0

The Mastering Loudness War: Can The Effects of Hyper-Compression and Increasing Loudness In Commercially Released and Broadcast Music Be Reduced? Nicholas Granville-Fall Student No. 12012796 Module CP6017-CASS Dissertation BSc Music Technology Sound For Media, London Metropolitan University Date of Submission: 15th April 2015 Supervisors: Lewis Jones and Allan Seago Word Count: 9919

08 Fall$

1

Table of Contents The Mastering Loudness War: Can The Effects of Hyper-Compression and Increasing Loudness In Commercially Released and Broadcast Music Be Reduced?! List of Figures and Illustrations ........................................................................................... 2!1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 3!2. The Ear and Psychoacoustics ......................................................................................... 4!

Loudness, Perception and Equal Loudness Contours 3. The Desire For and Function of Loudness ..................................................................... 5!

Primitive Instinct and Power Aural Space and Altered Consciousness Reward and Behaviour

4. Techniques, Technology and Listening .......................................................................... 7!Dynamic Range Compression and Hyper-Compression Metering Systems Listening Habits, Environments and Formats

5. The Loudness War Part 1-History, Function and Considerations ................................ 9!Background and Origins Radio and Broadcast Holistic and Aesthetic Considerations Music as a Commercial Product

6. The Loudness War Part 2-A Review of the Current Situation .................................... 15!Establishing the Case The Key Examples The Current Debate

7. The Implications of Hyper-Compressed Music ........................................................... 20!Acoustic Ecology Aesthetic Changes A Tragedy of the Commons and Loudness Envy Listening Fatigue Hearing Damage Radio Airplay Distortion and Clipping Artefacts Innovation

8. Reducing Excessive Loudness in Mastering and Broadcast ..................................... 24!Loudness Normalisation New Descriptors, Standards, Acts and Recommendations New Metering Systems Education and Awareness, The Push for Change The Future

9. Primary Research Summary and Final Conclusion ..................................................... 27!Final Conclusion

Bibliography ........................................................................................................................ 30!Appendix 1-New Descriptors, Standards, Acts and Recommendations ............................ 38!Appendix 2-Loudness in Music Questionnaire .................................................................... 40!Appendix 3-Loudness in Music Questionnaire-Complete Results ...................................... 43!

2

List of Figures and Illustrations Figure 1. Equal Loudness Contours ........................................................................................ 6 Howard and Angus, Acoustics & Psychoacoustics p. 83. Figure 2. Google Trends search term for ‘Loudness War’ .................................................... 11 Loudness War’ Google Search Term <http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=loudness%20war> [accessed 30th Sept 2014]. Figure 3. TT Dynamic Range values for genres .................................................................... 15 Our Aim <http://www.pleasurizemusic.com/en/our-aim> [accessed 2nd Nov 2014]. Figure 4. Michael Jackson - Black Or White waveforms ....................................................... 17 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war#/media/File:Michael_Jackson-Black_or_White_Loudness.png> [accessed 31st Mar 2015]. Figure 5. Documenting the rise in ‘hottest’ pop CD levels ................................................... 18 Katz, Mastering Audio, The Art And The Science, p. 168. Figure 6. Average RMS intensity of a corpus of 4500 tracks released 1967-2011 .............. 18 Deruty and Tardieu, ‘About Dynamic Processing in Mainstream Music’ p. 51. Figure 7. Integrated loudness evolution of a corpus of 4500 tracks released 1967-2011 .... 18 Deruty and Tardieu, ‘About Dynamic Processing in Mainstream Music’ p. 51. Figure 8. Dynamic Range values of samples ......................................................................... 19 Tristan Collins, Dynamic Range Analysis 1970-present <http://www.tristancollins.me/computing/dynamic-range-analysis/> [accessed 29th Dec 2014]. Figure 9. Dynamic Range Tolerance for consumers in different listening environments ..... 21 TC Electronic LM6/LM2 User Manual, TC Electronic A/S, 2012 <http://cdn-downloads.tcelectronic.com/media/224383/tc_electronic_lm2_lm6_plug-in_manual_english.pdf > [accessed 15th Nov 2014]. p. 6. Figure 10. CD waveform of Red Hot Chili Peppers, Get On Top illustrating digital clipping . 25 Created by the author. Figure 11. Question 8 pie chart results .................................................................................. 29 Created by the author from data collected in Appendix 3: Loudness In Music Questionnaire-Complete Results. Figure 12. Question 9 pie chart results .................................................................................. 30 Created by the author from data collected in Appendix 3: Loudness In Music Questionnaire-Complete Results. Figure 13. Question 10 pie chart results ................................................................................ 30 Created by the author from data collected in Appendix 3: Loudness In Music Questionnaire-Complete Results.

3

1. Introduction

....Before you became a balance engineer, you would know what could and could not technically make it onto vinyl, what would make the needle jump and what wouldn't, and how to get a record loud. Then, as now, the object was to get your record louder than anybody else's.1

This dissertation examines increasing loudness within music and broadcast by exploring its manipulation through technology and the use of excessive dynamic range compression, hyper-compression. Many consumers lack awareness of this issue and whilst some industry trends cannot be controlled, professionals have an obligation to protect the future enjoyment and preservation of music when its craftsmanship and quality are compromised. The beginning chapters focus on understanding loudness as a powerful sonic attribute, from perceived psychoacoustics to the desire for and function beyond music. Techniques and technology provide an understanding of how loudness is controlled, manipulated and distributed before the loudness war and hyper-compression are considered. Part 1 explores the history of our relationship to loudness and the key reasons for its incremental rise and development. Part 2 is a current analysis showing the problem, examples, academic debate and the commercial function and changing listening habits of consumers. The implications of hyper-compressed music for engineers and consumers are examined, covering technical and socioeconomic aspects before solutions are explored in reducing excessive loudness. A summary of the primary research is presented before ending with a conclusion. The author demonstrates the desire for loudness in distributed music is not restricted to the last thirty years of digital innovation; rather a long-term problem between the relationship of sound, fidelity and technology since the first ever Phonautograph recording in 1860.2 Loudness is a powerful built in desire, source of excitement and survival mechanism integral to humans. A correlation with the economic theory A Tragedy of The Commons is made and why ‘loudness envy’ is a vicious circle. A new theory suggests the loudness war may have a strong enough reason to end. How likely are these claims? Do mastering engineers believe loudness normalisation in broadcast will change the current practice of hyper-compression in commercial music? A primary research questionnaire provides new information on this key development from current engineers. The author argues loudness can be reduced through various solutions with normalisation being key; however, it may take considerable time until the industry is liberated from the peer pressure of hyper-compression. The majority of research is empirical and anecdotal with sources from existing books, journal articles, Internet sources and an author conducted primary research questionnaire. Key scholars and engineers such as Bob Katz, Thomas Lund, Earl Vickers, Greg Milner and Emmanuel Deruty have helped to contribute to this work whilst referencing concepts from further afield such as Barry Truax, R. Murray Schafer and Barry Blesser. Much of the focus of this dissertation is concerned with music from a mastering perspective; often referred to as a black art, where the finished audio mix is perfected and crafted with subtle adjustments creating the final master.3 From a technical perspective, the mastering process finalises the loudness of a recording and any degree of hyper-compression used to achieve this.

1 Geoff Emerick, Here, There and Everywhere: My Life Recording the Music of the Beatles (Gotham Books, 2006) p. 105. 2 Eric J.Heller, Why You Hear What You Hear: An Experiential Approach To Sound, Music, And Psychoacoustics (Princeton University Press, 2013) p. 95. 3 Bobby Owsinski, The Mastering Engineers Handbook (Cengage Learning, 2007) p. 4.

4

2. The Ear and Psychoacoustics Loudness, Perception and Equal Loudness Contours Loudness can be defined as the ‘subjective magnitude of a sound’ and subjectivity entails differing perceptions, making it a difficult attribute to measure. 4 Whilst the perceived loudness of sound is related to amplitude, the brain does not interpret this relationship in such a straightforward way. A listener perceives loudness from the average energy of a signal rather than its peak level, both valid ways to measure loudness.5 Phons are a unit of measurement for loudness level, defined as a comparison between the loudness of sound and a pure tone frequency seeming equally loud.6 Phons describe sounds equally loud in reference to decibels, where 50 Phons would be perceived to be as loud as a 50dB 1000Hz tone. For measuring sounds of differing loudness the Sone scale was developed. 7 Loudness consists of various characteristics: intensity, duration, bandwidth, frequency and the presence of other sounds that govern how it is perceived. Psychoacoustics is the study of the complex relationship between acoustics and perception, where sound changes from a physical phenomenon into human judgement.8 The paradigm of loudness is based on the problem when two identical sounds are auditioned one after another at different intensities to listeners; the louder sound is favoured over the quieter version in short-term listening.9 This occurs from non-linear behaviour of the ear, known as equal loudness contours. Figure 1 demonstrates the non-linear response of the ear.10 The contours show an average sensitivity to different frequencies at different levels with the desire to maintain equal loudness across the frequency range.11 Describing two sounds with equal intensity would not be the same as describing them having equal loudness. The ability to make music appear louder is possible if less sensitive low and high frequencies are boosted. This process draws the brain into perceiving it is hearing a louder signal, something known as hyping.12

4 Robert S. Schlauch, ed. by John G. Neuhoff,. Ecological Psychoacoustics (Elsevier Academic Press, 2004) p. 317. 5 Florian Camerer, ‘Loudness Normalisation: � The Future of File-Based Playback’ Music Loudness Alliance, (2012). p. 1. 6 Loudness Level <http://www.sfu.ca/sonic-studio/handbook/Loudness_Level.html> [accessed 30th Mar 2015]. 7 Phon <http://www.sfu.ca/sonic-studio/handbook/Phon.html> [accessed 30th Mar 2015]. 8 Howard and Angus, Acoustics & Psychoacoustics p. 65. 9 Bob Katz, ‘Integrated Approach to Metering, Monitoring, and Levelling Practices Part 1: Two-Channel Metering’, J. Audio Eng. Soc., Vol. 48, No.9, (2000). p. 800. 10 Howard and Angus, Acoustics & Psychoacoustics p. 83. 11 David Miles Huber, Robert E. Runstein, Modern Recording Techniques (Focal Press, 2007) p. 66. 12 Mark Cousins, Russ Hepworth-Sawyer, Practical Mastering (Focal Press, 2013) p. 141.

Figure 1. Equal Loudness Contours with changing Phon levels.

5

3. The Desire For and Function of Loudness Primitive Instinct and Power Loud music is often experienced as an exciting emotion due to its association with intense activity. Loud sounds were historically associated with large dynamic events created by nature before electroacoustic amplification. The intensity of a sound event would provide important information regarding distance, impact and mass. Unlike vision, hearing provided an estimation of the arrival of dangers and events without the need for light, key to survival. 13 Primitive societies were most often concerned with the amount of energy required to create powerful low frequency sounds generated by violent processes occurring on earth. Thunder and lightening, earthquakes and tremors, tornados and hurricanes are some of the most powerful forces on the planet.14 Dangerous events therefore produce an associated loud and dangerous sound that dominates the aural space. When considering this built in survival instinct behaviour with modern logic and reasoning, loudness in music can be more safely experienced as arousal. Aural Space and Altered Consciousness The auditory system provides the brain with information about sounds present in the environment, referred to as Blesser and Salter’s concept of Aural Architecture.15 This concept relates to loudness in the sense it can become an attribute of a space, dominating it, drawing attention to music for example. An aural space is defined by its margins, based on sounds audible at the acoustic horizon of the space. This is determined by the loudest sounds, with every sound source within the horizon belonging to the aural space.16 Consider sitting next to a person in close proximity in a music venue, their breathing is audible when the room is quiet. If a band start playing music on stage, the breathing would be masked and no longer audible. The music from the performance transforms the aural space from the breathing, directing attention and focus to the music on stage. This is similar to the function of modes of listening, where the personal stereo has facilitated portable background listening using headphones. The listener can choose to be absorbed by the music of their choice, at the expense of becoming functionally deaf in the sonic environment. In the US, the number of serious injuries or death from headphone use has tripled in six years; suggesting an increase in this mode of listening and a growing unawareness of how it can endanger lives.17 Reward and Behaviour Music can change the emotional and physical state of the mind and body, with brain regions responsible for reward and emotion correlating with pleasurable responses to music. Similar responses to stimuli like food and sex are created, artificially activating the same brain regions as recreational drugs like cocaine.18,19 Increasing the loudness of music

13 Barry Blesser, ‘The Unexamined Rewards For Excessive Loudness’, Communications: 9th International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem, ICBEN, Foxwoods, CT, (2008). p. 2. 14 Barry Truax, Acoustic Communication (Ablex Publishing, 2001) p. 127. 15 Barry Blesser, Linda-Ruth Salter, Spaces Speak, Are You Listening? Experiencing Aural Architecture, (MIT Press, 2007) <http://www.blesser.net/spacesSpeak.html> [accessed 19th Dec 2014]. 16 Barry Blesser, ‘The Seductive (Yet Destructive) Appeal Of Loud Music’ (eContact! 9.4 — Perte auditive et sujets connexes / Hearing (Loss) and Related Issues. Montréal: Communauté électroacoustique canadienne / Canadian Electroacoustic Community, (2007). p. 2. 17 Topping, Alexandra, Listen up: wearing headphones can endanger life, study finds, 2012 <http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/jan/16/headphones-can-endanger-life-study> [accessed 5th Jan 2014]. 18 Anne J. Blood, Robert J. Zatorre, ‘Intensely Pleasurable Responses to Music Correlate with Activity in Brain Regions Implicated with Reward and Emotion’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98, (2001). pp. 11818-11823. 19 Barry Blesser, ‘The Seductive (Yet Destructive) Appeal Of Loud Music’ (eContact! 9.4 — Perte auditive et sujets connexes / Hearing (Loss) and Related Issues. Montréal: Communauté électroacoustique canadienne / Canadian Electroacoustic Community, (2007). p. 5.

6

increases the intensity, enhancing neurological attentiveness, referred to as arousal by psychologists. In this context music can be likened to having the same function as the stimulant class of drug, where effects are amplified increasing the dose or when music is experienced louder.20 Loud and fast music increases treadmill exercise whilst not altering the perceived effort used.21 It increases alcohol consumption amongst customers, whilst dancing to it increases social bonds and group cohesion by synchronising the brains of listeners.22 Preference in musical taste influence the perceived loudness of sounds, where the preferred style is perceived as less loud than a style that is disliked for sounds played at the same intensity. This was discovered for a magnitude-estimation scaling task using 20 adults who liked rock music and 20 who did not.23 Research has shown that despite knowing the risks of exposure to damaging sound pressure levels, people give little care exposing themselves to loud environments.24 Above 80dB the body reacts to the physicality of sound: the digestive system operates at a reduced rate, blood pressure increases and the body’s core temperature rises. The pupils enlarge and skin become paler, all of which happen whether the sound is perceived as pleasant or disruptive.25 Above 90dB the Sacculus found in the inner ear responds to low frequency sound with neural connections to pleasure receptors in the brain.26 At such sound pressure level the acoustic reflex would trigger, attenuating sound entering the ear and increasing the perceivable sensory input from the Sacculus. This creates a powerful effect and a strong motive for why many people enjoy experiencing music at such loud and damaging levels.

