26-07-2016, 01:26 PM
Hi Craig,
Yes, I've been boring everyone with the Loudness War for the best part of a decade now. I find it ironic that the biggest group of people to bring it to public attention were Metallica fans - not exactly a stereotypical "audiophile" audience
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRyIACDCc1I
Of course, it's existed in many forms for decades. E.g. Phil Spector's "Wall of Sound" production, which helped tracks stand out in fixed-gain jukeboxes. Radio is another classic example. But many commercially released CDs have got especially bad over the last 15-20 years. Bob Orban is on record saying that if you want the best results from his Optimods, you need to feed them material with a "natural" dynamic range - hyper-compressed stuff will just sound awful (and he's right). IIRC, that quote come from Bob Katz's book "Mastering Audio" - an excellent read
There is an end in sight. The loudness war came about because we've historically been in an environment where peak level was king (the need to not over-modulate transmitters, analogue tape, etc), and where the overwhelming type of monitoring used in broadcast was the PPM, not the VU. Naturally, CD has 0dBFS as a notional maximum level (though it's possible to slightly exceed that, of course). In this environment, compression was used to make your mix stand out while not exceeding the maximum allowable peaks - hence complaints about adverts being louder, etc.
Today, we are moving towards an environment where we equalise gain according to loudness. Loudness has always been tricky to measure accurately, but standards today do a reasonable job. Broadcasters are using R128. But what's really made the difference, however, is mainstream services like iTunes and YouTube (and no-doubt many others) also adopting this approach.
I run a series of demonstrations* to show why this works well. In short, a hyper-compressed mix might sound impressive initially, but if you bring the gain down, it just sounds flat and boring. If you play a better track at the same loudness, it sounds more impressive. In a loudness-equalised world, you need to make your mix more dynamic to make it stand out.
* The main tracks I use for this are "Money for nothing" (original version, not the re-master), and a horrible bit of Red Hot Chilli Peppers (Scar Tissue). The former has a PMR of ~30dB, and the latter is less than 10dB (assessed very informally from the level meters in Audacity, so probably not accurate).
Back to hi-fi amplifiers, yes, I did make the point that hyper-compression changes the numbers. However, I think it can be safely ignored when thinking about hi-fi. Almost no-one I know who takes hi-fi seriously listens to that stuff, and those who do listen to it quietly because it doesn't sound better when turn up the volume, and you certainly wouldn't want to be in the room when it's on the verge of clipping (whereas - for the sake of context - "Money for Nothing" would sound pretty reasonable on the same setup at the same "verge of clipping" gain setting).
The problem comes about with the classic "teenage party". As there are compelling reasons for manufacturers to skimp on heat sinks and mains transformers on an amplifier expected to be used for hi-fi (not PA or studio use), then this is a problem. The solution is simple: thermal cut-outs on the heat sinks, and/or cooling fans. I always include the former in my designs, avoiding fans if I possibly can.
By coincidence, I'm currently working through chapter 16 of the latest edition of Self's power amp book. I have all the editions at home, but I think that topic has been expanded for the latest edition (I'd have to check previous ones). The point he makes about PDF is interesting, and is probably unique research. I've been successfully following his principles for 20+ years (though must admit that the humble LM3886 is what I use for anything less than 60 watts these days, providing that's acceptable to the Marketing department! Superb little chips, providing they're not clipping).
Yes, I'm a fan of SEAS drivers, and have used them a fair bit over the years. They're very good at OEM stuff, and very consistent from batch to batch. I've got mixed feelings about the open arrangement they have with the spider - good for airflow and noise, but I worry about ferrous debris finding its way to the gap. Luckily, the BBC-inspired loudspeakers I use are intended to be used with the grilles on (plus I have young kids, so I've not removed grilles since they came along!). Congratulations on the Linkwitz project - they look absolutely amazing. I've followed Linkwitz for years, but have never got around to trying any of his designs - in some ways they are rather at odds with the "BBC" school of loudspeaker design that I'm so familiar with, but I'd love to hear some examples one day.
When did Wharfedale buy FANE - late '80s? Afraid I've only seen the '60s "transistor radio" range of FANE loudspeakers, which were pretty good in that context IME. I know virtually nothing about musical instrument 'speakers - another game entirely! FANE seem to be doing OK today, happily. While the mainstream has left these shores, there's actually quite a chunk of good stuff happening in the UK, with folk like ATC and Volt and Precision Devices making high-end drivers...
I think that most hi-fi loudspeaker manufacturers are careful when wording their warranties to specifically cover "misuse". If an overheated voicecoil is the problem, then that's misuse, whatever the amp. When quoting power handling, phrases like "unclipped programme" are good, as that gets away from sine wave power. But it's a minefield. A speaker with a properly set up crossover with full BSC should be able to absorb 6dB more at 1kHz than at 100Hz (ignoring the mechanical limits), but when the tweeter starts to come in at 2-3kHz... I usually say "it's interesting that power ratings are such nice, round numbers"! But away from hi-fi, things become more difficult, and certainly for PA use, you have to be rather more confident in your ratings as these things are expected to work continuously at those powers for many hours at a time - and to cope with "accidents" that happen on a stage.
