>Loudness Wars refers to the trend of music being more and more compressed over the last couple of decades in an attempt to raise the overall 'loudness' of a track >Apparently this means the transients of a track aren't as punchy (drums are esp weaker as a result) >The whole track becomes a 'wall of sound' and elements don't stick out as much as they could
Can someone redpill me on this? Aside from the overall loudness, I can't actually hear the difference.
Compression on master tracks is actually a really complex topic, I would be surprised if anyone on this entire board is qualified to talk about it(I'm not in any official capacity). A compressor reduces the volume when the volume goes above a certain threshold then the overall signal is increased in volume. The amount of compression effects the overall tone of the track, differences in sound will depend on how much it's been compressed.
Grayson Wilson
>Aside from the overall loudness, I can't actually hear the difference. because it's probably shit music, shit ears, and shit headphones ya got.
Jack Gutierrez
See, I get all that. It all makes sense to me But then I listen to a ridiculously loud track like this: youtube.com/watch?v=ZT4yWlSttzQ Expecting the drums to disappear in the mix But they sound pretty sharp and punchy to me, even when I turn it down Or even a remastered track, like this: youtube.com/watch?v=EKW7aB-x1-g Sounds totally fine to me
Easton Thomas
maybe suggest a good comparison? instead of being an ass clown and my headphones are beyerdynamic dt770 pros, theyre pretty good
Drums can actually get punchier when compression is applied to them. There are also tricks used in that zomboy track to make the drums seem louder. When the BD hits the bass actually ducks in volume to give the BD more room to breath. Listen to the drums on this version of the Billie Jean, notice how they seem looser than the remaster. Youtube is kind of a bad listening platform since YT compresses audio.
You're listening on YouTube, and to two completely different tracks with no reference to a better source...
If you put an uncompressed track next to a compressed version and play/compare them at the same audio levels, the drums (for instance) will stick out more on the uncompressed track because they haven't been compressed and therefore are not the at the same audio level as everything else.
This is assuming this is a track where the drums are slightly above in the mix (where the snare hit my stick out more in the waveform) If we have a track where the drums a quiet, then compressing it would bring the drums (and everything else) up in the mix. That's just how compression effects an instrument, as opposed to the overall waveform of a song.
Go download an original, and a generic, loud remaster of a song (in good quality, not YouTube), and compare in, say, Audacity once you match the audio levels of the compressed track (which will be louder) to the uncompressed track.
Luis Carter
Yeah this guy runs that Dynamic Range Day facebook page, which I came across looking into all this. I'll defo check it out, and his other vids, cheers
Yeah sidechain compression is great for brostep drums. I guess the best thing for remastered versions is importing both original and remastered into a DAW and switching between them so I can hear the difference Cuz desu, when I adjust the volumes, those two Billie Jean versions sound the same to me. No massive difference really sticks out
I mean, I can see how it'd be an issue, but all these producers saying that it completely ruins a track makes me think it isnt as big an issue as everyone makes it out to be
Blake Rivera
Well I WAS doing that just now, but only with old and new tracks (that I consider very loud) I guess the best comparison is between original and remastered, so yeah I'll do that
I still think its an overblown problem though, if I can't even hear the difference on a YouTube stream
