Talk:Loudness war/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Arbitrary break

So, I'm a third opinion. First of all, Wikipedia is not a vote, nor should something be included on a page simply because it's useful. However, although conflict of interest is bad, I don't really see a big problem with this link. Now, I know very little about this topic, but the link in question does not appear to be overtly promotional and gives a good explanation that could not be included in the article. Now, others with more knowledge may state that it is controversial or unreliable, but from my naive point of view, it seems to be acceptable. Take this for what it's worth. --Haemo 05:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Inclusion of said external link, took place as per admin suggestion. I am also archiving the section containing the discussion (above) because this page is still "heavy" to download and I believe it's over. Now, if someone believes that this discussion should continue, please let me know at my Talk Page, so I can retrieve it from the Archives. You may also revert it, but you will have to update the archival box as well. Thanks. Jrod2 05:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yet anothet external link saying in essence the same thing. Is it needed?

An anon IP placed an external link to yet another site that has advertisements, and in essence, does not add anything that the article itself can't define. (See: [1]) I am getting tired of these convenient links that can be nothing more than a clever way to exploit WP with more advertisement. Jrod2 18:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Removing External Links (not spam)

Minorcontributor, my article at ProRec.com "Over the Limit" ([2]) was one of the earliest and most comprehensive articles on the subject, and has been widely referenced - even reproduced in my Wired magazine article on the subject.

My article predates this page by over three years [3], was referenced in the original Wiki [4] posted by Karlchwe on 12/31/2005, and based on the original Wiki article I suspect my article was the framework for the original Wiki post. In fact, over the last few years, the LW Wiki has slowly evolved to look more and more like my 2002 article. Want to know why all the articles on this subject reference "Vapor Trails"? It's because I'm the one who elevated Vapor Trails to be the Internet's Poster Child for overly limited audio.

By contrast, the link to Barry's article, which is listed as "Declaring an end to the loudness wars - by one of its earliest opponents, recording/mastering engineer Barry Diament", only dates back to mid-2006 as far as I can tell, since it isn't dated (see [5]). I've got nothing against Barry, nor am I suggesting the link to his article should be removed, but clearly, my article significantly predates his. It also predates the Mix article by over three years.

Moreover, my article also includes information not present in the Wiki article. For example, the use of LARGE ALL CAPS LETTERING in one paragraph to illustrate the psychoaccoustical effects of limiting the dynamic range of the signal.

As for having advertisements, the "Links to be Avoided" section CLEARLY states that "Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising" are to be avoided, not any site with any advertisement. FWIW, the article is significantly referenced in the "Vapor Trails" wiki [6].

Am I biased? Yes, I am biased. That doesn't make me wrong. "Over the Limit" was the seminal article on the subject which raised the awareness of this problem in a way that no previous resource had, and IMHO belongs as a reference on this page. I think you have some sort of religious opposition to the use of any advertising - an opinion which conflicts with the guidelines for posting links to related pages.

I'm not going to get in a war with anyone here. Seems like there's enough of that here already. Instead, I respectfully request that you set aside your prejudice against advertising and replace the link to "Over the Limit" on the basis of its history and merits. Thank you. Riprowan 15:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added the link to "Over The Limit" back in, along with the link to the IEEE article. Both are referenced external sources for material contained in this article. Squirrel 11:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Well excuse me, but when someone with the username "Riprowan" links to an article written by Rip Rowan, I did a quick judgement and assumed it was spam (or at the very least conflict-of-interest). The article, on a quick scan, did not seem to add anything to Barry Diament's article. BTW, these personal-ish enquiries should usually be directed at a user's talk page. --MinorContributor 11:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

To say Barry Diament's article dates from "mid 2006" implies that is when he started talking about the loudness wars and suggests a lack of familiarity with this person's work. Diament has been a professional engineer since the mid 1970s and was railing against the obession with loudness back then. He was one of the first engineers in the world to master for CD (back in 1983) and he is known in some circles as a "rebel" because he does not use compression. Mr. Rowan's article is an excellent one and he would do well to see Mr. Diament as an ally, not someone he is in competition with. - Campbell Bonaire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.140.190 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, Diament is an old pro and it would be ludicrous to believe that he just started opposing to the loudness in '06. However, how does he master without a compressor? Using tape saturation (a form of compression)? Just curious. Jrod2 02:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You would have to ask him that question. To my knowledge, he does not use any form of compression. - Campbell Bonaire

