> I hope they didn’t get any ad impression points for my brief visit
Choose one
With regards to ads, I can't say a thing. I'm using ad blockers since they became available and hosts files before that.
The law does not require the banners if the site is not doing shady stuff the user probably doesn't want in the first place. Also the law does minimize the usability impact: rejection should be as easy as consent. It's just that companies simply break the law.
>> The article is not about data compression, but audio compression, they're two different things.
Their comment is about that as well...
But there is an insane amount of modern music being produced, in DAWs and analogue.
So above commenter may want to try to listen to something that is not kanye
production is not distribution. also there are plenty of analog options to musicians if they want to go that route.
For me it's about the recording and mixing process itself. I have diagnosed ADHD and i have a really hard time to focus on the production when i am working on my PC. I dont commit, i always tweak and i dont really care about the big view of the song because there is always some detail i can polish for the next 3 hours.
On a mixer and tape, i can turn down the lights and just sit there and listen and record. I dont care about the analog sound, i dont care about the inherent noise, i only care about the fact that i can sit down and actually be write music. I can basically do it all without even opening my eyes.
Put very simply, it increases the amplitude of the input sound. Its parameters are controlled by internal timers, external triggers, timers and signals ("side-chaining"). For example; lowering the bass ("ducking") during the critical milliseconds of the kick-drum so that the volume of both can stay maximised while their sum stays within maximum amplitude.
On voice-over, in radio and podcasts it makes voices sound even and "boomy/strong".
Originally probably necessary way to make recordings listenable in cars and noisy environments with lower spec speakers.
Nowadays producers use it to "sound louder" and thus make stronger impressions.
Pop songs for example, are heavily compressed because "compressed" music sounds "better" on cheap external speakers with bad dynamic range. Kinda like increasing the saturation on a cheap TFT panel.
On top of that another problem with compression is that it is not neutral, bad compressors, especially in the digital domain can introduce aliasing.
Also search for the "loudness war". This is how we called the problem back in the mid 2000's.
From this, what I would take away is not necessarily that compression on its own is harmful but that... there's almost certainly more to ear damage than just the loudness, and compression is one way this can exhibit through. So I'd say the title and angle of the article is a bit misleading.
Naturally, when I say compression I mean it in the audio effect sense, as they do in the article.
Actually, put a limiter everywhere - if you work in software, they're real cheap..
Now I have no fear of loading random presets.
It's already known that hearing damage is cumulative, longer exposure to loudness is bad, so it seems like a common sense result in line with all existing research.
Remastering for better equipment from the original recordings tends to be nicer if you have good headphones. Of course it depends on the originals and the intention of the remaster. But typically those are aimed at fans wanting to get the best possible version of a recording.
When listening to music, I keep the volume as low as feasible, and I disable ANC. When listening to podcasts, I enable ANC.
In general, in music apps, the volume is already too boosted, and so even the minimum volume is too high and damaging. This is not an issue in podcast apps like AntennaPod.
There actually is evidence that ANC music makes it hard for people to understand what others are saying in the real world. If this effect starts to happen, reverse course immediately before it becomes permanent.
It's much easier to deliver reasonably dynamic masters nowadays than, say, 10 years ago, but the fight is still not over. Loudness normalization is still inconsistent between streaming platforms and one lagging/idiosyncratic actor (usually some smaller, locally-important one) can spoil the impression, breaking uniform listening experience, and force an author to reconsider what loudness and dynamic range they aim for.
Beyond any potential health effects, DRC also just sounds bad after listening for more than a few seconds. It kills the liveliness of the audio and the signal-to-noise ratio.
So why is it used? Loudness is like candy to your ears, we are drawn to it and people tend to perceive louder music as sounding better, even if it’s exactly the same except for a change to the volume knob. DRC+MG is a bit like turning up the volume knob on your behalf, except it’s worse in almost every way.
One legitimate use case for DRC+MG, and in fact one of the original justifications for its widespread use, was the rise of portable music, where you want to be able to hear all of the instruments even though you are in a loud environment like the subway, for example. But this devolved into the “Loudness Wars”.
Tasteful use of DRC, perhaps without much MG, can also help “glue” an instrument within an audio mix. I might use it on a bass guitar, for example, to keep its volume under control so it stays in the background, providing rhythm, and doesn’t accidentally become the lead.
Ideally, the base format for all audio would have little to no DRC, but there would be other versions or built-in metadata to help playback devices adjust the listening experience to the environment by enabling DRC when it makes sense to do so or if the user wants it. Just as movies can be watched with or without HDR and subtitles. Unfortunately, the audio world hasn’t progressed much in that direction.
FirmwareBurner•5h ago