_______ __ _______
| | |.---.-..----.| |--..-----..----. | | |.-----..--.--.--..-----.
| || _ || __|| < | -__|| _| | || -__|| | | ||__ --|
|___|___||___._||____||__|__||_____||__| |__|____||_____||________||_____|
on Gopher (inofficial)
HTML Visit Hacker News on the Web
COMMENT PAGE FOR:
HTML Vinyl succumbs to Loudness War: more than just collateral damage (2025)
H1Supreme wrote 1 day ago:
I thought the loudness war was over? This was a hot topic for many
years in the music production community. Sad to see it still persists.
Especially since the answer to any loudness problem is to simply for
the user to turn up the volume.
mjr00 wrote 1 day ago:
The loudness war in the strict "we must compress and slam everything
as much as possible to make our stuff sound good on the radio" sense
is over thanks to Spotify et al doing loudness normalization, but
there's still an open question of "how much compression does sound
good?" which is extremely subjective. A lot of modern music is louder
than peak loudness war stuff just because the creators want their
music to be slammed to shit. I listen to/make aggressive bass music
and -5, -4, -3 LUFS are common. (By comparison, some of the common
examples of loudness war era CDs like Definitely Maybe and
Californication sit between -8 and -6 LUFS.)
> Especially since the answer to any loudness problem is to simply
for the user to turn up the volume.
This isn't quite true as compression addresses differences in volume.
Unless you expect the listener to actively turn up the volume during
the quiet parts and down during the loud parts of your song, or be
listening in a completely quiet environment with nothing but the
music so they can appreciate the dynamics--which is the way a lot of
vinyl aficionados do listen to music.
ryanmcbride wrote 1 day ago:
I've been collecting physical music my whole life and there were times
that I tried to get everything on CD, times I tried to get everything
on vinyl, times I've tried to go fully digital, and the pattern I've
fallen into now in my late 30s is buying music on whatever medium was
popular when it came out.
I've now got a pretty mixed collection of records, tapes, CDs, digital
music, and even a rockbox modded ipod. An added facet of fun for me
when I find new music is to decide what the most thematically
appropriate format to own it is.
For example I own the CD for Imaginal Disk by Magdalena Bay because
there's a CD in the art, and it feels like a very 00s album, but for
vaporwave I almost exclusively buy cassettes.
threetonesun wrote 1 day ago:
I like this idea, it's a bit like retro gaming with the original
games/consoles/controllers instead of emulating things.
ryanmcbride wrote 1 day ago:
unsurprisingly I also have that as a hobby
IshKebab wrote 1 day ago:
> Here are samples from the original and remastered vinyl versions to
compare the difference in sound rendering.
Where? The critical bit is missing!
danadam wrote 1 day ago:
Wayback Machine still has them:
HTML [1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20260208100527/https://magicviny...
pwarner wrote 1 day ago:
I've taken to buying SACDs when possible. The format supports higher
dynamic range, but that barely matters. The mix is the bigger issue and
SACD mixes are often better.
Note you need an SACD player.
And also note this only applies for playing on a proper HiFi or with
good headphones at least.
In your car, etc you probably want the compressed mix.
aidenn0 wrote 1 day ago:
I vaguely recall reading about a double-blind test with the DSD
stream from an SACD converted to 44.1kHz 16-bit PCM.
Even without proper dithering, listeners could not tell the
difference between that and the SACD[1], but could tell the
difference between that and the CD version of the same album.
rglullis wrote 1 day ago:
If the mix is the bigger issue, why does the media format matter?
jonhohle wrote 1 day ago:
I read that as: SACD customers expect a better mix.
The format is only relevant in that it requires audiophile level
dedication and money to use the format in the first place. Not
dissimilar to vinyl before its recent boom.
I have an SACD setup, but for what I want to listen to, everything
is out of print and secondary market is insane. Players can be
found relatively cheaply at thrift stores (many donât bluray and
multi-CD carousels support it with digital output).
TheOtherHobbes wrote 1 day ago:
Vinyl literally has less than half the dynamic range of CD and has
always been compressed before cutting.
Hard limiting is a (stupid) choice, but some limiting has always been
necessary.
The "warm vinyl sound" is basically analog compression with added
low-end distortion from the RIAA compensation and some wrinkles at the
high end caused by stylus resonance.
hulitu wrote 20 hours 55 min ago:
> Vinyl literally has less than half the dynamic range of CD
In theory, yes. In practice it depends on the "loudness".
basisword wrote 1 day ago:
The dynamic range of the format isn't the issue though, it's the
mastering. CD mastering largely pushed volume at the expense of
dynamic range (part of the reason we see endless remasters these
days). Vinyl doesn't automatically mean a better master but older
stuff is much less compressed.
pier25 wrote 1 day ago:
> Vinyl literally has less than half the dynamic range of CD
A lot less than half.
It's around 20-30db and every 10db is a factor of 10. The CD has
between 100-1000x more dynamic range.
pineaux wrote 1 day ago:
That is a false way of saying it. Because then you are unpacking
what dBs are, which is fascinating, but not how humans perceive
sound. We use dBs exactly because it approaches human experience of
sound better (although still shitty) than sound pressure would.
A better logarithmic system would use base 2, I think phons tried
to popularize that, but signal processing calculation with a base 2
log is less convenient than a base 10 log. So I think that is the
reason.
