Are the Volume Wars Killing Music? Which Side are You On?

Are the Volume Wars Killing Music? Which Side are You On?

The party is in full swing, your iPod is plugged into your biggest and best speakers, and you’ve just hit Play on your grooviest party mix playlist. The bass is thumping, the crowd starts to move, and so far the neighbors don’t seem to mind. Then something happens. This song sounds so much quieter than the other ones. People start to sit down. What a crappy song! Would you like to be the producer responsible for that track? No way! And thus the Volume Wars came into being.

Compression plugins are commonly used when mastering. One of the aims is of this is to maximize the volume of the album. But when there is a war for maximum volume on the playlist, how far do you take this, and what do you sacrifice to achieve it?


I Like it Loud. What’s the Problem?

Last year Daniel at the “Life of a Rat” blog was thinking of this very issue, and described it very well. He wasn’t thinking of the producers’ role in this war – he was the cause of his own pain. He had installed a Winamp plugin called Audioproc, which enhances all of your music through compression effects which ultimately increase volume. At first he enjoyed the extra “oomph”, but later he realized he was actually enjoying music less. I’ll let him explain in his own words:

The problem was that after a while I had a feeling I was no longer enjoying my music as much. I noticed I was getting tired of listening to my music and it all sounded flat and the same; my volume problem was fixed but now there was no dynamic range any more because of the overloaded compression processors.

After realizing what he had done to himself, he discovered that the problem was more widespread. He discovered the Volume Wars.

Basically it’s literally a war between bands and their engineers and labels to make their music sound as loud as possible in order to get an edge on the radio mainly, basically by turning up the volume as much as physically possible on the mixer without it causing obvious distortion. They use a horrible processing technique called “brickwall limiting” which actually allows for hard clipping, which means that if the signal goes over its limit it is simply clipped by allowing no more variation in the character of the output signal (what you hear). What this means is that the really loud parts of the songs sound harsh and flat. Actually, distortion is even allowed to leak through although only in very small bursts and masked by other sounds so that you, hopefully, won’t notice it. (Have a listen to MGMT’s Electric Feel to hear this effect in a really obvious manner. MGMT do this kind of audible clipping on purpose though – it’s actually part of their sound, or so they claim.) Of course making the song loud overall reduces its dynamic range a whole lot which quickly leads to listener fatigue as a constant unvarying loud noise is unnatural and tiresome to the human ear.


Dynamics are Worth Fighting For

One of the ingredients that makes music interesting is dynamics – the building of a song from a quieter section to a climax. It makes music more expressive. It allows a song to go on a journey. I love music that uses dynamic changes effectively. Using a lot of compression removes those dynamics. By maximizing volume, you kill expressiveness.

Here are some diagrams from Wikipedia that illustrate this. They show both how much louder albums have become over the last thirty years, and also show how little variation in volume (dynamics) there are now compared with the good old days.

Firstly, this animated image shows the increase from 1983 to 2000:

Secondly, this image show how Michael Jackson’s albums have become more compressed from 1991 to 2007:

This Youtube video sums up the problem well:

None of this is new. Musicians, producers, bloggers and podcasters have been talking about it for years. A lot of people are concerned. The problem is – how do we fix the problem? It can’t be solved by one person. Remember – no band or producer want to be that wimpy song at the party. As long as other bands are louder, the motivation to compete remains.

The only real solution is for everyone to turn the volume down. For everyone to co-operate. And that’s a big job. There are no worldwide Volume Police to enforce this. There are no fines for over-compression. There is just the love of music. We all need to agree that dynamics are worth fighting for.


So What’s the Solution?

Because the problem is so widespread, and there is no centralized way to fight it, a variety of strategies need to be used. What we are aiming for is that a significant number of producers and mastering engineers change their practice. Here are some ideas to get us started. Please add yours in the comments.

Be Aware of the Amount of Compression You Master With

It starts with you. Be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

Take a Stand and Make Others Aware

That’s basically what I’m trying to do here. Spread the word. If you’re a band, talk to your producer about the issue. If you’re a producer, talk to the band. If you’re an engineer, talk to everyone. Make a stand.

How strong a stand you make, however, might cost you work. There’s an old thread on the Gearlutz forums called “Not competing in volume wars has cost me a job.” Enough said.