OMG, how can someone master without a compressor? Forgive ME, but if you have to ask that question, you have NO BUSINESS editing this page. Mastering is not in any way synonymous with compression, and if you don't understand that, then you are simply not qualified to pass judgment on this topic. IMHO. Riprowan 17:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Campbell - I do see Barry as an ally, and respect his work. Re-read my post and I'm sure you'll see that I was just using his article as a basis of comparison. Riprowan 17:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Can people please stop taking out the link to the "Over The Limit" article? A lot of the content in this Wiki article is based on research in "Over The Limit" - which is a good reference source for many of the points raised here. Squirrel 07:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No. The article has been regarded as not suitable by 2 or more editors (Minorcontributor & GlassFET). It is clearly stated at "Links normally to be avoided": Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority. Rip Rowan is not a recognized authority either. Finally, I am not comfortable with the fact that your contribution history suggests you are a one purpose account. All your edits have been concentrated on this Loudness war article. So, sorry but for all of these reasons, the link is out. Jrod2 14:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No, Minorcontributor retracted his dispute. I looked but couldn't find GlassFET's.

As for ProRec.com being a blog, I vehemently disagree. Just because I happen to currently use a "blogging" app as my CMS doesn't make it a "blog" - it's a pro recording magazine with over a dozen writers focused solely on pro audio topics and has never served as a personal web log. This is PATENTLY obvious to anyone who has looked at the site for more than 30 seconds, so I can either assume (1) you didn't look at the site for more than 30 seconds, or (2) you have some other motive for removing the article and are looking for justification.

As for being a "recognized authority" that's obviously a term of art. Clearly my writing on audio topics is widely cited throughout the internet, I've been writing about audio for about 10 years, and my article was reprinted in a notable magazine, so surely that's recognition enough?

I can't escape the feeling that there's some personal vendetta at work here. First it was that "Over the Limit" wasn't old enough, or didn't have enough value-add. Now it's because ProRec uses a blogging app as its CMS. "Over the Limit" was a seminal article on the topic, is highly referenced throughout the net, was clearly one of the original sources of the LW article, clearly adds value, and conforms in every way to WP guidelines. I'm sure I made my case above. However, one or two people seem hell-bent on removing it and will invent any means necessary to justify this. At this point, I can only assume it's personal. I wish the people in question would just be honest about the personal attack (ie "Rip Rowan is a dork so I'm removing this link") rather than finding a BS reason to do so.

I will not add the link back myself, since I think that's rude. However, I can't just sit around and take what appear to be personal attacks, however passive-aggressive they may be, without response. Riprowan 17:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I apologize on behalf of all who removed your link, but it is not about a "personal vendetta" against you. First of all, the reality is that you apparently are not notable enough to be considered a reliable source, even though I think you are knowledgeable and versed in the subject. Second, Wikipedia clearly states what is considered verifiable:

"Self-published sources (online and paper)"

"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources". (See WP:VERIFIABILITY) .

If your regard your article as not being on a blog site, then it should not be self-published. In my view however, any site the advertises "When you join ProRec, you get your own blog and your blog articles are listed along with the rest of the ProRec content." (See [7]), is clearly a blog site. Jrod2 19:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL this is hilarious.

1. So if Wil LaVeist, the Editor-in-Chief of Mix Magazine had an article, he'd be disqualified as a source, since it's "his" magazine? Exactly how diffuse does ownership of a publication need to be before one's work is not "self-published". If Wil owns 10% stock in Mix, does that disqualify him? How silly is that? Mix writers have blogs. Are these disqualified too?

2. Would articles by other ProRec staff be likewise disqualified, even though they are paid staff writers, since you have deemed ProRec a "blog"? What if Bill Park wrote that article?

3. All the phrase "you get your own blog" means is that the site produces a blog-like view of the writer's articles.

4. All ProRec writers are selected by me based on their knowledge of audio. It's not a place where anyone can write articles. And staff writers are paid for their work.

5. All ProRec content goes through a submission and editorial process.

6. All ProRec articles are about AUDIO.

7. The term "blog" as used in the WP guidelines clearly refer to people with personal websites who just happen to write something about the topic in question, not sites like ProRec, whatever term you choose to apply.