For who wants to know: sound perception doubles every 10dB so. 30db
of dynamic range is about 8 times as much dynamic range from the
perceptual perspective.
pier25 wrote 1 day ago:
> That is a false way of saying it
As an audio engineer I'm well aware of how decibels work and why
we use them.
You're talking about subjective perception but I'm talking about
objective measurements.
idiotsecant wrote 1 day ago:
This whole thread is about subjective perception, other than
yours
pier25 wrote 1 day ago:
That's your interpretation.
When someone claims that vinyl has less than half the DR of a
CD then I think it's important to clarify how big of a
difference it actually is. I would imagine HN would care
about 16bits vs aprox 10bits of dynamic range.
idiotsecant wrote 23 hours 59 min ago:
Pedantry isn't interesting.
killerstorm wrote 1 day ago:
Objectively we care about the amount of information in the
signal, not air movement. Air movement is just a medium which
conveys information. It's not just "subjective perception",
it's the meaning of the process.
pier25 wrote 1 day ago:
I'm stating an objective measurable fact not arguing about
semantics or meaning, whatever that is for you.
jmalicki wrote 16 hours 47 min ago:
They're all objective, just different coordinate systems.
There's nothing less objective about a different coordinate
transform.
breezybottom wrote 1 day ago:
Which is why it's so bizarre that CDs are generally less dynamic than
vinyl. There's no technical reason that should be the case.
functionmouse wrote 1 day ago:
CDs were most commonly played in cars on the loud highway
kkkqkqkqkqlqlql wrote 20 hours 1 min ago:
You know, there are more countries than the US.
mancerayder wrote 1 day ago:
Says who? I remember having one of those cassette adapters that
was a tape that you'd stick in the tape drive, and you'd attach
to the headphone jack of a portable CD player. Maybe I was poor,
but cars had cassettes most of my youth, while people had CD
players at home.
bbatha wrote 23 hours 5 min ago:
Exactly cd players in cars didnât become common until the
2000s when anti skip became common place.
aidenn0 wrote 1 day ago:
And the first CD player I saw in a car had a button to apply
dynamic range compression.
mixmastamyk wrote 1 day ago:
Huh? CDs are a poor fit in cars to the point that the ten disc
changer in the trunk was a thing. To avoid the inevitable damage
from swapping them.
vel0city wrote 1 day ago:
Right? Why didn't we think to just use Android Auto or Carplay
in the 90s/2000s. We were all such idiots back then.
functionmouse wrote 1 day ago:
alternatively, there was such a market desire for CDs in the
car that the ten disc changer in the trunk was a thing.
mixmastamyk wrote 20 hours 36 min ago:
They were never good in the car, merely tolerable without
option. Early on they skipped, and they were always bigger
than cassettes, more expensive, and significantly more
fragile. The changer made them very expensive to boot.
Why most CD listening was done in the home, and cassettes
held on for longer than expected.
mjr00 wrote 1 day ago:
Now, yes, but in the 90s/00s the alternative to CDs was
cassette tapes, which were both inferior audio quality and took
up more space. CD players in cars were a very desirable feature
back then.
At my peak in the mid-00s I remember counting and finding I had
just over 500 CDs in my car, almost all of which were MP3s
burnt to playable CD-Rs laying in the passenger seat... the
good old days. Nice thing about using CD-Rs is you didn't have
to care about them getting scratched, either.
ssl-3 wrote 1 day ago:
Cassettes were great, though. They could pile up,
unprotected, in the center console or find their way under
the seat and be fine. That pile might have everything from
your mom's Vivaldi tape to the MC5 bootleg you got from your
older brother.
Sick of listening to whatever's in the deck right now?
Just rummage through them without looking using the
gear-shift hand and hold one up in an instant without taking
eyes very far off the road. Upon finding one that's Good
Enough For Right Now: Pop the old one out of the tape player
with a ker-chunk and a blast of radio noise, and then quickly
plunge its replacement into the empty hole -- all with muscle
memory.
Frozen mist on the windshield on a cold morning? There's a
cassette-shaped ice scraper right there in the dash. Take it
out, use it to scrape the ice off the window, and put it back
in. It still works.
CD-Rs helped a ton and I deliberately avoided CDs in cars
until I was able to make CDs cheaply at home. But they were
still delicate things in ways that tapes never were, they
still skipped in ways that tapes never did, and their sonic
improvements weren't very meaningful over the wind and road
noise with the factory stereo of a malaise-era Chevrolet.
functionmouse wrote 1 day ago:
> and be fine.
lolno those things were a finicky failure prone analog
nightmare.
ssl-3 wrote 14 hours 57 min ago:
Compared to what? CDs that would skip on movement or
scratch and skip worse? CD-R that would delaminate? Vinyl
records? The continuous-loop abomination of 8-track?
Compact cassette tapes were profoundly robust compared to
everything else.
breezybottom wrote 1 day ago:
That's a good point. CD mastering was very dynamic until around
the mid-90s, and that probably correlates with CD players
becoming a standard option in cars.
dintech wrote 1 day ago:
In electronic music we've been pressing the same DAT to vinyl and CD
since the 90s. Subsequently replaced by .wav. Tracks come out of the
DAW pretty loud these days, it's characteristic of the genre.
steveBK123 wrote 1 day ago:
Do you think the removal of technical limitations re: the number of
tracks & voices has introduced "loudness" as well in terms of more
distinct sounds competing for the same sonic space?
