely Maybe was one of the albums that started the trend. WACGuy 23:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Another possible solution?

Equalization plugin in Audacity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sub6 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

The real reason for compression?

Read Lindosland's comments about amplifiers distorting on transients with interest.

I'm currently driving around in a courtesy car as mine had to go in for some work. The car is fitted with a 6 CD changer and the Bose "Premium" sound system.

Playing non-remastered recordings from the 80s you can actually hear the ringing distortion on transients such as a snare drum or cymbal crash, the worst offenders being ABBA's "The Visitors" and Dire Straits' "Brothers In Arms". The couple of more recent CDs I have in the changer, Baillie & The Boys "Loving Every Minute" (1996) and Martina McBride's "Timeless" (2005) don't have this problem. Tried the remaster I have of Brothers In Arms and that didn't distort (although you could hear the compression on it).

Yet playing these same 1980s albums on the system in my own car (decent quality aftermarket kit) they sound absolutely stunning, no ringing, no distortion. Same at home, Arcam CD player and amplifier.

So perhaps this is part of the reason? Cheap equipment simply can't handle the transients without going into distortion - and once again we have to put up with "lowest common denominator"?

Comments welcome! Squirrel 08:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Undoubtably, pandering to crap equipment has not helped the loudness war at all. This fact is already mentioned in the article. Mojo-chan 10:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

And of course it's created a chicken and egg situation. Wide dynamics distort on most equipment, so CDs are compressed. So equipment manufacturers don't bother... so labels compress more... etc etc.

It just surprises me that the Bose system in my courtesy car was as poor as that on transients - it's a £500 optional extra, and that £500 would be better spent on an aftermarket system. Although it would be interesting to see if sticking a 1 farad power cap across the supply to the Bose amp would do any good. Squirrel 08:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

If the system was brand new, it may be that it wasn't broken in yet. As a rule of thumb, a driver needs 24 hours of operation until it's parameters reach their specified values. I experienced this myself in a brand new BMW during the first few weeks of driving.

OTOH, the Bose(R) speakers from the last 20 years or so, to which I gave a closer look, were clearly not optmized for transient response. Probably, good transient response is less important for the perceived sound quality than simply some low end extension.

Unfortunately, direct A/B tests between Bose(R) and other sound systems are impossible, since Bose(R) apparently specifically forbids stores that their systems are placed near other systems. However, A/B tests which are performed exclusively under control of Bose(R) (and under conditions which cannot be really verified) indicate that my above mentioned assumption is correct. --Klaws 16:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I suppose the Bose system does sound better than the standard kit, but still not a patch on aftermarket. But good transients AND bass extension are both vital.

It wasn't brand new, it was a 56-plate car (about 3-4 months old) with about 3,000 miles on the clock. I know about the running-in, when I got my own car (uses the standard Blaupunkt speakers but with aftermarket head unit and amp) it took about 2 days for the midband prominence to disappear and the sound to become smoother. But once it did... it sounded really really good. Squirrel

Dolby reference level

Dolby Digital has a defined and calibrated reference playback level and the DTS track will also follow this. It therefore is beneficial that the high resolution DVD-Audio soundtrack will be produced at the same reference level - and this indeed is normally the case.

As far as I'm aware, there is no agreed reference listening/playback level in the music industry. Enescot 20:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

There isn't. But Dolby Digital (and DTS) come from the movie industry - where there is a defined reference level. That reference level has been transferred across to the AC3 soundtracks on DVD-Audio releases, and is roughly equivalent to the 89dB de-facto standard applied by ReplayGain (and the de-facto reference level from the mid to late 1980s on CDs). Squirrel 21:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that reference level is the volume that Dolby film soundtracks are produced at in a dubbing theatre. What meaning does reference level have for DVD-Audio? What is the reference level you refer to for CD's? Enescot 17:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

When playing films from DVD on a home cinema system you will normally find that the average RMS level remains constant. There was a brief "loudness war" between film studios in the late 1990s (Lethal Weapon 4 contains a lot of distorted dialogue for example) but this was quickly ended when cinemas complained (quite vocally) to the studios. Following these complaints - often that the projectionist would have to reduce the level on the fader which often made the film's dialogue unintelligible - a white paper was published by Dolby Labs who strongly recommended "current best practice" was to stick to that reference. Therefore the reference level, although not to my knowledge official, has stayed in force.