8. When "Over the Limit" was published it was on our old CMS, which was a custom CMS, not a "blogging" CMS. So would it have been acceptable on the old software, but not the new software?

9. "Over the Limit" was reprinted (unfortunately, hacked by the editor) in Wired. That's not self-published.

10. Since ProRec isn't a blog, this question is moot, but exactly how "notable" does one have to be? And who is the arbiter of this vague term? What did did you use to determine my lack of "notability"? I'm no rock star, but ProRec is widely referenced across the net, and I think most people that are in the know about this topic would be likely to point towards "Over the Limit" as a reference.

11. This issue was already addressed by a moderator and the link was found to be a valid source that met WP guidelines.

So what is it? First it was that ProRec had an advertisement. Then it was that it wasn't sufficiently informative. Then it was that it wasn't suitably original. Now it's a blog. It's curious how, even though you can't exactly pin down the reason that the link should be removed, you insist on removing it.

Seems like the appropriate thing to do if one has an issue with the content of the article, rather than always acting unilaterally, one would discuss it further. I happen to have all kinds of knowledge about this topic, but I wouldn't unilaterally change the content without some discussion here first. 70.244.165.183 20:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The editor of MixMag is notable, I don't know if he could get away with what you said. Now, you forget that you also violate WP:Conflicts_of_interest with what you've said on point #4 . I think you need to stop trying to push this issue. We respect your opinion(s) and see that you are not here to spam WP, but you do violate many guidelines. Jrod2 21:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for politeness.

I reiterate that this issue was already moderated, and ProRec was found to NOT violate WP guidelines by a WP moderator, which I think should be the final word on that matter.

You say the article violates because writers are selected and get paid? Are you serious? First ProRec is inappropriate because you think it's a blog, now it's inappropriate because it ISN'T a blog. Huh? So articles from Scientific American, the Economist, or Mix would also be disqualified since their writers are also screened and get paid? What do you mean?

You dodged my question: what data do you have to support that I am insufficiently "notable"? What is the standard and how is it supported?

Suppose I was new here (which, it turns out, I kinda am) and wanted to contribute some links. What guidelines or data would help me understand why a YouTube video on a personal YouTube page would be appropriate, but an article on ProRec wouldn't? Note to all: I think the YouTube video is excellent and appropriate and should be kept, but it does violate the same points that Jrod2 says disqualify my ProRec article: it's on a personal web site published by someone who is not a "notable" industry expert. Jrod2 doesn't seem to have a problem with that at all. Why not?

Forgive me for bulldogging this, but Jrod2's arguments seem all over the map and totally inconsistent, and nobody seems to be supporting him. Can anyone else please shed some light on this apparent obvious inconsistency?

I'm afraid it seems that WP proves that if you give an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, one monkey is going to break everyone else's typewriters. Riprowan 15:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Since the article was published (in reduced form) in Wired, all we have to do is reference the issue and Rip's material can be included. ProRec's editor says it was December 2004, but on Rip Rowan's own website it says January 2004. I couldn't find the article in Wired's online archives nor in the Wayback Machine (Internet Archive). Which issue was it? Binksternet 21:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It's here: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.01/play.html?pg=2

However the article was mangled by the Wired staff who barely grasped the issue and at the 11th hour decided to bump the article from a 2-page with graphic to a 1/2 page with graphic for editorial reasons. They dumbed down the article horribly. Therefore I respectfully request that if the subject is linked to my work, the original article is referenced if possible, not the Wired version. Riprowan 15:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

RfC, "Loudness War" external links

{{RFCsci}} The editor and writer of ProRec.com requests to link his own web site's article about music loudness to "Loudness War" at Wikipedia. Last time I checked, if you wrote an article, it can't be used to link to a WP article, even if the article's subject is the same. Only a neutral third party, not associated with the web site or the writer, could use such external link to expand on the article's subject and only if the writer of said article is: notable and verifiable. In addition, the editor claims that his website is not a blog site even though the site generates blogs for each article written automatically. Jrod2 15:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not requesting a link be added, I requested the link be reinstated since the link was used as a key basis for this article and was added years ago by the article's original contributor at the time the article was created. The statement that I am requesting to link my own article is disingenuous and completely obscures the point.