It's crazy watching some of the producer YT videos now and they open
up these projects with 105 tracks, multi-layered/multi-voice drums,
etc.
redwall_hp wrote 1 day ago:
They did that back in the reel to reel tape days too...it was just
destructive. Songs could have tons of layers, but they had to
bounce tracks down to stay within track limits for the final mix.
Queen's music is a massive pile of overdubs, especially for vocals
and guitar. The Beatles also, and they were heavily into looping
(physically cutting audio tape and gluing it in a loop, then
re-recording it). Vocal and guitar double-tracking has also been
the norm since the 50s, at least.
80s pop was also generally full of synthesizer stacks, where MIDI
from one keyboard was simultaneously triggering several synths to
create layers.
badgersnake wrote 1 day ago:
This was literally the only reason vinyl made any sense.
Cthulhu_ wrote 1 day ago:
Using "literally" doesn't make your comment factual; it's one reason,
but also I just think they're neat.
That is, they're more collectible than CDs in my opinion. Bigger
packaging for better artwork, something physical and relatively
sturdy, etc.
badgersnake wrote 1 day ago:
Vinyl? Sturdy? Please.
emptyfile wrote 1 day ago:
Sorry, as cool as I find it from a mechanical perspective, I can never
approve of vinyl.
From the perspective of an amateur DJ and dedicated dancer, vinyl never
really died in the underground dance scene, whether talking about the
UK dubscene or German techno.
And as much as I love and respect vinyl DJs, the medium itself is often
used to make vinyl exclusive releases (looking at you UK), gatekeeping
the music literally, make the runs limited and super exclusive, and
obviously super expensive.
Not to mention it makes little sense, musically, to put a digitally
produced track on an analog medium. Collecting old music on vinyl is
one thing, getting all your new music (produced on Abelton) as vinyl is
just silly to me. Again, completely understand why vinyl only DJs do
it.
To me vinyl is totally contrary to the DIY culture of underground dance
music, and I simply won't buy any new vinyl (not to say DJ culture is
DIY, but techno culture for example really is at its core punk DIY).
I would much rather the producer just made a shirt instead of a special
deluxe vinyl edition for the super fans with too much money (and the
couple of vinyl only DJs that will buy it). I'd rather spend that money
on more new music, that I can own as FLAC forever.
And I would REALLY like if all the old vinyls were professionally
ripped and sold by their labels. Because sooner or later they WILL all
disappear, which I guess if you're a collector/secretive DJ is a good
thing... Really shocking that a lot of this old music can only be found
in good quality on Youtube rips. Yes, better than if you were able to
dig out a 30 year old record in a store.
emsign wrote 1 day ago:
This makes sense as a huge part of the people who buy vinyl don't even
own a record player. Or people buy special editions with colored vinyl,
who would never play these records back anyway. If the main target
demographic doesn't even notice bad mastering let alone have a clue
what good mastering on any record would even sound like, what's the
point? Vinyl has become a fashion accessory you buy as just another fan
merch item.
apercu wrote 2 days ago:
I've been avoidant of most modern vinyl, I don't want to get a vinyl
pressing of something that was digitally remastered. What's the point?
gosub100 wrote 2 days ago:
Why get a canvas print when you could put up a TV and display the
picture digitally?
ghusto wrote 1 day ago:
Because the TV wouldn't be as good a representation of the original
painting as the canvas print would be. Similarly, vinyl wouldn't be
as good a representation of the original sound as CDs would be.
apercu wrote 2 days ago:
I'm guessing you're not a musician or studio worker, or I wasn't
clear.
If I am using an analog device (in my case tube amplifier) I want
to listen to something that was mastered on analog equipment. If
it's square wave pressed on to vinyl you might as well stream.
bigbuppo wrote 1 day ago:
Hooboy. Where do I even start with this?
cfraenkel wrote 2 days ago:
You should save the exaggerated euphemisms for your audiophile
subreddits. "square waves pressed on to vinyl" just proves you
have no clue of the physics to an HN audience.
apercu wrote 1 day ago:
Yep, never studied physics. Do know the difference between a
sine wave and a square wave, though.
We can debate whether people can hear the difference, and
mastering has as much (or more) to do with it, but I will take
an AAA or AAD over an ADD all day.
aidenn0 wrote 1 day ago:
There are some phenomenal sounding DDD masters from the late
80s. I believe it requires all 3 of these, which were
present then:
1. Digital recording equipment had significantly improved
2. Audio engineers learned how to use the equipment
3. Heavy digital compressors weren't in use yet.
buo wrote 2 days ago:
Are there any known ways to undo the compression? Assuming no clipping,
the process should be reversible, right?
Slow_Hand wrote 1 day ago:
There are tools to mitigate clipping artifacts, and tools to generate
new transients for overly compressed files, but they're not a
silver-bullet and the new material that is generated is more of a
best guess than a true replacement for not over-compressing a mix in
the first place.
These tools are most useful when used earlier in the process. Like
when you just tracked an amazing vocal take, but the gain was too hot
on one or two notes. The tools can mitigate some of the distortion
artifacts to make it more usable. Applying these tools to complex
material like a full mix will have some improvements, but at that
stage there's less guarantee for convincing restoration of the
record.