The significance to DVD-Audio is that almost all DVD-Audio discs also have a Dolby Digital soundtrack so they can be played on DVD-Video players. Again the reference level seems to be generally adhered to, at least on all the DVD-Audio and DualDisc releases I have.

Additionally AC3 (the Dolby Digital encoding standard) has dynamic range control as standard. Every DVD player (and offboard AC3 decoder or AV amplifier) has somewhere in the setup menu a "dynamic range" option. This lets you compress and peak limit the audio if you need to (say you're using the speakers built in to the TV, or listening late at night). The PPCM format used by DVD-Audio doesn't have this facility, but then the assumption is that if you're using the PPCM (stereo or multichannel) tracks you're probably going to have pretty high quality kit to play it back on.

CDs up until about 1989-1990 were produced at 89dB RMS. When you rip the CD and analyse it using MP3Gain the loudness is given as approximately 89dB. This includes albums such as Dire Straits "Brothers In Arms", Paul Simon's "Graceland", Billy Joel's "An Innocent Man", most of ABBA's original Polydor releases (not the currently available remasters). From about 1993 onwards the levels started to creep up, around 1-2dB each year, until by 2000 an MP3Gain analysis would show an RMS level of 99dB complete with a clip warning. Since then I've even seen tracks with an RMS level of 100dB or more - and quite how that's possible I'm not sure. I'd attribute that to rounding or overflow errors in MP3Gain. Squirrel 08:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't the RMS level of a CD depend on the content of the disc? For instance, I have a recording of Stravinsky's 'The Firebird', and this has quite a low average volume but the peak volume is very high - i.e. the recording has a large dynamic range. Would it be possible for you to explain what MP3Gain means when it reports those RMS levels? I'm more familiar with levels reported with reference to digital full-scale, 0 dB FS. Enescot 19:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It would do - classical has a very wide dynamic range, so the RMS level will as a result have to be lower if the peaks aren't to clip. MP3Gain also has a "max no clip" value, on many 80s recordings the RMS level is 89dB and the max no clip is 0db - which means the full 10dB of headroom is being used. Squirrel 19:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I had a look at the wiki article on ReplayGain and now I understand that the loudness value in ReplayGain has a different meaning to signal levels relative to digital full-scale. Thanks for all the info. Enescot 19:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

18 dB headroom

Possible Solutions

* The adoption of a common alignment level and enforcement by audio standards organizations. For example, the European Broadcast Union standards call for 18dB of headroom.

I'm not sure whether this is taken in the appropriate context. I thought that this -18 dB digital full-scale level was chosen to correspond to 0 dB level on the EBU IEC 268-10 PPM display. This meter would be used when making recordings using a digital recorder. I don't think that it is meant to be used (-18 dB FS) as a peak or rms maximum level on subsequent production (e.g. renormalization, compression or limiting) of that recording. Enescot 17:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

multibands, smaller consumer playback systems, absolute bit values

As to broadcast engineering in the early 90's, one of the first multiband limiters beyond the Optimod that I recall installing/using was the Texar 4-band. Recall Optimods did do a sort of multiband limiting but also performed many other FM-related audio processing functions with some versions being the station's stereo pilot generator/processor. We used both in many of the FM's I worked at. This lends me to think that exploration of some of the artifacts of "misuse" (subjective) multibands (such as intermod distortion) should be mentioned.

