Talk:Loudness war

Digital Clipping

Yes, although I am not professional, my understanding of the subject is that maybe masterers would occasionally allow clipping of maybe half a decibel, but more often, dynamic devices are used with brick-wall limiters on the end. Could someone in the industry please verify, but this information sounds like a description of mastering ten years ago. Nowadays mastering is often done completely digitally and the engineer is not guessing at the peak levels at all. Engineers rarely treat digital full-scale the same as analog saturation point. More often, they simply compress or limit the mix aggressively which causes the whole thing to pump with the kick drum. One reason why engineers are able to achieve high dynamic ranges is because with digital technology, the clip point is accurately known and not guessed at all. Peak metres are readily available, and an engineer can tell exactly when clipping will occur and is able to position a limiter so that it limits exactly at the threshold of clipping as opposed to the analog days when the line between clean and saturated was more blurry. I have generally noticed more compression during mastering in recent times, and less distortion. (there was some serious saturation in early Led Zeppelin albums).

Compression and limiting still decreases the quality in music though, and I do believe that there is little understanding of audio quality by consumers. It seems that people are quite happy to listen to low quality MP3 music. My opinion is that it is worthwhile sacrificing some RMS level and not always using all 16 bits of CD quality audio, however it may be a good idea to represent other people's ideas in the article. I think it would be advisable to place more emphasis on the fact that through decreasing the dynamic range of the audio, the 16 bit quality of CD is better put to use for more of a song. It is worthy of note that by digitally encoding a passage of audio six decibels louder, there are twice as many different levels used by the samples making up the waveform.

This is my understanding, but I do not pretend to be an actual masterer, just a hobbiest, so I think that we should wait for someone in the industry.

This goes in two ways, my friend. They like to listen to low-quality MP3s because they are sufficient! If the sound is squashed to death, a low-quality MP3 (128 - 160) WILL eventually sound like the CD! I do not kid you: I was hardly able to hear any difference between the 160 kbps MP3 and one of the extreme examples mentioned here and elsewhere. The difference was less than 1% as the dynamics were so destroyed. Crying out in pain might be a remedy. -andy 80.129.89.152 03:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the difference on some MP3 and CDs is smaller then one may think but there is a difference.--SciFrutto 18:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Remasters section

First attempt was perhaps not neutral, but the removal of the first paragraph also removed the whole point of the remasters section.

Some remasters do indeed sound better (eg very early CDs), but more recent remasters are just "oh, bit of smiley EQ and 4:1 above -10dB... and let's make it louder!" The ABBA examples mentioned are one of my favourite songs of all time, and it's tragic to see it destroyed in this way. So forgive me if my POV is a little less neutral than it could be on this particular track.

Squirrel 10:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I reworded most of the section, especially the initial paragaph. I believe most of the POV should be gone now. Let the pictures in the section do the work of showing how much of the quality of the CDs have been altered, not the words in the text. --Limetom 20:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Reworded slightly just to make the definitions clearer, hopefully still NPOV! Changed "clipping" reference to "compression", the track in the screenshot doesn't actually clip, it's just heavily peak-limited. Also a couple of grammatical corrections. Squirrel 05:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

That section was the most POV section in the article. Now, however... --Limetom 06:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that the reason for doing digital remastering should be made clear. Digital mastering equipment can have considerably better performance characteristics than analogue equipment. In particular, once a digital copy is made, it can be copied again without loss in quality. The result of digital remastering is sometimes CD's having greater treble energy, but this is closer to the original recording than an earlier analogue master. It is not simply a case of an 'artificial' treble boost. I understand the criticism in relation to excess compression of dynamic range, but you should make it clear that digital remastering can produce CD's with less noise and distortion. Analogue masters, particularly those replayed on vinyl records, may sound better than more accurate digital ones. This is sometimes because the playback equipment has poor bass extension, and the reduction in treble energy gives a more balanced sound. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.205.245.147 (talk) 12:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC).

If you can find some verifiable source for this, I would suggest adding this to the article. The article severely lacks things like this. --Limetom 08:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of making a revision to this section. It currently says:

'Recently many classic albums have been re-released in remastered form. In its most basic form, the current remastering practice is to boost the bass and treble frequencies (which does actually create a perceived improvement - see the Fletcher-Munson diagram) and to boost the average level with the aid of compression.'

I would like to revise this to -

'Many recordings have been re-released in remastered form. Tools used by recording engineers in the remastering process may be fairly complex. For example, pre-LP recordings may be remastered using 'Computer Enhanced Digital Audio Restoration' (CEDAR). Such tools are designed to improve the bandwidth of the recording and to remove background noise. The finished remaster, when compared to the original master, may subjectively be boosted in the bass and treble range. The critical response to remasters can be mixed. Sometimes an extended frequency response is welcomed, since this can improve the sense of clarity and ambience of the recording. Other times this improved sense of ambience may be counterbalanced by an unnatural and excessive sharpness to the recording (Greenfield et al 1990).

Sometimes engineers made decide to increase the average level of the recording with the aid of compression. This may improve the subjective sound quality in some instances, for example, when the recording is played back in noisy environments or on equipment having a reduced dynamic range capability.'

My source for the first paragraph is:

Greenfield, E. et al. (1990). The Penguin Guide to Compact Discs, Preface, pages viii - x. Penguin Books, London.

I do not have a source for the second paragraph.

Enescot 16:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Why No Sound Clips

First off, this is a pretty poor article. It reads like a magazine article and the tone is very point of view. Secondly, it doesn't even illustrate the point well enough.

There are no sound clips of the CDs. Now, call this crazy - but if you are talking about mastering of sound, shouldn't you argue your point with SOUND as opposed to pictures of SOUND? I'm not saying delete the images of the waveforms, but it comes off as very odd that you don't present your case with the sound. If the article isn't going to come off as POV, you're going to need to let the sound speak for itself. --THollan 18:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I own a copy of Rush's Vapor Trails. If I can figure out how to upload a sample, I will. Also I'm sure there are copyright restricstions, so I'm going to have to look into that as well.Bcirker 04:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

If you upload a small sample of the song, you'd be cover under fair use laws, since you are using it for an educational purpose. Granted, you couldn't upload a whole track - but you can upload a sizable enough portion to proove your point. --THollan 18:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

If it comes under fair use then I'll rip some sound clips and upload them, perhaps the chorus of "One Of Us" from the original, ReplayGained remaster and non-ReplayGained remaster. The ReplayGained original needs no volume adjustment. Squirrel 07:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I am confident that sound clips will be a waste of time. Assuming they are good enough quality, assuming the downloader plays them on something decent enough, what will the result be? The loud one sounds better. Remember, that's why they do it! If the clips are perfectly volume matched the majority won't be able to hear a difference. Probably the only people who won't agree are those familiar with the music in the clips, and those who have well trained hearing. Also, while pictures show facts, sound clips leave us back in the realm of opinion.

Does this mean this article is a waste of time? Hardly. That most listeners don't understand phyco-acoutics and can't consiously identify volume maximised CD's doesn't make them immune to them. Clipping and to a lesser degree compression distortion IS fatiguing. So while the first impression is good, how many of the loud CD's go the distance? Who is listening to the same album regularly after six months? Unfortunately, I know of no research on changes in listening patterns since this war began.

Also, don't we have a right to the best possible quality CD when we pay big bucks for them? -- Reszerve 08:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'v been thinking about this as well. Perhaps the best answer would be to have two sound clips of One Of Us, one from 1981, one from 2005, but ReplayGained so one isn't "louder" than the other. They'll both be as "loud", but the 1981 clip will be far more dynamic. This will also demonstrate how destructive the whole loudness war business is. Squirrel 12:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I put a link to a clip of One Little Victory on Rush's Vapor Trails album. If someone could provide some discussion for this clip, that would be brilliant.Bcirker 15:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

What is the One Little victory soundclip good for? There should be at least another soundclip for comparision or some explanation. --Abdull 10:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Other Media

Does this type of compression affect music media other than audio cds? Does it affect DVD-Audio, SACD, or (legal) online mp3 downloads? Does it affect the audio portion (especially music videos, concerts, musicals, music in ending credits?) of videos on DVD-Video, HD-DVD, or BD? Does it affect broadcast media in tv, radio, and their new digital forms? Just curious if uncompressed versions of pop songs are ever heard by the general public (assuming the masters are not compressed). 128.61.58.122 01:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The compression seems to take place in CD mastering. I've got several albums on DVD-Audio which have a much wider dynamic range than the CD equivalents (Faith Hill's "Cry" for example).

Downloaded MP3s will almost certainly be encoded from the audio CD version, which means they'll be compressed also. Ironically many people use MP3Gain even on legal MP3 downloads, which means they won't sound any louder than pre-war tracks. Squirrel 20:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You cited Depeche Mode's "Playing the angel" album as an example of over-compressed record. It's true for the CD edition, but the SACD version has a far better dynamic range. On hybrid SACD edition, the difference betwwen the SACD and the CD layer is spectacular.

What about vinyls? Perhaps this is why there are avid proponents of vinyl records even though the other factors (egs. poor recording and playback equipment) for the inferiority of CDs have been solved? 128.61.58.122 04:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The Vinyl Edition of Depeche Mode´s album "Playing the angel" sounds as horrible as the CD IMHO. So the overcompression may have happened at the mixing or general mastering stage. If the SACD really sounds better, there might also be a chance, that they took the same bad mastering for both the CD and the vinyl edition, but did a better work on the SACD. Kleinholgi 00:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Have added a new section for "other formats". DVD-Audio appears to have a standard defined replay reference level (Dolby AC3, present on virtually all DVD-Audio discs, and DTS, present on a large number, certainly does), it's also a high-end format so any attempt to "squash" the music on DVD-A or SACD would be self-defeating.

I've also mentioned DualDisc. This gives the best of both worlds, compressed loudness mastered CD Audio on one side for the car/iPod etc and unsquashed music on the DVD side, usually with a choice of AC3, DTS (available on all DVD players) and 24-bit PCM (for DVD-Audio players) in stereo or multichannel mixes. Got a few of these and they do sound really good. Squirrel 06:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The part of the article about HDCD is not completely correct.

Especially : "When played back on a normal CD player the sound will be compressed and "loud". When played back on a CD player equipped with HDCD decoding, a dynamic range expander is brought into play, reversing the compression applied at mastering."