What I think non-professionals don't understand is that a record that
is characterized by heavy compression is not something that happened
at the very end with the mastering stage. It is an aesthetic choice
that was made dozens of times along the way while recording,
arranging, and mixing. Heavy compression is not necessarily a bad
thing. Lots of amazing-sounding records harness it well. It's an art
AND a craft. It takes audio engineers and producers years to do it
well and with taste.
aidenn0 wrote 1 day ago:
Even without clipping (which loud mixes almost invariably have), you
lose resolution; for digital it should be obvious that if you start
with M distinct values and remap them to N distinct values, you can't
reverse it if M>N (which it will be for compression).
For analog there are similar limitations, but it's limited by other
factors like noise.
globular-toast wrote 1 day ago:
No, it's a destructive process. It's like trying to get back the
original texture of wood after you've sanded it down. The best you're
going to get is an approximation of what it might have been like.
WorldMaker wrote 2 days ago:
"Assuming no clipping" is the biggest problem there, because the
loudness wars resulted in a ton of very lossy clipping and similar
artifacts. Arguably that sort of distortion became part of the
expected sound, though, so just because it isn't reversible doesn't
necessarily mean it is a problem.
In the open metadata world there is ReplayGain which analyzes music
peaks and tries to create a negative gain to equalize the dynamic
range to a standard volume at both the individual track and full
album level.
Apple Music, Spotify, and others have proprietary but similar
systems.
(As someone who deeply loves to shuffle an entire library, having a
music player that supports ReplayGain has long been a personal
requirement.)
Melatonic wrote 2 days ago:
ReplayGain sounds pretty cool. Does it pre analyse your library ?
nighthawk454 wrote 1 day ago:
ReplayGain is nice - but note it doesnât âfix the
compressionâ. Compression and dynamic range is about loud/quiet
_within_ the track. ReplayGain just turns the volume up and down
for the entire track, the point being so all your tracks play
back at about the same level. It saves a preset on the volume
knob for you essentially.
If you remember making a playlist where one song is suddenly much
louder than the last, and youâre riding the volume knob on
every other song, youâll see why this is nice!
WorldMaker wrote 1 day ago:
Yeah, you run an analyzer on your library and it creates MP3 or
Ogg Tags that the player. Often you can leave the rest of the
file as it was originally, just the new metadata tags.
On Windows I've always liked Foobar 2000 for its strong
ReplayGain support, both automating the analyzing pass and
respecting the metadata in the tags once saved. On Unix I was
using Banshee for playback and automating analyzing with a pair
of CLI tools I've forgotten the names of, one was MP3 specific
and the other Ogg/FLAC-specific, as I recall.
amiga386 wrote 2 days ago:
No, you need the original mix to remaster it yourself.
If you just amplify the whole track until its max amplitude reaches
the medium's maximum, yes you could undo that.
But the loudness war aims to make the whole track even louder than
that, by quietening those max peaks so they don't clip, then that
gives you room to amplify the rest of the track even further. The
dynamic range of the recording is permanently reduced.
hurtigioll wrote 1 day ago:
people said "it's impossible to separate tracks (voice, bass, ...)
after they are mixed". true in theory, but neural-networks can
separate them in practice
same here, but there is no real market for somebody to bother yet
urbnspacecowboy wrote 1 day ago:
> people said "it's impossible to separate tracks (voice, bass,
...) after they are mixed". true in theory,
and true in practice too. what you get out of an ai demuxer isn't
an exact match for what went into the mix. it's a plausible
approximation, much like ai upscalers, upsamplers, colorizers,
and such.
svelle wrote 1 day ago:
> but neural-networks can separate them in practice
That's a massive stretch.
They are able separate them sort of, but they are nowhere close
the original quality of the individual tracks.
nighthawk454 wrote 2 days ago:
Short answer, no not really. It wonât ever be as good as a proper
uncompressed mastering
macmccann wrote 2 days ago:
you can use an expander or something more advanced like Ozone 12's
Unlimiter. you still lose signal when you compress even if you're not
clipping so it won't be perfect
pimeys wrote 2 days ago:
I don't understand why they still release super compressed and loud
masterings when most of the modern headphones are so good you don't
really need to master for the old cheap stereo sets. And isn't
headphones with Spotify the most common medium for music nowadays?
puzzlingcaptcha wrote 1 day ago:
People consistently perceive louder music as better quality. That's
why volume matching is critical in any audio equipment testing.
Cthulhu_ wrote 1 day ago:
There's still plenty of crappy headphones, as others have pointed
out, but consider also listening from a phone's speaker, a cheap
bluetooth speaker, with just one earbud/headphone on, etc.
Speaking of, I think the sound quality of modern-day bluetooth
speakers is really good.
bob1029 wrote 1 day ago:
> I think the sound quality of modern-day bluetooth speakers is
really good.
The sound quality out of the speakers of some Apple products seems
borderline impossible to me. The MacBook in particular makes me
feel like I missed an important DSP lecture at university.
atoav wrote 2 days ago:
As a mixing engineer:
1. Compressed sound can be an integral (wanted) part of different
genre aesthetics. I personally love dynamic mixes, but if you let
your customers A/B mixes they will often chose the more
compressed/louder one. If your song sounds weak after another bands
song, that is an issue.