Also, the reason we as broadcast engineers used such multiband devices was that in order to get above road noise, satisfy the management as to, upon listeners changing stations an apparent louder station, was due to the fact that the FCC would monitor stations for peaks over 105% (with no SCA's 110% with a single SCA) and FINE the station if more than 2 peaks over threshold were detected. Bad stuff. Our local monitoring facility in Langhorne PA was especially strict about going over allocated spectra (typically a deviation of ~ +/-75kHz)

Also, I did a bit of research (you can see my lab at http://home1.gte.net/wamnet ) on playback of various audio devices (MP3 player, cheap and not-so-cheap CD players) and what I found causing the crackling with "hot" CD's/MP3's processed to within .01DBFS is limitations in the D2A sections and successive analog stages causing the familiar cracking sound. I did this because I noticed that certain playback devices did NOT do this, having sufficient headroom in the analog section.

I've noticed a recent trend in "hot" masters going to down to absolute values of -0.1 - -0.3DBFS which is below the "crackling" threshold of even the cheapest of playback devices, such as those sold in toy sections of most retailers.

Please note that most of the digital plug-ins and in-line comp/limiters used for digital pre-mastering actually do not "clip". Adjacent levels with the same bit train of the desired limit bit values are typically shown as errors in most mastering software.

Even Wavelab will show this as a digital "clip" when using their analysis tools (not the real time meters) Therefore most of the limiters I use in the digital domain, such as TC, Voxengo, Waves, etc. produce even the heaviest of limiting with non-repeating maximum bit values. One can see this if you zoom into the waveview on any DAW and see that the absolute values are never (or should never be) adjacent. Replicators will usually bounce these gold discs upon inspection before going to CD master cutting.

I also believe that this should not become a soapbox for what people think is right or "audiophile" since it has little to do with the factual interpretation of trends towards higher RMS values. I will say that it should be mentioned in very agnostic terms that it is the opinion that ear fatigue may be caused by reduced RMS to Peak ratios, but subjective views of what "sounds good" are just that - subjective.

As to the reasons that this is occurring, a few reasons are mentioned in Katz's book Mastering Audio, one being an increase in ambient noise in listening environments and the resulting effect on what he terms as something like listener threshold.

But my feeling is that we've been seeing a reduction in speaker driver size, and to me, a limitation of the instantaneous ability of a reproduction system to excite a certain volume of air in the listener's environment at all spectra results in the typical listener stating that something sounds better on these smaller, multichannel home systems, small computer speakers, etc... when the program material has higher RMS levels.

The effects are compounded by non-ideal room geometry and dimensions as well as placement of the speakers/drivers by the consumer. It's fairly obvious that these systems exist in non-ideal environments which causes a multitude of problems.

When I worked with the Pittsburgh Symphony, it was interesting to hear the amount of dynamic generated by 108 players at forte during something like Copeland's Rodeo. All of those sound generating elements, able to excite that much air instantaneously was an eye (ear) opener. Same with being onstage at large venues during many of the rock acts I did monitors for. Having that much surface area all working in consort is something not easily achievable in the typical consumer listening environment.

As to an expert, you really should refer to some of the mastering gurus and see if they'd like to contribute. Katz, Ludwig, Smith and others have been doing this for years and have seen the desire of bands, producers, and A&R men evolve to these "loudness wars". In fact, Wavelab now offers a Katz-style meter, which opinions vary, to gauge apparent loudness.

Wamnet 15:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understand your point but perceived loudness or subjective loudness is a scientific term and even though it is difficult give a prescription on what will cause a track to sound loudest, we do have some ideas as what the factors are. So it is not all RMS or absolute values but it is the perceived and subjective elements that have influence such as density of music, types of instruments, genre, etc. I personally don't find Katz-style meter useful for that at all. The old analog VU meters seemed much better but still not good enough. So the best meters for perceived lodness are still my ears.