It's a fascinating subject
Yes, I've been boring everyone with the Loudness War for the best part of a decade now. I find it ironic that the biggest group of people to bring it to public attention were Metallica fans - not exactly a stereotypical "audiophile" audience
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRyIACDCc1IOf course, it's existed in many forms for decades. E.g. Phil Spector's "Wall of Sound" production, which helped tracks stand out in fixed-gain jukeboxes. Radio is another classic example. But many commercially released CDs have got especially bad over the last 15-20 years. Bob Orban is on record saying that if you want the best results from his Optimods, you need to feed them material with a "natural" dynamic range - hyper-compressed stuff will just sound awful (and he's right). IIRC, that quote come from Bob Katz's book "Mastering Audio" - an excellent read
There is an end in sight. The loudness war came about because we've historically been in an environment where peak level was king (the need to not over-modulate transmitters, analogue tape, etc), and where the overwhelming type of monitoring used in broadcast was the PPM, not the VU. Naturally, CD has 0dBFS as a notional maximum level (though it's possible to slightly exceed that, of course). In this environment, compression was used to make your mix stand out while not exceeding the maximum allowable peaks - hence complaints about adverts being louder, etc.
Today, we are moving towards an environment where we equalise gain according to loudness. Loudness has always been tricky to measure accurately, but standards today do a reasonable job. Broadcasters are using R128. But what's really made the difference, however, is mainstream services like iTunes and YouTube (and no-doubt many others) also adopting this approach.
I run a series of demonstrations* to show why this works well. In short, a hyper-compressed mix might sound impressive initially, but if you bring the gain down, it just sounds flat and boring. If you play a better track at the same loudness, it sounds more impressive. In a loudness-equalised world, you need to make your mix more dynamic to make it stand out.
* The main tracks I use for this are "Money for nothing" (original version, not the re-master), and a horrible bit of Red Hot Chilli Peppers (Scar Tissue). The former has a PMR of ~30dB, and the latter is less than 10dB (assessed very informally from the level meters in Audacity, so probably not accurate).
Back to hi-fi amplifiers, yes, I did make the point that hyper-compression changes the numbers. However, I think it can be safely ignored when thinking about hi-fi. Almost no-one I know who takes hi-fi seriously listens to that stuff, and those who do listen to it quietly because it doesn't sound better when turn up the volume, and you certainly wouldn't want to be in the room when it's on the verge of clipping (whereas - for the sake of context - "Money for Nothing" would sound pretty reasonable on the same setup at the same "verge of clipping" gain setting).
The problem comes about with the classic "teenage party". As there are compelling reasons for manufacturers to skimp on heat sinks and mains transformers on an amplifier expected to be used for hi-fi (not PA or studio use), then this is a problem. The solution is simple: thermal cut-outs on the heat sinks, and/or cooling fans. I always include the former in my designs, avoiding fans if I possibly can.
By coincidence, I'm currently working through chapter 16 of the latest edition of Self's power amp book. I have all the editions at home, but I think that topic has been expanded for the latest edition (I'd have to check previous ones). The point he makes about PDF is interesting, and is probably unique research. I've been successfully following his principles for 20+ years (though must admit that the humble LM3886 is what I use for anything less than 60 watts these days, providing that's acceptable to the Marketing department! Superb little chips, providing they're not clipping).
Yes, I'm a fan of SEAS drivers, and have used them a fair bit over the years. They're very good at OEM stuff, and very consistent from batch to batch. I've got mixed feelings about the open arrangement they have with the spider - good for airflow and noise, but I worry about ferrous debris finding its way to the gap. Luckily, the BBC-inspired loudspeakers I use are intended to be used with the grilles on (plus I have young kids, so I've not removed grilles since they came along!). Congratulations on the Linkwitz project - they look absolutely amazing
. I've followed Linkwitz for years, but have never got around to trying any of his designs - in some ways they are rather at odds with the "BBC" school of loudspeaker design that I'm so familiar with, but I'd love to hear some examples one day.When did Wharfedale buy FANE - late '80s? Afraid I've only seen the '60s "transistor radio" range of FANE loudspeakers, which were pretty good in that context IME. I know virtually nothing about musical instrument 'speakers - another game entirely! FANE seem to be doing OK today, happily. While the mainstream has left these shores, there's actually quite a chunk of good stuff happening in the UK, with folk like ATC and Volt and Precision Devices making high-end drivers...
I think that most hi-fi loudspeaker manufacturers are careful when wording their warranties to specifically cover "misuse". If an overheated voicecoil is the problem, then that's misuse, whatever the amp. When quoting power handling, phrases like "unclipped programme" are good, as that gets away from sine wave power. But it's a minefield. A speaker with a properly set up crossover with full BSC should be able to absorb 6dB more at 1kHz than at 100Hz (ignoring the mechanical limits), but when the tweeter starts to come in at 2-3kHz... I usually say "it's interesting that power ratings are such nice, round numbers"! But away from hi-fi, things become more difficult, and certainly for PA use, you have to be rather more confident in your ratings as these things are expected to work continuously at those powers for many hours at a time - and to cope with "accidents" that happen on a stage.
It's a fascinating subject