2. For reasons of health/liability there are maximum levels on
headphones and mobile playback devices. That means if my mix has a
high dynamic range the bulk of it may really just be too low when
played back on the majority of headphones. If I mix my own music this
is a bargain I can make if I mix other peoples music I would try to
be a little more on the cautious side if the musicians didn't demand
a highly dynamic mix.
3. Compressed sound works better in noisy environments and as
background music. 90% of people who listen to music do not listen to
it actively, they just let it run in the background or are passively
exposed to it. Try listening to a good dynamic recording of
Beethovens fith in your car with the window rolled down. You will
hear some strong phrases then inbetween nothing as it is below the
ambient noise floor.
Vinyl has the benefit, that I as the mixing engineer can assume that
the listener will be much more likely actively involved with the
music than say in a radio mix.
microtherion wrote 1 day ago:
Vinyl has the benefit that you can largely assume that it will NOT
be listened to at all, cf. the studies showing that half of all
vinyl buyers donât even own a turntable.
cyberpunk wrote 1 day ago:
Excuse my ignorance on the subject but⦠what? why would people
buy vinyl records if not to listen to them?
Supernaut wrote 1 day ago:
As objets d'art. The thinking is that owning (and crucially,
displaying) vinyl records marks you out as being more
discerning than the rest of the herd.
ablation wrote 1 day ago:
Large format artwork, limited edition/numbered pressings for
collectability, limited edition/numbered pressings to try and
sell on for a personal profit, supporting the band by
purchasing a physical piece of merchandise perhaps directly
from them, being part of a trend they've seen on
TikTok/Instagram, etc.
Many reasons. A lot of the same reasons people buy, say,
Pokemon cards and don't play the card game.
nighthawk454 wrote 1 day ago:
> 1 ⦠they will often chose the more compressed/louder one
Iâve always been curious - but presumably thatâs true even
after volume matching?
> 3 Compressed sound works better in noisy environments and as
background music
Iâve heard this is also why film and video game soundtracks are
often very compressed, even when orchestral, because they have to
fit in the background with dialog/sfx
atoav wrote 1 day ago:
> I've always been curious - but presumably thatâs true even
after volume matching?
Yes. Many musicians want their stuff to sound like the music of
their heroes they grew up with, and that music is often
compressed to a block as well. So compression isn't just about
making things sound louder, it also has its own aesthetical
value. Whether that is good or bad aesthetics can be argued
about, but some people also like to distort their instruments
which was also a thing people frowned upon in the past.
> Iâve heard this is also why film and video game soundtracks
are often very compressed, even when orchestral, because they
have to fit in the background with dialog/sfx
The official themes often are quite compact, but there is often
also highly dynamic orchestral work used that is way less
recognizable and used with more dynamics (think about te soon
creating orchestral atmospheres). Cinema mixes are a thing btw.
where many consumers complain about too high dynamic ranges. They
complain that the dialog is low and the explosion loud. Cinemas
being among the few spaces we mixing engineers have where we have
a bit more control over the presumed levels, especially if we are
talking about Dolby certified venues.
hurtigioll wrote 1 day ago:
I've been to IMAX cinemas where the volume was so loud my ears
physically hurt
I understand them, they want to shake you in the seat, to make
it an experience (unlike watching at home), but it's ridiculous
I have to consider bringing earplugs
nighthawk454 wrote 1 day ago:
Ah, I hadnât thought about the generational aspect thatâs
interesting. The aesthetic totally makes sense to me when the
music is intended for it / designed with it in mind, which I
guess quite a lot of music is.
I particularly dislike when old intentionally-dynamic music is
remastered to be âmodernizedâ into a brick, which is sort
of the opposite direction.
> Cinema mixes
I didnât know about these, thatâs neat! Makes sense that
the levels canât really be the same in my living room as a
theater. Is it really a whole separate mix or just some
compression in mastering?
I really hope thatâs not another masterings collection rabbit
hole Iâm about to fall down haha. Iâll look out for some
Dolby certified venues in my area too
hurtigioll wrote 1 day ago:
among other things, cinemas can have many more channels -
12.1 is a standard which also has speakers above you
(ceiling) and bellow you
bigbuppo wrote 2 days ago:
And just wait until they find out that compressor/limiters came
about for reasons other than shaping the dynamics of music. If
you're not slammed against the wall, your AM broadcast signal isn't
going far.
breezybottom wrote 1 day ago:
Why the snark? Who expects high quality audio from AM radio?
GuinansEyebrows wrote 1 day ago:
i didn't read that as snark. they're just saying compressors
were/are used to maximize the broadcast range of a source over
AM radio. without them, the broadcast range is shorter, which
means fewer people hear the ads on the radio show, which means
fewer dollars for the radio station producing or broadcasting
the show.
breezybottom wrote 1 day ago:
Sure, but that has nothing to do with the mastering of
physical media, and is completely irrelevant to the
discussion.
asdff wrote 2 days ago:
Most headphones people actually use are crap. Yes you can buy studio
monitors from sony. That isn't what people are listening to. They are
using airpods which sound like earpods have always sounded: crap,
absent lows, terrible separation. So you compress the hell out of the
audio and make it loud so you can actually hear something with those
headphones.
senevoid wrote 1 day ago:
This is an absurd comment. Maybe you are just too young and
ignorant to know what the average gear use to sound like.
apercu wrote 2 days ago:
And you can buy replacement ear pads - breathing new life in to
$150 Sony Studio Monitor phones I bought 30 years ago...
asdff wrote 2 days ago:
Those things you can tear open and re wire yourself if you really
needed. Ship of Theseus mdr7506 is possible. Meanwhile how long
do those airpod batteries last before you need to pay apples
pizzo for replacement you can't do yourself? Some people say only
like what 2 years or so. Rich coming from the company that no
longer ships chargers due to ewaste concerns.
