Talk:Loudness war/Archive 5

Bob Dylan Hypocrisy?
The article seems to mention that Dylan has criticised the whole concept of the loudness war, yet further down it lists that he has two albums subjected to this practice. Just thought it was an interesting speculation? Shougunner (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

NPR article
User:TraxPlayer quietly added a link to a recent NPR article. Bob Ludwig is interviewed. Bob points out that the loudness war predates the CD. It was raging when he was mastering 45 RPM singles. Bob also asserts that the the loudness war is ebbing and cites Chinese Democracy as one harbinger of positive change. (The new Beatles remasters are another in my own opinion.) I'll try to edit this new information and references into the article when I get a chance. Feel free to beat me to it. --Kvng (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Did some work on this --Kvng (talk) 01:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Another probable disadvantage: Stereofield-compression
A while ago, i noticed another aspect about overcompressed records, which so far seems to be little known, because it only becomes apparent if the used speakers are sufficient (i first noticed this really strongly when using studio monitors). Overcompressed records, or even just sections in music, have a smaller perceived width of the "stereofield". This is because a panpot works by making a sound louder in one channel, than in the other. That's how stereo, and especially stereo-effects (i.e. sweeps from left channel to the right one) work. Now, if you boost up the loudness level for both channels, so that the signal is constantly near max, any existing stereofield also is compressed towards mono. While it IS possible to still have some degree of stereo in an overly "hot" record, possibilities become very limited. In some tracks, this effect can be studied live: in quieter less compressed sections, the stereofield is wider than in loud sections which constantly peak near maximum. This of course is original research - i leave it up to others to dig up citations, if those exist. Logically and technically though, the argument is sound and a necessary sideffect of dynamic range compression: if you compress the dynamic range, you also compress the differences in stereo-balance, since stereo is directly related to loudness-differences.

Another sideeffect of overcompression which isn't mentioned in the article, is "pumping". When a record is boosted to *really* hot levels, then drumhits distort any other instruments playing at the same time... this is because when the loud drum hit would result in harsh clipping, a limiter kicks in to tame the spike - but if the spike is so high that a lot of "taming" is needed, the sound becomes audibly distorted with every drum hit. Contrary to stereofield-compression, the "pumping"-effect is well known, and you should have no difficulties finding citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.128.0.170 (talk) 02:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure this is actually true. If you take one of those early stereo jazz records, or a stereo Beatles track, which had some instruments completely on the left and others completely on the right, and then compress the hell out of them, that's not gonna make the instruments move to the center of the stereo field. 78.21.5.181 (talk) 04:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The described audio flaw heard may be caused in this manner, but usually has other causes, at least in my limited experience. The "pumping" usually results in a soundfield that is "shaky", instrument voice positions move about, towards and away from center. This happens naturally for a trumpet or sax as the player moves, for example, but not for a piano. htom (talk) 01:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Amplifiers
You know that box that makes sound louder. I guess nobody can afford them nowadays so we need to resort to making our records clip. Egad a headphone amplifier costs less than 10 bucks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.127.70.60 (talk) 14:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you've missed the point. Loudness wars is about making the music loud ALL the time. If you just amplified the sound you'd still have the dynamic range. So, a heavy metal song with an quit acoustic guitar solo in the middle though a big amplifier would still have a big range - but not if the range was compressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.64.65 (talk) 12:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Turn me up!
Do we need examples of albums which contain the Turn me up-text? The album "The seldom seen kid" by Elbow contains this text in the cd booklet: "Turn me up!(tm) To preserve the excitement, emotion and dynamics of the original performances this record is intentionally quieter than some. For full enjoyment simply Turn me up! (Turnmeup.org)"

Drums actually sound like drums instead of like static on this album by the way!