I'm new to wikipedia myself but it seems that many articles are exactly a sandbox for what people think, which most the time is probably detrimental to accuracy, but maybe when it comes to subjects like perceived loudness, it is better as the term by itself indicates that it is a "perceived" and subjective concept.--SciFrutto 01:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I think a lot of the information you mention here is interesting, factual and would be a good addition to the article, like the information about mastering tools. Perhaps you could even write a section about how the loudness wars have changed the mastering industry technically (new programs, new habits, new methods of teaching interns, etc.). Also very interesting is the information about how some consumer products will "crackle", etc., and some won't. If you can come up with a reference or two (textbooks on mastering, whatever), I think you should put the highlights of the above factual information into the article. Illuminatedwax 02:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

to both above... totally agree. Masking effects and arrangement can have a big impact on how "loud" listeners perceive a track. As to additions to the article, I'd have to do a bit of thinking/research about it. A lot of the external links already touch on many of the subjects. Being factual is paramount, trying to separate opinion from information.

On the effect of perceived loudness here's something I noticed: my kids bought the Wild Thornberry's soundtrack a while back. On it is a remix/edit of a Peter Gabriel tune called Shaking the Tree. I dumped it into a montage along with some recent Nickelback as well as some Chilli Peppers, Dave Matthews's, old Pearl Jam. Not really any of my style of music (I listen to old man news radio). Sort of use it like how perfume counters use coffee beans to clear your nose from all the scents.

Anyway, the Gabriel thing seems to have a lot of dynamic to me; seems to have a lot higher peak/rms ratio. But when looking at peak and RMS meters, it actually hits a crest of about 4db, where something like the Nickelback stuff actually crests at 6db diff between peak/rms. Weird... could just be me tho...

So it would seem to me that any Wiki entry would have to take into account the things you guys mentioned. I'd like to see if I can find a way to demonstrate in real time to the user on-line within Wiki. That gets into all kinds of issues with fair use is using commercial releases or self promo if using things I've done. Any info anyone has please let me know.

I have noticed that things I've mastered heavily as per the client, seem to cause my ears to fatigue a lot sooner on larger far-field monitors than when played back on near-fields or typical home-style 5:1 systems. I make a lot of trips to the local bigbox and niche stereo stores when I'm mastering to see how well it compares across various consumer systems.

I'm really thinking the point here is that in addition to what Mr. Katz and others have mentioned - getting above louder ambient environments - it has a lot to do with most consumer systems having much smaller driver surface area than in the past. I remember the days of large Advents being the norm, you could go to Radio Shack and get those huge Optimus speakers with 12 or 15" woofers. I wonder how much of an effect that has on the trend toward more processed audio and loudness wars?

as to the Katz meters, I've heard people swear by them, I've heard people say they don't like them. But I remember this same thing with the Burroughs (sp?) meters. I know a local guy that thinks they're the best.

I recall a story about how one studio used to train engineers by taping over all the console/tape deck meters and making newbees mix with no meters at all. I have to say I do look at the peak/RMS meters in Wavelab, but they're just a tool - not always an indicator of what it actually seems to be. Wamnet 13:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thinking about this even more, I'm wondering if there's been any universities or someone like AES that has done blind tests with decent sized sample groups - not for a "qualitative" reason but more for "quantitative" ... ie what seems louder to a good cross reference of the population. This would help to distant the entry from any possible soapboxing. I've seen the replay gain article. Looks like someone has some stuff here: http://www.nescivi.nl/presentations/lac07_slides_Cabrera.pdf . And I've read some of the papers which deal with subjects concerning text-speech http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/mark/papers/icslp02eval.pdf . And there's this : http://home20.inet.tele.dk/esskov/documents/LoudnessAssessment-AES116.pdf and this http://www.tcelectronic.com/media/skovenborg_2004_loudness_m.pdf . All of these seem like a good start for delving into more research. Wamnet 14:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Another example?

I don't know if this is of any value, but Barenaked Ladies hits album, Disc One is an example of a remaster with an excessive amount of clipping and compression - particularly on tracks from their first (and progressively less on subsequent) CD from '92 which is notably lower in overall volume, and less compressed (similar for their 94 and 96 albums). If it's of any interest (especially because it's an example where both the original songs and the remaster were originally CDs as opposed to vinyl being remastered for CD, I could make screengrabs of the waveforms from that album if anyone thinks it would be a helpful example. TheHYPO 04:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Abba CD could not have been released in 1981

I removed the release date from the following line:

"The first image is taken from the original 1981 Polydor CD release, where there is no clipping or distortion, and a good deal of headroom."

