TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Loudness (2007)

144 点作者 mjgoins将近 8 年前

13 条评论

chrismealy将近 8 年前
It&#x27;s not just about volume. Tracks mastered with a ton of compression trick your brain into sounding louder than they really are, which is great for a song or two (or if you want pay people to pay attention to your tv commercial), but for listening to a whole album it wears you out. If you have an album you love but somehow never make it all the way through this is probably why. The perception of full volume gets your lizard brain aroused, which is great if you&#x27;re in the club, but not if you&#x27;re in the mood to listen to the first three Led Zeppelin records in a row.<p>On the other hand, older recordings with more dynamic range might sound thin at low volume, but are much richer at higher volumes (you can hear the individual instruments better and feel the space in the sound). If you try comparing older and newer masterings at a good volume the newer mastering usually sounds kinda mushy.
评论 #14728573 未加载
评论 #14728997 未加载
mortenjorck将近 8 年前
For practical listening, I actually prefer modern brickwall mastering techniques to more traditional mastering with a high dynamic range, for one reason: what the author sees as &quot;hijacking the volume control from the listener&quot; I would consider the opposite.<p>With a high dynamic range, a headphones listener may feel the need to adjust the volume several times in a song to boost the clarity of softer sections or to make louder sections more comfortable to the ears, depending on the listening environment. With a &quot;loud,&quot; low dynamic range, however, the listener need only adjust the volume once, as the whole track is roughly the same volume. In other words, the listener is in control of the volume, rather than the engineer.
评论 #14727381 未加载
评论 #14727481 未加载
评论 #14727465 未加载
评论 #14727547 未加载
评论 #14727653 未加载
评论 #14727859 未加载
评论 #14727539 未加载
评论 #14727459 未加载
评论 #14728254 未加载
评论 #14728596 未加载
评论 #14727419 未加载
评论 #14730454 未加载
thatswrong0将近 8 年前
This is pretty funny to me because I mostly listen to (and produce) electronic music.. and there are pretty much no rules when it comes to electronic music and loudness. Stupidly loud music can actually sound pretty dang good [0][1]. The momentary RMS in some Moody Good tracks can actually hit _above_ 0dBFS.<p>If you have the right source material, you can brickwall the hell out of tracks and not notice the distortion.. or perhaps the distortion will even add pleasant artifacts. One of the more prominent issues with making things stupid loud is intermodulation distortion, but that really only becomes noticeable when you have pure tones or vocals being mashed into the limiter. If the source material is already distorted (think screechy dubstep synths), then it probably don&#x27;t matter.<p>But yeah, when you&#x27;re dealing with more traditional kinds of music, which often times involves vocals or a lot more subtlety to the timbre of the instruments, brickwalling is probably not the best call. It seems that the Search and Destroy &quot;remaster&quot; sounding terribly distorted was intentional.. but IMO it&#x27;s not very listenable nor does the distortion really bring the grungy character than I think they were going for. It just sounds bad.<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;soundcloud.com&#x2F;moodygood&#x2F;mtgfyt-vol1" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;soundcloud.com&#x2F;moodygood&#x2F;mtgfyt-vol1</a><p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=5lsX8pUaloY" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=5lsX8pUaloY</a>
评论 #14728135 未加载
评论 #14729155 未加载
评论 #14727847 未加载
ttoinou将近 8 年前
Theses mastering techniques have their legitimate use ! Some notes :<p>* it&#x27;s a step in musical production where having experience, skills and contact with the artist matters. Not all compressor and limiter are created equal and the default value you use in your media player may not sound as good as what an audio engineer might have done..<p>* Not everyone have good hardware and a good environment to listen to high dynamic range music like thoses listening to classical music &#x2F; jazz &#x2F; Philip Glass, so theses business decision to increase volume for the market made sense at that time I think. Audio engineer simply took profit of having a technically better medium (CD) to make audio sound better (from what I&#x27;ve read theses techniques did not work well on vinyl)<p>* Loudness wars didn&#x27;t have an effect on old records since as one can see in this article, we could find the old dynamic ones (and so we actually have the choice of listening to the old untouched record, or the new compressed-for-the-market record, and that is a good thing !)<p>* Theses music stats (mean RMS, peak RMS, max mean RMS) look at instantaneous dynamic, but a look at the overall dynamic of a song is also very important ! A good article on this topic stating that songs did not lose overall dynamic range that much : [&#x27;Dynamic Range&#x27; &amp; The Loudness War, 2011] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.soundonsound.com&#x2F;sound-advice&#x2F;dynamic-range-loudness-war" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.soundonsound.com&#x2F;sound-advice&#x2F;dynamic-range-loudn...</a>
评论 #14727678 未加载
morecoffee将近 8 年前
Tangential, but for the longest time I couldn&#x27;t figure out why VLC always played music &#x2F; DVDs at such low volume. Setting the system volume to max and overdriving VLC&#x27;s volume slider was the only way I could actually hear the soft parts.<p>Recently I found out about the volume compressor, which with a single check box does exactly the right thing. I asked myself &quot;why the heck isn&#x27;t this box checked by default?&quot; I think the answer is with audio purists wanting to stem the loudness war.<p>When reading about CD mastering maxing out the volume, It seems like it is the right decision. <i>Most</i> people do want the loudest setting, no mess with the EQ, compressors, etc. Only a tiny population wants to preserve the fidelity of the amplitude.
评论 #14727206 未加载
评论 #14727262 未加载
golergka将近 8 年前