20 ibid., p. 4. 21 J. Elsworthy, H. Waring, ‘The Effects of Music Tempo and Loudness on Treadmill Exercise’, Ergonomics 49:15 (2006). pp. 1597-1610. 22 LA, Van De Goor, RA Knibbe, and MJ. Drop, ‘Adolescent Drinking Behavior: An Observational Study Of The Influence Of Situational Factors On Adolescent Drinking Rates’, Journal of Studies on Alcohol 51:6 (1990). pp. 548-55. 23 The Effect of Preference for Rock Music on Magnitude-Estimation Scaling Behavior in Young Adults. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8337062> [accessed 18th Nov 2014]. 24 Vishakha W. Rawool and Lynda A. Colligon-Wayne, ‘Auditory lifestyles and beliefs related to hearing loss among college students in the USA’, Noise & Health Jan - March 10:38, 1–10, (2008). p. 7. 25 Steve Goodman, Sound, Affect, And The Ecology Of Fear (MIT Press, 2012) p. 65. 26 Neil McAngus Todd, Frederick Cody ‘Vestibular Responses to Loud Dance Music: A physiological basis for the ‘Rock and Roll threshold’?’, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 107:1, (2000). pp. 496-500.

7

4. Techniques, Technology and Listening Dynamic Range

Recordings can be controlled to provide increased peak and average levels of loudness by changing the dynamic range, defined as the ratio between the loudest and softest passages of a signal.27 The most common technique for manipulating this is downward compression; where louder sections of a signal such as transients are attenuated when they exceed a given threshold, known as gain reduction. The overall average level of the signal can then be increased if necessary. This way the peak level of the recording is reduced whilst the overall average level is increased.28 When large amounts of processing are applied to a signal to achieve this average increase, the transients become squashed.29 Furthermore loudness variations in micro and macroscopic time scales exist, where micro-dynamics is the rhythmic expression and integrity of music on a small scale also referred to as density. Macro-dynamics is the loudness contrast between overall song sections, also referred to as consistency.30 Compression and Hyper-Compression Compression is an aesthetic choice in music engineering to control amplitude and dynamics, with every great recording released utilising compression at some stage. In order to reproduce the sonic experience of live rock and pop concerts within the home listening environment, compression is necessary to create an impression of loud and big. Compression creates excitement adding a sense of cohesion and highlighting details that would not be audible on smaller listening systems.31 Limiting is an aggressive form of compression, responding to peak transients raising the average amplitude and increasing subjective loudness.32 When processing is taken too far where a signal spends the majority of time at maximum level with little variation, it is known as being hyper-compressed.33 Mastering engineers, academics and audiophiles have noted the following concerns regarding hyper-compression in music:34

Stripping music of the natural dynamics creating a ‘squashed’ sound Creating musical clutter whilst diminishing depth and texture Removing emotional power and excitement Creating an incohesive sound from multiband compression artefacts Amplifying mono information whilst decreasing stereo width Reducing the impact and ‘punch’ of transients

Metering Systems Metering systems are introduced briefly as an important tool used throughout the history of music and broadcast. The intention of such devices is to display the perceived loudness as a visual aid for measuring loudness. However without an awareness of the flaws and operational characteristics found in popular RMS and Peak meters, they continue to

27 Bob Katz, Mastering Audio, The Art And The Science (Focal Press, 2007) p. 113. 28 Kyle Devine, ‘Imperfect Sound Forever: Loudness Wars, Listening Formations And The History Of Sound Reproduction’, Popular Music, 32, (2013). p. 163. 29 Huber and Runstein, Modern Recording Techniques, pp. 495-498. 30 Katz, Mastering Audio, The Art And The Science, p. 113. 31 Bob Ludwig, ‘The Loudness Wars: Musical Dynamics Verse Volume’ in Less Noise More Soul ed. by David Flitner, (Backbeat Books, 2013) p. 57. 32 Cousins and Hepworth-Sawyer, Practical Mastering p .16. 33 Earl Vickers, ‘Do louder, Hypercompressed Recordings Sell Better?’, J. Audio Eng. Soc., Vol.59, No.5, May, (2011). p. 346. 34 Earl Vickers, ‘The Loudness War: Background, Speculation and Recommendations’, AES 129th Convention, San Francisco, CA, USA, November 4-7, (2010). p. 5.

8

provide inaccurate loudness information that can cloud the judgment of inexperienced users. The Volume Unit meter (VU) was an early analogue development designed to help programme producers achieve a consistent loudness across a wide range of audio. Featuring a syllabic 300-ms response time designed to approximate an RMS voltage level, it measures average levels and is therefore a bad indicator for measuring signal overloads.35 Problems can arise from inconsistencies in the ballistics, frequency response and scale of the measurement. Further inaccuracies are demonstrated when comparing two sounds with the same voltage level, a short transient sound like percussion will display a lower meter reading than a sound with more sustain.36 A Peak Programme Meter (PPM) measures the instantaneous electrical amplitude of an audio signal developed by the BBC in the 1930s. Modern day digital versions detect short transients, helping to identify peaks exceeding the maximum level of 0dBFS in the digital domain causing distortion.37 They are referred to as Quasi-Peak meters because the very fastest of transients can pass through the meter unmeasured making PPM meters inaccurate. The ear operates in harmony with averaged signal levels rather than instantaneous peaks, therefore a root mean square (RMS) meter provides a better aid for judging perceived loudness.38 Listening Habits, Environments and Formats Technological change has brought about new modes of listening and distribution with personal and car stereos now the most popular way to enjoy music.39 Placing a vinyl record on a spinning turntable in the 1970s was predominantly an act of foreground listening, involving active attention invested in the listening process. Since music reproduction became liberated from static listening environments, fidelity suffered as digital compressed formats optimised distribution and storage capacities. This brought a change in the mode of listening from the active foreground toward the passive background. Lo-fi environments are defined in acoustic ecology as places of poor signal to noise ratio, with a lack of clarity and acoustic definition from high ambient noise. 40 This has created less than ideal compromises where background broadband noise masks quiet sections in music, resulting in the listener constantly reaching for the volume.41 Hyper-compressed music lacking dynamic variation does not suffer as badly from masking problems when listened to in lo-fi environments like vehicles, public transport and busy places. A hi-fi environment is described as ideal for actively listening to music providing acoustic clarity; except it does not require the reduced dynamic range and additional negative attributes associated with hyper-compression.42 The physical grooves in vinyl records limit the amount of amplitude that can be cut by an engineer before major problems like needle skipping occur. These limitations provided an absolute working limit for the analogue format that CDs do not suffer from. 0dBFS is the theoretical digital limit but if exceeded the CD will still operate instead suffering from digital distortion. Surround sound formats have seen some evidence of the loudness war affecting productions, but this is a niche market.43

35 Katz, Integrated Approach to Metering, Monitoring, and Levelling Practices Part 1: Two-Channel Metering p. 800. 36 Hugh Robjohns, Metering, 2000 <http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jun00/articles/metring.htm> [accessed 22nd Oct 2014]. 37 Peak Programme Meter <http://www.ips.org.uk/faq/index.php?title=Peak_Programme_Meter> [accessed 18th Oct 2014]. 38 Cousins and Hepworth-Sawyer, Practical Mastering, p .25. 39 Reineke Reitsma, The Data Digest: Which Music Devices Do People Use? <http://blogs.forrester.com/reineke_reitsma/10-07-30-data_digest_which_music_devices_do_people_use> [accessed 11th Dec 2014]. 40 Hildegard Westerkamp, Listening and Soundmaking: A Study of Music-As-Environment (Master of Arts Thesis, University of British Columbia, 1972) p. 17. 41 ibid., p. 5. 42 ibid., p. 6. 43 Katz, Mastering Audio, The Art And The Science, p. 245.

9

5. The Loudness War Part 1-History, Function and Considerations Background and Origins The Loudness War describes the practice of producing and distributing recordings with increasing amounts of dynamic range compression (DRC), often detrimental to the recording. It is an attempt to produce a recording at absolute maximum amplitude, regardless of playback level that is ultimately controlled by the listener. Robert Orban used the term when discussing excessive limiting and compression in FM broadcast radio, 1979.44 In mainstream popular culture the term can be found to have grown in popularity after 2007, shown in Figure 2.45 From examining cultural and technological developments in the history of recording, the relationship with advances in loudness can be examined.

When Thomas Edison’s Phonograph was compared to Charles Tainter and Chichester Bell’s Graphophone, it had inferior sound quality except for providing louder playback. The Graphophone imposed additional personal ear tubes to amplify playback, a drawback that limited the social group mode of listening.46 As the popularity of dancing increased so did the demand for a device that offered louder playback reproduction. The Berliner Gramophone was the solution reproducing enough volume to accompany live dancing.47 In the mid 1950s magnetic tape became an established format for sound recordings where overdriving the signal produced harmonically pleasing distortion.48 In the mid 1960s before multi-track recording, there was less demand for compression in the production process. Engineers utilised two microphones for stereo recordings because the ability to close mike separate instruments was unattainable. Microphones at close proximity in multi-track recordings exaggerate existing dynamic details. Compression was used to control close proximity recorded tracks such as vocal and bass takes.49 Record labels observed louder songs on jukeboxes seemed to receive more attention than quieter songs.50 Bob Ludwig cut vinyl records and in particular 45RPM singles that were produced with a view to attract attention, by standing out from the programme director’s stack of 45’s for top 40 radio.51 In the 1960s The Motown Record Company created a standard called Loud & Clear.52 This was designed to maximise perceived loudness with clarity, using custom designed filters 44 Vickers, The Loudness War: Background, Speculation and Recommendations p. 3. 45 Loudness War’ Google Search Term <http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=loudness%20war> [accessed 30th Sept 2014]. 46 Devine, Imperfect Sound Forever: Loudness Wars, Listening Formations And The History Of Sound Reproduction p. 166. 47 Patrick Feaster, “The Following Record” Making Sense Of Phonographic Performance, 1877-1908 (Unpublished PhD Thesis, Indiana University, 2007). p. 474. 48 Mark H. Clark, ed. by Eric D. Daniel, Magnetic Recording: The First 100 Years (Wiley-IEEE Press, 1998) p. 92. 49 Katz, Mastering Audio, The Art And The Science, p. 124. 50 Suhas, Sreedhar, The Future of Music, 2007 <http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/the-future-of-music> [accessed 29th Sept 2014]. 51 The Loudness Wars: Why Music Sounds Worse, 2009 <http://www.npr.org/2009/12/31/122114058/the-loudness-wars-why-music-sounds-worse> [accessed 15th Nov 2014]. 52 Vickers, The Loudness War: Background, Speculation and Recommendations p. 3.

Figure 2. Google Trends search term for ‘Loudness War’.

10

and a half speed lathe cutting technique. The half speed lathe modification allowed the engineer to cut records ‘hot’ (loud) without high frequencies melting the cutter head windings.53 High frequencies problematic when cutting at full speed were easier to cut in the mid frequency range at half speed, with solid and stable stereo image benefits.54 Around the 1970s solid-state technology offered more transparency and clearer transients.55 Hi-fi manufacturers created a loudness function on amplifiers designed to boost low and high frequencies, flattening the effects of equal loudness contours at low listening levels.56 SSL designed the SL4000E studio console in 1979, with a dynamics section including a compressor, limiter and expander gate. The convenience of this inbuilt functionality would change the sound of music for evermore.57 Sony introduced multi-track digital recorders in the 1980s, capable of recording clearer transients than analogue machines.58 In the late 1980s, multiband compression originating in broadcast began to be utilised in mastering studios.59 The technique produces higher average levels of loudness by separating audio into frequency bands and applying compression individually per band; it has been described as ‘the most deadly audio process that’s ever been invented’.60 The 1986 album Disintegration by The Cure featured an artwork liner note written in capital letters, the typographic equivalent to loud ‘THIS MUSIC HAS BEEN MIXED TO BE PLAYED LOUD SO TURN IT UP.’61 The growth of digital recording technology and Compact Discs (CD) in the late 1980s is considered the most significant development with increases in loudness. Digital equipment discarded analogue VU meters replaced by the modern peak programme meter. Bob Katz noticed the CD was affecting music more so than any other format before it, resulting in increasing loudness standards every year.62 Engineers discovered recording masters to analogue tape added 6dB of compression gain when peaking to full scale, transferring to digital afterwards.63 Public CD jukeboxes superseded vinyl models where volume was a fixed output, unavailable to customers located on the rear.64 Multiple CD changers were introduced in consumer hi-fi systems and facilitated multiple CD listening at home, similar to a personal jukebox. Loudness variations between CDs from different artists became more comparable and instant when quickly switching between discs. CD players introduced in vehicles increased the demand for louder records with less dynamic variation meaning music was more audible over engine and environmental noise.65 In the early 1990s when CD pressing plants checked for digital clipping, authorisation was required from the engineer, producer and artist to proceed with manufacture. Four years later the practice of challenging digital clipping was no longer of concern.66 In the mid 1990s Digital Audio Workstations (DAWs) were becoming more affordable and popular than tape based systems, providing software plug-ins to process audio.67 Waves Audio released

53 Bob Olhsson <https://www.gearslutz.com/board/mastering-forum/425572-half-speed-mastering.html> [accessed 30th Mar 2015]. 54 Half Speed Mastering <http://www.abbeyroad.com/News/Article/322/Half-speed-mastering-dubnobasswithmyheadman> [accessed 30th Mar 2015]. 55 Emmanuel Deruty, Damien Tardieu, ‘About Dynamic Processing in Mainstream Music’, J. Audio Eng. Soc., Vol. 62, No. 1/2, (2014). p. 49. 56 Howard and Angus, Acoustics & Psychoacoustics p. 84. 57 E Series Legacy <http://www.solid-state-logic.com/music/Xlogic%20E%20Signature%20Channel/history.asp> [accessed 16th Oct 2014]. 58 Deruty and Tardieu, ‘About Dynamic Processing in Mainstream Music’, p. 49. 59 Greg Milner, Perfecting Sound Forever, (Faber and Faber, 2009) p. 278. 60 Katz, Mastering Audio, The Art And The Science, p. 128. 61 Michael Azerrad, Disintegration <http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/disintegration-19890713> [accessed 26th Sept 2014]. 62 Milner, Perfecting Sound Forever, p. 243. 63 Bob Katz, Loudness: War & Peace <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9Fb3rWNWDA> 2.42 min [accessed 20th Feb 2015]. 64 Katz, Mastering Audio, The Art And The Science, p. 168. 65 Milner, Perfecting Sound Forever, p. 260. 66 ibid., p. 280. 67 ibid., p. 294.