Check out Pleasureizemusic.com and Join Their Campaign

The Pleasurize Music Foundation are spreading the word through their website, www.pleasureizemusic.com, and are running a campaign to encourage change. The also created the Youtube video you saw above.

Our aim is to improve the sound quality of music in its various recorded formats – including data compression methods such as MP3 – as well as music destined for radio broadcast.

Only music that provides a positive musical listening experience has real market value. The Foundation’s aim is to increase the value of music within the creative production process for the entire music industry.

The objective is to revive the willingness to pay for music and therefore to create a healthier basis for all creative participants within the music industry.

To sign up and show your support of their campaign, click here, choose one category that you fit into at the top of the page (music listener, musician, music producer, mixing engineer, mastering engineer, record company etc.), and click the relevant “sign up” link.

Celebrate Dynamic Range Day on March 20th

Write it in your diary right now! Visit this page to find out more about the day, and play to write about the Volume Wars in your blog that day.

How Spotify Are Helping

The popular European online music site Spotify are aware of the Volume Wars, and doing what they can to win the battle. They are using “Volume Normalization” by default.

Ian Shepherd of the RecordProduction.com blog describes the strategy:

It adjusts the playback level of all songs so you don’t have to keep adjusting your volume control.
Which means that a genuine pop classic like “Billy Jean” will play at the same volume as the flat, fuzzy distorted mess that is Cheryl Cole’s new single.

And that anything off Kasabian’s latest album will play at the same volume as anything by Black Grape. Or that “In Bloom” from Nirvana’s masterpiece “Nevermind” will play back at a similar level to U2′s recent Loudness-War-casualty “Vertigo”.

Guess which ones sound better ? The modern, brickwalled, crushed-to-death clipping victims, or the lower-level, more dynamic, open, punchy, older stuff ?

You guessed it. To take that last example, Nirvana wins – by a mile. The kick kicks, the guitars bite, the whole thing rocks. Vertigo is a limp, mushy lump by comparison.

Well, that’s one great reason to support Spotify.


Conclusion

A fitting way to finish this article on the Volume Wars is to quote Creatdigitalmusic.com‘s article from March 20th last year. And if you’ve forgotten already, that was Dynamic Range Day.

Now, the idea of crushed dynamic range is nothing new. But via comments, mastering engineer Tobias Anderson points out that it’s not always the mastering that’s to blame — some people are actually distorting at the digital conversion stage. (That’s, incidentally, not the fault of digital recording, either – to screw that up, you have to be really careless, which evidently people are.) …

Now, obviously, this is an issue that can generate some controversy. But start talking about simply preserving dynamic range? I think just about everyone can get behind that. The idea of “quality” can often be loaded, but talking about dynamics as pleasure is as universal as hearing.

What are your thoughts about the Volume Wars? Which side are you on? What action can you take? Let us know in the comments.

  • william Rigout (france)

    I totally agree with this article.

    But it’s gonna be a very long war cause it’s like telling your kids : “hey do not eat burgers everyday, it might taste good at the moment but it’s very nasty on a longer period”

    I’m a 30 years old men, and i’ve been lucky enough to listen to a lot of music (thx mum and dad) with great dynamic on super hifi gear.

    My young brother’s son has only 10 and he discovered heavy compressed music through mp3 on his crappy headphone plug into his ipod…

    The issue start there : education

    http://www.turnmeup.org/

  • Clericuzio

    I find this a very important matter, for the music I enjoy, and most of all my own productions. One alternative for listening is going for vinyls hah. No but seriously, I think the safer side is the track with dynamics, because you have the ability to turn up the volume if you find it quiet, but when the signal bleeds, there is no turning back, ofcourse you can equalize on even winamp, cut down the midbands so it will sound a bit more bearable, but hey, you are trying to enjoy and listen, not dj ok.

    the thing is, I remember in one article it was said as something like this: “With the right knowledge and techniques, things can be made to appear louder, but that doesn’t mean the signals have to be really that hot, a nice wide sound is usually a well performed illusion” or something like that, ok you get the idea.
    The simplest tricks are doubling sounds, lets say you want your kick to sound louder, font just add gain, better add a different kick to accompany it, the overall signal wont boost so much, but it will sound thicker if they go well together.
    Adding low levels of highly compressed signals (side-chain compressing) to things that need thickness as bass and drums etc.
    Making things sound wider with clever use of stereo, panning, and reverb of course.
    basically these 3 tricks should help your things sound better and louder and wider, without going for an easy knob tweak and simply boosting the audio.