 * The Placebo effect appears to be in play here. Please have a look at archived discussion on this topic. --Kvng (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Loudness in movies
For the professionals among us: maybe someone could do some research on sound and music in movies. I've got the idea that the dynamic range of movies is increasing (eg dialogue is much less loud than the rest of a movie's soundtrack). Also movie soundtracks still seem to have a large dynamic range often. A good example is the new JJ Abrams Star Trek movie which I think's got a huge dynamic range, both the music and the rest of the soundmix. Of course part of the intention is to make action scenes stand out, but a side-effect is the fact that the rest of the soundtrack will sound much better :)


 * Yes, seriously, but this is caused by keeping the dialogue the same and making everything else louder. Which is bad, then every fucking mundane sound is so loud like it's a boom at the end of the world. If bomb and a bag dropping sound the same then how are the actually loud things supposed to have gravitas? Also with special effects, a pickup truck hitting a big train head-on WILL NOT FUCKING SPLIT OPEN ARMORED CARS MANY CARS DOWN AND BREAK AND DERAIL EVERY CAR IN THE TRAIN. A shotgun would not blow user and usee backwards through glass cabinet doors or people wouldn't hunt near trees. 12.196.0.50 (talk) 14:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Movie producers have Dialnorm at their disposal. It gives them artistic control over dynamics. They are able to dial in more dynamic range these days because sound systems in theaters are more powerful than in years past. Dialnorm is definitely something that should be mentioned in the article. I didn't realize that it was missing. --Kvng (talk) 14:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Has anyone else noticed that there can also be a point where a film is mastered with TOO LARGE of a dynamic range? For example, if the dialog is so soft you need to turn it up, but then an action scene is way too loud so you need to turn it down, up-down-up-down all through the film. I'm curious to know of any studies about the compromise between realistic 1:1 sound volume / full range versus compression as it relates to enjoyability and accessibility in home entertainment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.97.190.242 (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Motivators
The article claims that "Competition for listeners between radio stations and competition for clients between recording studios has also resulted in a volume "arms race".[3]" I find competition between recording studios to be a dubious motivator. Maybe competition between mastering houses. The reference is a dead link (and I've marked it) so I can't WP:VERIFY this. --Kvng (talk) 20:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is one of those cases where reality is different than the reliable sources Wikipedia relies on. I was a radio station chief engineer in the 1960s, and there was constant pressure from management for our signal to be the "loudest" in our market. There was a constant quiet war between the engineers, who took pride in a strong clean signal, and managers who would come in and turn the peak limiter and audiomax controls to settings that they thought were "louder", paying no attention to the distortion that they were producing. Look at the production dates and patent dates for AudioMax, VoluMax, Red Devil Limiter, ... long, long before any form of digital recording was invented. htom (talk) 17:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Loud albums list (again)
I had been inclined to let the Examples of "loud" albums section live (see Talk:Loudness_war/Archive_4). I've just worked through the History section and am reminded that many of the most notable are called out there. I'm feeling like the "Loud" albums section is redundant in light of this and that maybe it should be removed or moved to a separate article e.g. List of loud albums. --Kvng (talk) 00:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It's always better to bring the examples into better focus, in context, by discussing them in the article. Binksternet (talk) 00:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Also agree it should be removed. There is nothing in the list section  to indicate why these albums are being singled out.  There are hundreds of examples, and much worse examples out there. 71.0.173.144 (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There have been attempts to remove it but so far it refuses to go. Despite how it may look in this discussion, there is no consensus to remove it. --Kvng (talk) 03:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Paul McCartney
Appears to be fighting against loudness wars. He's offering a quieter version of Band on the run at a premium price. Mentions Beatles remastering work there too. --Kvng (talk) 14:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The Best of New Order
Can someone find out how loud The Best of New Order. Although not by today's comparisons (well maybe), this CD's volume really stood out as louder when first released (1994). Also The Guns N' Roses "The Spaghetti Incident?" sounds very loud - to today's standars - but the version that is "loud" of what i known is the silver-disc version (released in 1997 so the article says).--92.237.84.183 (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Classical Music
From the article, one might get the impression that it's just pop music that's suffering from this. But classical music companies, even the big names like Deutsche Grammophon, are pushing up the volumes too. I just loaded a cd which sounded a bit distorted into an audio editor, and discovered serious clipping; at one point, 33 consecutive samples were clipped. (around 46 minutes into the Abbado / von Otter / Wiener Philharmoniker recording of Alban Berg's 7 Early Songs, Der Wein and 3 Orchestral Pieces, DG 445 846-2) From the looks of it, more than 6 dB was added. Maybe someone has an outside source for this ? Or maybe we can add a waveform image from classical music ? 78.21.5.181 (talk) 04:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Use of "volume" within article
The use of the word "volume" in this article is annoying to the extreme. When talking about a technical audio engineering subject, which this article to doing, there should also be an appreciation the technical language and engineering terminology. In audio engineering a preferred, less unambiguous term is level. While the volume term is a popular term there is not a good reason to use it within a technical article such as this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.41.195 (talk) 00:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "Level" isn't any less ambiguous; the technical term would be "amplitude" or (if you will) "amplitude level"; preferably expressed in dBFS when it comes to cd's. 78.23.228.141 (talk) 04:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Either "amplitude" or "level" are reasonable when talking about measured quantities. "Amplitude level" is redundant. When talking about perceived levels, the correct technical term is "loudness". I agree that "volume" is not a precise term. I have edited it out of the article. --Kvng (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I just read this article for the first time, and I find the use of the term 'loudness' highly confusing, even more because the first occurrence of the word links to the other definition of Loudness, meaning boosing bass and treble in a complex curve that matches the human hearing. --Zom-B (talk) 17:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The first link is to Loudness which is correct. The other definition is Loudness compensation. That article is not linked from here. Am I missing something? --Kvng (talk) 14:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Removel of WPBeatles
G'day, why was my edit of adding WPBeatles, removed? --Yeepsi (Talk to me!) 21:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you please justify its inclusion. The Beatles are mentioned here but they are not central to the topic. There are no links from The Beatles to this article. "Loudness" is not mentioned in The Beatles. Is every article that mentions The Beatles worthy of inclusion in WPBeatles? Should we add other artist-related projects to this article? --Kvng (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The Beatles are not part of the loudness wars. The Beatles' image should be removed as it does not show loudness changing vs full scale peaks, it only shows peaks increasing, approaching full scale. Binksternet (talk) 17:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Lead image
There was some previous discussion about the lead image. I'd like to sort of reopen that. I propose that the lead image (The Beatles) be removed and replaces with the second image (Michael Jackson). Reasons for doing this. --Kvng (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) The Beatles image does not clearly show the peak level of the signal. A very important concept we need to convey is that the peak level of all these recordings is the same. The loudness war is won by increasing average level not overall level or peak level. This figure, because is does not clearly show peak level is misleading in this regard. The Michael Jackson image clearly shows full-scale peaks for all versions.
 * 2) The Beatles has not been updated to show the most recent masters. If it did, reliable sources indicate that the latest master would show reduced level. Leaving it incomplete is arguably biased. If the image were complete, it would cause confusion. As far as I can tell, the Michael Jackson image is complete.