This is not true IMO. This is a behaviour of old Dolby Companders for analog tapes and noise reduction purposes, but not HDCD. A HDCD medium will perform at least like a conventional CD on a non HDCD certified player/converter. A HDCD capable machine uses additional information (from the subchannel) and can deliver a better performace by higher resolution (on the dynamic axis). More details on the HDCD website. Perhaps someone can include a link (www.hdcd.com seems to be down) Kleinholgi 00:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I have several HDCD encoded discs, and my CD/DVD player (Arcam DV79) has HDCD decoding. When playing an HDCD encoded disc the dynamic range is much increased compared to either a non-HDCD loudness mastered disc or playing the same HDCD disc on a non-HDCD player. The best way to prove this is to make an analogue copy with HDCD decoding and compare against a non-decoded digital copy. I feel some more graph plots coming on. Squirrel 15:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

DVD-A and SACD are aimed at audiophiles - this is a fact, not POV. Any hi-fi magazine will confirm this. Most people couldn't tell the difference between 16/44.1 and 14/38 sampling, never mind 24/96. Squirrel 15:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Please Stop Preaching

I did a good deal of work on making this entry factual as opposed to a pulpit decrying the horrors of loudness increase. I know how much all of you hate loud CDs, but the fact is many producers, bands, and listeners don't mind or prefer loud CDs. If you have a negative point against loud CDs, add it in a factual way. You can do it in a way that isn't POV or weasly (look at the sections on clipping). Show, don't tell, people! Illuminatedwax 08:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Who are you accusing of preaching? You seem to think you have some ownership of this page by virtue of doing 'a lot of work', but you say nothing factual here and present no debate! I suggest that you should state what you object to and why. If you think something is POV, then it only takes a citation showing that someone said it to make that a fact, and I suggest that many respected people are saying the things I added. I could quote from professional journals and radio industry magazines if you wish. Work on it please, don't just delete. --Lindosland 23:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please do quote from professional journalists and radio industry magazines! This article is severely lacking in citations! You'll notice that I did so in the "Opponents" section. It would also be great if you could find citations that show that engineers are being forced to make CDs loud (in another section). However, adding exasperated commentary about how awful the loudness war is is decidedly preachy. If you would like to add more debate, please frame it in the format of a debate instead of informing the reader the side they should agree with. In general, I'm saying stop preaching in the article. I think that modern pop music is destroying our culture, but you don't see me editing Britney Spears' page to start out "Britney Spears is the most destructive force in music culture today." Illuminatedwax 00:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have deleted a whole section on the Tragedy of the Commons, without debate or reason, simple saying 'who are you kidding'. I am deeply involved in evolutionary psychology as well as being an audio professional, and I'm very serious. I think that section was extremely important. Of course, if you want to just kid yourself that there is no real solution that's up to you, but I suggest you need lateral thinking and should not force that view here unless you are familiar with what has been written on similar problems concerning psychology. You do accept that this is about psychology, do you? You won't find the answer on Google in the form of a quick fix program, as was the only previous suggestion! --Lindosland 23:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You changed an entire section to state your opinion, which was that the only solution to the loudness war is government intervention. I kept your basic argument and added it to the "Possible Solutions" section. You didn't even bother to cite any sources that said this was the "only solution". In short, the entire paragraph was POV, original research, highly European/England centered, and unencyclopedic. I think the term "arms race" is more accurate than "tragedy of commons". In addition, "tragedy of commons" also implies that loud CDs are a tragedy. Please expound on the bullet point in the Possible Solutions section instead of changing your solution to being the only solution and calling the others "workarounds". And try not to tell the readers what they should believe. Illuminatedwax 00:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You may think this is about CD's, but from discusions and articles I suggest that the initial driver for loudness was radio, and the main facilitator was Optimod, which was primarily sold to radio stations. Do you agree? If not, what is your evidence? If you agree, then can we have that reason back in the first paragraph please? --Lindosland 00:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, go ahead and put that information back in the first paragraph, but please keep it to like a sentence and don't add things like "it makes sense for FM but not CDs" there. If you can put it in a NPOV way, put that information in the "Effects" section. If you want, expound on the factual history of FM loudness wars in the "History" section. Illuminatedwax 00:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Factual errors

I think this page got off to a wrong start, with an assumption that it was to be primarily about CD's. Loud CD's are certainly a problem, now, but I believe that many of the reasons given in the article for a loudness war on CD's are false, contrived in search of a reason.

The loudness war began, according to many sources, with radio. Ask any broadcast engineer and he will pinpoint the culprit as 'Optimod'. This did not give a better sound by making it sound louder, it gave a more 'punchy' sound - one in which the content of each frequency band was adjusted dynamically to pack in more sound without increasing the peak amplitude. Then fast limiters were added to reduce fast peaks, such as from cymbals, because these set the limit to modulation depth on FM. The large high frequency noise content of FM had led to the use of hf pre-emphasis at the transmitter, and this meant that high frequency content had to be kept down - as was done with automatic high frequency limiters at the transmitters. So fast peaks (cymbal crashes in particular) had to be suppressed before the transmitter if they were not to trigger the high-frequency limiters there. On FM, dynamic range is precious, since the noise floor for most listeners will be rather high, and allowing headroom makes the music disappear in the mush for many listeners. Here comes the driving force - economics, and market share. It wasn't a battle between bands, but between stations seeking advertising revenue.

To say that louder CD's sound more impressive because of the frequency response characteristics of the human ear is wrong. Reference to Equal-loudness contours shows that while some bass and treble boost may help at low levels, the curves flatten at the sort of levels most people would listen at (80 to 100dB SPL instantaneous) - other than as background music.

I also have doubts about the whole issue of clipping on CD's which gets too much blame. Some of the waveform plots shown on the web-links show clipping that only lasts for under 1ms, and from my special interest in the derivation of the ITU-R 468 noise weighting curves I know that the ear takes time to respond to brief bursts of high frequency, as generated by individual clipping events. The ear responds to a 1ms burst as if it were attenuated by over 15dB, as reflected in the 468 quasi-pk response specification. While clipping is bad, it is the fast limiting used to eliminate peaks that causes not only distortion, but a huge loss of 'sparkle'. I have done measurements on a live band to try to get to the truth, and find that cymbals and drums have peaks to at least 130dB SPL the preferred listening distance. Most audio systems cannot reproduce above 100dB SPL at the listening position, so any attempt to record live music uncompressed and reproduce it realistically results in 30dB of clipping. This is where the real problem of clipping occurs. Even rattling a set of keys produces remarkable levels of brief peaks - a demonstration Lindos likes to do at exhibitions! Of course, you can't start to explore these things unless you first know you have a mic and measuring system capable of going to these levels. Forget A-wtd levels and sound level meters - they are far too sluggish. It is the very high intensity of brief peaks that enables them to contribute 'sparkle' to live sounds, despite the ear's insensitivity to them (which probably stops them causing hearing damage too). I was shocked when I first made a calibrated recording and tried to listen to it. Even on a top system, I realised I had to play it at an unacceptably low level if I wanted no clipping in the power amp. So, given that fast peaks on modern CD's have been reduced by 20 or 30dB just to bring them into range, does it really matter if they are clipped again? They are totally clipped already, as there is no way to soft limit to this extent in a way that is much better than just clipping!

The real problem lies in failure to assign headroom - 18dB at least, and even that is nowhere near enough for the real thing (hence the reason for 24-bit in studios - it's to get more headroom, not lower noise). A punchy sound works better on poor equipment because it PREVENTS clipping at the power amp. It also works better on FM because most listeners will be receiving with a very high noise floor (see programme levels) and broadcasters cannot afford to let the signal get lost in the noise in order to leave headroom. Why CD's got louder is another matter, I suggest, and probably started with marketing folk wanting the punchy sound that Optimod had given to FM. After that, engineers couldn't resist the temptation to press the new 'normalise' button on their editing software, as it seemed a good idea to fill all available levels. Then the players started to omit 'overvolume', as the latest CD's came blasting out anyway; and now we can't play old CD's, or classics, on new equipment because they sound too quiet at full volume, and never even drive the power amp to full capability.

A final twist is that bit-rate compression works best on clean signals. Signals that have been compressed contain many more frequency and make the codec less effective at 'masking' and force it to allocate bits to stuff that was never there in the first place. The result is the abominable sound of DAB. (not POV - I've never heard anyone in audio describe DAB otherwise).

As you may gather, this has been my specialist subject for a long time. Perhaps we can put back some of my contributions now. I'm happy to work at reducing the appearance of POV, but its best to write first and then discuss and look up material to cite. --Lindosland 01:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way. I well remember a demonstration I attended at University in 1967, given by a man from Dolby. He impressed us by playing the master tape for a current single, and then played us the final version, which sounded rough, and told us that we were wasting our time with hi-fi because heavy compression was being used on records to make them more marketable to the average customer with cheap equipment. That was long before CD's were dreamt of!

It is certainly the case that loudness wars were going on before CDs - in fact I believe the article mentions that vinyl records did the same thing! I realize that you are very knowledgeable on the subject matter, and I really look forward to your contributions. I wasn't quite sure how to add them into the article. Also, I disagree with your conclusions about the reason CDs are currently mastered the way they do - it is because people think they sound better.

Since you are the expert on the topic, I would suggest a few things: 1) Add the stuff about FM stations in the history section. Make sure you are explaining to the reader why stations started making things louder, and keep your opinion out of it. 2) If indeed the reason that "louder" music sounds more impressive is currently incorrect on the article, fix it. 3) Try to stay within the outline of the current article. Your previous edits were a bit rambling. Stay clear, concise, and on topic. 4) Don't get too technical. The page, as it currently stands, is relatively readable by non-audiophiles. 5) If you are unsure, introduce topics on the talk page, and go over them point by point. I'd like to retain some semblance of structure in this article. 6) Most of all, try to stay factual. "The ear responds to a 1ms burst as if it were attenuated by over 15dB" is good. Sentences that start off with "The sad fact is that..." are not. I am really impressed by your audio expertise (Lindos Electronics looks very impressive), and I really think you could add a lot to this article. I'm just trying to keep this article from becoming a rant against heavy compression. Illuminatedwax 02:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

That's reasonable, and thanks for the support. I agree that "the sad fact is that .." is POV of course. POV creeps in and must be edited out. This is a very difficult topic, perhaps because the truth IS very technical, and it is easier to latch onto common myths rather than get to the truth of the matter. I also think the problems developed step by step sequentially, and this needs to be put over. I'll try again later. --Lindosland 12:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Conflicting information on HDCD/ReplayGain

The article states that ReplayGain etc cannot restore lost dynamic range, then goes on to say that HDCD contains information for a range expander to restore the lost range. Surely, if it were technically possible to restore the lost dynamic range on HDCD, it would be possible to do it via software too? Mojo-chan 22:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

HDCD is a method of encoding more information on a CD that is then decoded by the CD player or receiver, thus provided the added detail. ReplayGain works with the source material (standard Redbook CDs) and therefore cannot restore that lost information as it was never there to begin with. Abacab 00:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Owen Morris

In the sort-of recent Oasis documentary, Owen Morris (regrettably) claims to have started the 'Loudness War' when he worked on Definitely Maybe. Seems relevant. Thoughts? Gamiar 23:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. Though one might contend he is being a touch ego centrinc by blaming himself for an industry wide phenomenon. Granted, the work with Oasis is "arguably" the start of it....Abacab 21:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Right. I just watched it. He called it "brickwalling". Keeping the levels constant with no dynamics. I think it's worth mentioning that Definitely Maybe was one of the albums that started the trend. WACGuy 23:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Another possible solution?