Demiurge wrote 2 days ago:
What AirPods are you talking about? The wired AirPods that sound
pretty bad have been overtaken by wireless Bluetooth AirPods for
many years now. The AirPod Pro 2 sound quality is a world of
difference from the wired earbud style AirPods. In fact, most of
the most popular TWS Bluetooth Earbuds have fantastic sound
quality. The main issue with them is that they have a V shaped
tuning, with various levels of bad. However, Apple and Samsung
tunings are quite decent.
ShinyLeftPad wrote 1 day ago:
AirPods Pro sound good but most regular people use shitty wired
headphones.
asdff wrote 2 days ago:
All of them, compared to over ear monitors. You can't out
engineer physics advantages of a larger speaker. Airpods fall
short of other in ear monitors too fwiw, so they are a poor
choice in class.
Demiurge wrote 1 day ago:
There is no such thing as over the ear monitoring. There good
headphones like HD600. It has good mids and great highs,
however the base rolls off towards 20hz. Many AirPods, include
AirPod Pro 2 have better low end than what people use for
monitoring, which is what, by the way? I play electric guitar,
and use different types of audio equipment, and I really
wouldnât care if I use BD DT770 for tracking, despite the
fact that it has absolute terribly inaccurate response curve.
Just because they call it âstudioâ on the box, doesnât
mean that itâs the pinnacle of audio fidelity. There are many
IEMs, including Bluetooth ones that are better for listening to
music for music sake, as opposed to trying to hear some
exaggerated spikes in 8khz.
Given that the highly vague cliche reference of your comments,
this conversation is probably concluded, all the best.
To all other readers, please enjoy your IEMs and TWS but make
sure they have an EQ and try to turn down the boomy base and
piercing highs of some manufacturers like Bose and Sony.
asdff wrote 1 day ago:
>There is no such thing as over the ear monitoring
Uhh, what? You go into any recording studio its is probably
going to have a set of mdrv6 or mdr7506. Most of what you
listen to are probably mixed and mastered with these same
cans and its been that way with these same cans for like 4
decades now.
Demiurge wrote 20 hours 29 min ago:
You're wrong. Here is the ranking based on aggregate sales
to studios:
1. Audio-Technica ATH-M50x
2. Beyerdynamic DT 770 Pro
3. Sony MDR-7506
4. Sennheiser HD 600 / 650
These are used in different situations. Most of the time
headphones are used for tracking, which is listening to the
live recording of one track. What most people call
"monitoring", which is listening to the studio mix, is done
on speakers, not headphones. Furthermore, items 1-3
represent quite distorted and inaccurate sound signatures,
and people only buy these because it's their reference
headphone, something they're used to. They're not actually
the best sounding or accurate headphones, like say >1k
Focals.
Most of the music is absolutely, definitely, is not mixed
and mastered on headphones, let alone Sonys. Any decent mix
requires speaker monitors for proper soundstaging. Mixes
done without speakers sound quite wrong. This has been true
since stereo recordings existed.
I'm sorry, but you're regurgitating cliches, and probably
don't have deep knowledge of this subject.
You should get some Airpod Pros, you might like them.
mrob wrote 2 days ago:
Physics doesn't prevent reproduction of bass in IEMs. Thanks to
inverse square scaling of sound pressure with distance, putting
the driver within the ear canal greatly reduces the required
output level to the point where even tiny drivers can handle
it. Lots of IEMs can reproduce loud, deep bass with low
distortion.
You of course miss the whole-body tactile vibration effect of
loud bass played on speakers, but the sound itself is there.
entropicdrifter wrote 2 days ago:
Most people listen to music in their car. More compressed audio means
less fiddling with the volume knob as you drive, regardless of
normalization done by Spotify et al.
Anyhow that's my theory
netdevphoenix wrote 1 day ago:
> Most people listen to music in their car.
Most people don't have cars
maldusiecle wrote 1 day ago:
In the US, they do.
otabdeveloper4 wrote 1 day ago:
Most people aren't in the US.
Capricorn2481 wrote 1 day ago:
Compression can definitely help with that, but so can automating
the volume knob. If it were just about keeping volume consistent,
they would compress different tracks differently (which they do).
They overly compress the master channel specifically to make it
very loud, and there's dozens of interviews with engineers that are
frustrated with it.
hex4def6 wrote 2 days ago:
Yep.
Most people aren't in a quiet environment when they listen to music
these days. Compression helps significantly with this.
What would be neat would be to have a compression metadata 'guide'
that would allow a compressor on-device to perform the compression,
rather than baked into the audio track.
This would allow the user to tune 'severity' of compression. In a
car / fancy headphones, you could sample the ambient noise level
and adjust accordingly.
