[Yann]

We know that, nowadays, music is mixed with a loud and compressed sound to suit noisy environments, whereas before, we mostly listened to recorded music in a rather quiet environment and therefore music was mixed in a much quieter and nuanced way.
However we still have quiet environments (at home late at night, for instance) where we may still want a wide dynamic range (said more expressive,and causing less listening fatigue).

But in general, late at night or not, do you like this loud compressed sound with a low dynamic range we hear on the radio and on some records, or do you favour the quieter but more nuanced sound ?


Here’s the wikipedia link (“Loudness war”):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war

And their list of the especially loud albums (these are pop-rock albums but I believe the loundness issue also concerns classical and jazz):

Alice in Chains Black Gives Way to Blue, 2009
Arctic Monkeys Whatever People Say I Am, That's What I'm Not, 2006
Black Sabbath 13, 2013
Bob Dylan Modern Times, 2006
Bob Dylan Together Through Life, 2009
Christina Aguilera Back to Basics, 2006
The Cure 4:13 Dream, 2008
Depeche Mode Playing the Angel, 2005
The Distillers Coral Fang, 2003
The Flaming Lips At War with the Mystics, 2006
Led Zeppelin Mothership, 2007
Lily Allen Alright, Still, 2006
Los Lonely Boys Sacred, 2006
Nine Inch Nails Pretty Hate Machine (2010 remaster), 2010
Metallica Death Magnetic, 2008
Miranda Lambert Revolution, 2009
Nirvana Nevermind (20th anniversary remaster), 2011
Oasis (What's the Story) Morning Glory?, 1995
Paul McCartney Memory Almost Full, 2007
Paul Simon Surprise, 2006
Pearl Jam Ten (2009 remaster), 2009
Queens of the Stone Age Songs for the Deaf, 2002
Red Hot Chili Peppers Californication, 1999
Rush Vapor Trails, 2002
Staind Break the Cycle, 2001
The Stooges Raw Power (1997 remaster), 1997
Kanye West My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy, 2010

[bobbyb5]

This is fascinating to me. I honestly had no idea about any of this, but it makes me think maybe that's why I like so few new records and I love so many old records. Maybe it's just the way they're mixed nowadays. But they just don't have that quality that makes you want to hear them over and over again the way you want to hear old records over and over again. it's like I listen to a new record and even if I think it's okay, I feel like I never ever want to hear it again. I say "Yeah, that was okay. but I don't ever want to hear it again". Ha ha

[Daydreamer]

I don't know how anyone in their right mind could prefer the compressed sound which is truly a cancer of modern music.
_________________
All time

2000's
1990's
1980's
1970's
1960's

[Applerill]

Dividebyzero and I have a joke where we claim that Lee Patterson's Egg Fry #2 is objectively the greatest album of all time, since it's at the very top of the Dynamic Range Database's list for being the least compressed. It sounds ridiculous and silly, and that's because music isn't an algorithm of right or wrong. Different music is made for different times, and the most experienced music nerds have experience with both.

When I hear something like The Woods by Sleater Kinney or Iggy Pop's famous Raw Power remaster, I experience an exhilaration I get from few other places (though gabber and Merzbow often come close). And I've tried to listen to Pauline Oliveros and Giacinto Scelsi on the bus, but that rarely gets you anything but expedited hearing loss (I loved Morton Feldman so much that I was willing to endure it with him, though). If you want to listen to music in an outdoor environment, more compression is always a good thing, and I often even have nostalgia for the ultra-loud Pro Tools sound of the 2000s (and the CD format that first made them possible.)

I talk a lot about productivity guru David Allen's idea of "Contexts" from his book Getting Things Done, and I feel like mastering is one of the biggest applications of this for music listening. When I download a DJ mix of add a hip hop album to my Apple Music queue, I'm already planning when to play it in the city or on the way home from the club. But as I'm on my way home, I already am thinking about the onkyo or classical album that will work best on my home stereo system. Last year I didn't have said hi-fi system (which made listening to a lot of experimental stuff difficult because it was on my iPad speakers), but then I just made use of the headphones I had and went through all the club bangers I could.

In short, I really love them both, though I often get into moods where I strongly prefer one over the other. But of course, these are natural, and inevitably I remember what makes the other style great again.

[Graeme2]

I have two CDs that I've acquired in the last couple of years that are both great in terms of musical quality but are at the opposite end of the spectrum loudness wise and demonstrate the problem. One is bowies "the next day" and the other is Kate bush's live one.when played one after the other on even basic gear, it's clear the difference. The Bowie one blasts out the stereo, there's no definition and it just sounds harsh. The drums especially sound rubbish. It's weird as although it's a good record, by the end it's fatiguing to listen. Bush in contrast has her cd pick up all the nuances with clear seperation and the cd needs to be turned up loud. It's a bit like some classical CDs I have in that respect, the sound has big highs and lows compared to bowies which is squashed to hell. I've heard all the arguments in praise of having stuff loud but it does no favours for me. The bush one is a joy to listen to. These loud CDs end up just sounding like poor quality mp3 to me.

[babyBlueSedan]

Songs for the Deaf is an amazing album and I can't imagine it sounding better if it had more dynamic range. For some albums yes it makes a difference (the mix on Californication is awful, but then the music orange great to begin with anyway), but I can't see myself dismissing an album just because a number says it's less varied.
_________________
And it's hard to be a human being. And it's harder as anything else.

[Graeme2]

[Yann]

Perhaps it's not the case for the music lovers on this site, but I have the impression that some classic rock or pop albums do need to get a (reasonably) louder sound.
For exemple, the Beatles remasters in 2009 were meant for posterity, i.e for the future generation probably so accustomed to loudness (if the loudness race continues). In this perpective, I found the upgrade a bit shy. I think I heard that Mc Cartney refused to go too loud, which is strange because his "Memory Almost Full" is one of the loudest ever recorded. The Beatles fans applauded anyway. But not sure they got many new fans. They did the same with Led Zepellin (Mothership). Haven't heard the record but I bet the sound is much quieter than any of today's average rock or pop album. On the other hand, I find the remaster of London Calling remarkable: just loud enough.

[Tha1ChiefRocka]

I don't have time to do it right now, but I'll rip an old record of mine onto my computer from my turntable, then I'll compare the same audio file with a remastered MP3 version. Shouldn't that show the differences?

[Tap]

Making Orange Things by Venetian Snares + Speedranch

this has a score of 0 in the dynamic range database and is really great, perfect for the music. also this is interesting to note with Autechre as well, their stuff since Exai has been pretty bad about the dynamic range, but it feels like a significant part of what the music is.