Equalization plugin in Audacity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sub6 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

The real reason for compression?

Read Lindosland's comments about amplifiers distorting on transients with interest.

I'm currently driving around in a courtesy car as mine had to go in for some work. The car is fitted with a 6 CD changer and the Bose "Premium" sound system.

Playing non-remastered recordings from the 80s you can actually hear the ringing distortion on transients such as a snare drum or cymbal crash, the worst offenders being ABBA's "The Visitors" and Dire Straits' "Brothers In Arms". The couple of more recent CDs I have in the changer, Baillie & The Boys "Loving Every Minute" (1996) and Martina McBride's "Timeless" (2005) don't have this problem. Tried the remaster I have of Brothers In Arms and that didn't distort (although you could hear the compression on it).

Yet playing these same 1980s albums on the system in my own car (decent quality aftermarket kit) they sound absolutely stunning, no ringing, no distortion. Same at home, Arcam CD player and amplifier.

So perhaps this is part of the reason? Cheap equipment simply can't handle the transients without going into distortion - and once again we have to put up with "lowest common denominator"?

Comments welcome! Squirrel 08:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Undoubtably, pandering to crap equipment has not helped the loudness war at all. This fact is already mentioned in the article. Mojo-chan 10:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

And of course it's created a chicken and egg situation. Wide dynamics distort on most equipment, so CDs are compressed. So equipment manufacturers don't bother... so labels compress more... etc etc.

It just surprises me that the Bose system in my courtesy car was as poor as that on transients - it's a £500 optional extra, and that £500 would be better spent on an aftermarket system. Although it would be interesting to see if sticking a 1 farad power cap across the supply to the Bose amp would do any good. Squirrel 08:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

If the system was brand new, it may be that it wasn't broken in yet. As a rule of thumb, a driver needs 24 hours of operation until it's parameters reach their specified values. I experienced this myself in a brand new BMW during the first few weeks of driving.

OTOH, the Bose(R) speakers from the last 20 years or so, to which I gave a closer look, were clearly not optmized for transient response. Probably, good transient response is less important for the perceived sound quality than simply some low end extension.

Unfortunately, direct A/B tests between Bose(R) and other sound systems are impossible, since Bose(R) apparently specifically forbids stores that their systems are placed near other systems. However, A/B tests which are performed exclusively under control of Bose(R) (and under conditions which cannot be really verified) indicate that my above mentioned assumption is correct. --Klaws 16:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I suppose the Bose system does sound better than the standard kit, but still not a patch on aftermarket. But good transients AND bass extension are both vital.

It wasn't brand new, it was a 56-plate car (about 3-4 months old) with about 3,000 miles on the clock. I know about the running-in, when I got my own car (uses the standard Blaupunkt speakers but with aftermarket head unit and amp) it took about 2 days for the midband prominence to disappear and the sound to become smoother. But once it did... it sounded really really good. Squirrel

Dolby reference level

Dolby Digital has a defined and calibrated reference playback level and the DTS track will also follow this. It therefore is beneficial that the high resolution DVD-Audio soundtrack will be produced at the same reference level - and this indeed is normally the case.

As far as I'm aware, there is no agreed reference listening/playback level in the music industry. Enescot 20:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

There isn't. But Dolby Digital (and DTS) come from the movie industry - where there is a defined reference level. That reference level has been transferred across to the AC3 soundtracks on DVD-Audio releases, and is roughly equivalent to the 89dB de-facto standard applied by ReplayGain (and the de-facto reference level from the mid to late 1980s on CDs). Squirrel 21:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that reference level is the volume that Dolby film soundtracks are produced at in a dubbing theatre. What meaning does reference level have for DVD-Audio? What is the reference level you refer to for CD's? Enescot 17:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

When playing films from DVD on a home cinema system you will normally find that the average RMS level remains constant. There was a brief "loudness war" between film studios in the late 1990s (Lethal Weapon 4 contains a lot of distorted dialogue for example) but this was quickly ended when cinemas complained (quite vocally) to the studios. Following these complaints - often that the projectionist would have to reduce the level on the fader which often made the film's dialogue unintelligible - a white paper was published by Dolby Labs who strongly recommended "current best practice" was to stick to that reference. Therefore the reference level, although not to my knowledge official, has stayed in force.

The significance to DVD-Audio is that almost all DVD-Audio discs also have a Dolby Digital soundtrack so they can be played on DVD-Video players. Again the reference level seems to be generally adhered to, at least on all the DVD-Audio and DualDisc releases I have.

Additionally AC3 (the Dolby Digital encoding standard) has dynamic range control as standard. Every DVD player (and offboard AC3 decoder or AV amplifier) has somewhere in the setup menu a "dynamic range" option. This lets you compress and peak limit the audio if you need to (say you're using the speakers built in to the TV, or listening late at night). The PPCM format used by DVD-Audio doesn't have this facility, but then the assumption is that if you're using the PPCM (stereo or multichannel) tracks you're probably going to have pretty high quality kit to play it back on.

CDs up until about 1989-1990 were produced at 89dB RMS. When you rip the CD and analyse it using MP3Gain the loudness is given as approximately 89dB. This includes albums such as Dire Straits "Brothers In Arms", Paul Simon's "Graceland", Billy Joel's "An Innocent Man", most of ABBA's original Polydor releases (not the currently available remasters). From about 1993 onwards the levels started to creep up, around 1-2dB each year, until by 2000 an MP3Gain analysis would show an RMS level of 99dB complete with a clip warning. Since then I've even seen tracks with an RMS level of 100dB or more - and quite how that's possible I'm not sure. I'd attribute that to rounding or overflow errors in MP3Gain. Squirrel 08:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't the RMS level of a CD depend on the content of the disc? For instance, I have a recording of Stravinsky's 'The Firebird', and this has quite a low average volume but the peak volume is very high - i.e. the recording has a large dynamic range. Would it be possible for you to explain what MP3Gain means when it reports those RMS levels? I'm more familiar with levels reported with reference to digital full-scale, 0 dB FS. Enescot 19:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It would do - classical has a very wide dynamic range, so the RMS level will as a result have to be lower if the peaks aren't to clip. MP3Gain also has a "max no clip" value, on many 80s recordings the RMS level is 89dB and the max no clip is 0db - which means the full 10dB of headroom is being used. Squirrel 19:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I had a look at the wiki article on ReplayGain and now I understand that the loudness value in ReplayGain has a different meaning to signal levels relative to digital full-scale. Thanks for all the info. Enescot 19:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

18 dB headroom

Possible Solutions

* The adoption of a common alignment level and enforcement by audio standards organizations. For example, the European Broadcast Union standards call for 18dB of headroom.

I'm not sure whether this is taken in the appropriate context. I thought that this -18 dB digital full-scale level was chosen to correspond to 0 dB level on the EBU IEC 268-10 PPM display. This meter would be used when making recordings using a digital recorder. I don't think that it is meant to be used (-18 dB FS) as a peak or rms maximum level on subsequent production (e.g. renormalization, compression or limiting) of that recording. Enescot 17:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

multibands, smaller consumer playback systems, absolute bit values

As to broadcast engineering in the early 90's, one of the first multiband limiters beyond the Optimod that I recall installing/using was the Texar 4-band. Recall Optimods did do a sort of multiband limiting but also performed many other FM-related audio processing functions with some versions being the station's stereo pilot generator/processor. We used both in many of the FM's I worked at. This lends me to think that exploration of some of the artifacts of "misuse" (subjective) multibands (such as intermod distortion) should be mentioned.

Also, the reason we as broadcast engineers used such multiband devices was that in order to get above road noise, satisfy the management as to, upon listeners changing stations an apparent louder station, was due to the fact that the FCC would monitor stations for peaks over 105% (with no SCA's 110% with a single SCA) and FINE the station if more than 2 peaks over threshold were detected. Bad stuff. Our local monitoring facility in Langhorne PA was especially strict about going over allocated spectra (typically a deviation of ~ +/-75kHz)

Also, I did a bit of research (you can see my lab at http://home1.gte.net/wamnet ) on playback of various audio devices (MP3 player, cheap and not-so-cheap CD players) and what I found causing the crackling with "hot" CD's/MP3's processed to within .01DBFS is limitations in the D2A sections and successive analog stages causing the familiar cracking sound. I did this because I noticed that certain playback devices did NOT do this, having sufficient headroom in the analog section.

I've noticed a recent trend in "hot" masters going to down to absolute values of -0.1 - -0.3DBFS which is below the "crackling" threshold of even the cheapest of playback devices, such as those sold in toy sections of most retailers.

Please note that most of the digital plug-ins and in-line comp/limiters used for digital pre-mastering actually do not "clip". Adjacent levels with the same bit train of the desired limit bit values are typically shown as errors in most mastering software.

Even Wavelab will show this as a digital "clip" when using their analysis tools (not the real time meters) Therefore most of the limiters I use in the digital domain, such as TC, Voxengo, Waves, etc. produce even the heaviest of limiting with non-repeating maximum bit values. One can see this if you zoom into the waveview on any DAW and see that the absolute values are never (or should never be) adjacent. Replicators will usually bounce these gold discs upon inspection before going to CD master cutting.

I also believe that this should not become a soapbox for what people think is right or "audiophile" since it has little to do with the factual interpretation of trends towards higher RMS values. I will say that it should be mentioned in very agnostic terms that it is the opinion that ear fatigue may be caused by reduced RMS to Peak ratios, but subjective views of what "sounds good" are just that - subjective.

As to the reasons that this is occurring, a few reasons are mentioned in Katz's book Mastering Audio, one being an increase in ambient noise in listening environments and the resulting effect on what he terms as something like listener threshold.

But my feeling is that we've been seeing a reduction in speaker driver size, and to me, a limitation of the instantaneous ability of a reproduction system to excite a certain volume of air in the listener's environment at all spectra results in the typical listener stating that something sounds better on these smaller, multichannel home systems, small computer speakers, etc... when the program material has higher RMS levels.

The effects are compounded by non-ideal room geometry and dimensions as well as placement of the speakers/drivers by the consumer. It's fairly obvious that these systems exist in non-ideal environments which causes a multitude of problems.