 * To quote Edg from that same discussion "Since this isn't the Loudness war on "Something" article, there is probably no need for an update. The current image demonstrates the article subject fine." And the Jackson image is fairly useless, in that the difference are harder to see. Hot Stop (c) 14:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, yes, there is some subtlety to the topic. It's not just about amplifying the music. It's not surprising that what you're looking for is not absolutely obvious. --Kvng (talk) 04:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support changing lead image to Michael Jackson analysis. The Beatles' example is only one of increasing peak level, not increasing loudness vs peak level. MJ is the better example. Binksternet (talk) 17:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Hot Stop has reverted Binksternet's change without comment. I assume that means more discussion is required. Let's start by helping me to understand the Edg argument. Why are we not required to keep the information up-to-date? Why should we settle for fine when we have a workable alternative ready to go and at least 4 editors have pointed out technical problems with the current illustration? --Kvng (talk) 15:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Seeing no argument in favor of keeping The Beatles image, I have once again removed it. It is not a complete picture of what the loudness war entails. Binksternet (talk) 03:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's good to see that my picture is now the lead image. And I see some people say that it's hard to see the difference. I admit that. So I made another image, File:Michael Jackson's Billie Jean Loudness.png hope you will check it out. Song Yanbo (talk) 09:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Nice job on the picture. My general complaint with these sorts of illustrations is that we don't listen with our eyes. Waveforms don't always correlate well with what we hear - but people tend to think that they do. --Kvng (talk) 16:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Dont't use your computer's little speakers, connect to your sound system then you will clearly hear the difference.Song Yanbo (talk) 04:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm wired up and I can hear the difference. I would expect to hear clipping but on non-extreme material like what you've illustrated, what you notice is just LOUD, a limited dynamic range and perhaps unnatural timbre in the drums. It is often immediately appealing but is generally fatiguing over the long haul. --Kvng (talk) 22:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You may wanna watch This video then. Song Yanbo (talk) 09:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm quite familiar with that video. Sort of makes my point. It is unclear exactly what processing he's done to make the example louder but it does not sound clipped, just sounds loud, and when turned down to match the original, wimpy and lifeless. Engineers and their tools have gotten quite good at mastering things loud. Distortion and other artifacts are not the primary problem in most cases. The primary problem is loss of dynamics. --Kvng (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

