This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Professional sound production High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Professional sound production, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sound recording and reproduction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Professional sound productionWikipedia:WikiProject Professional sound productionTemplate:WikiProject Professional sound productionProfessional sound production High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: Mike Barthel (2011-07-21). "The Loudness Wars: Is Music's Noisy Arms Race Over?". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2011-07-22. EBU Recommendation R68-2000 AES Convention Paper 5538 On Leveling and Loudness Problems at Broadcast Studios Llewellyn Hinkes-Jones (2013-11-25). "The Real Reason Music's Gotten So Loud". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2013-11-25. {{cite magazine}}: Cite magazine requires |magazine= (help) Devine, K. (2013). "Imperfect sound forever: Loudness wars, listening formations and the history of sound reproduction". Popular Music. 32 (2): 159. doi:10.1017/S0261143013000032. Stuart Dredge (2013-11-25). "Pop music is louder, less acoustic and more energetic than in the 1950s". The Guardian. Retrieved 2013-11-25. Greg Milner (2019-02-07). "They Really Don't Make Music Like They Used To". New York Times. https://www.npr.org/2023/05/05/1174381307/beck-music-adele-beyonce-volume-pop-indie-alternative-study

It might be worth mentioning that modern digital limiters such as Waves's L1 Ultramaximiser made pretty transparent extreme limiting possible. It was apparently released in March 1994. That probably had a lot to do with the loudness wars.

It may also be worth noting that CDs have a greater dynamic range / lower noise floor / better signal-to-noise ratio than their analogue predecessor formats such as vinyl records and Compact Cassette, so if anything, they also allow mixing and mastering engineers to go in the opposite direction to the loudness wars if they want to. I suspect a bigger cause was people encoding music in lossy formats like MP3s, then listening to them on a portable music player in a loud environment, namely cities. If you're listening to music while walking past construction work, trains braking, and so on, the reduced dynamic range helps you to hear even the quiet parts of the song you're trying to listen to.

ZoeB (talk) 17:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ZoeB: Do you have any sources to support your first conjecture? WRT the second, we have a lot of sources indicating that the main motivation is competition with other releases. ~Kvng (talk) 14:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Motivations can't be realised without the technology to get there. The development of the technology of limiters and digital formats is an important part of the story. Jonpatterns (talk) 15:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Late reply I know, however MP3 compression works more efficiently when the dynamic range is higher. The encoder sees a brickwalled signal as 'noise' and can't encode as efficiently. I did see an article that went into some detail but can't find the URL, if I do find it again I'll add the link to the page.

I did test this theory myself by ripping the same track from an original 1980s CD and from a remaster and encoding using Lame -V0 - the more dynamic version came out at a lower file size (and therefore lower bitrate), however I'm aware this would be classed as 'original research' so probably wouldn't be suitable for inclusion. Squirrel (talk) 17:17, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vossanova: Producer/Mixer/Master column is relevant because they are usually the one/s who decide on and carry out loudness adjustments. Jonpatterns (talk) 07:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your first edit only included one producer in the list, so it gave them undue weight. Also, it suggests the producer is always responsible for loudness, when mastering engineers, and the artists themselves, are also responsible. I'd be interested to see if anyone else thinks producers and/or engineers should be added to this table. --Vossanova ^o< 20:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think producer should be added. The artist (supposedly) has ultimate control of how the work sounds. Fingering others is problematic. ~Kvng (talk) 14:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes, sometimes not. Also relevant is the influence of the record label. Jonpatterns (talk) 15:38, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, this article has a Criticism and a Debate section. Since “debate” naturally contains pros and cons, it is the more general headline. We should therefore merge the two sectors under that name. Or was there another intention behind separating these two sections? If the intention was simply to give some semblance of structure to the long text, I would rather recommend separating personal impressions from measured trends (LRA, crest factor, EBU R128). ◄ Sebastian 10:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to merging these sections. Maybe Perspectives is a better section title. ~Kvng (talk) 15:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many people are not aware that criticism is actually a neutral term...there is positive criticism and negative criticism and hopefully neutral criticism..I believe it is appropriate to merge these sections however in the context of the public perception of the word criticism is perceived as inherently negative which I suppose says a lot about the public...also I believe there should be some reference in the article as to how this topic relates to television if it`s not already in the article..advertisers have been increasing the perceived loudness of TV ads for a while now to the point where it is probably more noticeable than radio much of the time

The loudness war has been a prominent part of the broadcast industry. It really took off in the early 1980s, 10 or 15 years ahead of CD loudness wars. This article speaks too little about the broadcast industry. Timothy Stockman (talk) 16:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Record labels were ahead of the broadcast industry on this. From a 1971 (!) Invictus Records release: "Produced & Mixed for Greater & Sharper Sound Reproduction on the Air" [see https://images.45cat.com/chairmen-of-the-board-chairman-of-the-board-invictus-2.jpg] - IOW we will not be denied, we mix it as hot as vinyl will stand. 107.77.213.217 (talk) 04:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the loudness war has led to heavy criticism of the albums that were "ruined" by the loudness war, should we add this page to Category:Music controversies? 67.209.129.46 (talk) 03:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ~Kvng (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph doesn't explain what this race is, or who was 'competing'. From the third sentence, "The maximum peak level of analog recordings such as these is limited by ..", it deviates into a technical discussion. But which songs, artists or genres is this all about? What is a summary of the 'race'? Appreciate a re-write by someone who understands the topic. Onanoff (talk) 15:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we should include more from Loudness_war#History and edit out some of the technical detail. I'll try to get back to this soon. ~Kvng (talk) 16:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]