When I worked with the Pittsburgh Symphony, it was interesting to hear the amount of dynamic generated by 108 players at forte during something like Copeland's Rodeo. All of those sound generating elements, able to excite that much air instantaneously was an eye (ear) opener. Same with being onstage at large venues during many of the rock acts I did monitors for. Having that much surface area all working in consort is something not easily achievable in the typical consumer listening environment.

As to an expert, you really should refer to some of the mastering gurus and see if they'd like to contribute. Katz, Ludwig, Smith and others have been doing this for years and have seen the desire of bands, producers, and A&R men evolve to these "loudness wars". In fact, Wavelab now offers a Katz-style meter, which opinions vary, to gauge apparent loudness.

Wamnet 15:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understand your point but perceived loudness or subjective loudness is a scientific term and even though it is difficult give a prescription on what will cause a track to sound loudest, we do have some ideas as what the factors are. So it is not all RMS or absolute values but it is the perceived and subjective elements that have influence such as density of music, types of instruments, genre, etc. I personally don't find Katz-style meter useful for that at all. The old analog VU meters seemed much better but still not good enough. So the best meters for perceived lodness are still my ears.

I'm new to wikipedia myself but it seems that many articles are exactly a sandbox for what people think, which most the time is probably detrimental to accuracy, but maybe when it comes to subjects like perceived loudness, it is better as the term by itself indicates that it is a "perceived" and subjective concept.--SciFrutto 01:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I think a lot of the information you mention here is interesting, factual and would be a good addition to the article, like the information about mastering tools. Perhaps you could even write a section about how the loudness wars have changed the mastering industry technically (new programs, new habits, new methods of teaching interns, etc.). Also very interesting is the information about how some consumer products will "crackle", etc., and some won't. If you can come up with a reference or two (textbooks on mastering, whatever), I think you should put the highlights of the above factual information into the article. Illuminatedwax 02:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

to both above... totally agree. Masking effects and arrangement can have a big impact on how "loud" listeners perceive a track. As to additions to the article, I'd have to do a bit of thinking/research about it. A lot of the external links already touch on many of the subjects. Being factual is paramount, trying to separate opinion from information.

On the effect of perceived loudness here's something I noticed: my kids bought the Wild Thornberry's soundtrack a while back. On it is a remix/edit of a Peter Gabriel tune called Shaking the Tree. I dumped it into a montage along with some recent Nickelback as well as some Chilli Peppers, Dave Matthews's, old Pearl Jam. Not really any of my style of music (I listen to old man news radio). Sort of use it like how perfume counters use coffee beans to clear your nose from all the scents.

Anyway, the Gabriel thing seems to have a lot of dynamic to me; seems to have a lot higher peak/rms ratio. But when looking at peak and RMS meters, it actually hits a crest of about 4db, where something like the Nickelback stuff actually crests at 6db diff between peak/rms. Weird... could just be me tho...

So it would seem to me that any Wiki entry would have to take into account the things you guys mentioned. I'd like to see if I can find a way to demonstrate in real time to the user on-line within Wiki. That gets into all kinds of issues with fair use is using commercial releases or self promo if using things I've done. Any info anyone has please let me know.

I have noticed that things I've mastered heavily as per the client, seem to cause my ears to fatigue a lot sooner on larger far-field monitors than when played back on near-fields or typical home-style 5:1 systems. I make a lot of trips to the local bigbox and niche stereo stores when I'm mastering to see how well it compares across various consumer systems.

I'm really thinking the point here is that in addition to what Mr. Katz and others have mentioned - getting above louder ambient environments - it has a lot to do with most consumer systems having much smaller driver surface area than in the past. I remember the days of large Advents being the norm, you could go to Radio Shack and get those huge Optimus speakers with 12 or 15" woofers. I wonder how much of an effect that has on the trend toward more processed audio and loudness wars?

as to the Katz meters, I've heard people swear by them, I've heard people say they don't like them. But I remember this same thing with the Burroughs (sp?) meters. I know a local guy that thinks they're the best.

I recall a story about how one studio used to train engineers by taping over all the console/tape deck meters and making newbees mix with no meters at all. I have to say I do look at the peak/RMS meters in Wavelab, but they're just a tool - not always an indicator of what it actually seems to be. Wamnet 13:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thinking about this even more, I'm wondering if there's been any universities or someone like AES that has done blind tests with decent sized sample groups - not for a "qualitative" reason but more for "quantitative" ... ie what seems louder to a good cross reference of the population. This would help to distant the entry from any possible soapboxing. I've seen the replay gain article. Looks like someone has some stuff here: http://www.nescivi.nl/presentations/lac07_slides_Cabrera.pdf . And I've read some of the papers which deal with subjects concerning text-speech http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/mark/papers/icslp02eval.pdf . And there's this : http://home20.inet.tele.dk/esskov/documents/LoudnessAssessment-AES116.pdf and this http://www.tcelectronic.com/media/skovenborg_2004_loudness_m.pdf . All of these seem like a good start for delving into more research. Wamnet 14:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Another example?

I don't know if this is of any value, but Barenaked Ladies hits album, Disc One is an example of a remaster with an excessive amount of clipping and compression - particularly on tracks from their first (and progressively less on subsequent) CD from '92 which is notably lower in overall volume, and less compressed (similar for their 94 and 96 albums). If it's of any interest (especially because it's an example where both the original songs and the remaster were originally CDs as opposed to vinyl being remastered for CD, I could make screengrabs of the waveforms from that album if anyone thinks it would be a helpful example. TheHYPO 04:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Abba CD could not have been released in 1981

I removed the release date from the following line:

"The first image is taken from the original 1981 Polydor CD release, where there is no clipping or distortion, and a good deal of headroom."

The CD hit the Asian market in late 1982. So I don't doubt that the image was taken from the original release of the CD. But that can't have been in 1981.

Unfortunately I was not able to research the original release date.

CaptainZapp 09:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I've put the dates back in. A bit of research will give you the original release date - 30th November 1981. It took me less than 30 seconds to find this information - see http://www.abbasite.com/music/album.php?id=25 Squirrel 16:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I've amended the dates! The CaptainZapp post was correct - CDs were NOT available in 1981. This is when the album was first released on LP vinyl. It took a lot of googling to actually get any site to specify media release dates. Most just say released 1981 without specifying. AMG would have us beleive this album didn't make CD until 1991! The Wikipedia Visitors page says it was one of the first CDs but doesn't say when. Finally found http://abba-world.server101.com/discs/albums/lpvisitors.htm which in the absence of other references I'll take as accurate in giving 1983 for the CD. This is still very early, CD's didn't hit the shops properly until 1984. Anyone got some definitive info? Reszerve 01:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Page has been Proded

Gentlemen, this page constitutes a violation of policy guidelines in many respects: External links, NPOV, conflict of interest, and rampant corporate promotion and advertisement. Wikipedia is not a forum to express your personal views or opinions. If you disagree, you need to speak out and state your reasons as to why WP needs this article page. If you fail to so, the article will be deleted. Jrod2 21:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read the talk page: there has been a long standing controversy over NPOV with this article. Please be more specific about the offenses (corporate promotion? conflict of interest? what?!) and please take into consideration the work that has already been done before lambasting it. This article is very useful because it describes a phenomenon very prevalent in popular music mastering, as our references indicate. A lot of work has gone into keeping this article NPOV, and I feel that the current article represents the facts rather than opinions. Since you, being an audio engineer, are knowledgeable about this subject, I would ask that you do your best to enhance this article rather than tear it down. Illuminatedwax 22:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Definitely, this is a valid article that objectively describes an actual fad in the music industry. The reason this article is objective is because the subject matter it describes can be measured ( via waveforms ), so it's silly to suggest that this article be deleted. WACGuy 00:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me remind you all that WP is not a indiscriminate collection of external links and an opportunity to promote names and commercial websites. Read "Conflict of Interests" and "Links to be Avoided" . Several reference links on this article, violates pretty much almost all 13 rules! And, although rule #13 states "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article", all these so called "supporting link references" listed by all of you, are nothing but articles written AFTER the creation of this WP "Loudness War" article page. Raising the concern that because of Wikipedia, this "Loudness War" is becoming notable and verifiable in the first place. The only way this article could advert deletion is if: 1/ All external links to said interviews, are gone 2/ All names and claims of owning the word "Loudness War", GONE. 3/ Rename the article to something a lame person can understand, or be able to make a correlation. I suggest: Music Compression, Over-compression or Hyper-compression. 4/ If you prefer, I will be happy to put this on review to both my Anti-Spam and Counter-vandalism Unit. The choice is yours. Please let me know if we can arrive at a compromise.Jrod2 05:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

So clean the links.. :) --Kjoonlee 05:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Per Kjoonlee, I have started the clean up. I realize that it would take me all night to sort it all through, make revisions, and link clean ups. But, I started with the first sections on top. I urge all of you to comment on my revisions and improve it if you like, but bringing back the links, will have to have a very good argument. So please, proceed with caution. Thanks for your attention .Jrod2 06:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Only some of the links you marked as "spam" are spam. What's wrong with pointing to a Mix Magazine article if it is perfectly relevant to the topic and (as I see it) pretty much free of advertising? That's a very important article that shows industry opinion. Even if it was made after the WP article, there's no reference of WP in the article. I'm putting the references back after editing them. I agree with you about some of the links, though, especially some added after May 10. I also kept a lot of your copy changes. I am keeping the mrichter post about the death of dynamic range, because it provides a more in-depth look at the visual section of the article, and adds rather than detracts from the article, and isn't really spam. Illuminatedwax 07:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The Mix magazine article was written on December 1, 2005. "Loudness War" was created on December 31, 2005 and the external link was also added on that date. That's a month exactly to the date of the creation (See: [1]) This was the only contribution this user {Mirror Vax) did to "Loudness War" (See: his contributions). Next, he went elsewhere at WP to link the article page to other WP pages, so in other words, he had an agenda and it's all consistent to the job of a good sock puppet. A quick history of the person that posted the link {Mirror Vax) indicates a pattern of bad behavior. See his block history. The point really is that the possibility of that Mix Mag article being put there to spam WP is very probable. Who would be interested? It wouldn't be impossible to believe that it could be either the publication, or the engineer that is being featured. So, why take chances? If, even after I've said all this, you still don't get it, then for the last time, read "Conflict of Interests" and "Links to be Avoided" Bye. Jrod2 16:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Examples need to be redone