11

the L1 Ultramaximizer plug-in at a similar time, providing a simple way to create huge gains in perceived loudness by limiting the signal. TC Electronic released the popular and more advanced Finalizer around 1996.68 When Apple released the iPod its shuffle mode emulated the jukebox randomisation of songs, resulting in the same competitive jukebox loudness paradigm existing in vinyl, CD and data reduction codecs. Brand names for stereos and music playing devices have been marketed to exaggerate loudness, such as Boombox, Ghettoblaster and Loudmouth.69 In 2008 Image Line released a multiband maximiser and dynamics plug-in Maximus, with the marketing phase ‘heavy weaponry for the loudness war’.70 Recordings have not been the only market to increase loudness over the years, as studio microphone outputs are higher now than microphones of the past. Neumann replaced the U87 with the U87A, with an increased output gain level of 10dB. While most would consider this a useful development, the U87A is designed for close proximity studio use where interference is insignificant but the potential for overloading the rest of the signal chain is a bigger concern.71,72 Audio-Technica's AT5040 flagship microphone features a sensitivity rating of 56mV/Pa, which is double the amount of the U87A equating to a colossal 137dB of dynamic range.73 This would require 23 bits from a possible 24-bit resolution analogue to digital converter to work accurately, which could cause signal clipping if care were not taken with such a high output level.74 Radio and Broadcast The purpose of a radio station is to attract the largest audience possible and to maintain its listeners and their attention.75 In the early days of AM radio, a stronger transmission signal increased the audience potential through greater reach of the broadcast with economic consequences. Furthermore compressing the signal and increasing the amplitude of the transmission increased the signal to noise ratio as AM had a dynamic range around 20-30dB.76 In 1964 content was changing, the BBC reduced its production of non-musical programmes such as radio documentaries in favour of popular music disc jockeys.77 AM radio stations used limiters to prevent over modulating the transmission, similarly to when records were cut with a limiter controlling the dynamic range. Peak modulation could be controlled to meet the legal requirements of the regulatory organisation where the station is based. Reducing the peak to average ratio of a signal (crest factor) provided a louder transmission that was still within the allowed modulation range set by the regulatory organisation.78 In 1973 radio engineer Mike Dorrough, overcame the problem of audio compression artefacts known as ‘pumping’. This refers to being able to hear the compressor actively working on the transients of an audio signal. For example, a compressor bringing up the gain level after initially reducing the level for a loud transient peak, background sounds are 68 TC Electronic Finalizer Plus User Manual, TC Electronic A/S, 1996 <www.tcelectronic.com/media/.../tc-electronic-finalizer-plus-manual.pdf> [accessed 15th Nov 2014]. p. 44. 69 Truax, Acoustic Communication p. 15. 70 Maximus <http://www.image-line.com/plugins/Effects/Maximus/> [accessed 29th Sept 2014]. 71 Sam Inglis, Why are manufacturers constantly opening up new fronts in the loudness war?, 2013 <http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jan13/articles/sounding-off-0113.htm> [accessed 14th Dec 2014]. 72 Rob Orban, Greg Ogonowski, Maintaining Audio Quality in the Broadcast/Netcast Facility (Orban Publications, 2014) p. 25. 73 Switchable Studio Microphone U 87 Ai, Technical Data <https://www.neumann.com/?lang=en&id=current_microphones&cid=u87_data> [accessed 13th Oct 2014]. 74 Robjohns, Hugh, Audio-Technica AT5040, 2012 <http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/dec12/articles/audio-technica-at5040.htm> [accessed 14th Dec 2014]. 75 Truax, Acoustic Communication p. 180. 76 Huber and Runstein, Modern Recording Techniques, p. 494. 77 Truax, Acoustic Communication p. 221. 78 Robert Orban, Frank Foti, ‘Radio Ready: The Truth’ in Mastering Audio, The Art And The Science ed. by Bob Katz, (Focal Press, 2007). p. 272.

12

audibly modulated by the dominant signal energy from the peak. The speed and duration of this processing are determined by the attack and release settings. This can be used to aesthetic effect except Dorrough’s new limiter was designed to compress and limit transparently, at much higher levels of compression than before.79 The Model 310 DAP (Discriminate Audio Processor) was able to achieve this because it processed separate frequency bands rather than one, effectively a multiband peak limiter. He sold two units to KYNO in California despite originally aiming for the recording studio market. Hereafter programme directors from other stations sought to increase the loudness of their stations to stand out in competition with others on the FM and AM dials. New York features one of the densest and most aggressively processed radio station markets on earth with the sound of WABC considered influential.80 FM transmission offered an improved dynamic range of 40-50dB with Bob Orban creating the OPTIMOD 8000 audio processor in 1975.81 It was designed as an FM limiter and stereo generator, described as achieving high loudness and high quality audio simultaneously.82 A similar approach daisy chaining audio processors together helped Frank Foti create the signature sound of New York’s Z100. WPLJ was the leading station but Foti’s engineering for Z100 launched them from the worst station to the best, trouncing WPLJ ratings in one year. During this time stations were pushing up their modulation levels in attempts to be louder than everyone else; catching the attention of an authority official from the Federal Communications Commission, the regulatory US communications agency. While trying out a new modulation monitor at a radio trade show, the official discovered a mass of FM stations over modulating and gave two weeks to reduce levels or face fines.83 Holistic and Aesthetic Considerations Different music requires holistic processing and loudness considerations. Phil Spector’s wall of sound production style was an aesthetic choice but using many musicians and layers such as guitarists in unison and two bass players playing fifths increased amplitude levels.84 Rob Landry understood the approach successful for top 40 content was not the appropriate sound for classical music on Boston’s WCRB. A special processing chain was configured and the programme was no longer squashed for broadcast with an aesthetic that complemented its classical format.85 The majority of electronic dance music, rock, metal, pop, R&B and similar commercial and underground genres tend to prefer loudness intensities considered moderate to high. Figure 3 shows how the TT dynamic range meter comes with dynamic range suggestion values for different genres.86 For electronic music this is further influenced by the loud nature of sample based and electronically synthesised sounds used in productions. Electronic music lacks acoustic loudness references in the real world, instead coming from other artists. On the contrary, classical, jazz, blues, easy listening and similar acoustic genres tend to use wider dynamic ranges with lower intensities, less affected by loudness envy. This could be attributed to different audience and expectations, where there is less need for such impact in order to top the charts. There are examples of other genres such as classical and jazz that are subjected to more processing than would seem appropriate, however an in-depth look into this area is beyond 79 Model 310 DAP <http://www.dorrough.com/310dap.html> [accessed 23rd Oct 2014]. 80 Milner, Perfecting Sound Forever, pp. 269-270. 81 Orban Timeline, Company Milestones <http://www.orban.com/about/timeline/> [accessed 17 Sept 2014]. 82 Optimod–FM Model 8000A Operating Manual <ftp://ftp.orban.com/8000A/8000A_Manual_r07.pdf> [accessed 23rd Oct 2014]. 83 Milner, Perfecting Sound Forever, p. 276. 84 Richard Williams, Phil Spector: Out of His Head (Omnibus Press, 2003) p. 78. 85 Grady Moates, WCRB and the Classical Music Wars ed. by Barry Mishkind, Broadcasters’ Desktop Resource, 2011 <www.thebdr.net/articles/audio/proc/ClassicalAudio.pdf> [accessed 16th Dec 2014]. pp. 1-2. 86 Our Aim <http://www.pleasurizemusic.com/en/our-aim> [accessed 2nd Nov 2014].

13

the scope of this dissertation. 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 Re-mastered releases especially Greatest Hits compilations also have much higher amplitude levels and therefore a reduction in the dynamic range, in comparison to originals.91,92,93 Undoubtedly the aim is to ‘improve’ the original and attempt to re-sell more units of essentially the same product. A small minority of listeners might aesthetically prefer the sound of hyper-compressed music, for example listeners who have grown up with a music collection containing this style of production. Studies on listeners accustomed to hearing the artefacts of MP3 data reduction codecs suggest some people prefer this sound in time; becoming a quality reference point that could be possible for long time, accustomed listeners of hyper-compressed music. 94

Figure 3. A DR value closer to 0 suggests a louder track where red values would be considered hyper-compressed, noting how this rating changes for different genres.

Music as a Commercial Product Record companies, radio and engineers have aimed to increase loudness for commercial gain to sell music that has presence and realism, true to the original performance.95 Recordings are treated as commodities, using technical innovation and novelty as selling points. The listener is a consumer of sound and the objectification of it ‘leads to control, manipulation, and distortion of the sound’.96 Household items such as Vacuum Cleaners deliberately operate loudly in the belief of higher sales verses quiet models, considered less efficient or powerful. A representative for Dyson stated American machines are louder than models destined for European and Asian markets because Americans associate noise with power.97 Ironically a loud operating noise is a representation of wasted energy.98 Similarly a 87 Kirk McElhearn, The Loudness Wars and Classical Music, 2014 <http://www.mcelhearn.com/the-loudness-wars-and-classical-music/> [accessed 25th Jan 2015]. 88 Jones, Sarah, The Big Squeeze, 2005 <http://www.mixonline.com/news/profiles/big-squeeze/365580> [accessed 2nd Jan 2015]. 89 Venus Records <http://www.eastwindimport.com/default.asp?categoryname=Venus+Records> [accessed 17th Jan 2014]. 90 Bob Katz, Loudness: War & Peace <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9Fb3rWNWDA> 13.12 min [accessed 20th Feb 2015]. 91 Robin Sharrock, The Loudness War <http://www.sharoma.com/loudness_war.htm> [accessed 27th Nov 2014]. 92 Emmanuel Deruty, 'Dynamic Range' & The Loudness War, 2011 <http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep11/articles/loudness.htm#para10> [accessed 11th Jan 2015]. 93 Bob Katz, Loudness: War & Peace <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9Fb3rWNWDA> 5.00 min [accessed 20th Feb 2015]. 94 Dougherty, Dale, The Sizzling Sound of Music, 2009 <http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/03/the-sizzling-sound-of-music.html> [accessed 27th Feb 2015]. 95 Devine, Imperfect Sound Forever: Loudness Wars, Listening Formations And The History Of Sound Reproduction p. 159. 96 Truax, Acoustic Communication p. 133. 97 How To Make It <http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/09/20/how-to-make-it> [accessed 31st Mar 2015].

14

loud record can be seen as symbolically powerful gaining commercial attention. Nick Southall speculates Oasis’s (What’s the Story) Morning Glory became such a UK success due to its loudness and lack of dynamics. It transcended numerous listening environments, reproducing especially well in noisy cars, clubs and public houses and established itself as a ubiquitous record firmly embedded in nineties culture. Dr Dre’s The Chronic had a similar effect and success in America. Southhall thought compression would be abused to increase loudness for as long as record companies believed it helped to sell units. Despite this, global album sales have fallen and this maybe attributed to louder music being ‘less loveable’.99 Do loud recordings really sell more? Listeners form their buying habits not just on loudness but changes in musical content; harmony, melody, texture, emotion, vocals, instrumentation and other factors.100 Mastering engineers have been under pressure from clients such as record label executives, to push the levels higher under the capitalist ideal louder sells. A&R staff would be anxious their next release would not live up to the loudness set by the current hit selling record on the radio and CD changer. If a master were not as loud as the current competitor it was sent back to the engineer for more compression. In some cases record labels would set up ‘shoot outs’ where a mix was sent to multiple engineers and the person engineering the loudest master earned the job.101 Despite this most engineers fought for dynamic masters, understanding control of the playback level comes at the discretion of the consumer. With record sales falling and music piracy growing, anything but a loud record was a hard concept for labels to risk. It has been suggested frequently music too compressed and distorted can fatigue the ear faster, a possible reason for lack of sales rather solely attributed from piracy.102,103 An investigation into loudness with regard to implied compression and chart success took 30 CD singles randomly selected from UK charts, finding no significant correlation amongst measured loudness and sales chart position or weeks present in the chart. Based on loudness measurements using a PPM/VU lever meter and listening panel, 36 producers and engineers found a negative correlation amongst the level of ‘overall processing’ and the highest radio and sale chart positions. Overall processing defined as including compression and also equalisation as a consequence; the panel found recordings understood to have low overall processing were considered ‘above average quality’ and therefore ‘more pleasant’ which were recordings found to be more commercially successful. 104 The Evergreen project found some of the most significant commercial albums of the last few decades were more likely to contain ‘high contrast characteristics’ the more strongly they sold. This shows a preference for albums with more dynamic variation and as a result a more conservative loudness preference, suggesting the beliefs of record executives are ill founded.105

98 ibid., p. 104. 99 Nick Southall, Imperfect Sound Forever, 2006 <http://www.stylusmagazine.com/articles/weekly_article/imperfect-sound-forever.htm> [accessed 19th Nov 2014]. 100 Vickers, ‘Do louder, Hypercompressed Recordings Sell Better?’ p. 350. 101 Milner, Perfecting Sound Forever, p. 268. 102 Speer, Bob, What Happened To Dynamic Range?, 2001 <http://www.cdmasteringservices.com/dynamicrange.htm> [accessed 12th Dec 2014]. 103 The Loudness Wars: Why Music Sounds Worse, 2009 <http://www.npr.org/2009/12/31/122114058/the-loudness-wars-why-music-sounds-worse> [accessed 15th Nov 2014]. 104 Dave Viney, The Obsession With Compression (MPG Master’s Research Dissertation, London College of Music, 2008) p. 54. 105 Vickers, Do louder, Hypercompressed Recordings Sell Better? p. 349.

15

6. The Loudness War Part 2-A Review of the Current Situation Establishing the Case Music destined for commercial release, broadcast and public address has been growing increasingly loud for considerable time. One way to demonstrate this increase is by using visual representations of the LPCM (linear pulse-code modulation) encoded waveform of music from different eras. This is a popular way that supporters opposing hyper-compression have illustrated their case objectifying dynamics in a purely visual sense, seen in Figure 4.106 A hyper-compressed track waveform will look more like a solid block with less peak transient detail at the waveform edges.

106 Michael Jackson - Black Or White <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war#/media/File:Michael_Jackson-Black_or_White_Loudness.png> [accessed 31st Mar 2015].

Figure 4. Waveforms from Michael Jackson’s Black or White originally released in 1991, re-mastered in 1995 and 2007 showing less dynamic variation in each proceeding release. This is distinguishable from the visibly diminishing peak transients, resulting in louder average levels of which the highest are found in the 2007 version.

16

However caution must be used when using waveforms to judge loudness as they can be misinterpreted.107 As with any audio evaluation task, the ear is always the best source of judgment however the following information can be presented reliably in chart form. The increase in loudness due to compact disc releases and the digital format can be represented as a bar graph in Figure 5.108

It is possible to view a more in depth and advanced understanding of two loudness measurements taken from a corpus of 4500 popular tracks released from 1967 until 2011. Every year corresponds to 100 tracks taken from commercial and/or critical success albums. The results are displayed in groups of 5 years and the central year designated for the result is shown on the chart, for example between 1967-1971 is shown as 1969. Figure 6 shows average RMS intensity values, physical track levels from the corpus where the results display the increase of this loudness over time. Figure 7 shows integrated loudness; a loudness measure as defined in EBU3341, where both figures show similar results of increasing loudness and some stabilisation occurring.109 Integrated loudness is defined as one number specifying the overall loudness of an entire programme or music track from beginning to end. 110 The centre lines represent the median average whilst the two neighbouring lines show upper and lower borders of the interquartile range.

107 Tollerton, Richard, Waveform Plots Considered Harmful, 2008 <http://audiamorous.blogspot.co.uk/2008/09/waveform-plots-considered-harmful.html> [accessed 30th Nov 2014]. 108 Katz, Mastering Audio, The Art And The Science, p. 168. 109 Deruty and Tardieu, ‘About Dynamic Processing in Mainstream Music’ p. 51. 110 Literature & Glossary <http://www.tcelectronic.com/loudness/literature-glossary/> [accessed 31st Mar 2015].

Figure 5. Documenting the rise in ‘hottest’ pop CD levels where red shows average level increase and white, the decrease in available headroom for dynamics as records got closer to the 0dB maximum level allowed.

Figure 6. Average RMS intensity of the tracks where the level rises and stabilises after the mid 2000s.