The CD hit the Asian market in late 1982. So I don't doubt that the image was taken from the original release of the CD. But that can't have been in 1981.

Unfortunately I was not able to research the original release date.

CaptainZapp 09:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Page has been Proded

Gentlemen, this page constitutes a violation of policy guidelines in many respects: External links, NPOV, conflict of interest, and rampant corporate promotion and advertisement. Wikipedia is not a forum to express your personal views or opinions. If you disagree, you need to speak out and state your reasons as to why WP needs this article page. If you fail to so, the article will be deleted. Jrod2 21:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read the talk page: there has been a long standing controversy over NPOV with this article. Please be more specific about the offenses (corporate promotion? conflict of interest? what?!) and please take into consideration the work that has already been done before lambasting it. This article is very useful because it describes a phenomenon very prevalent in popular music mastering, as our references indicate. A lot of work has gone into keeping this article NPOV, and I feel that the current article represents the facts rather than opinions. Since you, being an audio engineer, are knowledgeable about this subject, I would ask that you do your best to enhance this article rather than tear it down. Illuminatedwax 22:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Definitely, this is a valid article that objectively describes an actual fad in the music industry. The reason this article is objective is because the subject matter it describes can be measured ( via waveforms ), so it's silly to suggest that this article be deleted. WACGuy 00:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me remind you all that WP is not a indiscriminate collection of external links and an opportunity to promote names and commercial websites. Read "Conflict of Interests" and "Links to be Avoided" . Several reference links on this article, violates pretty much almost all 13 rules! And, although rule #13 states "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article", all these so called "supporting link references" listed by all of you, are nothing but articles written AFTER the creation of this WP "Loudness War" article page. Raising the concern that because of Wikipedia, this "Loudness War" is becoming notable and verifiable in the first place. The only way this article could advert deletion is if: 1/ All external links to said interviews, are gone 2/ All names and claims of owning the word "Loudness War", GONE. 3/ Rename the article to something a lame person can understand, or be able to make a correlation. I suggest: Music Compression, Over-compression or Hyper-compression. 4/ If you prefer, I will be happy to put this on review to both my Anti-Spam and Counter-vandalism Unit. The choice is yours. Please let me know if we can arrive at a compromise.Jrod2 05:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

So clean the links.. :) --Kjoonlee 05:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Per Kjoonlee, I have started the clean up. I realize that it would take me all night to sort it all through, make revisions, and link clean ups. But, I started with the first sections on top. I urge all of you to comment on my revisions and improve it if you like, but bringing back the links, will have to have a very good argument. So please, proceed with caution. Thanks for your attention .Jrod2 06:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Only some of the links you marked as "spam" are spam. What's wrong with pointing to a Mix Magazine article if it is perfectly relevant to the topic and (as I see it) pretty much free of advertising? That's a very important article that shows industry opinion. Even if it was made after the WP article, there's no reference of WP in the article. I'm putting the references back after editing them. I agree with you about some of the links, though, especially some added after May 10. I also kept a lot of your copy changes. I am keeping the mrichter post about the death of dynamic range, because it provides a more in-depth look at the visual section of the article, and adds rather than detracts from the article, and isn't really spam. Illuminatedwax 07:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The Mix magazine article was written on December 1, 2005. "Loudness War" was created on December 31, 2005 and the external link was also added on that date. That's a month exactly to the date of the creation (See: [2]) This was the only contribution this user {Mirror Vax) did to "Loudness War" (See: his contributions). Next, he went elsewhere at WP to link the article page to other WP pages, so in other words, he had an agenda and it's all consistent to the job of a good sock puppet. A quick history of the person that posted the link {Mirror Vax) indicates a pattern of bad behavior. See his block history. The point really is that the possibility of that Mix Mag article being put there to spam WP is very probable. Who would be interested? It wouldn't be impossible to believe that it could be either the publication, or the engineer that is being featured. So, why take chances? If, even after I've said all this, you still don't get it, then for the last time, read "Conflict of Interests" and "Links to be Avoided" Bye. Jrod2 16:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Examples need to be redone

