Talk:Loudness war

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Loudness war. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081013163314/http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=106612 to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=106612

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

New ABBA lead image
I appreciate that it is easier to see detail in the new lead image. But the new image is a bit larger than we normally use for this purpose. Is it possible to create a trimmed version of this for the lead? ~Kvng (talk) 15:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Limiters
It might be worth mentioning that modern digital limiters such as Waves's L1 Ultramaximiser made pretty transparent extreme limiting possible. It was apparently released in March 1994. That probably had a lot to do with the loudness wars.

It may also be worth noting that CDs have a greater dynamic range / lower noise floor / better signal-to-noise ratio than their analogue predecessor formats such as vinyl records and Compact Cassette, so if anything, they also allow mixing and mastering engineers to go in the opposite direction to the loudness wars if they want to. I suspect a bigger cause was people encoding music in lossy formats like MP3s, then listening to them on a portable music player in a loud environment, namely cities. If you're listening to music while walking past construction work, trains braking, and so on, the reduced dynamic range helps you to hear even the quiet parts of the song you're trying to listen to.

ZoeB (talk) 17:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Do you have any sources to support your first conjecture? WRT the second, we have a lot of sources indicating that the main motivation is competition with other releases. ~Kvng (talk) 14:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Motivations can't be realised without the technology to get there. The development of the technology of limiters and digital formats is an important part of the story. Jonpatterns (talk) 15:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Late reply I know, however MP3 compression works more efficiently when the dynamic range is higher. The encoder sees a brickwalled signal as 'noise' and can't encode as efficiently. I did see an article that went into some detail but can't find the URL, if I do find it again I'll add the link to the page.
 * I did test this theory myself by ripping the same track from an original 1980s CD and from a remaster and encoding using Lame -V0 - the more dynamic version came out at a lower file size (and therefore lower bitrate), however I'm aware this would be classed as 'original research' so probably wouldn't be suitable for inclusion. Squirrel (talk) 17:17, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Producer column
Producer/Mixer/Master column is relevant because they are usually the one/s who decide on and carry out loudness adjustments. Jonpatterns (talk) 07:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Your first edit only included one producer in the list, so it gave them undue weight. Also, it suggests the producer is always responsible for loudness, when mastering engineers, and the artists themselves, are also responsible.  I'd be interested to see if anyone else thinks producers and/or engineers should be added to this table. --Vossanova o&lt; 20:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think producer should be added. The artist (supposedly) has ultimate control of how the work sounds. Fingering others is problematic. ~Kvng (talk) 14:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sometimes, sometimes not. Also relevant is the influence of the record label. Jonpatterns (talk) 15:38, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Criticism vs debate
Currently, this article has a Criticism and a Debate section. Since “debate” naturally contains pros and cons, it is the more general headline. We should therefore merge the two sectors under that name. Or was there another intention behind separating these two sections? If the intention was simply to give some semblance of structure to the long text, I would rather recommend separating personal impressions from measured trends (LRA, crest factor, EBU R128). ◄ Sebastian 10:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not opposed to merging these sections. Maybe Perspectives is a better section title. ~Kvng (talk) 15:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Many people are not aware that criticism is actually a neutral term...there is positive criticism and negative criticism and hopefully neutral criticism..I believe it is appropriate to merge these sections however in the context of the public perception of the word criticism is perceived as inherently negative which I suppose says a lot about the public...also I believe there should be some reference in the article as to how this topic relates to television if it`s not already in the article..advertisers have been increasing the perceived loudness of TV ads for a while now to the point where it is probably more noticeable than radio much of the time

Broadcast industry
The loudness war has been a prominent part of the broadcast industry. It really took off in the early 1980s, 10 or 15 years ahead of CD loudness wars. This article speaks too little about the broadcast industry. Timothy Stockman (talk) 16:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)