View Single Post
Old 09-22-2010, 07:53 PM   #130
Sound asleep
Human being with feelings
Sound asleep's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 7,439

Originally Posted by PAPT View Post
"...your principle is sound, and yes that's a good idea, but you'd have to make a law for that, cause otherwise some dude will decide to break the rule and then their stuff is louder and sounds best compared to the next track, so it won't work really."

Squashed mixes don't sound better, only louder at any given playback device setting. They usually sound worse.

"...their stuff is louder and sounds best compared to the next track."

I don't really get this, even though it is commonly said.

Compared to what next track, and where is this happening?

On the radio, all tunes are volume equalized by the station.

At an online listening demo people will just turn the volume up on their player. Do you really think they will just buy the louder tune without regard to the music?

The same at an instore demo station. Do you really think people will just buy whatever is louder? People suddenly have no likes and dislikes?

Maybe if you play 2 exact same versions of the same tune to people they may initially prefer the louder one, but what does that have to do with them buying tune A by band A instead of tune B by band B?

Personally i don't find squashed necessarily sounds worse, unless it's to the point of distorted, which professional recordings aren't usually, at least aren't noticeably to my ears anyways.

squashed just has its telltale sound which could be good or not. it's only a problem to me when music must have that sound, then some creative decision making, some artist input is lost.

plus i do find louder is better sounding, but you're talking about much much louder where all the transients vanish, but people will be listening to that at normal volume, and then their next track comes on super soft and weak sounding. and also, due to the loudness wars, this coincides often with the date of recordings, and human nature is to consider technology in a linear way, so what's newer in music is better, therefore quieter stuff is like older recordings and therefore worse. because they aren't knowing why its louder or softer, or what's responsible for that or anything like that. they just think "technology got better where stuff can be louder" kind of thing.

this comparing is done in the playlist of mp3 players. we don't listen to full albums any more. i personally never listen to the radio unless i overhear it playing on someone else's radio.

but, ya, you can turn up your player, but still there's that amount of time, where you think to yourself, or the layman, "oh ya, this recording is old, or bad, that sucks, i always have to turn this song up. i wish it was a more modern better recording" the layman doesn't think "wow this sucks, i have to turn this song up because they opted for crisper transients rather than higher overall volume"

nobody has any idea that even exists.

so maybe step one needs to be to educate, and i guess that's our job for those of us that know. what's tough is that the explanation is sort of dry and not incredibly easy to understand. but still, you can tell people word of mouth and it might come up in other conversations they have.

if there is demand, the market should sell the solution. so all that needs to happen is to create demand. and all that needs to happen for that, is that people know they want it to happen, and that it can once they know that.

turning up the volume for every song is so old school, it shouldn't be that way. to the layman though, it's newer more modern, and for that reason better recordings where you don't have to change your volume knob. so for them, the problem has kind of gone away, except for the older crappier songs, and they wish they were newer and every once in a while, they get digitally remastered, and so they are louder, and they are happier.

which we know sucks as a solution, but they're clueless.
Sound asleep is offline   Reply With Quote