Hi, we need to use free & open source software to take screenshots. We can only upload screenshots of non-free programs onto articles about the programs themselves. --Kjoonlee 04:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I could supply screenshots that would never be subject to copyright violations. However, I don't want to do it so that later on, somebody comes back to revert.Jrod2 00:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Another thing, If WACGuy objects, then I won't do this. You would have to win the argument (And I do see your concern), however, that's not in my view, a priority. Besides, you should give him the chance to amend all that himself. BTW, I don't feel partcular about your choice for "levelling" over "leveling", but since we are in America, I thought we should keep it all American English. I am not opposed to British English, though. Cheers--Jrod2 00:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry. Be bold in updating pages. BTW, I like to keep titles the way the author wrote them. I don't have a preference for British/American English in titles. --Kjoonlee 03:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem Kjoonlee. I will try my best to keep all your suggestions in mind. As for editing the text, I am not sure, but I think there is still much to be phrased or arranged in a way that is easier to understand. Don't you think? Thanks for your comment. Jrod2 04:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Popular Examples Refs

I've removed the majority of the references in the Popular Examples section as well as the "fact" tags there for now. Do we really need references for this section? If so, how can we possibly do so without referring to non-notable webpages or doing original research? I think that the examples are important to have, so something should give. Illuminatedwax 07:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Easy. You don't include information that may be used as a vehicle for promotion and you always have to ask yourself when editing articles: Does WP or this article need this? Now, if you can find articles that pre-date the "Loudness War" page, by well over 3 years (Around 2002), then maybe you can support these claims. Until then, I don't want to find all those names and links again or will have no choice but to "Prod" and report all that as spam to my units. Trust me, they will most likely want to kill the page as they aren't engineers like us. This is where it could go for scrutiny. So, I am reverting back to my deleted version bu "Illuminatedwax". Thanks for your cooperation. Jrod2 12:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You're incorrect if you think that an article postdating a Wikipedia page necessarily means it can't be included, and you're sadly mistaken if you think the Wikipedia page somehow started the trend of people calling it the "loudness war." I think the mention in Mix Magazine is good enough for the concept to be important. Nobody is using this page as a promotional vehicle, and if they are, I've deleted those references and you just put them back with your revert. I didn't revert your changes, I included most of them. Please, cut the vigilante stuff. Are you threatening us with some kind of "spam bots" or something like that? At the very least, provide us with specific examples before you just start reverting edits. Let's talk about specific things here instead of getting all uppity about it. If you want to discuss the legitimacy of this article, let's do that. You're all over the place here. If you have complaints, focus. I'm not going to revert my changes, but I'd like you to at least address what was bad about the article. Get whatever wiki-authorities you want involved with this; this is a useful article and has the potential to become better in the future, and I honestly think you're behaving in bad faith.Illuminatedwax 13:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Illuminatedwax, please refrain from making comments like that. I have spent too much time on this talk page explaining what external links need to be avoided. Did you read "Conflict of Interests" and "Links to be Avoided"? If you don't agree with the view that the article was flawed, then revert it to its past spamming glory. Then, I will do what I got to do. As an example, that "Californication" claim as being the first CD to be made loud was referenced to a post on a forum that was created only a month before the article {Loudness War) was written. I am not fooled that easy, Sir. BTW, how I function at WP, it's with all due respect, none of your business. So, if you want respect, act respectful and tone down a notch. Have a nice day. Jrod2 14:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't saying you didn't explain the problem, I'm saying you didn't point out the specific links that were being "spammy" and instead talked about the entire article being "full of spam" without giving a single example. You mention the Californication link; you'll notice I had deleted that reference in my revision. Are there any other specific references that you consider "spam"? Illuminatedwax 14:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The Mix magazine article was written on December 1, 2005. "Loudness War" was created on December 31, 2005 and the external link was also added on that date. That's a month exactly to the date of the creation (See: [3]) This was the only contribution this user {Mirror Vax) did to "Loudness War" (See: his contributions). Next, he went elsewhere at WP to link the article page