Since Youtube and most streaming services started to automatically balance tracks based on their average perceived loudness (not all of them use the same metric, but the purpose is the same), loudness war is almost dead. If you brickwall your song, it will not be played louder than competition anymore.
评论 #14727586 未加载
em3rgent0rdr将近 8 年前
Fortunately many audio providers now have been fighting back against this. For instance YouTube will punish video uploads that are louder than -13 LUFS by attenuating the level. This will provide a somewhat level playing field and encourage people to upload with a reasonable dynamic range.
评论 #14728566 未加载
cromon将近 8 年前
This is something I have battled with for a long time, personally I master to make the music sound good, sometimes that is loud (new dance music) sometimes not so much (old African recordings remasters).<p>Coupled with the data from this page [1] there is no point in going too loud anyways, that&#x27;s why you have gain &#x2F; volume control. I&#x27;m not sure how I feel about streaming services implementing extra processing tbh. Spotify is the worst culprit adding limiting which can significantly change the sound of a recording.<p>I just wish other engineers would have more pragmatism in this industry, way too much overcooked and distorted music around.<p>[1] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;productionadvice.co.uk&#x2F;online-loudness&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;productionadvice.co.uk&#x2F;online-loudness&#x2F;</a>
quakenul将近 8 年前
Mastering is in a way comparable to capitalism. You can certainly try and be nice about it but pushing harder will usually get you further, because most people care more about one aspect than all the others aspects combined. In capitalism it is getting a great product for a great price. In mastering, it is loudness.<p>Loudness is a bastard. There is a reason, why all the pros are usually very, <i>very</i> careful about level matching when doing any sort of audio comparisons. Even when you <i>know</i> that louder can easily fool you into thinking something is better (which most listeners don&#x27;t), you&#x27;re still susceptible, if you don&#x27;t counter act it. Wanna convince a recording artist in the studio it&#x27;s great? Turn up those big speakers. Instant gratification.<p>When it comes to music consumption I like to think this is not really a problem: The sound of compression and distortion is the sound of current music and there is nothing inherently bad about it. Older generations will tend to oppose any new musical trend for various reasons, which all end up being subjective. The younger generations that grow up on this new sound do not care about brickwall limiting, because there is nothing to fucking care about.<p>Music production has been and forever will a mix of mostly people copying other people and flowing with the stylistic currents while adding a little something themselves. Sometimes something radical will happen. Mostly not. If you wanna stay relevant you go with the former and keep reaching for the later. Pretty much the same, as with coding or design.
amelius将近 8 年前
Was there any way we could have prevented the &quot;loudness war&quot;?
评论 #14727113 未加载
评论 #14727165 未加载
评论 #14727926 未加载
__x0x__将近 8 年前
I&#x27;m a self-described audioweenie who has a dedicated listening room with a decent setup. It does make me sad that much new music is mastered so loud because information is lost when you &quot;brickwall master&quot;. For older music, a lot of audiophiles will seek out original non-remastered releases of music made before the &quot;Loudness Wars&quot; (early 90s and before) where, as I understand it, it was generally considered taboo to have a &quot;digital over&quot; in a mastering. However some &quot;Loud&quot; masterings still sound quite good. It depends a lot on the type of music and how the compression was applied. I mean, someone overdriving a tube guitar amp into soft clipping is essentially compressing the sound in the analogue domain - that&#x27;s what makes guitars sound so awesome.<p>I wish to make one main observation about the vinyl resurgence. Vinyl (which I enjoy, mostly for nostalgia because I&#x27;m old enough to remember when it was the main format) is on the rise for the wrong reasons. One reason is that it has become trendy - and I have no problem with this, but it&#x27;s a real thing. Another more frustrating reason is the perception that vinyl masters cannot have the same amount of compression as digital masters, hence the perception is that vinyl version of a modern master will less compressed. Many, many audiophiles believe this. However I can tell you that the vast majority of modern vinyl releases are the same exact mastering as the digital version. The digital tracks have already been &quot;squashed&quot; and that mastering is fed to the cutting head after applying the RIAA curve.<p>However, the &quot;dynamic range database&quot; (results from a piece of free software that applies an algorithm to digital music and assigns a number related to the ratio between peak and RMS energy in the music) will regularly indicate vinyl versions of music (recorded and digitized by someone on their home setup) with more dynamic range. The problem is that this &quot;extra&quot; dynamic range arises from the inability to reproduce square waves (those flat-topped 0 dBFS regions in the article) in the analogue domain... there are overshoots that &quot;add&quot; peak energy that didn&#x27;t exist on the squashed digital master. So you have people who think squashed music that has gone through all of the processing that is required to make a vinyl record magically comes out on the other end with more dynamic range, sounding better, when it&#x27;s added a bunch of additional distortion. It&#x27;s part of what makes the audio hobby so much.... fun.
评论 #14734797 未加载
mrlucax将近 8 年前
&gt;but for listening to a whole album it wears you out.<p>Looking at you, Death Magnetic.....
krallja将近 8 年前
2007, if Internet Archive is to be believed <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;web.archive.org&#x2F;web&#x2F;20070808082932&#x2F;http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.chicagomasteringservice.com&#x2F;loudness.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;web.archive.org&#x2F;web&#x2F;20070808082932&#x2F;http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.chicag...</a>
评论 #14727763 未加载