17

How does increasing loudness in music relate to dynamic range? Figure 8 displays a basic analysis of 48,947 music releases with the dynamic range value plotted against the averaged values for each year.111 It shows the maximum and minimum track DR values with error bars displaying the standard deviation of the album values. These micro-dynamic range values are taken from the dynamic range database.112 Dynamic range here is defined as the top 20% of the average cumulative difference between peak and RMS levels (crest factor or peak to loudness ratio) over the duration of a song or album.113 This measurement shows the dynamic range of music reducing to the smallest level yet and stabilising around 2004–2005 with a slight increase in the range there onwards. This suggests dynamics are very slowly beginning to return and a possible reduction in hyper-compression.

111 Tristan Collins, Dynamic Range Analysis 1970-present <http://www.tristancollins.me/computing/dynamic-range-analysis/> [accessed 29th Dec 2014]. 112 Dynamic Range Database <http://dr.loudness-war.info/> [accessed 27th Jan 2015]. 113 Our Aim <http://www.pleasurizemusic.com/en/our-aim> [accessed 2nd Nov 2014].

Figure 7. Integrated loudness evolution, following a similar path to the RMS average.

Figure 8. As the results gets closer to the present day the dynamic range values from the samples have reduced in value and consequently the dynamic range.

18

The Key Examples Metallica released their ninth album Death Magnetic in 2008. It received criticism for high levels of clipping distortion and lack of dynamics from excessive hyper-compression. The album was licensed on the video game Guitar Hero; where fans found the pre-release game music more dynamic without clipping, with many choosing to rip and listen to this instead. Mastering engineer Ted Jensen publically stated the mixes he received were ‘already brick-walled before they arrived’ but this does not explain why Jensen did not challenge this, presumably in fear of losing the client.114 An online petition signed by 22,588 people called for a remix.115 The Red Hot Chilli Peppers released their seventh album Californication in 1999 and whilst the most commercially successful, it drew attention for severe clipping and further distortion when broadcast on radio. One fan started an online petition calling the band and label to re-issue the recording.116 Rush-Vapor Trials suffered peak clipping and resulting distortion, described by fan and founder of ProRec audio Internet forum as ‘dogshit’.117 Other notable tracks that have been discussed with negative critical review surrounding loudness and audible artefacts include:118

The Black Eyed Peas-Elephunk Oasis-(What’s The Story) Morning Glory The Stooges-Raw Power The Cure-4:13 Dream Arctic Monkeys-Whatever People Say I am, That’s What I’m Not Depeche Mode-Playing The Angel The Flaming Lips-At War With The Mystics Paul Simon-Surprise Queens Of The Stone Age-Songs For The Death

The Current Debate Music has reduced in terms of micro-dynamics (short term transient dynamics) since the 1980s, creating incremental rises in loudness especially from excessive hyper-compression. However different measuring systems radically change how results are displayed and interpreted. Recent research has challenged the concept that over time music has become less dynamic; suggesting music from the 1970s is no less dynamic than music of today in terms of macro-dynamics (differences in loudness between song sections). This is based on accepting the EBU3342 LRA (Loudness Range) as a measure of macro-dynamics defined in Appendix 1 for which TC Electronic developed the algorithm.119 Such results may be attributed to the loudness range measurement having resilience to dynamic processing, requiring a large amount of processing to obtain any significant reduction.120 LRA was designed for broadcast content with large dynamic ranges not specifically music, therefore has been suggested it is not so useful for providing information for how music sounds.121 Another study with the same results suggested if the average loudness of recordings continues to rise, the possibility of maintaining dynamic variability

114 Chris Vinnicombe, BLOG: Death Magnetic sounds better in Guitar Hero, 2008 <http://www.musicradar.com/news/guitars/blog-death-magnetic-sounds-better-in-guitar-hero-173961> [accessed 29th Dec 2014]. 115 Ian, Re-Mix or Remaster Death Magnetic!, 2008 <http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/re-mix-or-remaster-death-magnetic.html> [accessed 29th Dec 2014]. 116 Jay Hodgson, Understanding Records: A Field Guide To Recording Practice (Continuum, 2010) p. 221. 117 Rowan, Rip, Over The Limit <http://riprowan.com/over-the-limit/> [accessed 14th Jan 2015]. 118 Loudness War <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war> [accessed 17 Sept 2014]. 119 Deruty and Tardieu, ‘About Dynamic Processing in Mainstream Music’ p. 50. 120 ibid., p. 52. 121 Ian Shepard, STOP PRESS – Why the Loudness War HASN’T reduced ‘loudness range’ !, 2011 <http://productionadvice.co.uk/loudness-war-dynamic-range/> [accessed 13th Jan 2015].

19

would be restricted.122 Despite this TC electronic illustrated from 15 years of loudness research that current audio is far less dynamic than the public will tolerate, providing a Dynamic Range Tolerance (DRT) chart shown in Figure 9. DRT is defined as the average sound pressure level to prevent music from becoming annoying loud or soft. 123

122 Joan Serra` and others, ‘Measuring the Evolution of Contemporary Western Popular Music’, Scientific Reports 2 : 521, (2012). p. 5. 123 TC Electronic LM6/LM2 User Manual, TC Electronic A/S, 2012 <http://cdn-downloads.tcelectronic.com/media/224383/tc_electronic_lm2_lm6_plug-in_manual_english.pdf > [accessed 15th Nov 2014]. p. 6.

Figure 9. Dynamic Range Tolerance for consumers in different listening environments. Yellow–Headroom (peak) Green–Preferred Average Blue–Noise Floor

20

7. The Implications of Hyper-Compressed Music Acoustic Ecology

‘As a culture, we are becoming more used to loud noise’ Monita Chatterjee is a hearing specialist at the University of Maryland, College Park. ‘I really feel like we are pushing it.’124 The environment where the majority of people live in is growing louder with ever-expanding urbanisation. For the first time in history 54% of the total population live in urban areas, expected to grow to 66% by 2050.125 As our lives become increasingly urbanised we are at increased risk of exposure from louder sounds in these environments; these interfere and mask our ability to hear important sounds and music, especially for those of harder hearing. For this reason the author suggests there is direct correlation between increasing loudness in popular and commercially released music and increasing amplitude of sound and noise in human inhabited environments. Hyper-compression becomes an effective tool for overcoming masking, common in noisy lo-fi environments. Aesthetic Changes Does loudness variation contribute to how emotion is perceived in music? Hyper-compression has been criticised for causing a reduction in excitement and emotion for listeners.126 Research suggests variations in loudness levels produce an automatic emotion, with unexpected events heightening arousal with cognitive appraisal. 127 Arousal is an important component of emotional response and acoustic intensity has been found to be a major influence on perceived arousal in a wide range of musical contexts.128 Therefore loudness variation from intensity does contribute to the listening experience, providing important emotional cues that can be removed by hyper-compression. A Tragedy Of The Commons and Loudness Envy Loudness is inherently competitive. The fear a new release may not stand up to others and judged by impact is one that many record labels declare an unacceptable risk. For engineers, none compliance with hyper-compressed master requests can cost clients and business. In this respect this vicious circle of loudness envy and fear is comparable to the tragedy of the commons, an economic theory by Garrett Hardin. The theory states individuals working independently towards their own self-interests end up acting in conflicting ways to the interests of the whole group, depleting or damaging the common interest.129 In this case the group is the music industry and consumers. If individuals raise amplitude levels beyond the recommendations and 0dBFS limit, then others feel obliged to follow suit and eventually the common interest in music suffers. The mentality of aiming for absolute loudness can be likened to effective listening in search, known as the cocktail party effect. In a busy environment one must raise their voice above the ambient background talking and noise of others to be heard. As other individuals do this

124 Emery, Chris, Audio Gain In Volume Signals Loss For Listeners <http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2007-11-25/news/0711250027_1_hearing-loss-sound-engineer-seldon-plan> [accessed 27th Oct 2014]. 125 World’s Population Increasingly Urban With More Than Half Living In Urban Areas, 2014 <http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/population/world-urbanization-prospects-2014.html> [accessed 23rd Dec 2014]. 126 Bob Speer, Speer, Bob, What Happened To Dynamic Range?, 2001 <http://www.cdmasteringservices.com/dynamicrange.htm> [accessed 24th Feb 2015]. 127 Malachy Ronan, Robert Sazdov and Nicholas Ward ‘Loudness Normalisation: Paradigm Shift or Placebo for the Use of Hyper-Compression in Pop Music?’, Proceedings ICMC SMC Athens, Greece, (2014). p. 922. 128 Roger T. Dean, Freya Bailes, and Emery Schubert, ‘Acoustic Intensity Causes Perceived Changes in Arousal Levels in Music: An Experimental Investigation’, PLoS ONE, April 2011, Volume 6, Issue 4, (2011). p. 7. 129 Garrett Hardin,‘The Tragedy of the Commons’ Science, New Series, Vol. 162, No. 3859, 1968). p. 1244.

21

consciously or subconsciously to be heard also, the combined amplitude level of the room raises exponentially.130 In this sense, discerning information (Record A, your record) is distinguished and heard from conflicting background noise (Record B, the competition). Listening Fatigue

Listening fatigue can be mental or physical and there exists a wide range of anecdotal evidence, however published studies on the topic are rare as it is particularly difficult to measure fatigue effectively. Physical fatigue could result from high intensity sound, causing outer hair damage known as mechanical cochlear fatigue. High loudness, which is perceptual, can suggest biochemical cochlear fatigue.131 A loud recording may initially sound impressive but it can quickly tire the auditory system in the same way a loud constant tone falls off with duration.132 A consequence of hyper-compressed music is the squashing of transients, containing useful information helping identify sounds and timbre.133 Suppose transients of a guitar are squashed with hyper-compression, it is highly probable the instrument could still be identified. However subtle changes in the timbre of onset transients may require the listener to invest more mental effort to perceive the same sound. In this sense, fatigue can discourage time spent listening to music, stated as the reason modern music does not have the listening longevity of older recordings.134 A 2009 study found increasing compression increased the time taken to complete a task perceiving independent sound sources within a complex signal. It suggested excessive amounts of compression reduce the ability to discriminate sounds, increasing listening effort and therefore the likelihood of fatigue.135 A different study suggested that due to the declining peak to loudness ratio (PLR) in popular music, younger generations will not hear or be able to distinguish transients. TC Electronic discovered most of their young employees were unable to distinguish between one track and another with a PLR of 6dB, 9dB, and even 12dB lower; described as ‘a language they’ve never learned’.136 Another idea behind the cause of fatigue from hyper-compressed music lies in a feature of cognitive processing, the detection of contrast. Loudness in a sound rapidly produces ‘habituation’, a psychological reaction. Repetitiveness in information theory is known as ‘redundancy’ that corresponds with the likelihood of predictability. A constant stimulus produces a reduction in the firing rate of neurons at the neurological level, meaning the detection of change is only effective when new information is presented.137 The brain therefore processes too much loudness as noise, or too little variation lacking stimulation from a constantly loud source to be cognitively fatiguing.138 Hearing Damage Hyper-compressed music contains louder average intensity levels than music with greater dynamic variation, with sound energy exposure cumulative to hearing damage.139 Listening at high levels when the average level of the music is already at near maximum may increase the chances of triggering the ear’s acoustic reflex, due to increased amounts of sound

130 Truax, Acoustic Communication, p. 97. 131 James D. (jj) Johnston, Listener Fatigue - Some Speculations,’ AES 125th Convention, San Francisco, CA, (2008) <www.aes-media.org/sections/pnw/ppt/jj/fatigue.ppt> [accessed 28th Feb 2015]. 132 Truax, Acoustic Communication, p. 139. 133 ibid., p. 142. 134 Chris Neal, Into The Red (Music and Musicians Jan/Feb 2010) p. 59. 135 Michael A. Stone, Brian C. J. Moore, Christian Fullgrabe ‘Multichannel Fast-Acting Dynamic Range Compression Hinders Performance by Young, Normal-Hearing Listeners in a Two-Talker Separation Task’, J. Audio Eng. Soc., Vol. 57, No. 7/8, (2009). p. 543. 136 Thomas Lund, ‘Audio for Mobile TV, iPad and iPod’ TC Electronic A/S, Risskov, Denmark, (2013). p. 3. 137 Truax, Acoustic Communication, p. 19. 138 Milner, Perfecting Sound Forever, p. 257. 139 Introduction and Hearing Damage <http://www.soundadvice.info/thewholestory/san1.htm> [accessed 24th Jan 2015].

22

pressure physically striking the eardrum.140 The acoustic reflex serves multiple functions when triggered; one of which attenuates sound primarily at low frequencies contracting the stapedius muscle. A consequence of this occurring is the likelihood a listener will turn up the level, compensating for the attenuation of mostly low frequencies that can cause a vicious circle of behaviour.141 Once exposure to high-level sound occurs for extended periods of time the perceived loudness is reduced, regardless of the acoustic reflex. This is identified as temporary loudness shift (TLS) and could also contribute to the listener raising the level.142 At low listening levels these concerns would not be relevant except research worryingly suggests most adolescents play music on portable devices at the maximum level available.143 More risk of damage may also stem from a lack of breaks and rest periods in hyper-compressed music, where music with greater dynamic variation gives the ear more amplitude changes and resting time. Conversely compression can avoid uncontrolled high peaks that could also cause ear damage suggesting a balance between the two extremes is necessary for optimal, safe listening and enjoyment. More research is needed in this area except this would be ethically questionable, as subjects would likely sustain real hearing damage completing empirical studies. Action to limit sound levels in personal music devices sold in the EU after February 2013 was billed with the CENELEC EN 50332-1 act; an 85dB limit that aims to reduce hearing damage.144 Radio Airplay Garbage In Garbage Out (GIGO) describes how broadcast processors deal with a wide variety of audio source material. Voice-overs and speech, modern and old songs, commercials and jingles are all managed and processors cannot optimally treat hyper-compressed music alone. To achieve loud clarity and punch requires clean input source material. Distorted and clipped signals do not translate well when transmitted, resulting in an exaggerated degradation.145 Radio processing involves a phase rotator that changes the phase of speech removing asymmetry found mainly in the male voice. Phase rotators attenuate the peak to average ratio of a voice by up to 4dB, changing undesirable asymmetric waveforms into symmetric ones.146 Automatic Gain Control (AGC) corrects differing average levels and holds the attention of the audience.147 The problem arises when the AGC clamps down on offending high amplitude peaks, of which a hyper-compressed song is treated as one entire loud peak. The entire track becomes attenuated rather than just the highest peaks, leaving hyper-compressed material sounding weak and lifeless like in the case of Scar Tissue by The Red Hot Chilli Peppers.148 Distortion and Clipping Artifacts Distortion quickly builds up in the signal chain of recordings with a further 20% typically added from reproduction or distribution.149 Lossy data reduction codecs such as MP3 and 140 Milner, Perfecting Sound Forever, p. 257. 141 Howard and Angus, Acoustics & Psychoacoustics p. 96. 142 Mary Florentine, Loudness (Springer; 2011 ed, 2011) pp. 92-93. 143 Ineke Vogel and others, 'MP3 Players and Hearing Loss: Adolescents’ Perceptions of Loud Music and Hearing Conservation', The Journal of Pediatrics, (2008). p. 400. 144 EU Standards for Personal Music Players <http://www.actiononhearingloss.org.uk/your-hearing/tinnitus/eu-standards-for-personal-music-players.aspx> [accessed 17th Nov 2014]. 145 Robert Orban, Frank Foti, ‘Radio Ready: The Truth’ in Mastering Audio, The Art And The Science ed. by Bob Katz, (Focal Press, 2007). p. 274. 146 Martin Wolters, Tuning Your Talent’s Voice Tutorial On Speech Processing For Broadcasting (Cutting Edge Cleveland, Ohio) p. 5. 147 Robert Orban, Frank Foti, ‘Radio Ready: The Truth’ in Mastering Audio, The Art And The Science ed. by Bob Katz, (Focal Press, 2007). p. 275. 148 Milner, Perfecting Sound Forever, p. 238. 149 Thomas Lund, Bad News For The War (Resolution Magazine, 2012) p. 64.