New ref
I'll just dump this here until I or someone else has time to incorporate this new information. --Kvng (talk) 05:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)



Loudness War itself not cause of "bad sound" according to Sound On Sound magazine
There's a very interesting article in the September 2011 issue of Sound On Sound magazine (which btw. mentions this WP article). They did a lot of technical research, and even got someone from Ircam involved. Their finding is that while the "loudness" has been rising since the early nineties, this doesn't necessarily mean that the dynamic range of recordings has decreased. A lot seems to be down to changes in, and differences between, musical styles. The article pays particular attention to the reviled Death Magnetic by Metallica, which according to SOS is simply "the wrong style of music" to compress as heavily as hip hop or r'n'b. Sound On Sound offers older articles for free on their website, so in 6 months or so, we could link to this article. 78.23.228.141 (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The article is now freely available for non-subscribers at http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep11/articles/loudness.htm 78.23.228.141 (talk) 22:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Depeche Mode's Playing the Angel
I'm not sure where a source is right now, but I've seen this one criticized online for its loudness, and I feel it makes a great example. MXVN (talk) 05:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Good examples are not hard to find. It would be great if editors could concentrate on improving the article (e.g. your proposed contribution above) instead of fiddling with the list of examples. If you want to add another, I suggest it 1/ needs to be cited and 2/ needs to be more relevant than the worst existing example (and then consider deleting said worst example). --Kvng (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Loud sounds better
At the root of the loudness war is the psychoacoustic effect whereby, all else being equal, material auditioned at higher SPL is preferred over material played back a lower level. The effect is known to operate on small level differences (e.g. 1 dB). With small level differences, listeners will not perceive a loudness difference but instead will describe the louder version as "punchier", "fuller", etc. Does anyone have a reference for this. I don't find anything in Psychoacoustics. --Kvng (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

compression
The 3rd paragraph of this article says that extreme compression can cause clipping. According to my understanding, and the Wikipedia article on it, this is not the case. Compression does not amplify the strongest signals. A program or device that compresses and does something else might. G1956w (talk) 09:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Clipping and compression are separate. I have clarified the paragraph. --Kvng (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Back in the analog broadcasting days, extreme compression could produce clipping by the peak limiter that followed in the audio chain, because the peak limiter would trigger on the extremely steep slopes in the wave forms of high compression, clipping signals that would not have actually peaked out of bounds. I suspect that chain of events is what produced the incorrect sentence. htom (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Classical Music
I'm trying to learn about dynamic range and ended up here. Great information but nothing on classical music. Is classical music subject to the same loudness wars? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.64.65 (talk) 12:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * According to Bob Katz (http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_big_squeeze/) it does affect classical releases. Probably need to find more corroboration before including this in the article. --Kvng (talk) 15:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If you load any recent classical recording into an audio editor and look at the sound waves, it'll become clear that compression, limiting and clipping are finding their way into classical music. Any recording which has several peaks close to the maximum level, has been tampered with in one way or another. It would be almost impossible for an acoustic instrument, let alone an ensemble or orchestra, to produce peaks of such a consistent level. I mentioned an example earlier on this talk page. 78.23.228.141 (talk) 22:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, but, we need to find someone who has published these findings. Otherwise it is original research. --Kvng (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Waveform images