    The final thing and maybe the more important one, we cant deny how much we all love adding the compressor or a processor to the master bus, after all the work we now get to turn up the whole, and oh how it feels so much better (1reason: we have been working on the stuff so long and ears are used to the way we perceive it, so now compressing simply gives the effect of the thing getting a new breathing). But the thing is, you should allow yourself to do this, but get back to it the next day, and the first thing you should do.. re-tweak all your levels, thus trying to achieve the best dynamics possible, you want to have headroom here, so you can have more freedom on the master compressor. This can be argued, but I find that it is better to add more gain to a quieter signal, than adding little gain to a louder signal, because in the 1st way you get more body out of the sound, but all has to be done with great balance, your quieter sounds will be brought out and they can be heard nicely, but they wont get to the same levels as the louder peaks.

    • ExtremRaym

      “The simplest tricks are doubling sounds”

      That’s a the best tip.
      If you wanted a wall of guitar sound, you will not put a “brick-wall” compressor. You will double the track.
      It’s the same things with every kind of sound.
      You can also put a very short delay on your track, or a light chorus. It’s basicly the same idea than double tracking.

      Parallel Compression is an other good tip.
      Some days ago i was mixing a chorus and… it was never loud enough. I put several compressor on it… it was just a big mess.
      Then a friend told me “do you think about parallel compression ?”
      This idea just save the mix ^^
      There is already several article on that right here.

  • BPGeez

    How about starting out creating 2 mixes??? A party (loud) one and a lisyening one full of dynamic range??? Just a Thought – Much LOVE

    • William

      Wow… thats just a brilliant idea. I might just start doing it. Because giving up that nice dynamic range by compressing the music to make it loud, is like adding to much sugar to cookies.
      I was also thinking about making 2 different format exports, 1 in mp3, the other in .wav format.. That way i’d always be able to have the original…

  • http://cjsmusic.ca/ Jordan Stevens

    This is an interesting discussion and one that needs some industry input.

    Countless studies have shown that we like it loud. One reason why TV commercials are played at such a loud volume.

    For me it really effect the sonic power of music. Since, I mostly write music with an orchestral pallet it is important to me to have dynamic range.

    So, I’m a little mixed here and I find that I agree with BPGeez in that we should think of our end users. Let create different mixes for different applications.

  • Ruby Stacks

    I think that the problem is simply with no-one really being authentic in a way where they dont care what others think of our music. I produce music on a daily routine and I’ve had an enormous increase in positive feedback ever since the day we started to really ‘make music’. With no restrictions, no concept of what a loud record should sound like, we created much more dynamic and simply fun music.
    To go deeper, i also think that nowadays the majority of producers simply don’t fully grasp what they are doing. I can produce a record, using nothing but a computer, that sounds just as dynamic, warm and open as any soul classic you can name. Even though this is maybe a little over-exaggerated, the truth is in the fact that you decide what and how you apply effects and processing to your sounds. The author of this article clearly states that there is no Volume Police to force everybody to reconsider their mixing choices, but at the same time there’s no form of police telling you to follow what everybody is doing neither. This is a very common problem in today’s world where apparently the majority of the people (involved) understand the problem and feels like something needs to be done, but at the same time everybody is looking at the other people to take the initiative to do so. To me this is a baffling experience over and over again.
    I love the fact that an artist like Jill Scott (im doing this from memory, bare with me) put out a record some years ago that actually had information in the booklet on how to set your hi-fi system’s volume and such, because she chose not to follow what the entire industry had been doing. And one way or another, longevity is only granted to those that break free from the rules. Personally, and i feel like basically everybody feels this way, doesn’t really mind having to turn up a record a little to get the same volume as the ugly-sounding, overcompressed mess that i heard 2 seconds before that. Of course a certain level of volume is needed to not completely make a wrong first impression, but taking it a few notches back definitely wouldn’t hurt nobody.

  • http://fassbindersfrequenzen.de Johannes

    I usally like to keep my tracks very dynamic. Since I produce house music this might seem a bit weird, but as i tried my mastered tracks in a club environment it suddenly came clear that this was a good decision, as kicks get more clarity and melodies seem to find a better place in the whole mix.