Capricorn2481 wrote 1 day ago:
You are very off here. People have been playing music in their
cars and in clubs for decades, and a lot of them play tracks that
predate the loudness wars. If anything, people are more isolated
than ever and have much better headphones and speakers than even
10 years ago.
You're conflating regular compression with the insanely over the
top mastering people started doing. This goes way beyond keeping
people off the volume knob. You do not need that much compression
to keep your volume in a listenable range, and you certainly
don't have to slam the entire master bus through a limiter. The
loudness wars really was just about having a louder track than
everyone else. So much so that the whole process of mastering
became how to make it sound as loud as possible without sounding
compressed. If it were just about keeping volume consistent, they
would not do it through the master bus. There are so many
interviews with mastering engineers who are frustrated with the
pointless chase for volume.
Arguably, listeners have heard it so long that they've gotten
used to the exaggerated compression, and they just like it now
stylistically. Some of my favorite records are very loud.
ConceptJunkie wrote 1 day ago:
> how to make it sound as loud as possible without sounding
compressed.
.. which is ironic, because the end result usually sounded
terrible. You know, overly compressed.
Melatonic wrote 2 days ago:
Or just have the default to be some level of acceptable
compression turned on and then an advanced mode to turn it off
(or tune it)
esikich wrote 2 days ago:
It's much less of a problem than it used to be because streaming
platforms normalize the tracks anyway so it's been fading away for a
while now.
globular-toast wrote 1 day ago:
All things being equal, the compressed tracks will still sound
louder even after normalisation, unfortunately. I haven't seen any
sign of dynamics returning to pop music since Spotify/YouTube.
breezybottom wrote 1 day ago:
I don't know where you're getting this. For rock/pop music, it's as
bad as it's ever been.
pier25 wrote 1 day ago:
Yep many current pop songs are commonly mastered at around -8
LUFS even peaking at -5 LUFS which is quite loud.
qwery wrote 2 days ago:
I mean it's inevitable that businesses will unify the pipelines. If
there's profit in vinyl records, there's obviously more profit if you
don't have to put any extra effort in.
The loudness war was never exclusive to digital audio formats though,
it just reached saturation point [heh] with CDs. This didn't happen
earlier because clipping isn't a thing on records -- saturation
(practically some margin below that) is a hard limit.
Hard article to follow unfortunately. Also the only example it gives
just shows a compressed waveform. I understand disliking that compared
to the more dynamic older record, but a perfectly reasonable
explanation for this would be: it sounds more like what buyers today
expect.
mrob wrote 2 days ago:
>it sounds more like what buyers today expect
Is that really true? Anybody buying music today instead of streaming
is somebody who takes music more seriously than most. It seems likely
they're going to care more about sound quality than the streaming
audience.
qwery wrote 1 day ago:
Is it true? No idea. It's plausible. My point was that one example
of a heavily compressed track doesn't make a loudness war. I
offered a plausible alternative explanation of the same facts.
It seems likely that someone buying a mass market album today would
expect it to sound pretty similar across all formats.
I don't know why you've introduced this 'serious' vs. streaming
thing.
What does taking music more seriously even mean here? If you
seriously like listening to normalised Purple Rain on 128 kbps mp3
and also like collecting physical media, you might seriously like
to buy and listen to normalised Purple Rain on your preferred
(lossless, or less-lossy) format.
everdrive wrote 2 days ago:
It's a weird social psychology quirk. For whatever reason, the entire
music industry has been captured by the delusion that mixing all the
sounds louder is good. No one likes it, except for those guys. For
reasons I'll never understand, the movie industry has been captured by
the opposite delusion; they're going to pump dynamic range so high that
you can only understand about half the dialogue in the movie. And of
course, no one likes this.
legacynl wrote 5 hours 29 min ago:
You're false. Research has shown that if people like sound A, they
will like it even better when you play sound A louder.
The change in mixing and mastering can be largely explained by people
changing the way they consume it. Eg. people watch more movies on
netflix than in a cinema. People used to sit in a room with a record
player, now they listen in their car or headphones while doing other
stuff.
Cthulhu_ wrote 1 day ago:
> No one likes it, except for those guys.
This is anecdotal at best; "those guys" will be using hard data just
like tech bros with ecommerce sites do, and the data does not lie.
Compression sells better than high dynamic range else they would have
stopped. This is true for every "nobody likes this" statement people
make on the internet about things that are commercially successful
nevertheless. Big phones (as someone else mentioned), mobile games,
video game movie adaptations, AI music, Marvel franchise entries,
funko pops, they're all running circles around people that don't
personally like it and who are in circles of like-minded people.
Dylan16807 wrote 1 day ago:
Hard data can lead you astray.
When people listen to two pieces of audio they generally prefer the
louder of the two. That doesn't mean they want you to turn up the
volume dial for them. They can adjust the volume dial themselves,
and if everything gets louder they'll turn down the volume dial to
compensate.
hurtigioll wrote 1 day ago:
remember when HN was saying "nobody wants big smartphones, why does
the industry keep doing this? iPhone 4 size is the perfect size"
hint - the industry is doing EXACTLY what (most) consumers want.
there is a big difference between what a consumer tells you they
want, and what actually they pay for
pibaker wrote 14 hours 5 min ago:
There are probably 100 times more people listening to billboards
hot 100 on crappy headphones if not phone speakers than people who
know what "dynamic range" meansâ¦
aidenn0 wrote 1 day ago:
Anecdotally, I have gotten many compliments on my small Unihertz
phones that I've owned over the years, particularly from women.