23

AAC audibly clip when attempting to encode hyper-compressed 0dBFS+ lossless formats.150 Sample rate converters in computer sound cards and consumer playback devices do not handle levels close to 0dBFS+ accurately or transparently.151 Clipping describes distorted audio from inter-sample peaks, reaching beyond the absolute maximum 0dBFS of a digital system. Only floating point systems are immune to such problems and exceeding this limit clips off waveform peaks causing a change in frequency and timbre.152 Figure 10 illustrates waveform clipping for The Red Hot Chili Pepper’s Get On Top. Recent research suggested clipping was a sound design technique and not a mastering problem.153 The author disagrees if clipping is introduced into the mastering stage without artists consent. New York mastering studios were deliberately clipping known as ‘shedding’, a potential influence from the city’s already highly compressed and loud radio station market.154

Innovation Hyper-compression ended the ability to use loudness as a means of defining musical structure, instead encouraging new ways of thinking to achieve a similar effect. Alternative music in the early 1990s would often use loudness as a technique to differentiate between the verse and chorus, where the chorus was generally engineered to receive more of the focus.155 Engineers found they were able to create the impression of a bigger sounding chorus by expanding the sound stage and frequency range available in comparison to the verse beforehand.156

150 Thomas Lund, Level And Distortion In Digital Broadcasting (EBU Technical Review April, 2007), p. 4. 151 Søren H. Nielsen, Thomas Lund, ‘Overload In Signal Conversion’, J. Audio Eng. Soc., 23rd International Conference: Signal Processing in Audio Recording and Reproduction, (2003). p. 5. 152 Owsinski, The Mastering Engineer’s Handbook p. 255. 153 Deruty and Tardieu, ‘About Dynamic Processing in Mainstream Music’ p. 47. 154 Milner, Perfecting Sound Forever, p. 254. 155 Jesse Lawson, The Compression and Expansion of Musical Experience In The Digital Age (Master Thesis, The University of Vermont, 2008) p. 23. 156 Ronan, ‘Loudness Normalisation: Paradigm Shift or Placebo for the Use of Hyper-Compression in Pop Music? p. 925.

Figure 10. Waveform of a 16Bit 44,100Hz CD rip of The Red Hot Chilli Peppers-Get On Top illustrating clipping.

24

9. Reducing Excessive Loudness in Mastering and Broadcast Loudness Normalisation Loudness normalisation has been hailed as an audio revolution, establishing predictable methods to measure the perceived strength of all forms of audio content.157 The film industry in the mid 1970s had Dolby’s 83dB SPL reference standard for magnetic film that permitted wide dynamic recordings.158 A standardised reference approach was missing in the music industry despite early efforts to recommend -18dBFS as the peak limit for CDs.159 Normalisation has the potential to solve the imbalance between differing loudness levels, removing competitive advantage. It replaces peak normalisation instead using average program loudness and adjusting the playback between content to match. Research suggests ReplayGain was the first major implementation of normalisation for music in 2001.160 The technology is now utilised across many popular streaming music services such as iTunes radio, Pandora, Spotify, and DAB radio. 161 In March 2015, Youtube implemented the first stages of normalisation on a selection of popular videos; this is expected to feature site wide across all content soon.162 A similar concept auto gain is used in DJ software such as Native Instruments Traktor and Serato.163 Dolby Volume takes loudness contours of the ear into consideration at different playback levels.164 Apple iTunes, Windows Media Player and VLC player all offer forms of normalisation except none are currently turned on by default, which would speed up the use of the technology. The importance of this technology is the majority of music is now consumed using online streaming and loudness normalisation controlling the perceived loudness nullifies the need to master purely for the sake of being louder than others. The competition element is mostly removed from the industry, as there is no loudness advantage. Hyper-compression before normalisation results in audio suffering from broadcast artifacts typically associated with it, sounding worse off in comparison to more dynamic music to most listeners. Therefore, if the loudness paradigm is no longer an attribute to judge records, perhaps it will promote a greater awareness of sound quality aspects in music like that of audiophile enthusiasts. This may help shift a change from the wide spread use of compressed formats in favour of uncompressed, especially with storage space becoming larger and cheaper. New Descriptors, Standards, Acts and Recommendations There are many new descriptors that have been introduced along with several standards and recommendations that aim to solve some of the problems discussed throughout this dissertation. See Appendix 1. New Metering Systems

True Peak Meter

157 Florian Camerer ‘On The Way To Loudness Nirvana, Audio Leveling With EBU R128’, EBU Technical Review Q3, (2010). p. 1. 158 Katz, ‘Integrated Approach to Metering, Monitoring, and Levelling Practices Part 1: Two-Channel Metering’ p. 802. 159 Milner, Perfecting Sound Forever, p. 264. 160 ReplayGain <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReplayGain> [accessed 17th Feb 2015]. 161 MasterCheck, <https://www.nugenaudio.com/mastercheck-playout-loudness-and-dynamics-metering-aax-au-vst_41> [accessed 18th Feb 2015]. 162 Ian Shepard, YouTube loudness normalisation – The Good, The Questions and The Problem <http://productionadvice.co.uk/youtube-loudness-normalisation-details/> [accessed 31st Mar 2015]. 163 How does Autogain work? <http://serato.com/scratchlive/support/1299/how-does-autogain-work> [accessed 25th Feb 2015]. 164 Dolby® Volume: ‘An Innovative Solution to Inconsistent Volume Issues’, Dolby Volume for Home Theater Technical Paper, Dolby Laboratories, Inc., (2011). p. 3.

25

Designed to replace PPM meters by accurately displaying sample peaks using a 4x oversampling technique. This ensures no inter-sample peaks could exceed 0dBFS in the proceeding downstream signal chain in sample rate converters, data reduction codecs and playback devices.165

K System

Bob Katz proposed an integrated approach to metering, monitoring and level practices. The K System uses 0dB as a reference loudness that specifies the monitor gain required, marked around three quarters of the way down from the top of the meter. A reading over 0dB will go into +dB levels that is not 0dBFS, instead an indication of how much dynamic range compression must have been used. 0dBFS is at the very top of the scale, shown as +14 on the K14 scale for example. The K system offers 3x meter scales reflecting dynamic ranges suited to programme material. The 0dB reference is 20 dB below full scale for K20, 14dB below for K14 and 12dB below for K12. K20 is designed for wide dynamic range material like audiophile music, classical, and 5.1 surround. K14 is intended for moderately compressed commercial pop, rock and dance with K12 reserved for broadcast.

TT Dynamic Range Meter and database The Pleasurize Music Foundation developed this open source software supporting the K system. The value is presented as a whole number given in decibels, aiming to represent an easy to understand and standardised manner of compression used in released music.166 Calculations analysed by the offline TT software are available to view on a website database http://dr.loudness-war.info/ which includes thousands of music entries.

Metering Plug–Ins Software is increasingly available for DAWs that accurately measures loudness to ITU-R BS.1770 international broadcast standards. Loudness can now be monitored and considered earlier on in the production process rather than being left an afterthought. In March 2015, iZotope announced new software Loudness Control that easily and automatically creates high quality, industry-compliant mixes.167 Other software includes:

Ian Shepherd's Perception Nugen Audio MasterCheck and VisLM Waves Audio WLM Plus and Dorrough Meter TC Electronic LM6

Education and Awareness, The Push For Change Various websites and organisations have been established in the quest for change, some of the leading sources of information and advice are:

http://dr.loudness-war.info/ http://dynamicrangeday.co.uk/ http://music-loudness.com http://turnmeup.org/

165 TC Electronic LM6/LM2 User Manual, TC Electronic A/S, 2012 <http://cdn-downloads.tcelectronic.com/media/224383/tc_electronic_lm2_lm6_plug-in_manual_english.pdf > [accessed 15th Nov 2014]. p. 10. 166 Our Aim <http://www.pleasurizemusic.com/en/our-aim> [accessed 2nd Nov 2014]. 167 RX Loudness Control <https://www.izotope.com/en/products/post-production/rx-loudness-control/> [accessed 2nd Apr 2015].

26

The author believes education regarding loudness and hyper-compression can only be a positive step for change, especially for the next generation of aspiring young professionals with open access to information, software and DIY culture offered by the digital revolution. Music is created and distributed in ways that were previously impossible and audio mastering is increasingly undertaken by the artist. This DIY approach has benefits like cost savings and maintaining full artistic control but it also runs the risk of a reduction in professional audio quality, amongst other problems like emotional attachment. New online services like LANDR offer algorithmic mastering performed by a computer, the free version provides no control over loudness intensity with only the paid subscription offering this flexibility.168,169 It has been suggested that paradoxically some modern recordings have less substance from increasing antiseptic production means, therefore it is essential to educate younger aspiring professionals about the pressures and issues of the loudness war.170 Rip Rowan author of Over The Limit 1 and 2 believes attempting to convince the listener louder is not better will not work when the listener is not to blame. He suggests a consumer-based approach would only work if different forms of mastering were offered, except this is rare in practice especially from bigger distributors and record outlets. Only a small handful of artists and labels offer this to fans, like Trent Reznor.171 Despite this a 2014 study concluded people not specifically educated regarding compression and therefore un-trained listeners, preferred higher amounts of compression than those who were trained.172 From this view, education does help to reduce hyper-compression or at least make people more aware of the effects. The Mastered For iTunes recommendation from Apple is an example of how companies can help educate their users, by publishing advice on how to avoid clipping artifacts in AAC encoded files uploaded to the iTunes store.173 The Future The author predicts loudness normalisation will be available for every audio playback system in the future. An application for the positive use of hyper-compression in popular lo-fi listening environments would be the use of built in digital signal processing (DSP) in portable devices. Dynamic range compression could be utilised alongside loudness normalisation with DSP analysing tracks; anything not considered hyper-compressed based on a threshold would be non-destructively hyper-compressed in real-time. This would make dynamic music temporarily more audible and dynamically consistent against masking in lo-fi environments. Using a microphone to intelligently monitor the current ambient noise level around the listener, it would be possible to dynamically optimise and adjust the compression amount to the fluctuating listening environment, similar to noise cancelling technology. This way processing would be minimized or disabled whilst in hi-fi listening environments, leaving music as originally intended. It could take into account equal loudness contours and also adjust the frequency balance dependant on listening volume, similar to Dolby Volume.

168 LANDR <https://www.landr.com/> [accessed 2nd March 2015]. 169 Ian Shepard, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAiiHritYfo> 1:58 min [accessed 2nd March 2015]. 170 David Flitner, Less Noise More Soul (Backbeat Books, 2013) pp. 35-36. 171 Synthhead, Trent Reznor Fights The Loudness Wars, Offers ‘Loud’ & ‘Audiophile’ Masters Of Hesitation Marks, 2013 <http://www.synthtopia.com/content/2013/08/28/trent-reznor-fights-the-loudness-wars-offers-loud-audiophile-masters-of-hesitation-marks/> [accessed 15th Feb 2015]. 172 Robert W. Taylor, William L. Martens ‘Hyper-compression in Music Production: Listener Preferences on Dynamic Range Reduction’ AES 136th Convention, Berlin, Germany, April 26-29, (2014). p. 8. 173 Mastered for iTunes: Music as the Artist and Sound Engineer Intended <https://www.apple.com/euro/itunes/mastered-for-itunes/docs/mastered_for_itunes.pdf> [accessed 27th Feb 2015].

27

9. Primary Research Summary and Final Conclusion The author conducted a primary research questionnaire with 15 questions; 11 quantitative and 4 qualitative, relating to the most important issues discussed in this paper. Particular focus was aimed at discovering what mastering engineers thought about loudness normalisation. 32 engineers took part and were contacted by email, researching companies and freelancers with some personal professional mastering contacts of the author. The majority of participants came from expressing their interest on a post on the popular web pro-audio forum gearslutz. The questionnaire was sent to engineers with verified mastering credentials via private message. This method maintained a high data quality with the full answer results from participants found in Appendix 3 with additional author comments and charts. The more important results regarding the focus of the questionnaire are discussed here. All 32 engineers were aware of iTunes Sound Check and other loudness normalisation technologies. When asked if they thought these are helping to reduce the desire and market of excessively loud masters, 17 (53%) agreed. At just over half in favour, the author did expect this to be significantly higher with engineers seeming skeptical regarding its influence on the industry.

When asked how long it would take to see a reduction in the desire for excessively loud masters in the industry, 7 (37%) stated Other as the majority. This does not give an indication of preference and should not have been included, despite having a separate answer line for elaborating. I would interpret this majority as engineers being agreeable for normalisation reducing excessively loud masters but unsure of specifying a time scale. Logic would suggest if this were not true the Never option would have been stated where only 2 (11%) agreed with Never. Overall I believe these results to indicate that normalisation is creating a reduction in excessively loud masters but the time scale is difficult to be confident about.

Figure 11. Engineers who agreed and disagreed that loudness normalisation is helping to reduce the desire and market for excessively loud masters.

28

Figure 12. Results of how long engineers thought it would take to see a reduction in the desire for excessively loud masters in the industry.

Bob Katz stated he believed loudness normalisation turned on by default in media based players would mean the loudness war would be made obsolete and end the practice.174 The majority of 14 (44%) did not agree, slightly conflicting with 17 (53%) who originally stated they believed the technology is helping to reduce the demand for loudness. Only 10 (31%) of people were agreeable that leaves the rest very sceptical.

To conclude the primary research highlights, the author was disappointed regarding the lack of support from engineers towards normalisation being key to ending the loudness war. This could be a result of engineers knowing their client base first hand and scepticism regarding challenging out-dated associations of the ‘louder is better’ paradigm in music. Despite this more than half of engineers had faith in normalisation providing some degree of effectiveness to reducing excessive loudness and hyper-compression. Other research suggests there has been a steady reduction in hyper-compression since 2004 also agreeable with comments found in question 5 from Appendix 3 ‘the worst days are already over’ and ‘generally it's improving’.175 All that is needed now is for loudness normalisation functions currently available in popular media player software to be turned on by default and hopefully this will happen soon. The author believes within the next few years, hyper-compression will be an aesthetic choice rather than commercial necessary. 174 The Loudness War Has Been Won: Press Release <http://www.digido.com/forum/announcement/id-6.html> [accessed 2nd Apr 2015]. 175 Deruty and Tardieu, ‘About Dynamic Processing in Mainstream Music’ p. 54.

Figure 13. Results of whether Loudness Normalization technologies turned on by default in media based players would mean the loudness war would have a strong enough reason to end.