  • G-Rillo

    great discussion!
    the music industry needs to come down with the rms levels! for example metallica has produced the loudest album ever, but they made too much compromises to achieve that loudness…

    i think the loudness chart of bob katz would give a good guide line.

    the other side is that most of the a&r’s are looking for loud productions regardless of the musical quality…

  • daniel

    Here is a screenshot I recently took from Logic of 4 audio tracks.

    http://i55.tinypic.com/ndwt3n.jpg

    The top two are commercial releases from well known Techno artists. The bottom two are a track of mine, one with no processing, one with considerable compression/limiting.

    The above mentioned commercial releases sound so dense, which is something that sounds good when you’re on a dance floor, listening to music that has so much focus on the lower frequency range.

    Would those tracks sound as good with less processing and the volume turned up to achieve a similar level of loudness?

    • http://www.dave.uk.pn davepegz

      No, they would actually sound a lot better.
      I do a lot of these kind of gigs, and use a clever dynamics processor that replaces (sort of!) a lot of the lost dynamics, and an automatic level control which boosts the volume if a track comes out a bit quiet – gets me a lot of work!
      I’ve seen a HUGE number of articles on how to reproduce those wonderful techno kicks and basslines from the early to mid 90′s, and none of them manage it. The answer is simple, turn down the compression (right down now!) and turn up the volume.
      Simple :-)

  • Clericuzio

    Thats wassup! Different mixes, different audiences, different styles. A while ago here was an article by an engineer who mainly focuses on mastering, and for example he said that “you don’t compress classical music, you simply don’t” Then for another example lets think about dub music, and I mean dub, not dub-step, though both have their share of fame with the low-end. Those guys would be looked down if their mixes wouldn’t have blasting basses, which are meant to sound too loud, in an interview with Thievery Corporation it was revealed that they low-pass the bass as low as reasonably possible, lets say 60hz, and what do they do, they turn the resonance up on that shit.. most modern mixes don’t have too much resonance on the bass, its more like, sounding pure and recognizable, but the dub producers main purpose is to get some earthquake out of the bass. So things vary so a lot in the genres/styles themselves, modern and commercial things need to have a shiny distinguishable sound to them, but then take some underground rap music, shit needs to be gritty, rusty, for instance DJ Krush, most of the time it sounds almost as the drums are run by a classical rock amp to make it sound as dirty as possible…ok this is too much going in the direction of the style, not dynamics.. but in a way they are connected. For example, some bossa nova will get away with a nice dynamical mix, everything distinguishable and clearly heard, this is because this music is usually played in bars, elevators, bathrooms, or on home systems to chill, not to rock out, hence it is kind of natural what kind of treatment should the mix get. But now take something like house, shit is obviously played in clubs or parties, so again it is natural to assume that it needs more body and blast to it!

  • Clericuzio
  • Jeremy Fonseca

    The whole explanation for the Volume wars aka the Loudness wars is wrong. Its so that your song could be played the loudest on the radio after being squished by the broadcast limiters.
    And it is the Limiters (not broadcast limiters) that its done with, NOT compressors.
    Solution, dont keep your ceiling at 0db cause the moment you lower the limiting threshold you get makeup gain that starts to screw up everything…and thats Death Magnetic!!

  • http://www.reverbnation.com/nomaly Sean Duncan

    I used to buy a lot of CDs but I don’t anymore because of the loudness wars.
    When I do buy music, I look for music that was released before the year 2000.

  • http://www.sae.edu Brandon

    A colleague of mine recently completed a research project on this very topic. His Hypothesis was as follows:

    “A listener will, at equal perceived loudness, look preferably upon a contemporary rock song mastered with the sole aim of achieving maximum output level (hypercompressed master), in keeping with current industry practices, compared to the same song mastered with the aim of retaining sonic and dynamic fidelity (clean master).”

    His hypothesis through thorough action methodology was in fact proven false:

    “The results from the data gathered during this research project do not support this hypothesis. In actual fact, the results are conclusive that the opposite has occurred. Not only was there an overall majority of 61.2% who preferred the clean master, it was further proven that a ‘general’ music listener found the clean master clearer, more dynamic and less noisy than the hypercompressed master.”