Hi, we need to use free & open source software to take screenshots. We can only upload screenshots of non-free programs onto articles about the programs themselves. --Kjoonlee 04:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I could supply screenshots that would never be subject to copyright violations. However, I don't want to do it so that later on, somebody comes back to revert.Jrod2 00:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Another thing, If WACGuy objects, then I won't do this. You would have to win the argument (And I do see your concern), however, that's not in my view, a priority. Besides, you should give him the chance to amend all that himself. BTW, I don't feel partcular about your choice for "levelling" over "leveling", but since we are in America, I thought we should keep it all American English. I am not opposed to British English, though. Cheers--Jrod2 00:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry. Be bold in updating pages. BTW, I like to keep titles the way the author wrote them. I don't have a preference for British/American English in titles. --Kjoonlee 03:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem Kjoonlee. I will try my best to keep all your suggestions in mind. As for editing the text, I am not sure, but I think there is still much to be phrased or arranged in a way that is easier to understand. Don't you think? Thanks for your comment. Jrod2 04:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Whoa! Why was I singled out here? I post a couple of comments and already I've made enemies? I hope not! WACGuy 06:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's because you were the "original author," so to speak. Here's another reason not to worry: nobody owns articles or images at Wikipedia. WP:OWNERSHIP. --Kjoonlee 10:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't the author of anything, and I feel awkward that my opinion would prevent Jrod2 from supplying screenshots, which I'd actually support (did I misunderstand?). All I contributed to this article was adding my own screenshots to provide visual proof for the popular examples that asked for citation. However those screenshots were taken from proprietary software, but the intent was to demonstrate the waveform not the software. Again, I was just surprised that I received such attention for contributing so little to this article.WACGuy 17:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

True, but maybe Jrod2 felt he needed to get your permission to replace images that you had uploaded... or am I misunderstanding something..? --Kjoonlee 17:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Popular Examples Refs

I've removed the majority of the references in the Popular Examples section as well as the "fact" tags there for now. Do we really need references for this section? If so, how can we possibly do so without referring to non-notable webpages or doing original research? I think that the examples are important to have, so something should give. Illuminatedwax 07:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Easy. You don't include information that may be used as a vehicle for promotion and you always have to ask yourself when editing articles: Does WP or this article need this? Now, if you can find articles that pre-date the "Loudness War" page, by well over 3 years (Around 2002), then maybe you can support these claims. Until then, I don't want to find all those names and links again or will have no choice but to "Prod" and report all that as spam to my units. Trust me, they will most likely want to kill the page as they aren't engineers like us. This is where it could go for scrutiny. So, I am reverting back to my deleted version bu "Illuminatedwax". Thanks for your cooperation. Jrod2 12:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You're incorrect if you think that an article postdating a Wikipedia page necessarily means it can't be included, and you're sadly mistaken if you think the Wikipedia page somehow started the trend of people calling it the "loudness war." I think the mention in Mix Magazine is good enough for the concept to be important. Nobody is using this page as a promotional vehicle, and if they are, I've deleted those references and you just put them back with your revert. I didn't revert your changes, I included most of them. Please, cut the vigilante stuff. Are you threatening us with some kind of "spam bots" or something like that? At the very least, provide us with specific examples before you just start reverting edits. Let's talk about specific things here instead of getting all uppity about it. If you want to discuss the legitimacy of this article, let's do that. You're all over the place here. If you have complaints, focus. I'm not going to revert my changes, but I'd like you to at least address what was bad about the article. Get whatever wiki-authorities you want involved with this; this is a useful article and has the potential to become better in the future, and I honestly think you're behaving in bad faith.Illuminatedwax 13:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Illuminatedwax, please refrain from making comments like that. I have spent too much time on this talk page explaining what external links need to be avoided. Did you read "Conflict of Interests" and "Links to be Avoided"? If you don't agree with the view that the article was flawed, then revert it to its past spamming glory. Then, I will do what I got to do. As an example, that "Californication" claim as being the first CD to be made loud was referenced to a post on a forum that was created only a month before the article {Loudness War) was written. I am not fooled that easy, Sir. BTW, how I function at WP, it's with all due respect, none of your business. So, if you want respect, act respectful and tone down a notch. Have a nice day. Jrod2 14:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't saying you didn't explain the problem, I'm saying you didn't point out the specific links that were being "spammy" and instead talked about the entire article being "full of spam" without giving a single example. You mention the Californication link; you'll notice I had deleted that reference in my revision. Are there any other specific references that you consider "spam"? Illuminatedwax 14:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The Mix magazine article was written on December 1, 2005. "Loudness War" was created on December 31, 2005 and the external link was also added on that date. That's a month exactly to the date of the creation (See: [2]) This was the only contribution this user {Mirror Vax) did to "Loudness War" (See: his contributions). Next, he went elsewhere at WP to link the article page to other WP pages, so in other words, he had an agenda and it's all consistent to the job of a good sock puppet. A quick history of the person that posted the link {Mirror Vax) indicates a pattern of bad behavior. See his block history. The point really is that the possibility of that Mix Mag article being put there to spam WP is very probable. Who would be interested? It wouldn't be impossible to believe that it could be either the publication, or the engineer that is being featured. So, why take chances? If, even after I've said all this, you still don't get it, then for the last time, read "Conflict of Interests" and "Links to be Avoided" Bye. Jrod2 16:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe Mirror Vax is a regular reader of the magazine and decided that an article about the "loudness wars" should maybe be referenced on the Wikipedia page for loudness wars. Maybe he just Googled the phrase and added a useful link that he found. Maybe he thought other people should see this article because it is useful. Mirror Vax looks to be a very busy editor without any particular axe to grind, just seems to have gotten in trouble for vandalism. If you think Mirror Vax is being used as a sock puppet, please report it. But I'm putting the Mix Magazine reference back because it is interesting and it's also our main source for showing industry opinion, and thus improves the article. Wikipedia will not explode if we leave a useful link in the article. In the meantime, you have kept references which are even more "suspicious" than the Mix Magazine article. If you want to remove the hydrogenaudio reference, the stevehoffman ref, or the airwindows ref, I agree with that (I didn't remove them because you added them back). The mrichter article is interesting and should be kept because it provides a more in-depth waveform comparison and is a good supplement to the Wikipedia article. Illuminatedwax 02:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Your theory is less probable than mine. Your behavior is also inappropriate by policy standards. You just don't re-insert suspicious links without support or without reaching a consensus that the links are in effect needed, and do not violate policies. Your act of reverting, only proves that you are biased to the inclusion of an article that was suspiciously inserted at WP. Please refrain from reverting, and seek support for the Mix Mag article link, now. Anyway, I don't really see how anyone is going to agree that the link is necessary for Loudness War. If that link can be accepted, then other ME's who are also arguing against "Loudness War", are going to be wanting to place their article links through the use of their sock puppets, meat puppets, you name it. So, please let's avoid all that. Thank you. Jrod2 03:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. --Kjoonlee 03:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to apologize for saying he was editing bad faith earlier too; apologies Illuminatedwax 04:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey Illuminatedwax, I accept your apology. Remember though, we are not in a contest to prove who is wrong and who is right. But, to make the best of an article page in a way that is clean and fair to all contributors. The way you prove your point, is by raising consensus and shifting it to your side or POV. It's the Wiki way right? If you are on the side of the truth, then you have nothing to worry about as we are always learning something productive at WP. If you make your point and the link is reinstated, guess what? I couldn't be happier for you. But, you are going to have some strong arguments against it as you may well already know. Have a good evening and happy editing. Jrod2 04:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, to be honest I wanted people to assume good faith about User:Mirror Vax. --Kjoonlee 19:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion

From a request at WP:3O. Summary: No.

• The section name, Popular Examples is bad already. Who says these examples are popular?
• Most of the sources were forums and other self-published media. These are not reliable sources, and should be removed.
• Though citation needed tags were present, one must be very careful with statements about active music groups, akin to statements about living persons. Only when a reliable source can be found, a group should be listed.
• Because of the above, I have taken the liberty of applying some changes to the article, removing unsourced statements.
• The 3O request mentioned spam. I have looked at all the links, but I found none particularly fitting the definition of spam. Most were unreliable indeed, and therefore should be (and were) removed. The external links section contains no spam as far as I can see.
• Another topic of interest is the amount of WP:OR in the article, which leads the reader to a WP:POINT. The waveform images are probably OR (unless licensed from a reliable source - I could not find such a thing on the image pages), and the comparison between original and re-mastered versions definitely is original research. Please remove it, or find a reliable source.
• Do not introduce "citation needed" and "original research?" tags in the article as a way to keep unsourced information in. If it is highly unlikely a reliable source can be found, just delete it, instead of applying a tag.
• Remove weasel words. The article contains unattributed statements (unsourced as well) like "Many mastering engineers claim..." (which mastering engineers claim?), "record label executives are said to be..." (who says they are?) and "Many renowned producers and engineers have expressed" (which renowned producers and engineers?).

--User:Krator (t c) 08:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion (2)

I am neither an engineer nor an audiophile, so I had to study the background of this dispute in the article history after seeing the listing on Wikipedia:Third opinion.

The beginning of this thread cited user Illuminatedwax's 07:36, May 14 2007 (UTC) edit, which had "Re-adding links to authorities, other useful information, re-adding references list, removing most references for "Popular Examples" just for now" in the edit summary. The changes in this edit (I might have missed some) included:

Inline citations removed

1. "Mastering engineer Vlado Meller brutally distorted (Califonication) into gratituous, sustained clipping" at Airwindows Compact Disc Mastering
2. "What do you all do with LOUD discs?" at Hydrogen Audio forum

Inline citations not removed

1. Petition to remaster Califonication at PetitionOnline.com
2. "Dynamics and Dynamic Range" at StereoPhile (page 1 of letters to the editor, commenting on John Atkinson's "As We See It" in December 1999)
3. "Dynamics and Dynamic Range" at StereoPhile (page 2 of those letters)
4. What's the worst DVD-A or SACD that you purchased? (stevehoffman.tv forum thread)

References/external links removed from Popular examples section

1. David Bowie albums - (reference: one.fsphost.com/roiotrade/loud.html)
2. Depeche Mode albums - (reference: brianstagg.co.uk pta clipressed) (reference: sharoma.com, trading/loudness
3. Front Line Assembly album - (reference: side-line.com blog comments)
4. John Mayer album - (reference: hydrogenaudio.org forums)
5. Muse album -(reference: museabuse.com topic)
6. Red Hot Chili Peppers albums - (reference: forum.doom9.org thread)
7. Rush album - (reference: prorec.com article)
8. Slayer album - (reference: hydrogenaudio.org forums)

Two links added to External links section

• 1. The Death of Dynamic Range (mrichter page mindspring.com)

• The full title of the article is "The Death of Dynamic Range: A Chronology of the Compact Disc Loudness Wars."
• A note on the mindspring page says it is a capture which is no longer available from http://rvcc2.raritanval.edu/ktek9053/cdpage/
• The article analyses six albums from 1983, 1987, 1988, 1991, 1995 and 1999, followed by "The Radio Loudness Fallacy" section and additional examples in "Meanwhile, in Europe..."
• End notes include: "Questions? Comments? Criticisms? Present them in the rec.audio.pro newsgroup, or e-mail me at: k e v t r o n i c s @ y a h o o . c o m Disclaimer: I'm not a professional audio engineer, I only play one on TV."