 * The waveform images used in the article all seem to be user-created and not attributed to any source. Wouldn't that constitute original research? Jedibob5 (talk) 15:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Images from other sources are a bitch to bring into Wikipedia. Have you ever tried? The images you see in this article are ones that show similar content to those which have been published online at these locations:
 * Mix magazine. Sidebar: "The New Wall of Sound?"
 * The Wall Street Journal. "Even Heavy-Metal Fans Complain That Today's Music Is Too Loud!!!"
 * MusicRadar.com. Chris Vinnicombe blog: "Death Magnetic sounds better in Guitar Hero"
 * Wired. "Analysis: Metallica’s Death Magnetic Sounds Better in Guitar Hero"
 * The user-generated images here in this article are not wrong, and they show the loudness war details that the reader should see. I do not think we need to dump them. Binksternet (talk) 17:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The waveform images are not an original research. They merely convey factual data (like a photography of a building) and they do not have any "added research value". --pabouk (talk) 21:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * So the, can we remove the WP:OR banner from the article? --Kvng (talk) 15:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I !vote for removal of tag. Binksternet (talk) 16:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

One point that I think is missing in the article It's the inclusion of the "Normalize" function in CD Players and software reproduction. I think this is consecuence of this volume changing and how this affect this tracks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.137.32.251 (talk • contribs)
 * I know this is an old discussion, but I haven't been following this, nor am I concerned enough to fight to get it removed. (For one thing, I agree with the subject matter. Death Magnetic nearly blows my ears out if I don't turn it down fast enough.) My only concern is that I can't tell how the waveforms were extracted, nor if they are accurate. I mean, were these extracted from a CD by a program? From an MP3? Did someone turn on the song and hold it up to their computer's microphone? There's no indication of it on the file. Jedibob5 (talk) 03:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Not sure where this might fit in, but there is an excellent application for analyzing music files that is freeware - http://www.lts.a.se/lts/masvis (unfortunately for MS Windows only). There are no user settings, so the same files analyzed by different people will generate the same graphs. It can also generate a html page in order to make spreading data easier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgmj (talk • contribs) 10:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going out on a limb here, and will replace the current waveform example with an animated example from MasVis. This software analysis also provides other significant data on loudness in masterings (Peak vs RMS level, short term crest, etc). —Per Hedetun (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, so - as promised - I went WP:BOLD and added [this file] to the article. I now see that Kvng has reverted my edit, citing "Accessibility issues with animated GIF". While it is true that my animated GIF exceeds the recommended 5 seconds (with an additional 6 seconds!), I can't really see the problem here. I believe my example is far more detailed and instructive than the simple waveforms currently used as an illustration. Also, converting the GIF to a video (as per the Accessibility guidelines) seems rather superfluous. Comments? —Per Hedetun (talk) 19:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I like your animated GIF very much—it conveys so much information! It is good for the expert, and immediately obvious for the layman that something is getting a lot bigger. Binksternet (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have reverted this change. The new animated image won't work when printed. There's also too much information in it for use in the lead which is supposed to give a quick unintimidating overview of the subject. Perhaps it can be used elsewhere but significant explanation of all the data presented will be required. -—Kvng 20:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need to worry about one image not working as well for people who have printed the article out, whoever they are. It has to be a vanishingly small number of readers, and in any case they are not kept from seeing the other images, so it is net neutral for them. I would rather focus on giving something quite informative to the web surfers who are our main viewers. I don't get how you can see this image as intimidating; its main panel gives a very plain assessment of the topic. Any who are put off by the other panels can (and probably will) ignore them. I think the image is right for the article. Binksternet (talk) 23:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing against including the graphic I just don't believe it is a good visual introduction to the topic. You assert that readers will ignore the firehose of additional information available in this graphic but I believe that is our job as editors to avoid overwhelming readers in the lead. -—Kvng 17:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