to other WP pages, so in other words, he had an agenda and it's all consistent to the job of a good sock puppet. A quick history of the person that posted the link {Mirror Vax) indicates a pattern of bad behavior. See his block history. The point really is that the possibility of that Mix Mag article being put there to spam WP is very probable. Who would be interested? It wouldn't be impossible to believe that it could be either the publication, or the engineer that is being featured. So, why take chances? If, even after I've said all this, you still don't get it, then for the last time, read "Conflict of Interests" and "Links to be Avoided" Bye. Jrod2 16:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe Mirror Vax is a regular reader of the magazine and decided that an article about the "loudness wars" should maybe be referenced on the Wikipedia page for loudness wars. Maybe he just Googled the phrase and added a useful link that he found. Maybe he thought other people should see this article because it is useful. Mirror Vax looks to be a very busy editor without any particular axe to grind, just seems to have gotten in trouble for vandalism. If you think Mirror Vax is being used as a sock puppet, please report it. But I'm putting the Mix Magazine reference back because it is interesting and it's also our main source for showing industry opinion, and thus improves the article. Wikipedia will not explode if we leave a useful link in the article. In the meantime, you have kept references which are even more "suspicious" than the Mix Magazine article. If you want to remove the hydrogenaudio reference, the stevehoffman ref, or the airwindows ref, I agree with that (I didn't remove them because you added them back). The mrichter article is interesting and should be kept because it provides a more in-depth waveform comparison and is a good supplement to the Wikipedia article. Illuminatedwax 02:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Your theory is less probable than mine. Your behavior is also inappropriate by policy standards. You just don't re-insert suspicious links without support or without reaching a consensus that the links are in effect needed, and do not violate policies. Your act of reverting, only proves that you are biased to the inclusion of an article that was suspiciously inserted at WP. Please refrain from reverting, and seek support for the Mix Mag article link, now. Anyway, I don't really see how anyone is going to agree that the link is necessary for Loudness War. If that link can be accepted, then other ME's who are also arguing against "Loudness War", are going to be wanting to place their article links through the use of their sock puppets, meat puppets, you name it. So, please let's avoid all that. Thank you. Jrod2 03:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. --Kjoonlee 03:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to apologize for saying he was editing bad faith earlier too; apologies Illuminatedwax 04:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey Illuminatedwax, I accept your apology. Remember though, we are not in a contest to prove who is wrong and who is right. But, to make the best of an article page in a way that is clean and fair to all contributors. The way you prove your point, is by raising consensus and shifting it to your side or POV. It's the Wiki way right? If you are on the side of the truth, then you have nothing to worry about as we are always learning something productive at WP. If you make your point and the link is reinstated, guess what? I couldn't be happier for you. But, you are going to have some strong arguments against it as you may well already know. Have a good evening and happy editing. Jrod2 04:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion

From a request at WP:3O. Summary: No.

• The section name, Popular Examples is bad already. Who says these examples are popular?
• Most of the sources were forums and other self-published media. These are not reliable sources, and should be removed.
• Though citation needed tags were present, one must be very careful with statements about active music groups, akin to statements about living persons. Only when a reliable source can be found, a group should be listed.
• Because of the above, I have taken the liberty of applying some changes to the article, removing unsourced statements.
• The 3O request mentioned spam. I have looked at all the links, but I found none particularly fitting the definition of spam. Most were unreliable indeed, and therefore should be (and were) removed. The external links section contains no spam as far as I can see.
• Another topic of interest is the amount of WP:OR in the article, which leads the reader to a WP:POINT. The waveform images are probably OR (unless licensed from a reliable source - I could not find such a thing on the image pages), and the comparison between original and re-mastered versions definitely is original research. Please remove it, or find a reliable source.
• Do not introduce "citation needed" and "original research?" tags in the article as a way to keep unsourced information in. If it is highly unlikely a reliable source can be found, just delete it, instead of applying a tag.
• Remove weasel words. The article contains unattributed statements (unsourced as well) like "Many mastering engineers claim..." (which mastering engineers claim?), "record label executives are said to be..." (who says they are?) and "Many renowned producers and engineers have expressed" (which renowned producers and engineers?).