29

Final Conclusion The non-linear response of the ear and psychoacoustic loudness paradigm has caused incremental shifts towards greater loudness, achieved through technological developments and hyper-compression. The primitively intrinsic desire for loudness serves excitement, pleasure and reward, dominating aural spaces and environments, becoming stronger when experienced at higher intensities. In the beginning of sound reproduction loudness was necessity before choice, with the goal for accurate reproduction and a dynamic range that could match acoustic performances with the fidelity of human hearing. VU and PPM meters are vastly misunderstood whilst broadcast techniques for manipulating loudness prevailed in the digital studio, changing the sound and aesthetics of music. Modern musical equipment like microphones output more level gain than models of the past. Popular commercial music has been the biggest adopter of hyper-compression, whilst its capitalist dominance more conservatively affected other genres like classical and jazz. The re-mastered CD became a marketing gimmick, saturated with over processed amplitude and equalisation enhancements. The commercial impetus for loud recordings selling more is unjust with the dynamic range tolerance of listeners already far exceeded in most cases. Living environments are getting louder and as a consequence its no coincidence that commercial music has been forced to compete. Listening habits have radically changed where hyper-compressed music with limited dynamics is now more effective for portable device playback in lo-fi environments. The implications of hyper-compression as a means to achieve maximum loudness are clear; distortion, lack of dynamics and power, fatigue, broadcast artefacts, a tragedy of the commons industry mentality and the vicious self-perpetuating circle it promotes. The higher likelihood of exposing ones self to higher average amplitude levels and increased risk of hearing damage is a real concern but difficult to prove and research effectively. Hyper-compression is quick to excite listeners but it lacks longevity and substance by removing dynamics and loudness cues, not as the artist intended. In small cases this modification of released and broadcast music since the digital age may have provided younger listeners with a preferred aesthetic, despite trained listeners preferring reduced compression. There are examples where hyper-compression has positively affected innovation or could help over come masking in lo-fi environments in the correct circumstances; however, the negative impact of increasing loudness in music far outweigh these. Promoting change in a ‘malfunctioning’ acoustic system requires three steps, listening and critical evaluation, preservation and protection and the design of alternatives. 176 This analogy summarises the findings of this dissertation; listening and critical evaluation have taken place through research, audiences do not want music that has been compromised or be subject to adverts louder than accompanying programmes. Preservation is problematic for past eras of music already damaged by hyper-compression, without original recordings the quality cannot be reconstructed; only a reduction can help preserve future musical heritage as originally intended. The protection of future music content is already occurring with EBU R128 loudness normalisation, new standards and updated technology becoming more standardised like true peak metering. New tools and plug-ins for post-production are positively encouraging as new loudness standards become integrated into the early creation stages of production; this encourages the practice of safe and responsible loudness monitoring earlier on in the production process. The design of alternatives in the industry like new acts and standards are having a big enough reduction effect, with loudness normalisation becoming the ever-growing key reason to abandon hyper-compression all together. The final step for normalisation to really exert power is for it to become enabled by default in music software and hopefully that is soon to come.

176 Truax, Acoustic Communication, p. 106.

30

Bibliography Azerrad, Michael, Disintegration <http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/disintegration-19890713> [accessed 26th Sept 2014]. Blesser, Barry, ‘The Seductive (Yet Destructive) Appeal Of Loud Music’ (eContact! 9.4 — Perte auditive et sujets connexes / Hearing (Loss) and Related Issues. Montréal: Communauté électroacoustique canadienne / Canadian Electroacoustic Community, (2007). Blesser, Barry, ‘The Unexamined Rewards For Excessive Loudness’, Communications: 9th International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem, ICBEN, Foxwoods, CT, (2008). Blesser, Barry, Linda-Ruth Salter, Spaces Speak, Are You Listening? Experiencing Aural Architecture, (MIT Press, 2007) <http://www.blesser.net/spacesSpeak.html> [accessed 19th Dec 2014]. Blood, Anne J., Robert J. Zatorre, ‘Intensely Pleasurable Responses to Music Correlate with Activity in Brain Regions Implicated with Reward and Emotion’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98, (2001). Camerer, Florian, ‘Loudness Normalisation: � The Future of File-Based Playback’ Music Loudness Alliance, (2012). Camerer, Florian, ‘On The Way To Loudness Nirvana, Audio Leveling With EBU R128’, EBU Technical Review Q3, (2010). Clark, Mark H., Magnetic Recording: The First 100 Years ed. by Eric D. Daniel, (Wiley-IEEE Press, 1998). Collins, Tristan, Dynamic Range Analysis 1970-present <http://www.tristancollins.me/computing/dynamic-range-analysis/> [accessed 29th Dec 2014]. Cousins, Mark, Russ Hepworth-Sawyer, Practical Mastering (Focal Press, 2013). Dean, Roger T., Freya Bailes and Emery Schubert, ‘Acoustic Intensity Causes Perceived Changes in Arousal Levels in Music: An Experimental Investigation’, PLoS ONE, April 2011, Volume 6, Issue 4, (2011). Deruty, Emmanuel, Damien Tardieu, ‘About Dynamic Processing in Mainstream Music’, J. Audio Eng. Soc., Vol. 62, No. 1/2, (2014). Deruty, Emmanuel, 'Dynamic Range' & The Loudness War, 2011 <http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep11/articles/loudness.htm#para10> [accessed 11th Jan 2015]. Devine, Kyle, ‘Imperfect Sound Forever: Loudness Wars, Listening Formations And The History Of Sound Reproduction’, Popular Music, 32, (2013). Dolby® Volume: ‘An Innovative Solution to Inconsistent Volume Issues’, Dolby Volume for Home Theater Technical Paper, Dolby Laboratories, Inc., (2011).

31

Dougherty, Dale, The Sizzling Sound of Music, 2009 <http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/03/the-sizzling-sound-of-music.html> [accessed 27th Feb 2015]. Dynamic Range Database <http://dr.loudness-war.info/> [accessed 27th Jan 2015]. Dynamic Range Day < http://dynamicrangeday.co.uk/> [accessed 24th Feb 2015]. EBU R 128-2014 Loudness Normalisation and Permitted Maximum Level of Audio Signals, Geneva June 2014 <https://tech.ebu.ch/loudness> [accessed 14th Dec 2014]. EBU - TECH 3341 Loudness Metering: ‘EBU Mode’ metering to supplement loudness normalisation in accordance with EBU R 128, Geneva August 2011 <https://tech.ebu.ch/loudness> [accessed 29th Nov 2014]. Elsworthy, J., H. Waring, ‘The Effects of Music Tempo and Loudness on Treadmill Exercise’, Ergonomics 49:15 (2006). Emerick, Geoff, Here, There and Everywhere: My Life Recording the Music of the Beatles (Gotham Books, 2006). Emery, Chris, Audio Gain In Volume Signals Loss For Listeners <http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2007-11-25/news/0711250027_1_hearing-loss-sound-engineer-seldon-plan> [accessed 27th Oct 2014]. E Series Legacy <http://www.solid-state-logic.com/music/Xlogic%20E%20Signature%20Channel/history.asp> [accessed 16th Oct 2014]. EU Standards for Personal Music Players <http://www.actiononhearingloss.org.uk/your-hearing/tinnitus/eu-standards-for-personal-music-players.aspx> [accessed 17th Nov 2014]. Feaster, Patrick, “The Following Record” Making Sense Of Phonographic Performance, 1877-1908 (Unpublished PhD Thesis, Indiana University, 2007). Flitner, David, Less Noise More Soul (Backbeat Books, 2013). Florentine, Mary, Loudness (Springer; 2011 ed, 2011). Giger, Thomas, How To Give Your Station An Amazing On-Air Sound (Pt. 2) <http://www.radioiloveit.com/radio-production-radio-jingles-radio-imaging/omnia-radio-sound-processor-and-audio-signal-processing-tips/> [accessed 27th Feb 2015]. Giger, Thomas, How To Give Your Station An Amazing On-Air Sound (Pt. 4) <http://www.radioiloveit.com/radio-production-radio-jingles-radio-imaging/frank-foti-omnia-telos-alliance-on-audio-processing-1/> [accessed 9th Dec 2014]. Goodman, Steve, Sound, Affect, And The Ecology Of Fear (MIT Press, 2012).

32

Half Speed Mastering <http://www.abbeyroad.com/News/Article/322/Half-speed-mastering-dubnobasswithmyheadman> [accessed 30th Mar 2015]. Hardin, Garrett, ‘The Tragedy of the Commons’ Science, New Series, Vol. 162, No. 3859, 1968). Hodgson, Jay, Understanding Records: A Field Guide To Recording Practice (Continuum, 2010). Howard David M., and James Angus, Acoustics & Psychoacoustics (Focal Press, 2001). How does Autogain work? <http://serato.com/scratchlive/support/1299/how-does-autogain-work> [accessed 25th Feb 2015]. How To Make It <http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/09/20/how-to-make-it> [accessed 31st Mar 2015]. Huber, David Miles., and Robert E. Runstein, Modern Recording Techniques (Focal Press, 2007). Ian, Re-Mix or Remaster Death Magnetic!, 2008 <http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/re-mix-or-remaster-death-magnetic.html> [accessed 29th Dec 2014]. Inglis, Sam, Why are manufacturers constantly opening up new fronts in the loudness war?, 2013 <http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jan13/articles/sounding-off-0113.htm> [accessed 14th Dec 2014]. Introduction and Hearing Damage <http://www.soundadvice.info/thewholestory/san1.htm> [accessed 24th Jan 2015]. Jackson, Michael - Black Or White <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war#/media/File:Michael_Jackson-Black_or_White_Loudness.png> [accessed 31st Mar 2015]. J.Heller, Eric, Why You Hear What You Hear: An Experiential Approach To Sound, Music, And Psychoacoustics (Princeton University Press, 2013). Johnston, James D. (jj), Listener Fatigue – Some Speculations,’ AES 125th Convention, San Francisco, CA, (2008) <www.aes-media.org/sections/pnw/ppt/jj/fatigue.ppt> [accessed 28th Feb 2015]. Jones, Sarah, The Big Squeeze, 2005 <http://www.mixonline.com/news/profiles/big-squeeze/365580> [accessed 2nd Jan 2015]. Katz, Bob, ‘Integrated Approach to Metering, Monitoring, and Levelling Practices Part 1: Two-Channel Metering’, J. Audio Eng. Soc., Vol. 48, No.9, (2000). Katz, Bob, Loudness: War & Peace <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9Fb3rWNWDA> [accessed 20th Feb 2015].

33

Katz, Bob, Mastering Audio, The Art And The Science (Focal Press, Second ed. 2007) LANDR <https://www.landr.com/> [accessed 2nd March 2015]. Lawson, Jesse, The Compression and Expansion of Musical Experience In The Digital Age (Master Thesis, The University of Vermont, 2008). Literature & Glossary <http://www.tcelectronic.com/loudness/literature-glossary/> [accessed 31st Mar 2015]. Loud Commercials <http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/loud-commercials> [accessed 6th Feb 2015]. Loudness Level <http://www.sfu.ca/sonic-studio/handbook/Loudness_Level.html> [accessed 30th Mar 2015]. Loudness War <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war> [accessed 17 Sept 2014]. ‘Loudness War’ Google Search Term <http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=loudness%20war> [accessed 30th Sept 2014]. Ludwig, Bob, ‘The Loudness Wars: Musical Dynamics Verse Volume’ in Less Noise More Soul ed. by David Flitner, (Backbeat Books, 2013) pp. 57–66. Lund, Thomas, ‘Audio for Mobile TV, iPad and iPod’ TC Electronic A/S, Risskov, Denmark, (2013). Lund, Thomas, Bad News For The War (Resolution Magazine, 2012). Lund, Thomas, Level And Distortion In Digital Broadcasting (EBU Technical Review April, 2007). MasterCheck, <https://www.nugenaudio.com/mastercheck-playout-loudness-and-dynamics-metering-aax-au-vst_41> [accessed 18th Feb 2015]. Mastered for iTunes: Music as the Artist and Sound Engineer Intended <https://www.apple.com/euro/itunes/mastered-for-itunes/docs/mastered_for_itunes.pdf> [accessed 27th Feb 2015]. Maximus <http://www.image-line.com/plugins/Effects/Maximus/> [accessed 29th Sept 2014]. McElhearn, Kirk, The Loudness Wars and Classical Music, 2014 <http://www.mcelhearn.com/the-loudness-wars-and-classical-music/> [accessed 25th Jan 2015]. Milner, Greg, Perfect Sound Forever (Faber and Faber, 2009). Moates, Grady, WCRB and the Classical Music Wars ed. by Barry Mishkind, Broadcasters’ Desktop Resource, 2011

34

<www.thebdr.net/articles/audio/proc/ClassicalAudio.pdf> [accessed 16th Dec 2014]. Model 310 DAP <http://www.dorrough.com/310dap.html> [accessed 23rd Oct 2014]. Music Loudness Alliance < http://music-loudness.com> [accessed 13rd Mar 2014]. Neal, Chris, Into The Red (Music and Musicians Jan/Feb, 2010). Nielsen, Søren H., Thomas Lund, ‘0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering’, TC Electronic A/S, Risskov, Denmark, (2000). Nielsen, Søren H., Thomas Lund, ‘Overload In Signal Conversion’, J. Audio Eng. Soc., 23rd International Conference: Signal Processing in Audio Recording and Reproduction, (2003). Ogonowski, Greg, Normalized Audio and 0dBFS+ Exposure, 2012 <http://www.indexcom.com/tech/0dBFS+/> [accessed 19th Nov 2014]. Olhsson, Bob <https://www.gearslutz.com/board/mastering-forum/425572-half-speed-mastering.html> [accessed 30th Mar 2015]. Optimod–FM Model 8000A Operating Manual <ftp://ftp.orban.com/8000A/8000A_Manual_r07.pdf> [accessed 23rd Oct 2014]. Orban, Robert, Frank Foti, ‘Radio Ready: The Truth’ in Mastering Audio, The Art And The Science ed. by Bob Katz, (Focal Press, 2007). Orban, Robert, Greg Ogonowski, Maintaining Audio Quality in the Broadcast/Netcast Facility (Orban Publications, 2014). Orban Timeline, Company Milestones <http://www.orban.com/about/timeline/> [accessed 17 Sept 2014]. Our Aim <http://www.pleasurizemusic.com/en/our-aim> [accessed 2nd Nov 2014]. Owsinski, Bobby, The Mastering Engineers Handbook (Cengage Learning, 2007). Peak Programme Meter <http://www.ips.org.uk/faq/index.php?title=Peak_Programme_Meter> [accessed 18th Oct 2014]. Phon <http://www.sfu.ca/sonic-studio/handbook/Phon.html> [accessed 30th Mar 2015]. Reitsma, Reineke, The Data Digest: Which Music Devices Do People Use? <http://blogs.forrester.com/reineke_reitsma/10-07-30-data_digest_which_music_devices_do_people_use> [accessed 11th Dec 2014]. ReplayGain <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReplayGain> [accessed 17th Feb 2015].