My only concern with the waveforms is that the top picture is already loud. In my problem the digitised LP track's 'core' element is narrower and has a lot more outward fingers. My CD and iTunes versions of the same tune are the same and both are like the bottom picture (solid with a few inward fingers) and sound 'bleep bleep' bad. Who cares if the waveforms are fictional or not, they do show what this article is about. I would suggest a better comparison would be to have just two waveforms, one from a digitised LP track and the other the same track from a 'modern' version. It will be like chalk and cheese, as they say. Molbrum2 (talk) 07:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I, for one, care if the waveforms are fictional. -—Kvng 14:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

-18 in the 80s?
The article states: "The average level of the average rock song during most of the decade was around −18 dBFS.[citation needed]" This may be accurate, but I've always been under the impression from all those anti-loudness war sites that the level was actually around -14. A good source should be found for -18, or else I could find one that backs up the -14 claim. MXVN (talk) 05:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * -18 dB seems like an exaggeration to me. Please do find a citation and change the figure. --Kvng (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The figure depends on the equipment and how it's used. Prior to digital, 0 dBm was a rather arbitrary figure (unless you were an actual engineer.) 0 dB was where the mark behind the needle changed to red, and you were not (snicker) to go there. How far in dB "0" was from unacceptable distortion on the tape could be anywhere from 7 or 10 dB to 15 or 20 dB, depending on how the tape deck, meters, ... were set. Some meters were "VU" with careful damping, others were "Peak" with little or no damping, and some even with a high-end tilt to emphasize that those distortion peaks were approaching. Digital was coming in as I was leaving, and there was even more than the usual confusion about "0". htom (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Since the advent of digital, the issue has been independent of playback equipment. It is true that it is tricky to repeatably measure peak-to-average ratio of analog recordings. There is some dependency on playback equipment there. But I don't think that's what you're talking about above. -—Kvng 14:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Michael Jackson example
In my opinion this example isnt very good, the increasing loudness can be barely seen.

The Metallica example is a lot better. Mayhaymate (talk) 15:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I can see it perefectly well. I think the MJ example is the right one for the top of the article. It has the advantage of being stacked vertically, allowing more text along the side. It also shows the growing trend over more years. Binksternet (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The reason you can't quickly see the difference is because you don't listen with your eyes. Also increased loudness is not achieved in the obvious way (turning up the gain). It is achieved through dynamic range compression, a more subtle modification. The Metallica image is problematic because it does not clearly show that both versions have the same peak level. --Kvng (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Declipper link
Since this is my own software and webpage, I'm not going to add it myself to the page - I'll let others decide whether this is a valuable addition to the loudness war page or not.

I've made a program, called "Perfect Declipper", that reconstructs clipped samples in recordings. It restores lost dynamics and removes most types of distortion. It can be found at http://www.perfectdeclipper.com/ ; a short video that shows its capabilities can be found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqOljvx9KaM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.30.41.185 (talk) 13:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Probably a bit off topic for this article. Try Clipping_(audio). -—Kvng 14:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Add a sentence or two distinguishing volume as recorded from volume as heard by a listener?
As the article stands, I am not sure readers will understand that tracks that are recorded louder will not necessarily sound louder in their car or living room. Should there be a sentence or two explaining that?

By the way, I am the original author of this article (under a different user name). I am happy to see how it has progressed!

Kchwe (talk) 11:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * What source would you use for that kind of explanation? Typically, sound waves with higher average power actually do sound louder, so I don't know what mechanism you are referring to. Binksternet (talk) 14:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Whilst I agree with Binksternet's basic principle, I have to agree with Kchwe. In the old days when transistor radios and amplifiers were new, and of low power, people would turn the volume control to their maximum, resulting in clipping. This actually resulted in it sounding quieter. The loudest was just below the clipping-point. Today's equipment allow for a much higher volume without clipping. However, with the introduction of Loudness, my limited experience is that the tracks sounded the same, but with more bass. Perhaps I had just turned the volume control down to compensate for the lack of dynamic range. Molbrum2 (talk) 07:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)