• 2. The Big Squeeze: Mastering engineers debate music's loudness wars (MIX Professional Audio and Music Production magazine)

• December 1, 2005 article by Sarah Jones, full title: "The Big Squeeze: Mastering Engineers Debate Music's Loudness Wars"
• Note: whether of not it is a reliable source, MIX online is cited in quite a few Wikipedia articles (Linksearch for *.mixonline.com)

I'm posting this to learn if I'm beginning to understand the genesis of the dispute as the two users involved see it. — Athaenara ✉ 08:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, basically the entire dispute is over whether those last two references constitute link farming or spam Illuminatedwax 09:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The claim that "the entire dispute" is about "those last two references" is inaccurate. You are editing the article too aggressively (WP:DE) while this editorial dispute is not yet unresolved. You should refrain from that. — Athaenara ✉ 10:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I figured that since it's pretty clear none of the links are spam and that I didn't readd the two links that were removed from my changes that I pretty much had the go-ahead to implement a third party's (in this case Krator's) suggestions and remove the spam tags. Illuminatedwax 11:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Per user Athaenara, I have tagged the article for removal of links that promote web sites and people's names. I also urge the contributors to the text, to improve on the definitions.Jrod2 16:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Page has been protected

I have reverted to the last concise, clean and spam free version I edited. I've also placed a waning tag to protect the page from further disruption by user Illuminatedwax. Removing this tag will land you at the Community Sanction Notice Board. Thanks for your cooperation. Jrod2 17:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No, real "protection" can only be done by admins. Also, please see WP:OWNERSHIP if you haven't done so already. --Kjoonlee 19:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't issue empty threats. The Community Sanction Notice Board is for requesting permanent bans; banned (not blocked) users are forever banned from editing Wikipedia; anyone who spots their edits can revert them on sight, by just saying the edits are from banned users. I don't think that you want people to get permabanned and reverted on sight just for disagreeing with you... --Kjoonlee 19:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect again, the Community Sanction Notice Board does block users (Not every guideline is set in stone, I guess). See my first case: [3]. You should do research before making this kind of comments as well as supporting the inclusion of spam links. I am sorry Kjoonlee, but to the trained eyes, your contribution history is being hampered by all of the latest actions committed by you. If you had only seen that is futile to have spam links, whether they are subtle or overt, supporting them and not working towards a suitable replacement, will be scrutinized when you apply for adminship (That's of course, if you ever want that). Good luck. Jrod2 18:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"Not very convincing" again, IMHO. But tell me, where have I been incorrect before..? --Kjoonlee 18:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Links to be avoided

The most obvious links that come to my attention for deletion are: Mix Magazine, for all the reasons listed above, and Stereophile magazine. Now, on the other hand, I believe we have plenty of references already, but for those who think it's not enough, you are welcome to propose links that: Do not mention an engineer's name and his website. If it mentions an engineer's name, then he must not be a living person. If you mention a website, it must be non-profit, i.e. org, learning institutes or a University page. These are my proposed links I find acceptable. Jrod2 07:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

If we only had links to non-profit pages, we would have no resources at all on Wikipedia. Please don't presume to be in a position to dictate policy. There is no reason to avoid mentioning engineers' names as it is necessary to avoid weasel words. There is no reason to remove resources because we "have enough already." There is no reason to remove the Mix Magazine and Stereophile or revert the changes I just made. Please, we've had like 4 other editors come on here and say that those links are not spam. Your proposition is unacceptable and it will hurt this article. Illuminatedwax 08:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

In fact, there is no reason to have this page in the first place. You just don't realize that a year from now, this page will be vandalized by every ME who has, from a web page in GeoCities to a fancy flash site, arguing that he has the right to be included in the article because he spoke about a "Loudness War" in such and such occasion, and all these interviews that prove their claims are going to pop out of nowhere. We don't need that at WP, OK? Either you see that this page meets these reference conditions, or better yet, I'll have no choice but to PROD it. Jrod2 12:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You've already prodded it and it was rejected. We've already removed any potentially unreliable sources like forums and non-notable user pages anyway, so your complaints are entirely unfounded. The engineers listed are notable in their field. Please don't threaten us with your made-up reference conditions (i.e. "non-profit"). Illuminatedwax 13:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Please Stop Reverting

Jrod2, please stop blindly reverting everyone's changes back to yours. We've had a consensus: one user has said that there was no spam. Other editors have put back your removal of links. You have no reason to go back to your version, and you are removing contributions which legitimately benefit the article. There doesn't need to be a consensus every time people want to add a source, either. Please, not everything linking to a commercial source is spam, and we are allowed to mention living persons so long as we remain within guidelines. If you have problems with certain links, please at least discuss them if it causes a conflict. Other editors have at least offered explanations for readding the links you removed. Illuminatedwax 08:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Right. Please work with us, not against us. --Kjoonlee 10:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Your argument is not correct, there is in effect a user that pointed out the same links that I nominated for deletion. The direction as to who is right and who is wrong has not been established. Until then and by WP guidelines, the tags remain. If you continue your deleting and reverting, I have no choice but to take this to the admins as you two are out of order. So, please be civil, chill out and wait to see if others agree with your views that those links do not constitute WP guideline violations. Again, please I urge to STOP and wait. Jrod2 11:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Wait for what? Have you put in an RfC? Have you put in another third opinion? What are you waiting for? Every other editor who has stopped by has clearly stated that there was no real spam on here, except for an anonymous user who deleted it merely as a precaution. You don't have to wait for some admin to swoop in from the sky whenever a tag is added: we addressed the complaint of the tags you added, which were unfounded. In addition, we are adding the the article. No one's deleting except you. Illuminatedwax 12:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I saw no linkspam previously, so I don't quite understand what you're concerned about here Jrod. For example the link describing Rush's Vapor Trails was quite relevant to the subject (provided a citation) and not selling anything at all. Just because a page has lots of links doesn't necessarily mean they are spam. Perhaps things weren't formatted to your liking, but the right thing to do would be to put them in a citation template.--Analogue Kid 13:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Analog Kid, I have a problem with these articles:

• 1. The Big Squeeze: Mastering engineers debate music's loudness wars (MIX Professional Audio and Music Production magazine)

• December 1, 2005 article by Sarah Jones, full title: "The Big Squeeze: Mastering Engineers Debate Music's Loudness Wars"
• Note: whether of not it is a reliable source, MIX online is cited in quite a few Wikipedia articles (Linksearch for *.mixonline.com)

• 2 Petition to remaster Califonication at PetitionOnline.com
• 3 "Dynamics and Dynamic Range" at StereoPhile (page 1 of letters to the editor, commenting on John Atkinson's "As We See It" in December 1999)
• 4 "Dynamics and Dynamic Range" at StereoPhile (page 2 of those letters)

These links are in violation to the "Links to be Avoided" guideline. Some of these web sites have way too many ads, are strictly commercial, are promoting engineers and the pages are heavy to download. If you don't agree, let's just wait to see if the consensus to keep those references exist . Jrod2 15:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, so it just sound like you don't like the sites with adverts. I can understand that. Now just because a site is commercial does not mean it doesn't have valuable or reliable information. I'll return to my previous statement here, the proper way to go about things would be to use a citation template, rather than a link in the middle of the article which should generally be avoided. I'd like to see most of those articles you mentioned cited in the page as they do add to it, just as long as the template is used.--Analogue Kid 17:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey Analog Kid, you say "Now just because a site is commercial does not mean it doesn't have valuable or reliable information". This is also what WP says: "Due to the rising profile of Wikipedia and the amount of extra traffic it can bring a site, there is a great temptation to use Wikipedia to advertise or promote sites. This includes both commercial and non-commercial sites. You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked". There are many users that can't resist the temptation to use this loophole to circumvent this guideline. Because we don't know in reality who is who, we should be always cautious and vigilant before accepting the inclusion of external links and question: Do we need this at WP, or, can we find a better alternative? It also says: If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it. This is in line with the conflict of interest guidelines". This part of the process I hope, is just started. Jrod2 17:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Which editors are you implying have a conflict of interest in linking to either Mix or Stereophile? I have no association with either that I'm aware of, never wrote to or for either, never subscribed to either, and rarely even bought either of them. htom 17:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Htom, I'm not implying that you or somebody in particular is connected to these companies. So, please don't get my response to Analog Kid, out of context, OK? But, just like it's well known at WP, the fact that some users operate with sock puppets to accomplish just about anything that violates WP guidelines, the use is not limited to that extend only. Now, please don't quote saying that I am calling users "sock puppeteers", alright? Thank you. Jrod2 17:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

While there are indeed sockpuppets, to assume that links are being made by them is hardly good faith. I see no reason to think that the links to Mix or Stereophile are typical of those made by someone trying to link spam. htom 18:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

STOP htom or Otter Smith, you are trying to take everything I say out of context and If you want a dialog with me, you are going to have to stick to the subject of whether those links fit the criteria of "Links to be Avoided" or not. Just because someone brings up a few well-known sad realities about Wikipedia, it does not constitute acting on "hardly good faith". Wake up, Sir.Jrod2 18:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

There are thirteen characteristics listed there, in the "normally to be avoided" category; which of the thirteen are the Mix and Stereophile links in violation of, to an extent that they should not be linked to? You are the person making implications of spam; several of us are saying that the links are not spam. htom 18:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean, besides or beyond of what constitutes a "Conflict of Interests"? External links that should be avoided are:

• 1/ Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.
• 2/ Links mainly intended to promote a website. (Mix Mag, see evidence where MIX online is cited in quite a few Wikipedia articles (Linksearch for *.mixonline.com)
• 3/ Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services.
• 13/ Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. This means Mix Mag is not the right site since the article is NOT the subject of the site. Are these good enough? Jrod2 19:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) No. You've stated that you know of no conflicts of interest among the editors, and that you don't know of any sockpuppets. (1) The linked articles and letters are about the topic of the letter, and provide other viewpoints from persons with experience in the field. (2) The site for Mix and Stereophile do not seem much different in the quantity and style of sales conducted than, say, that for Scientific American (sciam.com). (3) I see no evidence that the links are mainly to promote the websites. (13) The links are deep, to writings about the topic.