--User:Krator (t c) 08:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion (2)

I am neither an engineer nor an audiophile, so I had to study the background of this dispute in the article history after seeing the listing on Wikipedia:Third opinion.

The beginning of this thread cited user Illuminatedwax's 07:36, May 14 2007 (UTC) edit, which had "Re-adding links to authorities, other useful information, re-adding references list, removing most references for "Popular Examples" just for now" in the edit summary. The changes in this edit (I might have missed some) included:

Inline citations removed

1. "Mastering engineer Vlado Meller brutally distorted (Califonication) into gratituous, sustained clipping" at Airwindows Compact Disc Mastering
2. "What do you all do with LOUD discs?" at Hydrogen Audio forum

Inline citations not removed

1. Petition to remaster Califonication at PetitionOnline.com
2. "Dynamics and Dynamic Range" at StereoPhile (page 1 of letters to the editor, commenting on John Atkinson's "As We See It" in December 1999)
3. "Dynamics and Dynamic Range" at StereoPhile (page 2 of those letters)
4. What's the worst DVD-A or SACD that you purchased? (stevehoffman.tv forum thread)

References/external links removed from Popular examples section

1. David Bowie albums - (reference: one.fsphost.com/roiotrade/loud.html)
2. Depeche Mode albums - (reference: brianstagg.co.uk pta clipressed) (reference: sharoma.com, trading/loudness
3. Front Line Assembly album - (reference: side-line.com blog comments)
4. John Mayer album - (reference: hydrogenaudio.org forums)
5. Muse album -(reference: museabuse.com topic)
6. Red Hot Chili Peppers albums - (reference: forum.doom9.org thread)
7. Rush album - (reference: prorec.com article)
8. Slayer album - (reference: hydrogenaudio.org forums)

Two links added to External links section

• 1. The Death of Dynamic Range (mrichter page mindspring.com)

• The full title of the article is "The Death of Dynamic Range: A Chronology of the Compact Disc Loudness Wars."
• A note on the mindspring page says it is a capture which is no longer available from http://rvcc2.raritanval.edu/ktek9053/cdpage/
• The article analyses six albums from 1983, 1987, 1988, 1991, 1995 and 1999, followed by "The Radio Loudness Fallacy" section and additional examples in "Meanwhile, in Europe..."
• End notes include: "Questions? Comments? Criticisms? Present them in the rec.audio.pro newsgroup, or e-mail me at: k e v t r o n i c s @ y a h o o . c o m Disclaimer: I'm not a professional audio engineer, I only play one on TV."

• 2. The Big Squeeze: Mastering engineers debate music's loudness wars (MIX Professional Audio and Music Production magazine)

• December 1, 2005 article by Sarah Jones, full title: "The Big Squeeze: Mastering Engineers Debate Music's Loudness Wars"
• Note: whether of not it is a reliable source, MIX online is cited in quite a few Wikipedia articles (Linksearch for *.mixonline.com)

I'm posting this to learn if I'm beginning to understand the genesis of the dispute as the two users involved see it. — Athaenara ✉ 08:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, basically the entire dispute is over whether those last two references constitute link farming or spam Illuminatedwax 09:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The claim that "the entire dispute" is about "those last two references" is inaccurate. You are editing the article too aggressively (WP:DE) while this editorial dispute is not yet unresolved. You should refrain from that. — Athaenara ✉ 10:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)