In addition, I will add that

- blogs don't have editors-in-chief. ProRec uses a blogging app as its CMS, but that does not make the site a blog. Moreover at the time the article was written, ProRec did not use a blogging app as its CMS, so the point should be moot. See below for more on this.

- even if ProRec is a "blog" (which it isn't) a top ranking site that specializes in the topic of interest hosting an article that is widely referenced as a key source on this topic written by a writer who is an expert in the subject should meet the condition of "notable"

- no shred of data and no consensus has been offered as a rationale for removing this link. Instead, the individual in question acts unilaterally, then offers a series of unsupported claims, which, when questioned, are replaced by still other claims:

1. originally, the claim was that the link was invalid because ProRec has a banner ad

2. when it was pointed out that "reasonable" advertising is acceptable, then the rationale was that the article wasn't sufficiently "original"

3. when it was pointed out that the article was in fact one of the first and most complete sources on the topic, then the rationale was that the article was on a "blog"

4. when it was argued that the site is not a blog, then the rationale was that the site has staff writers (which would seem to disqualify many other incredibly reputable sources that are used)

5. not once has any data been offered to substantiate any of these claims

- finally, and most importantly, the individual who continues to remove the link fails to remove other links which, by his arguments, are less appropriate than this link, suggesting personal bias. That, and only that, is the reason I am defending this link.

If a consensus of people didn't like the link, then by all means remove it. If the link violates some actual condition for validity, by all means, remove it and all other links which meet the same criteria. All I ask is fairness and reasonableness.

• regarding this issue: Jrod2 has chosen to archive all of the discussion on this topic from the summer. A review of the archive [8] will clearly show that his decisions and changes were very contentious and that if anything, the consensus opinion was in favor of retaining links. Many people here have complained about his unilateral approach to editing this article.

• regarding blogs: according to WP [9], "A blog (a portmanteau of web log) is a website where entries are written in chronological order and commonly displayed in reverse chronological order." If this is the definition of a "blog", then virtually no content oriented web site is an acceptable source for a WP link, including online news sources, magazines, and even publications of scientific proceedings. Clearly, this is not the intent of the WP guideline regarding "blogs", instead, the WP guideline refers to personal web logs published by otherwise unnoteworthy individuals. ProRec is an online magazine focused on music recording technology. It is not my (or anyone's) personal web log. For years my personal web log is at www.cuzwesaidso.com (a new one is in the works at www.riprowan.com).

Riprowan 18:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Responding to RfC. Rip Rowan's excellent technical analysis and critique of the (over)compression of much modern music is well worthy of a link to the relevant article on the ProRec site. It remains as one of the most, if not the most easily accessible, concise, and well written presentation of the subject. Whether Mr. Rowan should be "allowed" to add the link himself may be one issue, but there is no question in my mind that the link is appropriate in a "Links" section as a valuable external resource. Blackworm 03:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Blackworm, thanks for a very good response. There is no question that it's a very good article. And, you are correct, the article's author (User:Riprowan) CAN NOT post that link himself. Which means that you can, if you believe, of course, that this editor is notable enough and his site is a reliable source. I say "his" because he owns it. What's your response to that? Thanks. Jrod2 10:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Responding to RfC. Agree that article should be included in external links (as it now is). Since the disucssion seems to be over, then perhaps the RfC tag can be removed? Labongo 13:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Restructuring "Possible solutions"

The "Possible solutions" section is currently in list format, which does not quite suit it. For example, the item on RG is three paragraphs long, which breaks the list. The items can be divided up to these categories:

1. standards-based solutions
2. current software solutions
3. future hardware solutions (combined with #1 or #4)
4. new media formats

However, they all are a bit short to warrant subsections. Any ideas? --MinorContributor 17:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

We can't have a solution until the root causes of the problem finally get addressed.

CD levels are through the roof almost entirely because artists and their managers are paranoid of the level being too low relative to other titles being considered during an important sales or promotion meeting. That paranoia combined with posers who want to sound like the "big guys" is the problem in a nutshell.

What needs to be done is to promote better sound as a desirable feature that people are going to need to turn their volume controls up for in order to enjoy.

Bob Olhsson

615 385-8051

olh@hyperback.com

http://womb.mixerman.net/forumdisplay.php?f=8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.32.211.226 (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Public knowledge of the issue is the first step for a succesful implementation of any solution. A tag added to digital files that counts the times there's clipping and another that counts the total time of full-volume on the song may be a good start.