Counterargument

You've stated that you know of no conflicts of interest among the editors, and that you don't know of any sockpuppets. This is irrelevant, but since you brought it up, there have been anon users with IP addresses trying to vandalize or include external links (See the page history). But that's just the beginning of my response to you, friend.

1) The linked articles and letters are about the topic of the letter, and provide other viewpoints from persons with experience in the field. What is this? The guideline says "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond..." Ask yourself: if "Loudness War" was a Featured Article (One that contains the definition and the time line of the story from 1900 until 2007) would it require the Mix Mag article as a reference, and does this link take Loudness War's definition, beyond of what it already contains in the article itself? Please c'mon, give me a break! You don't understand, after you and I have ended our discussion and a year later has past, I guarantee you that this page will have undergone major spam by the same ME's that at one point or another, were vandalizing the Audio mastering page. See why there are not articles over there, like Mix Mag, or ME's ranting blah, blah, etc, etc? Are you going to keep a watch daily to make sure the "Loudness War" page does NOT become a link farm?

2) The site for Mix and Stereophile do not seem much different in the quantity and style of sales conducted than, say, that for Scientific American (sciam.com). Oh, great, so are you saying, two wrongs do make a right. I hope somebody else is reading this.

(3) I see no evidence that the links are mainly to promote the websites. No more than your previous example, I suppose (Providing that site has mysteriously become best choice for references at WP, of course).

(13) The links are deep, to writings about the topic. I don't agree with you here either. It's clear I believe, Mix Mag is not the right site since the article is NOT the subject of the site. If the site, (NOT ONE page of this site), is called "Loudnesswar.com", and it's specifically talking about the history of this "Loudness War". Then yes. It would be falling perfectly within guidelines. But, this is hardly the case with Mix Mag.

As for the rest, I don't care about it. Most of it is your POV and guess what? If you wrote something about it in that context, I will not oppose it, in fact, I will support it. Cheers. Jrod2 21:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Response to Jrod2

1) OK, I will ask myself that. Let's look at a featured article from a couple days ago, Ohio Wesleyan University. Take a look at the footnotes. It has a link to "The Methodist Movement Comes to America and Impacts Slavery. Reve' M. Pete." which is from an AOL member page; a link to Little brown jug.com, an Ohio tourism page; a link to the Portland Phoenix, a for-profit publication; a link US News; a link to Turner Construction Company, a large construction company. There are several more on that page just like this, and yet it was made a Featured Article.

2) Again, Scientific American is recognized by the administrators of Wikipedia as a good source to link too. If you think a link to Sci Am is spam, you need to seriously re-read Wikipedia policy.

13) So let me get this straight: you're saying that a magazine article with the title "Mastering engineers debate music's loudness wars" is NOT primarily about the loudness war? Illuminatedwax 22:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I know an interview that is better than that one. And, I also know of few other articles written that I could refer to "the Loudness War". Plus, many more. Does that gives me the right to give my own peers, free promotion at WP? Next, you'll have every other ME with anon IPs raining down on this page to post their convenience links. Are you going to allow shameless promotion? When a link can provide an expansion to what the article already contains and there is no a delivered attempt to gain from it by third parties, that's what constitutes a good reference link. There is an inherent problem with pages like these (Audio) where the so called "authorities" can stand to profit from being mentioned at sites like WP. Thus, the concern from the Wikipedia Foundation and the call to KILL on sight, delivered or undelivered corporate SPAM, whether is coming from a little, or a big company. Jrod2 16:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If you have a better link you could share. We could look at it and decide if it's better, and if you're interviewed (or there is some other CoI), we could post the link without having your CoI (we might have our own, of course!) Your persistance in removal of links in the fear that others in your field might gain feels a bit spiteful. htom 22:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Broadcast Beginnings

A rather snide introductory paragraph could be written about the beginnings of the Loudness war, blaming station managers, program directors, and advertisers, all demanding of the engineering staff that the station has to "sound louder", and the gradual progression from an average modulation of 25% to 99%, and then having the record companies getting into the act, trying to make the records sound "more like radio", but I don't have any real source for it, and it would just be venting at those who used to be my bosses. htom 20:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be neat if someone could get more resources about the broadcast history of loudness wars. I think we had someone a while back who wanted to write more about it but didn't. Illuminatedwax 21:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Unsolicited Third Opinion

Jrod2, I think that the version before your recent revert and warning tags was better. I was a broadcast engineer in the 1960s and the loudness war was waging then, on AM, FM, vinyl, cassette, and 4-track and 8-track players, and it was suspected that people were trying to "game" both the various Dolby noise systems and the DBX systems. I don't see that the links to Mix or Stereophile as being spam. htom 14:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Good! Now we can create a page that doesn't promote commercial web sites and living mastering engineers, for the reasons that I explained above. Sooner or later you'll have the same crowd of engineers that at some point or another were spamming WP. Would you be so kind then, to get those references that discuss the "War" for us. I am sure that there are lots of past reviews and testimonials that pre-date the article. The Mix magazine and Stereophile.com links, though, should be deleted for the reasons that I explained above. Thanks for your opinion. Jrod2 14:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

/makes wry face/ To mention a commercial site is different than promoting it. I'd rather that other engineers linked to real discussions, even if by living engineers on commercial sites, than that we have either no meaningful external references or only marketing babble. The linked articles are not marketing babble, and should be allowed. The few journals that covered audio when I was in the business didn't talk much about the practices of recording or broadcasting engineers (or their managers, who frequently couldn't keep their fingers off the knobs) at all. Googling ...

• http://www.purpleaudio.com/pdflib/CBSVOLUMAX410411.pdf page 4-1
• http://www.purpleaudio.com/pdflib/Gatesleveldevil.pdf
• http://www.purpleaudio.com/pdflib/Gatesstalevel.pdf

And already mentioned at CBS Labs:

• http://www.omniaaudio.com/tech/retrospective.htm
• http://www.rwonline.com/pages/s.0053/t.5448.html

Can you be more understandable? I think you are entitled to your opinion, but that's hardly fulfilling WP guidelines on "Links to be avoided". Jrod2 16:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The manuals for the devices talk about modulation percentages, and how they can be raised. This is what's being talked about, except that there it's done to a broadcast signal, rather than to the recording. (Part of the problem is that as the recorded material becomes more compressed and peak limited, stations using those processors begin to sound worse; even in 1973, I considered separating the compression chain for the studio mikes from the general audio out.) I didn't keep notes at the time so I can't link to them (umm, they'd be OR anyway!) If you look carefully, I believe it says "links to usually be avoided". In this case, they seem reasonable. The advertising content is easily ignorable, and no more intrusive than it was on the printed page. htom 16:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Htom, I just want a simple "Loudness War" page that is clean, easy to understand in laymen terms and with 2 or 3 reference links that pretty much says, beyond of what the page already defines, the meaning of "Loudness War". The problem, or the challenge is getting the right article from the right site, citing an engineer who would have no apparent reason to profit from the great exposure WP is going to bring onto him. That said, select your candidate links below and we'll discuss it further. Thanks for your replies .Jrod2 16:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Jrod2, look, no one decides the number of references an article should have. Outside sources are one of the most important things Wikipedia has because they make articles verifiable. That means that there's no reason to artificially restrict outside sources (unless they become exceedingly redundant; which none of the sources here are). Also, many websites that provide legitimate information sell advertising on their website. Current policy for Wikipedia merely indicates that the ads are not "intrusive"; the ads on this page have been shown to contain an unintrusive number of ads by community standards. None of the engineers mentioned so far are going to benefit from being mentioned on some Wikipedia page. Look, Jrod2, I understand you want to keep the article spam and link farm free, but there just isn't any real spam or link farming going on here, and I think you are greatly misunderstanding standard Wikipedia policy. Go look around, and you'll see that there are many links to outside sources with advertising. Trust us; we're not adding spam to this page. If you want to help this page, I think it would be better for you to drop the references issue and focus on the content. Illuminatedwax 22:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

My reply: "2 or 3 reference links"? Take a look at featured articles like, say, today's one: Mayan languages. Look all the external references used there: they're not used for the sake of definition or just because someone wants "to profit from the great exposure WP is going to bring onto him", they are there because we need to verify the information. The only inappropiate link per WP:EL#What to link was the "Petition to remaster Californication", which was intended to promote that website. Otherwise the external sources are being used as references, not on the External links section, in which case they should be removed as fast as possible. --190.84.140.135 22:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Fist, I don't like to deal with disrespectful members. You got 4 tags over an edit war, and not for no reason at all. Second, your believe that since WP is flawed with links like these at the "Loudness War" page, it's a common thing, and so, we should all just accept it. Well, that's your opinion, now keep it to yourself, since you already know what I think of it, after having dealt with you in the past. Jrod2 22:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not only his opinion that such outside resources can be linked, it's Wikipedia policy. I know you want to help this article get as good as it can, and maybe someday reach Featured Article status, but to do so I suggest that you look at articles that have reached Featured Article status to get an idea of what is and is not acceptable on Wikipedia. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but in this case it goes contrary to the established guidelines. We've had multiple editors come in here and say that the links in question were not spam, and were in fact appropriate and reliable and helped the article. Illuminatedwax 00:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else besides Jrod take issue with the links on this page? If we don't hear from anyone else within the next few days, we can assume consensus. If someone else objects, this debate may warrant opening a mediation case at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal.--Analogue Kid 00:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I want to clarify that the references in question are the ones present on this revision of the article. Jrod2's revert added back references that we had already deemed as unreliable. Illuminatedwax 00:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Well said Analogue Kid, That's the way to proceed. You are showing this user Illuminatedwax what due process is all about. Meantime, Illuminatedwax, refrain from removing anything again, or pretty soon the 3RR rule will inescapably catch up with you, and I will really hate to do that to you, whether you believe me or not .Jrod2 01:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, I was the one who requested an informal Third Opinion; that third opinion backed up my editing actions. Illuminatedwax 01:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Why you twist reality to your advantage? If you read User:Krator's first comment he's saying:

"The section name, Popular Examples is bad already. Who says these examples are popular?"

Anyway, per User:Athaenara, I proceeded to stop you and anybody from further editing the page, so that the evidence would not get tampered with and until a consensus is reached. So, whose support are you talking about and to do what?. Jrod2 11:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

First, you reverted back the very change that you pointed out; you changed "Examples" back to "Popular Examples". Secondly, you're talking about a suggestion that I agreed with and ignoring Krator's other comment: "The 3O request mentioned spam. I have looked at all the links, but I found none particularly fitting the definition of spam. Most were unreliable indeed, and therefore should be (and were) removed. The external links section contains no spam as far as I can see." (emphasis mine) Before you say "see, he said they were unreliable!", first realize that Krator himself took out the unreliable links; then go back and look at the edit record; you'll find that in my most recent revision of the page, I didn't restore any of the links Krator took out.