35

Rawool, Vishakha W., Lynda A. Colligon-Wayne, ‘Auditory lifestyles and beliefs related to hearing loss among college students in the USA’, Noise & Health Jan - March 10:38, 1–10, (2008). Robjohns, Hugh, Audio-Technica AT5040, 2012 <http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/dec12/articles/audio-technica-at5040.htm> [accessed 14th Dec 2014]. Robjohns, Hugh, Metering, 2000 <http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jun00/articles/metring.htm> [accessed 22nd Oct 2014]. Ronan, Malachy, Robert Sazdov, and Nicholas Ward, ‘Loudness Normalisation: Paradigm Shift or Placebo for the Use of Hyper-Compression in Pop Music?’, Proceedings ICMC SMC Athens, Greece, (2014). Rowan, Rip, Over The Limit <http://riprowan.com/over-the-limit/> [accessed 14th Jan 2015]. RX Loudness Control <https://www.izotope.com/en/products/post-production/rx-loudness-control/> [accessed 2nd Apr 2015].

Schlauch, Robert S, Ecological Psychoacoustics ed. by John G. Neuhoff, (Elsevier Academic Press, 2004). Serra` Joan, Alvaro Corral, Marian Boguna, Martın Haro and Josep Ll. Arcos, ‘Measuring the Evolution of Contemporary Western Popular Music’, Scientific Reports 2 : 521, (2012). Sharrock, Robin, The Loudness War <http://www.sharoma.com/loudness_war.htm> [accessed 27th Nov 2014]. Shepard, Ian, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAiiHritYfo> [accessed 2nd March 2015]. Shepard, Ian, STOP PRESS – Why the Loudness War HASN’T reduced ‘loudness range’ !, 2011 <http://productionadvice.co.uk/loudness-war-dynamic-range/> [accessed 13th Jan 2015]. Shepard, Ian, YouTube loudness normalisation – The Good, The Questions and The Problem, 2015 <http://productionadvice.co.uk/youtube-loudness-normalisation-details/> [accessed 31st Mar 2015]. Southall, Nick, Imperfect Sound Forever, 2006 <http://www.stylusmagazine.com/articles/weekly_article/imperfect-sound-forever.htm> [accessed 19th Nov 2014]. Speer, Bob, What Happened To Dynamic Range?, 2001 <http://www.cdmasteringservices.com/dynamicrange.htm> [accessed 12th Dec 2014]. Sreedhar, Suhas, The Future of Music, 2007 <http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/the-future-of-music> [accessed 29th Sept 2014].

36

Stone, Michael A., Brian C. J. Moore and Christian Fullgrabe, ‘Multichannel Fast-Acting Dynamic Range Compression Hinders Performance by Young, Normal-Hearing Listeners in a Two-Talker Separation Task’, J. Audio Eng. Soc., Vol. 57, No. 7/8, (2009). Switchable Studio Microphone U 87 Ai, Technical Data <https://www.neumann.com/?lang=en&id=current_microphones&cid=u87_data> [accessed 13th Oct 2014]. Synthhead, Trent Reznor Fights The Loudness Wars, Offers ‘Loud’ & ‘Audiophile’ Masters Of Hesitation Marks, 2013 <http://www.synthtopia.com/content/2013/08/28/trent-reznor-fights-the-loudness-wars-offers-loud-audiophile-masters-of-hesitation-marks/> [accessed 15th Feb 2015]. Taylor, Robert W., William L. Martens ‘Hyper-compression in Music Production: Listener Preferences on Dynamic Range Reduction’ AES 136th Convention, Berlin, Germany, April 26–29, (2014). p. 8 TC Electronic Finalizer Plus User Manual, TC Electronic A/S, 1996 <www.tcelectronic.com/media/.../tc-electronic-finalizer-plus-manual.pdf> [accessed 15th Nov 2014]. TC Electronic LM6/LM2 User Manual, TC Electronic A/S, 2012 <http://cdn-downloads.tcelectronic.com/media/224383/tc_electronic_lm2_lm6_plug-in_manual_english.pdf > [accessed 15th Nov 2014]. The Effect of Preference for Rock Music on Magnitude-Estimation Scaling Behavior in Young Adults. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8337062> [accessed 18th Nov 2014]. The Loudness War Has Been Won: Press Release <http://www.digido.com/forum/announcement/id-6.html> [accessed 2nd Apr 2015]. The Loudness Wars: Why Music Sounds Worse, 2009 <http://www.npr.org/2009/12/31/122114058/the-loudness-wars-why-music-sounds-worse> [accessed 15th Nov 2014]. Topping, Alexandra, Listen up: wearing headphones can endanger life, study finds, 2012 <http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/jan/16/headphones-can-endanger-life-study> [accessed 5th Jan 2014]. Todd, Neil McAngus., Frederick Cody, ‘Vestibular Responses to Loud Dance Music: A physiological basis for the ‘Rock and Roll threshold’?’, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 107:1, (2000). Tollerton, Richard, Waveform Plots Considered Harmful, 2008 <http://audiamorous.blogspot.co.uk/2008/09/waveform-plots-considered-harmful.html> [accessed 30th Nov 2014]. Truax, Barry, Acoustic Communication (Ablex Publishing, 2001).

37

Turn Me Up! <http://turnmeup.org/> [accessed 30th Mar 2015]. Van De Goor, LA, RA Knibbe, and MJ. Drop, ‘Adolescent Drinking Behavior: An Observational Study Of The Influence Of Situational Factors On Adolescent Drinking Rates’, Journal of Studies on Alcohol 51:6 pp. 548–55, (1990). Venus Records <http://www.eastwindimport.com/default.asp?categoryname=Venus+Records> [accessed 17th Jan 2014]. Vickers, Earl, ‘Do louder, Hypercompressed Recordings Sell Better?’, J. Audio Eng. Soc., Vol.59, No.5, May, (2011). Vickers, Earl, ‘The Loudness War: Background, Speculation and Recommendations’, AES 129th Convention, San Francisco, CA, USA, November 4-7, (2010). Viney, Dave, The Obsession With Compression (MPG Master’s Research Dissertation, London College of Music, 2008). Vinnicombe, Chris, BLOG: Death Magnetic sounds better in Guitar Hero, 2008 <http://www.musicradar.com/news/guitars/blog-death-magnetic-sounds-better-in-guitar-hero-173961> [accessed 29th Dec 2014]. Vogel, Ineke, Johannes Brug, Ester J. Hosli, Catharina P. B. Van Der Ploeg and Hein Raat 'MP3 Players and Hearing Loss: Adolescents’ Perceptions of Loud Music and Hearing Conservation', The Journal of Pediatrics, (2008). Westerkamp, Hildegard, Listening and Soundmaking: A Study of Music-As-Environment (Master of Arts Thesis, University of British Columbia, 1972). Williams, Richard, Phil Spector: Out of His Head (Omnibus Press, 2003). Wolters, Martin, Tuning Your Talent’s Voice Tutorial On Speech Processing For Broadcasting (Cutting Edge Cleveland, Ohio). World’s Population Increasingly Urban With More Than Half Living In Urban Areas, 2014 <http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/population/world-urbanization-prospects-2014.html> [accessed 23rd Dec 2014].

38

Appendix 1

New Descriptors

Loudness Range (LRA) As defined in the EBU3342 document, this measurement quantifies the statistical distribution of time varying loudness across programmes, excluding extremes. This is macro-dynamic and uses the units, LU (Loudness Units), where 1 LU is equivalent to 1dB.177 Loudness Range is supplementary to Programme Loudness, of EBU R 128.

Programme Loudness As defined in the ITU-R BS.1770 document, this measurement describes the long-term integrated loudness for a programme or content.178 Units are LUFS (Loudness Units Full Scale) where the target level for normalisation is -23 LUFS with a ±0.5 LU deviation, except for live programmes where ±1 LUFS is tolerated.179

HLSD High Level Sample Density Introduced in 2014 for measuring samples that are above -1dBFS after normalisation. It is a good measure of the amount of processing from a brickwall limiter present in an audio file.180

PRRC Peak to RMS Regression Coefficient Introduced in 2014 designed to describe micro-dynamics and replace ‘Crest Factor’. It measures the RMS and peak levels. If RMS and peak level evolve over time together then this would be a value close to 1. If the peak level were stable over time regardless of the RMS value then this would be closer to 0. This is intended to measure the amount of dynamic processing used on an audio file.181

Standards, Acts and Recommendations

-3dB limit Several recommendations have been published advising maximum peak levels to be kept under -3dB as a safe working level, avoiding any possible overloading of the signal chain.182,183

EBU R128 The new standard for broadcast. At first glance there seems to be many loudness standards introduced in the industry with EBU, ITU and ATSC. They happen to be very similar and can be understood in the following manner:

177 Camerer, ‘On The Way To Loudness Nirvana, Audio Leveling With EBU R128’ pp. 3–4. 178 ibid., pp. 3–4. 179 EBU R 128-2014 Loudness Normalisation and Permitted Maximum Level of Audio Signals, Geneva June 2014 <https://tech.ebu.ch/loudness> [accessed 14th Dec 2014]. 180 Deruty and Tardieu, ‘About Dynamic Processing in Mainstream Music’ p. 44. 181 ibid., pp. 44–45. 182 Soren H. Nielsen, Thomas Lund, ‘0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering’, TC Electronic A/S, Risskov, Denmark, (2000). p. 11. 183 Ogonowski, Greg, Normalized Audio and 0dBFS+ Exposure, 2012 <http://www.indexcom.com/tech/0dBFS+/> [accessed 19th Nov 2014].

39

ITU-R BS.1770 This is the principle metering algorithm description measuring loudness and true peak level for which the ATSC & EBU recommendations are based upon.

ITU-R BS.412

A standard for limiting modulation levels in radio broadcast where the average modulation is limited set by a power limit (MPX Power), which means there is no longer an advantage to clipping audio.184

ATSC A/85 RP Advanced Television Systems Committee’s Recommended Practice

Related to the CALM Act, this specification details how the CALM Act should be technically achieved.

EBU R128 Loudness Normalisation and Permitted Maximum Level of Audio Signals

R128 improves the ITU BS 1770 standard. Designed as a way to measure loudness and true peak level for programmes and music in mono, stereo or 5.1 surround. The EBU - TECH 3341 supplement details three time scales that any loudness meter can use for ‘EBU Mode’, momentary, short term and integrated.185 The EBU - TECH 3342 supplement documents Loudness Range and its computing algorithm.

CALM Act Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation

Requires commercials to have the same average loudness as the programmes they accompany. Effective since December 13th 2012, TV stations, cable, satellite providers and multichannel video programme distributors must apply the Advanced Television Systems Committee's (ATSC) A/85 Recommended Practice (ATSC A/85 RP) to commercial advertisements for transmission.186

184 Thomas Giger, How To Give Your Station An Amazing On-Air Sound (Pt. 2) <http://www.radioiloveit.com/radio-production-radio-jingles-radio-imaging/omnia-radio-sound-processor-and-audio-signal-processing-tips/> [accessed 27th Feb 2015]. 185 EBU - TECH 3341 Loudness Metering: ‘EBU Mode’ metering to supplement loudness normalisation in accordance with EBU R 128, Geneva August 2011 <https://tech.ebu.ch/loudness> [accessed 29th Nov 2014]. 186 Loud Commercials <http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/loud-commercials> [accessed 6th Feb 2015].

40

Appendix 2

Loudness in Music Questionnaire I would be grateful if you would complete this questionnaire, which aims to collect data from practicing mastering engineers. It should take 5-10 minutes to complete. The data will be used for a final-year research dissertation for BSc (hons) Music Technology (Sound for Media) at London Metropolitan University. All information you provide will be treated as confidential and will be presented anonymously. The dissertation focuses on whether increasing loudness in commercially released and broadcast music can and should be reduced, and what effects this might have on listeners and the audio community. Thank you for your help with this project.

1. Q1. Are you aware of the term ‘loudness war’? Mark only one oval.

Yes No

2. Q2. If you answered YES above, when did you become aware of the loudness war? (Please state a time period, for example 'the mid 90's' or '2005')

3. Q3. If you answered YES above, do you have any thoughts or reasons why you think the loudness war occurred?

4. Q4. Are you aware of the term ‘hyper-compression’?

No Yes

41

5. Q5. What are your general thoughts on the current dynamic range in commercial music being released and broadcast?

(Regardless of genre, do you think there isn't enough, its just right, there is too much etc)

6. Q6. When mastering the overall loudness of a track, how do you decide on the final loudness level? Check all that apply.

Using a reference track Using instinct and ear Using metering levels and visual inspection Using limitations of the recording medium as a benchmark Using a client’s specification request

7. Q7. Are you aware of iTunes Sound check and other loudness normalisation file playback technologies like ReplayGain and their function?

Mark only one oval.

No Yes Heard of one / both but don’t understand the purpose

8. Q8. If you answered YES above, do you think these technologies are helping to reduce the desire and market for excessively loud masters?

Mark only one oval.

Yes No

9. Q9. If you answered YES above, please state how long you think this will take to see a reduction in the desire for excessively loud masters in the industry?

Mark only one oval.

It is already having an effect on the industry reducing demand Around 1-3 months Around 4-6 months Around 6-12 months 1 Year 2 Years Never

Other:

42

10. Q10. Bob Katz stated he believed Loudness Normalisation technologies turned on by default in media based players mean the loudness war now has a strong enough reason to end, do you agree?

Mark only one oval.

Yes No Not sure

11. Q11. Do you ever get requests or have provided clients with multiple masters at different loudness levels? (For example, soft, medium, hot, clipped masters) Mark only one oval.

Yes

No

12. Q12. If you answered YES above, please specify what you provided?

13. Q13. Has a client ever asked for more volume or loudness in a master awaiting their approval? Mark only one oval.

No Yes

14. Q14. Have you mastered music louder than your personal and professional judgment, in order to satisfy a client?

Mark only one oval. No Yes

15. Q15. Has a client ever asked for a reduction in the overall loudness of masters awaiting their approval? Mark only one oval.

Yes No

43

Appendix 3

Loudness in Music Questionnaire-Complete Results Q1. Are you aware of the term ‘loudness war’? Unsurprisingly and reassuringly, all 32 engineers knew about the term ‘Loudness War’ in the introduction question. Q2. If you answered YES above, when did you become aware of the loudness war? This question aimed to provide a background on when engineers became aware of the issue themselves. The majority stated the year 2000 compared to 2007, from the Google Trends result that aimed to provide the public’s own awareness of the term.