Esteban Barahona

zensui.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.201.1.162 (talk) 00:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bob that "CD levels are through the roof almost entirely because artists and their managers are paranoid of the level being too low relative to other titles being considered during an important sales or promotion meeting". However I respectfully disagree with both Bob and Esteban regarding the solution. I have a hard enough time explaining this problem to musicians and audio professionals. We couldn't possibly hope that "public knowledge" will ever solve a problem that even industry insiders are powerless to grasp.

The problem will *only* be addressed with a standards based solution that normalizes the audio playback volume, such as Replay Gain or a similar technology. The current technology (CD) is unnormalized, leading to the unintended consequence that more dynamic material is, by definition, quieter. On any A/B, the untrained ear (which includes most musicians, record labels, and even some engineers) will almost always prefer the louder mastering process, since they notice the volume increase. This is basic psychoacoustics.

What is required is to remove the incentive to master louder, so that the only thing one accomplishes by mastering with limiting is a reduction in dynamic range, not increase in average volume. Then, people will hear the limiting effect for what it is, and choose the amount of limiting that seems to sound best, as opposed to the maximum amount that they can stand in order to increase volume.

With today's high-resolution technology (24 bit and above) we have ample sample depth to impose an arbitrarily low average volume on all audio media - say, -80 dB on a 24 bit product, which would offer 60dB of headroom (more than enough for any audiophile) or even absurdly higher higher using a 32bit float. Consumers would like it because all their media would play back at the same volume in the CD changer or MP3 player. Industry would like it because it would provide a consumer incentive to buy into a new format. Or, these technologies can be designed into the playback system, which some MP3 players already offer. Sadly, it's my personal opinion that, since this technology is getting pretty good traction in MP3 players, it may in fact be the MP3 player that ultimately drives the solution to the loudness war.

Regardless of the implementation, this is the only way to solve the problem that will ensure stickiness. Any solution that allows engineers to make their product louder with respect to other media will always have the psychoacoustic advantage, and the war will continue. Riprowan 17:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

While I do agree with all of you, I must remind you that this talk page is for the improvement of the article. We are not glamouring for possible solutions; we are trying to improve the article. I'm still open to ideas on how to restructure the section. --MinorContributor 19:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I hoped that the information I provided would help inform the direction of this section. Riprowan 15:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote much of it and left out a whole lot of information to preserve clarity. If someone feels I left out something important, feel free to incorporate it back. The diff: [10] --MinorContributor 16:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

MinorContributor - that does read better, thanks! It's early in the morning but I'll go through it later and see if I can make any improvements. Squirrel 08:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Conflict with Headroom article

This article states:

"...the European Broadcast Union standards call for 18dB of headroom."

but the Headroom article states:

"The EBU specifies a PML of 9 dB below 0 dBFS (-9 dBFS), thus giving 9 dB of headroom."

Straussian 14:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It sounds to me that 18 dB would be the ideal headroom while 9dB is the present standard. The article may just need more clarification Jrod2 10:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The confusion here comes partly because the type of meter is not specified. The idea of "headroom" comes into play mostly in the context of live metering. Part of the headroom is used to cover the peak registering ambiguity of the meter, and the other for sudden audio level increases that the operator can't correct quickly. The EBU digital meter specified in IEC268-18 has a 5ms 80% rise-time, so it registers peaks quite accurately - perhaps only 3-4dB are "hidden". The Permitted Maximum Level with this style meter is indeed -9dBfs. And -18dBfs is the "reference alignment" point and has not much to do with the headroom issue. However... the widely used VU meter has a much slower response to peaks due to its 300ms integration time. From 8 to sometimes as much as 18dB can be invisible owing to the filtering effect. With a VU meter, the nominal operating point (the 0VU mark on the meter) is usually set to -18dBfs in Europe and -20dBfs in the USA. So this is 18 or 20dB headroom. This is all in the context of live broadcasting, not off-line CD mastering. When zoomed-out, the waveform displays on the audio editors used for mastering can show the absolute peak level, which can be accurately adjusted off-line - and the word "headroom" pretty much loses its meaning. AFAIK, there isn't any kind of nominal level specified for CDs, and if there were to be, there would have to be a companion metering scheme specified for it to have any useful meaning. Stevechurch2 (talk) 21:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Vinyl

Its interesting that it is stated that vinyl isn't mixed in this way Does the vinyl version of say Californication or the Myths of the Near Future sound better than the CD, anybody know? AJUK ^Talk!! 20:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

There was a link somewhere to screenshots from a Depeche Mode album, the CD was brick-wall limited, the vinyl wasn't. Now I don't want to get into a CD vs vinyl debate here but I did a few comparisons myself.