About a "consensus": we have had 5 editors besides myself say that the links are not spam. Four of them are neutral parties (they came in after the debate started). Please tell me, what, in your mind, constitutes a "consensus"? Illuminatedwax 12:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

All you are doing right now, is showing that you love to antagonize, disrupt and do bickering for no other reason than to prove you are right. You focus on petty details and not the big picture. If I reverted the page back to something you believe was not acceptable either, then maybe it was a mistake. Who cares? I am bringing up bigger issues. At the end of the day, we will get rid (Or not) of whatever is not justifiable as a reference, so RELAX. And, please stop ranting about how right you believe you are. As for consensus, Analog Kid is in the ball park. As, for "5" people, give me a break! So, hang on for a while. Jrod2 15:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No break. It's not your article. I thought the title Popular Examples refered to the type of music, and expected to find Jazz Examples and Classical Examples as well. Pairs of titles, with or without playable clips, that have been remastered would be a good addition to the page. A title that had been remastered several times, each (presumably) showing more and more loudness, would be good, too. Your bias against links to articles in Mix and Stereophile seems to be a personal problem; most of the references in Wikipedia are to pages on sites which are not exclusively about the topic linked. htom 15:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Somehow three words come to mind. Three revert rule. --Kjoonlee 16:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, no one has broken the three revert rule yet or tried to game it. Illuminatedwax 22:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

That's correct Illuminatedwax, I could have easily had Kjoonlee waxed yesterday. And I know Kjoonlee believed that his 2 reverts of the last 24 hrs to the audio mastering page, don't count, but the 4 times he deleted my warning templates did count in the eyes of an admin who was willing to block violations to the 3RR, even though the actual vandalism to the article page was done only twice. What you did Kjoonlee was not ambiguous in the eyes of others and your sudden impulse to "contribute" to that page, does not convince either. Don't test my patience, though. I am here to improve things and to weed out potential conflict of interests and the exploitation of Wikipedia. Is that also too much to ask from others? Htom, I expected maturity and a bit of common sense from you, instead, I get: "This isn't your article", "You could place your own interview", "Your persistance in removal of links in the fear that others in your field might gain feels a bit spiteful". Htom, even if I was interviewed on the subject of "Loudness War", and it became the best article in the world, I can't put that in. Please read "Conflict of Interests" and second, you obviously were never aware of what took place in April-August 2006 at the Audio mastering page. Very few editors actually know. It isn't a matter of being spiteful, it's a matter of drawing the line to prevent abuse from third party interests, and I know Kjoonlee is going to be tempted to place another silly WP:AGF at the end of this comment, but I don't care. That's the reality. It happened and it will happen again. Maybe this August 2007 at "Loudness War" or maybe later. But, I'll be damned if I let it happen again at the "Audio mastering" page. The question that will remain after I am gone is: who will be keeping an anti-spam watch on the "LW" page? Someone should step up to the plate and volunteer now. Jrod2 04:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Jrod2, as I understand the CoI rules, if you were interviewed you could not post the result (regardless of where it was posted) and if I was the interviewer I couldn't, either, but some third person here could if it was appropriate. No, I wasn't aware of what happened at Audio mastering; I'm looking at this article page and this talk page. Gives me a different POV that those who were there then. One form of abuse is, as you correctly point out, links primarily intended to drive third party traffic; another, which you may not have considered, is to delete links that serve as references, even though those links provide third party traffic. When you state that you doubt that you "...have the right to give my own peers, free promotion at WP?" I wonder if you think you have the right to deny them free promotion for what they have done. If you know of better articles, link them here, let us look at them, and -- even if you're involved, we are not, and do not have a CoI -- if they are as good or better we should include them. htom 05:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Htom, there is a problem, and it's exploited at WP time after time. Because of the "WP:AGF" rule, many "third parties" do what they do with links, unquestioned. So, let's level and let's pretend for a moment. I can make a sock puppet and put that interview of mine (Which I'm not supposed to) BINGO! It's perfectly acceptable now. Better yet, I can be a corporation like an "XYZ" Magazine, do an interview with Jim Wales about his new plans to create "Wiki Search Engine" and publish it on June 1, 2007. Then on July 1, I can create an account at WP, then a page called "Wiki Search". I Write about what the term is and put an external link that references the interview with Jim. Perfectly legal, right? But, now my XYZ magazine has more exposure on the keyword "Wiki Search" than any other publication on the web, and If I was the interviewer, I am now notable. This also opens the doors to do other things at WP. It's a pattern. In this case, it doesn't make Jim Wales anymore famous than he already is, but, if this was about "Loudness War" and I am an engineer, hey, I am a freaking authority now, won't you think? In case you are not aware, all the search engines rank Wikipedia extremely high on search results. Given the millions of search results a single keyword can generate, we are talking about a significant amount of money derived from traffic, notability, exposure or free promotion. If, a link like "Mix's Big Squeeze" offers very little more expansion on the subject than the article itself, and if as I read that article, I read the names of the same engineers whose names showed up at the mastering page, you bet I am going to be suspicious and demand a better alternative. Plus, look at all the commercial ads on that page. C'mon!Jrod2 05:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually if you were in an interview, you could simply post it on the talk page and ask that a third party confirm that it was a reliable and useful source. Then it would be in the WP article. Even if your sockpuppet did add it, if other editors reviewed the link and found it reliable and useful, it would stay. (You might get in trouble, though, if anyone found out.) WP doesn't care about giving resources traffic so long as the resources are reliable and useful and don't contain an absurd amount of advertisments. Reliability doesn't come from a Google search, either. Other than that, please look at any featured article; they will probably all contain some link to a magazine or some other commercial source with advertisments. If you think Wikipedia should only have links to non-profit pages and eliminate names of living people, this is not the place to affect major Wikipedia policy change.

As for the audio engineers, their notability was established well beyond any paltry Wikipedia links; Barry Diament has a remarkable reputation and client list, and Doug Sax has won a Grammy. Wikipedia links give them no benefit. In fact, their notability is exactly why they should be on this page; the Big Squeeze article proves that notable audio engineers oppose the "loudness war". Illuminatedwax 06:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You are young and naive, OK? The way things are with the industry and the way ME's are hurting financially, any ME Grammy or no Grammy (Which by the way, it doesn't even mean they are the best ones at mastering, they were just "lucky" to get one by default), should not be mentioned and you should not encourage others to do so. Or else, there will be the same disruptions on your precious page as I mentioned above. Not that I think you understand the situation. You and your naive believes underestimate the power of this medium. No, I don't mean it applies to all WP pages (For crying sake!) but, these pages are just too tempting to both individuals and companies to post spam. My function is to go take them out. As for Barry Diament? Please! Who cares? That's not the point. The page is flawed, and this is what the policy on "links to be avoided" talks about. It doesn't expand on that subject and it gives other ME's a reason to say: "Hey! I should be on an article like that myself!". So soon, they will all rain down on the LW page and start a spam frenzy. I am an engineer and I own a state-of-the-art studio in NEW YORK CITY, not the boroughs of NY, OK? Do you know how much more money I can make by having a link nicely placed on article related to audio in here? The temptation to exploit WP is there, but my commitment to contribute in a clean manner, it's much bigger. Have a good night. Jrod2 07:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

And if that happens, I will continue to review the page for unreliable links and delete the references that are not helpful to the article. It is perfectly okay for an article to link to a resource that could potentially benefit from the link if that article satisfies the guidelines. Whether or not the links on my revision of the page meet the resource guidelines is the very matter of contention, anyway. Illuminatedwax 07:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

In case people aren't aware, Wikipedia uses nofollow tags on all external links. Placing them in any article will not increase a pages search engine ranking. Honestly though if the links are all buried in the references section, how many people actually follow them? 1%? 5%? Whatever it is, I doubt it's really enough to increase page traffic significantly. Since it is bad form to put them inline in the article, anyone who insists on doing so is probably posting spam. Otherwise, they can live happily in 8 point font at the bottom of the page.--Analogue Kid 12:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong Kid. The general rule is that Wikipedia uses nofollow but mirror sites may not. Here is your proof Loudness Wars. Recognize those results? Wake up. It's a about big business. My income goes down a lot when my sites are not found. As for you Illuminatedwax, do you spend all day thinking, "What can I leave on Jrod's talk page to annoy him this next time?" The warnings I posted on Levine's talk page were warranted. Now, can you please focus on these discussions only and not worry how I handle others? He's no saint, I'll tell you that much. Thank you. Jrod2 13:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to sites such as answers.com? Or are there other mirrors I'm not aware of.--Analogue Kid 13:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Jrod, you are not supposed to be editing to enhance your income, either by adding to your references or by lowering others'; that is a blatant CoI. htom 14:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh Yeah? What are you suggesting, Sir? I am a self serving spammer? Or, am I profiting for taking out links that present conflict of interests, or links that should be avoided? The fact that I've said everything above, indicates that I might actually have good intentions. Right Mr. Einstein? You are so smart by using my POVs against me, ha? You make me LOL. I don't want to speak to you no more, I don't need your insinuations, either. I am done with you and your disrespect. We all know your position on this debate, now chill out. Anyway, pretty soon all of you will have what you wanted, as you are reaching a larger consensus to keep. I don't even want my edits on the "Loudness" and "Opposition" sections to remain. Let it read the way it was. I hope that's alright with all of you. Bye. Jrod2 15:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Effective at 04:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC) I am no longer seeking support to delete the links in question and you can do whatever you please with this page. The fate of this article is yours. Hopefully, none of my concerns will come to fruition. However, be vigilant. Yes, always act in good faith, but question the need to include external links. Good rule of thumb is: if it doesn't provide more information than the article itself, raise a red flag. I know some ME's are happy to see that there is still a way to promote themselves at WP. My answer is, don't be so sure. Now, if we ever cross our paths again, I hope you remember what I stood for and not question or see my actions with suspicion. Illuminatedwax, I have removed all the warning tags from your talk page. I hope you realize that patience is a virtue one should always explore first. You also get the honors to take out all the warning templates at the "Loudness War" page, I hope you watch it for potential spammers, as you offered before. Good luck to all of you. Bye. Jrod2 03:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your trust in our editing. I don't suspect any of your actions as being in bad faith, I just felt that your intentions were misguided. Illuminatedwax 04:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad we could come to some agreement. Remember, it's not about winning or losing, we're all on the same team here. Our purpose is to improve Wikipedia, we just sometimes have differences of opinion as to how to go about doing that.--Analogue Kid 11:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

From Slashdot

Slashdot covered the loudness war today: http://slashdot.org/articles/07/06/09/0526201.shtml --Kjoonlee 06:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)