    It needs to be said that the genre tested was of the contemporary rock/pop variety, and not trance or other such genre that generally benefits from hyper compression.

    Maybe the problem is that there is no calibration within the industry; the film industry has benefited from standardization virtually since its inception. It is rare that if you go and see a movie in a theatre, that the volume is too loud or too soft, personal taste aside.

    ‘G-Rillo’ (comment above) mentions Bob Katz’ metering system. (Info can be found on Mr. Katz website: http://www.digido.com/level-practices-part-2-includes-the-k-system.html ) I use this system constantly when mixing and have achieved some really great results in terms of dynamic mixes, that also lend themselves well to the mastering process.

    My two cents!

  • Markus

    Hey everyone!

    Think about all the modern metal stuff. The whole sound would be lost without using compressions and brick wall limiters. This genre lives from every instrument is pushed to its limit. Whithout there was no power in the sound.

  • http://www.tjdoyle.net/ T. J. Doyle

    This is a good discussion. Dynamics allow music to breathe. Without dynamics, when a track is literally at 10 across the sonic spectrum music ceases to exist because it can’t breathe. This is just my subjective explanation as I’m not an engineer.

  • Fluff

    There is no escaping the zero-decibel pancake. It has taken on a life of its own.

  • Haroon

    Anyone using MP3 Gain to analyse their tracks?
    http://mp3gain.sourceforge.net/

  • http://wwww.tjrmusic.com TJR

    Of course the volume wars are killing music.

    When there is no dynamic range, you loose the emotion of the performance and music becomes background noise. When it becomes background noise, it no longer connects with the listener in any real and emotional way.

    I have seen (heard0 albums by acts like Elton John, Brandi Carlisle, and U2 that fell victim to this. There albums where boring on CD, because they where overcompressed.

    Untill I was aware of the volume wars, I just assumed that these artists had simply written bad songs.

    After I read about the loudness wars, I listened to these same albums on Vinyl and the same music came to life and they connected with me.

  • Dave

    Two simple words against loudness: Death Magnetic.

  • http://obiwandk.com/home.cfm leif

    would agree on the over use of compressor use but is still learning to produce so but as pointed out one need not compress the hell out of a track i did see a thing on this site that says something about -6 db as a mix

  • Alex

    I like songs to be mixed well and not mixed for loudness there is no need for it, we all have volume controls, gain . . . so why should everything be squashed into a song, it ruins the creativity of mixing and takes away the art of music . . . i think any way :’)

  • http://www.designbynuff.com David

    I don’t make loud music, so it really isn’t an issue for me.

    However, even in my hip-hop days I always had a cinematic vision of what I was trying to produce. Every piece to me was a story and needed to be told in as dramatic and well punctuated a manner as possible to capture the imagination.

    However, I don’t think everyone needs to think this way. To each his own. If you want a wall of loudness, go for it. I just think everyone who makes music should be informed as to their options.

  • http://www.reverbnation.com/nomaly Sean Duncan

    Another good option if you like dynamics is to buy Live Albums. For some reason, a lot of live albums seem to have a little more dynamic range than their studio versions.

    • http://adriantry.com Adrian Try
      Author

      Great suggestion, Sean.

  • jason

    hey here is an idea…why don’t you throw one dynamic and one smashed version of the same track in parallel and blend them together…see new york compression solves the loudness wars…now people move on to music production…stop side tracking…

  • Music Lover

    “The Volume Wars” are perhaps over-exaggerating words. The issue here all boils down to making the necessary trade-offs between dynamic range and details at low volume. Only expensive hi-fi systems can have both a good dynamic range and subtle details at low volume levels. Not everybody can afford those, and for those who do, they cannot always bring their hi-fi systems along with them, say, when jogging. So, for the majority of people and/or music-listening situations, a good dynamic range is meaningless if during the low volume parts of a song you can hardly hear a thing. Hence the compression.

  • cristian

    I love the 80s, most of contemporary music cannot even be called music

  • Matt

    I think it’s pretty obvious that portable devices should have a compressor built into them which automatically compress the music so that it doesn’t have to happen during the mastering stages.

    Or, how about we just don’t brickwall from the start and get back to the sound of those early 90s CDs. Since the average person doesn’t care about sound quality, just master the music the correct way. Don’t think they’d care that much.