With ABBA's Super Trouper album, the almost perfect condition original vinyl pressing is the best sound, followed closely by the original Polydor CD - says (C) 1980 on the back, not sure when it was actually released but it seems to have been taken straight from the 2-track analogue master tape as it's complete with tape hiss and print-through! The CD sounds cleaner but the vinyl is somehow more "alive". The 2005 remaster, by comparison, sounds awful.

With "The Visitors" the Polydor CD sounds better than the vinyl (not surprising as The Visitors was recorded digitally), again the 2005 remaster sounds awful as all the peaks have been brick-wall limited. Squirrel 07:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I have both CD and Vinyl versions of Myths of the Near Future and I can't really tell any difference between them. I have to admit my turntable is fairly shite, so it may be due to that, but it does sound as if the CD master has been just re-used for the vinyl. I noticed pretty much the same with a couple of others too, the Arctic Monkeys debut for example. Baby-g 14:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Shame AJUK ^Talk!! 18:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

For Jrod, Master Of The Universe

"The pattern of editing you are using indicate that you disapprove of most anything written about audio at WP. Well, don't put tags, instead raise consensus of your opinions and disagreements (if you have any) and take it to those articles talk pages. Otherwise, next time you'll be tagged as a vandal. Jrod2 00:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)"

I don't have any problems with audio or it's discussion, but I DO have a problem with your "writing". If you want to sound like you know what you're talking about, back it up. Contrary to what you may believe, your word is NOT law! Amazing, I know. I am going to post this on the other contributions I made, so that you "don't DARE" tag me as a vandal. Thanks! Quiest 05:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Loudness, being subjective, is not merely an RMS reading.

Ten different sets of material can all have the same reading, and still appear louder or softer than the others. I believe this article should reflect that. The last part of the :History: section seems to imply otherwise? Quiest 18:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You are right. Frequency content and distortion content have a lot to do with perceived loudness. I've added creative, musical distortion to parts of a live concert mix when SPL limits keep my mix from getting loud--it works quite well to make the audience and my client think that the level is loud when it really isn't. I've also added synthetic LF content to fill out bottom octaves without adding to measurable SPL. This is all WP:OR so I'll have to hunt down some textbook citations when I get the chance. Right now I have to head out for a few days on the road gigging. Binksternet 20:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Have fun, and rock hard! (or swing, or whatever!) Quiest 20:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Replay Gain is more elaborate than RMS. It works pretty well. --Kjoonlee 21:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

44 cite tags

I've reverted 44 new cite tags and two unnecessary changes of the spelling of "levelling". The article needs to have more citations, certainly, but this number of cite tags appears to me as intended to be interfering and confrontational. I'd like to see the same effort devoted to constructive efforts toward finding such citations. Binksternet 20:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, Bink. Other contributions of mine were apparently too general, so I tried being specific while respecting the tone of the article, which also had been requested. If I wrote "Bink is a silly person." in an article, would you spend time searching for works to cite that back it up, or would you ask someone else to back up their claim if you believed it was unsubstantiated? That seems to be similar to what you're asking me to do. I believe that many my passages cited require citation, but am under the impression that editing an article that's been labored would not be appreciated either. How exactly do I contribute according your wishes? Quiest 20:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Calling Foul

Here's what has happened.

In August, after much debate, there was a 3rd party opinion on the issue of External Links. The issue was considered settled and quite a bit of the content was deemed appropriate (including the link to "Over the Limit").

Subsequently, Jrod2 unilaterally removed [11] all of the content of the discussion [diff] (ostensibly because the talk page was too big), then removed the links again.

I'm calling foul. This issue was debated ad nauseum, the 3rd party offered an unbiased opinion, and then there was consensus. Then Jrod2 just does the same thing anyway and acts like the previous discussion never happened.