Q3. If you answered YES above, do you have any thoughts or reasons why you think the loudness war occurred? Recording Artists wanted to get noticed. One way to do that was to be louder than anyone else. But when everyone became loud there was no difference. A silly idea. To increase radio play in order to sell more albums people believing rightly or wrongly that it's better for their music to be louder than someone else's for either commercial or artistic advantage In my opinion the advent of CD was the main cause of this volume increment. Having a strict limit (0dBFS), but no physical limitations, such as high frequency distortion or needle skipping, the Mastering Engineers started this challenge against the "0dB", and having no possibilities to pass through it, they started push the RMS level increasingly, and in the same time making the sound always brighter in order to raise the volume perception. After 20 years we are starting to recognize that we lost the purity of music to win this challenge. Mainly because Indie and Rock bands + their Producer/Engineer began seeking the possibility of making their album louder than other competing albums. This was so that the listener would be fooled into believing that if the CD they were playing was louder than the previous one it was obviously better because of that instant impression that it's firing out the speakers with more volume and presence. A loud release has a greater sonic impact than a quiet one, which is arguably what record companies need to sell their music. because people are essentially cavemen, and equate loudness with cock size.... louder tracks are perceived by the casual listener to command more of their attention and to stand out from the other tracks. A 45 rms single in a juke box that was louder than the other singles stood out in the bar. A listeners attention is drawn to louder song. The advent of portable music devices such as the walkman and later the iPod provided people with a way of getting their music out and about. To this end, many people were listening on awfully isolated earbuds in noisy environments, resulting in a need to constantly adjust the volume so that quiet parts of the song can be heard and loud parts aren't too loud. Furthermore,

44

it also seemed to stem from the trend of wanting to sound 'best' on the radio, contributed to by a seemingly industry-wide misunderstanding of how broadcast processing works. Because louder tends to sound better to most people. It has been going on since the 50's. Vinyl was cut as loud as physically possible. Because commercial music listeners get higher "impact" from louder records, so producers ask for that. Yes they confused volume with power. I think a lot of listeners don't think and debate about what the loudness-war means for the quality of the music, or of their music... they don't think about transients, loosing bass or getting harsh sounding sounds with over-compressed stuff. It is just that loud can impress many people... louder sounds better in direct comparisons Digital PCM has a fundamental loudness barrier, 0 dBFS this was not so the case with vinyl not tape although tape started to compress and squeeze up the hotter it was recorded. Vinyl does not do this on the other hand. Digital could not compete with the loudness of a loud vinyl cut unless compression and limiting was employed. Most people prefer a louder sounder track as opposed to a quieter one even though if both tracks were given even grounds the quieter one wins hands down.. its a state of mind... from an artists stand point they feel they need to compete with other artists sounds, if there's isn't as loud they can feel inferior. Also A/R meetings with bands etc the louder tracks will stand out more then a much quieter dynamic track. Our brains get a thrill out of loud noises. It's often been said but people used to try and get the loudest record in the jukebox, but there were physical limitations of the medium. As digital limiters have got better and better we've been able to push things further and further. The loudness war is nothing new, brickwall limiters are just the equivalent of the H-bomb (to stretch the military analogy). Mainly because louder is better; a small increase in loudness is enough to convince people that something sounds better. The listening public do not carry out controlled A/B tests of their audio... and nor do many mastering engineers. I always carry out controlled A/B tests on my masters, using a Crookwood mastering console which allows you to trim the gains so that both A and B are of equal loudness. I am a firm believer that this sort of testing should be available to everyone, which is why I convinced Dave gamble at DMG Audio to create Dualism, the first plug in of its kind, which allows you to carry out controlled A/B tests using the side chain function of your DAW (if it has it). It started back in the early days of radio rating schemes. Statistically, people flipping through stations would pause longer on louder stations before moving onto the next. It came back as a child's game when CDs became mainstream. I.E. An artist with a lot of say in his record deal says "hey, can you make my album as loud as 'this' guy's?". Since he's successful, everybody else wants the same, till eventually, the record labels themselves demand it. As a direct result of the availability of brick wall digital limiters Occurred from different sources and reasons. For Radio competition. For Record Labels competition. I think it's driven by many areas in recording process. However as a musician as well as a mastering, in the mid nineties we wanted our own records to stand up to other commercial releases. So while it is driven also by the marketing and wanting to deliver louder tracks to radio and program directors, I think musicians want their tracks as loud, if not louder than other current releases. Originally it was so that people could perceive advantage over Their rivals tracks on the radio Mainly the fear of artists, producers, record labels and engineers that their work would sound "weak" when played alongside "louder" tracks. I use the quotation marks because loudness is really determined by the playback volume, and not the amount of limiting applied. to catch listener's attention on playback device. In my opinion the term "war" is misleading since there has always been the ambition to cut the loudest vinyl master as possible for good reasons. This ambition has then been inherited in the digital domain with less good reasons. As long as technology makes it possible, people will use or misuse it. People just want their tracks louder than the others because at a first glance, louder seems better. I think it's always been the case that music has been fighting for level in automated players such as Juke Boxes Insecurity. Pretty simple I think. Artists, labels and probably even certain audio engineers realized that making an album louder than others would initially make the album come across as more powerful and more attention grabbing to listeners. Over time as people kept trying to make there albums louder than the competition this increased the loudness of albums and thus created the loudness war. Competition within a capitalist system. Advancements in music production technology at a more affordable price, especially in the digital domain. Loudness = Better, psychologically.

45

The results suggest a school of thought in four main areas; loudness provides more attention, increased radio airplay and commercial advantage, format changes and the increased access to digital brick wall limiters which reinforce the topics and reasons discussed in the chapter The Loudness War Part 1–History and Function. Q4. Are you aware of the term ‘Hypercompression’? 31 engineers answered yes with only one saying no. Q5. What are your general thoughts on the current dynamic range in commercial music being released and broadcast? too much, I guess.. but in commercial CD releases, it seems getting better (not too compressed) in the last two years. From my point of few, the worst days are already over. My clients seem to care less about loudness, as long as it isn't noticeably low in level. Of course, there's still music crushed unnecessarily loud all the time. In pop music, loudness starts from the production. The arrangements are built "loud" from the beginning. In that way, loudness wars has affected the way the music is produced. Loudness is a sonic choice. I think it is not enough, we need probably decrease of about 4 dB the general RMS volume to start listening music properly. In some cases Dynamic Range nearly disappeared to date. In most of cases its not enough to date. In very few cases its just right. It's all over the place. I work with tons of artists who want a very dynamic sound and others who want there music squashed to crap to be as loud as so and so's album. Could certainly be greater. I think the markets where it's truly important it's still there Generally it's improving but I'd say 40% of releases are overcompressed (especially in the U.S. market). There is no doubt that dynamic music can sound more interesting and can be listened to over a longer period. However, I have no real issues with current trends. For example, Skrillex sounds good to me, despite the lack of dynamic range. I also love Jacob Carlzon, who plays jazz but at rock music levels. I think there isn't enough generally, although some stuff can sound great crushed. Things have been far too loud for years now I feel there isn't enough. The best sounding tracks on radio that I have worked on as a mastering engineer, are usually on the more dynamic side. In terms of major label stuff, pretty much everything in the pop sphere is way too compressed/limited. Some of the older artists are still releasing more dynamic records, which is nice. I think its getting better as more awareness of the loudness war is being raised. Generally though, I think music is still just being mastered too loud. I have a house level in the studio (which can vary a little depending on the genre I am working on / client preference etc.) and I refuse to go above that, even if it means losing a client. There is a whole generation of music that sounds terrible, and I think its a real shame, because it was completely avoidable. BTW, my answer to Q8 below is actually "don't know" but I put yes because I suspect it does. If anything it had been getting progressively worse for the last 10 years or so. The creation of much better digital Limiters and Compressors made eating into the dynamic range a lot easier. Having said that we have noticed that many bands and artists who we work with are now well aware of the loudness wars and the issues/problems associated with slamming music and as such we are noticing a big swing back the other way to more warm, punchy and dynamic masters, hurrah!!!!!! It's horrible. We went from reproduce media with 60dB or so S/N ratios to ones with over 90dB and yet the dynamic range of the music has gone from 20dB to 2dB. Listen to CD masters from the early 80s, lots of dynamic range, excitement, energy, quiet parts bring anticipation for the next section. Now it's maximum loud all the time. Parts that are screaming for an explosion of energy just get wimpier sounding because the "soft" parts were already as hot as it gets. As a general rule, I feel that music being released currently tends to err on the side of too little dynamic range. However, this does vary with what segment of the industry one examines. Not enough dynamic range. Everything is hyper-compressed and it is tiring to listen to for any period of time. Music should be dynamic not static. I think there could be a bit more dynamic range in today's commercial music.

46

a little too squished, but not horribly so. it wouldn't take much to lighten things up and improve things. a lot of the squeeze is part of the sound the artist is after. I do think we've gone too far. Major releases are audibly pushed too far. I'm not with Bob Katz, thinking we should go back to how records were mastered in the 70s & 80s, but something like Yeezus by Kanye sounds pretty horrible. It doesn't take much, even 2dB lower than something like that is still plenty loud but much much nicer to listen to if done right. Some of the newer limiters can be remarkably transparent if handled correctly, the real problem is when they're not treated sensitively enough. I personally like loud records, so always try to get the highest without sound damaging.I think we are close to the max actually reachable. Personally, I couldn't care less about actual measured loudness. It's about sound for me. If it sounds bad as a result of aggressive treatment, it's a problem. At the same time, something like gabber (for example) just sounds wrong when kept quiet/dynamic. Horses for courses. if everyone just agreed to back off 3-6db, we'd be living in a golden age of audio. I think that genres play a role here and that specific genres are more affected by this. In general I would prefer less limiting in commercial music. Artist realize that loudness is not giving them a better result, not a better quality. Loudness just impresses people with less knowlegde about audio and acoustics. 10 years ago everyone told me: Make it louder..! today they ask: What happens, if you make it louder? And then I'll tell them. The concentration over production in order to obtain the highest RMS levels often restricts artists from spending time on music composition. Ideas and musical expression can be substituted for simple, restricted compositions per instrument that are easily controlled in the mixdown. often over-loud with loss in hifidelity Not a fan of hyper compression at all.. period. I prefer dynamic range over flattening compression. I personally will go as loud as the music will allow without negative effects to dynamics. Too much dynamics is also a negative though so its a balance between the two to achieve power and energy with no flattening. I hear to much compression being used, flattening of the music is pretty rife out there. The majority hasn't enough dynamic range. I think it's very varied The general conscientious here is there is still a lack of dynamic range from most pop and commercial music with other genres less affected however some have noticed a reduction in clients wanting such hyper-compressed masters over the last few years which is positive. Q6. When mastering the overall loudness of a track, how do you decide on the final loudness level? Check all that apply

47

Using instinct and ear was as expected the most popular way to decide on the final amplitude level, with clients specifications coming second, then using visual metering levels and equally a reference track and limitations of the format. In summery the engineer makes his judgement above anyone else but the client is just behind in importance. Q7. Are you aware of iTunes Sound check and other loudness normalisation file playback technologies like ReplayGain and their function? All 32 engineers were familiar with loudness normalisation. Q8. If you answered YES above, do you think these technologies are helping to reduce the desire and market for excessively loud masters? 17 (53%) agreed that this technology is reducing the desire and market for excessively loud masters. This is just over half, although the author did expect this to be positively higher. Q9, How long you think this will take to see a reduction in the desire for excessively loud masters in the industry? 7 people stated ‘other’ as the top answer, which does not give an indication of their preference; perhaps this answer should not have been an option as nobody stated a more specific answer. 6 people agreed it is already having an effect, with half saying it will take 2 years.

48

Q10. Bob Katz stated he believed Loudness Normalisation technologies turned on by default in media based players mean the loudness war now has a strong enough reason to end, do you agree? The majority of 14 (44%) said they did not believe that normalisation turned on my default would help, which slightly conflicts with 17 (53%) who originally believed the technology is helping to reduce loudness demand. Q11. Do you ever get requests or have provided clients with multiple masters at different loudness levels? 27 engineers provide differing loudness versions of the same masters, a common practice by engineers. Q12. If you answered YES above, please specify what you provided? Not sure if it's exactly answering the question, but I occasionally provide the option - e.g. 'what I think sounds best' and 'what you probably want loudness wise'. It's rare though. I don't get specific requests for 2+ versions, ever. Yes but I often refuse. If a track is mastered correctly then it will sound great played back through any system. Truth is, tracks that are slightly under level sound 100% better on radio as they work with radio compression whereas tracks that are overcooked distort and lose definition as they fight compression. My approach is to increase height, depth and volume whilst retaining mix dynamics and character. Each and every mix has a cut off point where volume overrides dynamics and this should never be crossed. Don't get me wrong though, volume is a wonderful thing but only if the mix can handle it!! I've been asked several times to produce an iTunes/audiophile master in high resolution and a crushed to death CD/other download version.

49

I usually do 2 or 3 different levels for samples, (low-mid-loud) mainly in the first time of a partnership, in order to give the client more possibilities to choose between. Usually soft and Loud. Sometimes I may send out a louder version and a more dynamic version, the client can then pick what's best for them and that can set the mood for the rest of an LP I often master the same material for digital release, and cut dubs of the same tracks. It makes no sense to use the same settings for both. Q13 I answered yes, because when I first started out I thought the customer was always right, but as I soon learnt when it comes to mastering... thats not always the case. I often provide masters with 0.5 steps or more or less brickwall limiting What the client requested. for example masters for vinyl and digital distribution (Itunes, spotify, soundcloud...) I supplied mixes that were as loud as think they should have been. And How loud they wanted them to be. I provided one master that i defined as my choice, and a second one hotter of a pair of dbs (RMS), but never clipped, always with a minimum ceiling of 0,4dBFS. Couple of versions, one limited 1-2dB more than the other. I do this all the time. One master at a level that I think sounds good and one louder master at the level the client wants. More bass, lower volume vs less bass, more volume. I use Inter Sample Peak Detection for everything but I have had clients ask me to take that off so that their masters can be louder. Reasonable levels for the cd master, more compressed versions for 'mobile listening'. A very dynamic mastering of their material and one that was hyper-compressed. They liked the dynamic one but asked it if could be slightly louder. First a very loud master. Second a more dynamic 'uman' cut for audiophile release. Some clients will ask for MFiT versions, as well as versions with more level for radio (despite that being wholly counter-productive). There have been some cases where clients will request a variety of different levels for different purposes, but most will stick to roughly two versions. Often I have provided a loud master that compares to the releases in their genre and then one that is lower in volume/compression that is in my opinion and experience the best for the recording. I nearly always provide a non/minimally peak limited version for vinyl, if the record is being released on vinyl. If I'm doing a single and I've never worked with the artist before I'll typically give them three loudness options to choose from - super loud "commercial" levels, a quiet one where it sounds best, and something in between. EDM is a good example of this where they would like one for nightclub environments and one for CD, MP3, etc. When we are doing testers for possible clients I may provide a slightly hot master as i'm not known for over slamming anyway and then one how i would like it to sit which is at a decent commercial level but in no way slammed. For clients already attending a session i would always chat first about final loudness vs dynamics so we are working for the same goals. Occasionally i have been asked to squeeze another dB or so out of a master once the client has got it home and checked it out properly but thankfully it doesn't happen often! Well it's almost always been after the first master. The request will be along the lines of "sounds great, can we try one a little hotter". 98% of the time they go with the hotter master. Occasionally though I've had people stick with the less hot master after realizing the negative impact of pushing things after a certain point. It is/was more for comparison... 1 or 2 dB less headroom has an effect on the low end and bass, depending on the genre this is an important decision. I often do 2-3 versions with different levels, different tools... masters for CD, MFiT (iTunes), vinyl, cassette, compressed download The general workflow here seems to be to provide a version in which the mastering engineer personally thinks is working the best for the content and then a hotter (louder) version that is viewed to have more commercial potential. Q13. Has a client ever asked for more volume or loudness in a master awaiting their approval?

50

As expected, 100% of engineers had experienced this, demonstrating how clients have a stronghold on the desire for loudness created by engineers. Q14. Have you mastered music louder than your personal and professional judgment, in order to satisfy a client? The results here show how 88% have had to satisfy clients requests for loudness, facing potential hyper-compression sound quality issues despite being aware this will be the case but having no option but to comply to the wishes of customers. Q15. Has a client ever asked for a reduction in the overall loudness of masters awaiting their approval? 59% have had to reduce the loudness of masters for clients, higher than the author thought, showing a potential awareness from clients regarding the loudness war or simply an aesthetic dislike for more aggressively compressed audio.