Isn't this vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riprowan (talk • contribs) 15:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Archiving is neither a violation of guidelines nor vandalism. And, I believe I was not the first editor who removed your link either. There was a general debate about external links and the need to clean up spam and many links were re-instated as a result. Later on, some editors deleted unwanted ones. Yours went unnoticed for a while. So, please us diffs to support your allegations of the said "consensus" to include your link and stop making personal attacks see WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Thank you. Jrod2 16:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Oasis somemightsay goldwave.png

Image:Oasis somemightsay goldwave.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 18:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Citations and contradiction

I addressed most of the extremely high number of citation marks added to this page. Many of the facts marked as requiring a citation were simply restatements of information found in the references or even repeats of information cited previously on the page. Some of them were entirely unnecessary (do we really need a citation to say "slow acting compression is used to make the dynamics more even??"). I left most of the citations from the history section in, but maybe someone can tag that section or something. If someone can find out where people got all those numbers, it would be great. (They were there before I started editing this page.) As for the "possible solutions", I removed the part that said "there is little the consumer can do" and "This must be done for any solution to occur" as they weren't necessary. I also removed the "contradiction" template because I have no idea what it's referring to and couldn't find it in the talk page.Illuminatedwax (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe the contradict tag was referring to #Conflict_with_Headroom_article. --MinorContributor (talk) 21:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Illuminatedwax, I am not sure what you meant by the statement "slow acting compression is used to make the dynamics more even??" As far as I know, slow compression (long decay or slow attacks) is often used when mixing to produce special effects on individual tracks (or parts, e.g. snares, bass drums, etc). Why would anybody use a long decay setting at the master bus, is beyond me. Jrod2 (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I mean the compression usually used when mastering an entire mix to make quiet parts louder without noticeable effect.Illuminatedwax (talk) 04:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

So, let me ask you these questions, what happens to the high peaks? don't they bend too? Why using a slow compression setting be preferable to a peak limiter? Is this an alternative technique to achieve that effect? I don't think there is a compression setting "usually used" (except peak limiting) in the mastering process. As far as I know, only true professionals apply multi-band compression to an entire mix and is the professional way to re-shape, in conjunction with equalization, the alignment of all frequencies. Jrod2 (talk) 11:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You've never seen Pro Tools plugins or other gear that essentially maximize the loudness of a recording? I have a [12] compressor which acts slowly to produce that kind of effect. Regardless of your opinions on the best way to master audio (which I have no idea about), I'm pretty sure that some mastering engineers use that kind of effect. Illuminatedwax (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It's because of amateurs like you that engineers like me get into quarrels over definitions on audio topics at WP. You can always use any compressor to achieve the loudness you want providing that you use the ratio and threshold appropriately, adjust make up and increase gain accordingly (even cheap equipment like the one on your example). Peak limiters are in essence compressors, but with settings fixed to achieve maximum use of headroom by reducing all high transients and adjust gain automatically. They can also stop dead at -0 dB. However, the components on peak limiters make all the difference. You can't compare what a $2,000 peak limiter does to the sound over your $150 compressor (Is it side chain?). There is a clear difference to the sonic quality. Now, I am sorry that you don't understand what I said on my previous comments, you clearly need to learn more about what the mastering process involves in order to have a discussion with me. Have you ever been at a mastering session with a professional mastering guy? Frequency anomalies are corrected with notch filters, parametric equalization and ultra narrow band compression. Groups of frequency bands can be tightly compacted through multi-band compression (frequency alignment). This step is usually performed on the bass area of a mix. And no good mastering engineer would work "sweetening" without a stereo eq worth $4,000 (Or from a digital workstation worth at least 20K). The result is a more powerful mix with more dynamics and a hotter sound. Now, we are assuming that the mix is good to begin with. Finally, there is nothing said on your example that indicates that slow compression settings act as a peak limiters (or decrease the dynamic range while boosting the overall level). Jrod2 (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you would please cease your condescending tone. You have no idea what kind of experience I do or do not have and starting unnecessary quarrels like these is simply rude. No one was arguing with you over what the "best" way to master is or differences in sonic quality or anything you just talked about. I'm simply saying that for the sake of the article, slow-acting compression is used to increase loudness - the article I linked says of the slow-acting setting on the compressor: "The effect reminded me of what you get with something like a "loudness maximizing" software plug-in, but with more analog character." My point is that slow-acting, broadcast-style compression is used somewhere to increase loudness. Heck, isn't that why it's called "broadcast-style", because it's used in radio stations? I don't care if it sounds like garbage or not. The point is that it exists. Please refrain from trying to pick fights where none are necessary; you only addressed my point in your last sentence.

Here's another quote: "We therefore recommend that record companies provide broadcasters with radio mixes. These can have all of the equalization, slow compression, and other effects that producers and mastering engineers use artistically to achieve a desired 'sound.'" [13] Slow acting compression is also used to increase loudness in many hearing aids as well. Maybe the correct term is "leveling amplifier": "Leveling amplifiers: The leveling amplifier is a compressor with a medium attack time, a medium to slow release time, a high ratio and a low threshold. The purpose of a leveling amp is to be constantly leveling the signal, always in gain reduction, holding the audio signal down in a smooth way (ergo the name)....The slow release time ensures that sound level doesn't drastically change or "pump" up and down as it would with a faster release time setting." [14] Illuminatedwax (talk) 05:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Condescending tone? what about "Regardless of your opinions on the best way to master audio..." Does that sound polite to you? Oh, so you are now an expert in compressors, ha? So, why didn't you recognize that the term "slow acting compression" was too broad and generic to begin with? This is the point of the entire discussion, no? I mentioned mastering to address how real "loudness" can be obtained from the engineering stand point. Not that I believe you understood any of it. Your evasive attitude and answers like: "You've never seen Pro Tools plugins or other gear that essentially maximize the loudness of a recording?", indicates so. Are you a WP user who goes out there googling terms or keywords and copying and pasting them to regurgitate them as your own explanations? I dislike presumptuousness. Yes, "level amps" are compressors and yes, they do have as one of the settings 'slow decay', making them by definition a type of slow compressor. But, my point was that "slow compression" settings can do a much wider range of things including those special effects I initially talked about, and the term maybe inappropriate to the loudness war article (e.g. WP is not a handbook).Jrod2 (talk) 07:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Possible solutions

What about mentioning restoration methods? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajuk (talk • contribs) 12:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, once the signal has been horribly squashed like the one that looks like a solid block on your animation, it's not reversible and the audio is ruined. Jrod2 (talk) 15:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That images was the states I went to to repair Knights of Cydronia by Muse. AJUK ^Talk!! 21:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I never heard that mix, but it looks like there was a sound or two creating lots of high transients (possibly the drums?) while everything else was already heavily compressed. Mixes that have that type of graphic display don't sound too good in my experience. So, if you made it sound punchier louder and clear without sounding distorted, you did your job. Jrod2 (talk) 21:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It's theoretically possible to apply an equal and opposite filter to a non-clipped digital music file and return it to pre-squashed conditions but with the slight added artifacts of two digital permutations. Sometimes I attempt to do this with files given me but I'm impeded by the fact that I don't know exactly what the original transform was. I have to approximate empirically by trying several sorts of downward expansion (including multiband) to see what sounds best.

Even with clipped files there's some benefit to be gained from lowering the level and synthesizing new peaks above each of the clipped flattops. Nearby spectral information can be incorporated into such synthetic peaks so that they aren't simply low frequency sine wave crests. Results, while not as good as the original sound, are much better than the clipped sound.

My problem with writing about possible solutions is that the whole thing would probably be WP:OR; I doubt anyone's published their ways of trying to fix highly compressed and limited music. Binksternet (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Binksternet, if you are talking about digital music stereo mixes then this is a fascinating and unique explanation of what I consider an attempt to restore dynamic range. However you are right, it is considered "original research" which is a no-no here at WP. In addition, you must agree that most pro engineers will never entertain the idea of working with a "squashed" mix source to perform a task such as mastering, though I am sure lots of musicians would argue that they can find useful applications to that kind of sound. Clipping however, is not defined as something good or desirable. But, because sound flattening has so many stages, one can find or hear something appealing and want it for their source material. That is up to the artists and producers to decide, if they want that they can have it. But clipping can turn from mild distortion to full distortion, at the last stage the sound snaps and you hear that horrible crack on your speakers. There are all this technical terms to explain what I've said before. I think lay men's terms are better for this forum.Jrod2 (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

What I did was run a declipper, then further reduce the volume, then I did a mild bass boost before using a plugin called dominion to distort it. AJUK ^Talk!! 12:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)