As far as revealed preference goes, those who complimented me on it
all had the smallest iPhone available when purchased.
breezybottom wrote 1 day ago:
Physical media is dying, so that's a strange conclusion to draw.
bob1029 wrote 2 days ago:
The full dynamic range is nice if you actually want to experience it
and have a system capable of reproducing it. A dedicated center
channel with a few hundred watts of amplification behind it will cut
through the ambient backdrop like a hot knife through butter. You can
watch Transformers or MI3 at reference volume with crystal clear
dialogue if you're willing to throw enough power at the problem.
aidenn0 wrote 1 day ago:
I have a decent[1] system with a dedicated center channel.
Everybody complains that the mix is too loud if we tune for audible
dialog on anything made in the past decade or so (MI3 bluray is
fine, and I suspect that Transformers would be too).
1: Powered by a Denon AVR, not separates if you want to "No true
cinephile" me.
rahimnathwani wrote 1 day ago:
I've always set up my center channel volume using the test mode (by
ear many years ago, and more recently automatically with Yamaha's
YPAO).
Am I meant to then override that by increasing the center channel
volume so it's louder than the other speakers?
Or raise the system volume?
Melatonic wrote 2 days ago:
What really would solve the movie issue is there was more
standardised sound across different streaming services. Every
single seems to have a different volume and compression / setup.
That and having an industry standard way to crank the center
channel (user setting) when downmixing to 2.1
larodi wrote 2 days ago:
Depending on which vinyl you're talking about. I care very little about
big names signed to big corpo - they can do whatever they want to their
vinyl. There are plenty of indi/underground artists releasing both on
vinyl and tampe, who succumbed to nothing, but are alive and well
actually. Check bandcamp more often for clues, should you disagree.
poetaster wrote 1 day ago:
Exactly! Jeffrey Martin [1] double LP on vinyl is a pleasure.
HTML [1]: https://jeffreymartinportland.bandcamp.com/album/alive-july-...
TylerE wrote 1 day ago:
Yeah, I know a lot of indie artists. Most of that vinyl is produced
straight off the 44.1/16 digital master. If you think it's analog (or
in many cases even properly mastered at all), you're fooling
yourself.
encom wrote 1 day ago:
>44.1/16 digital
This is already way beyond what vinyl is able to reproduce. The
best case is roughly 12-bits PCM equivalent. Literally not an issue
in the slightest.
exitb wrote 1 day ago:
The "loudness war" issue is not inherent to digital sources. Nor is
it something you need to "master the record out of". It's
sufficient to not break it in the first place.
maqp wrote 1 day ago:
PSA: [1] is a great place to look for info on dynamic range of
releases, and also, a great place to find new music with excellent
dynamic range.
HTML [1]: https://dr.loudness-war.info/
BoingBoomTschak wrote 1 day ago:
PSA 2: the formula used here can easily be gamed via inaudible
phase alteration and can't be used to compare CD and LP. Ears are
still much better until a correctly designed metric arrives.
organsnyder wrote 1 day ago:
Would engineers purposefully game the metric, though?
shmageggy wrote 1 day ago:
Good site, but it has some frustrating limitations that make it
vastly less useful, specifically regarding the phenomenon in the
article. The search UI doesnât expose the release code (and many
entries donât even include it), so when it says âvinylâ you
have no idea which of the possibly dozens of releases it refers to,
some of which can be awful, like the article points out.
Iâm willing to help fix this, but the source code is not public,
and when I emailed the author I got no response.
emsign wrote 1 day ago:
There are usefull software components (=extensions) for the
foobar2000 music player (sadly Windows only player) that can
analyze the dynamic range and loudness according to EBU standards.
foo_dr_meter: A simple Dynamic Range meter based on DR estimation
formula published by [1] foo_truepeak: ITU-R BS.1770-5 compliant
True Peak scanner.
ReplayGain is part of the core components of foobar2000, so
automatically adjusting the volume depending on the loudness of the
trakc or entire album is pretty much a default feature of this
player. The latter two components, especially the latter one give
valuable insights into the loudness and mastering quality of a
recording. True Peak can calculate the Peak-to-Integrated Loudness
of a recording for example the headroom between loudest part and
the maximum possible loudness of the format, or it tells you the
loudness range in LUFS meaning how squished or wide the dynamic
range of a track is. Really nifty if you have a huge music
collection and need numbers to quickly compare releases.
HTML [1]: https://dr.loudness-war.info/
spider-mario wrote 11 hours 0 min ago:
Small correction: the formula itself was published by the
Pleasurize Music Foundation ( [1] ), not by loudness-war.info
(which publishes only the results of the formula on various
releases).
There are other tools that can compute it, including MAAT
DROffline MkII (proprietary), as well as a couple open-source,
Python-based tools (DR14 T.meter, DR Check), or [2] in C++.
HTML [1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20131206121248/http://www.dy...
HTML [2]: https://github.com/sboukortt/speedr
bitbckt wrote 1 day ago:
Foobar2000 is not Windows only.
HTML [1]: https://www.foobar2000.org/
emsign wrote 1 day ago:
That's not true anymore. I've heard about complains about badly
compressed vinyl releases by indie artists. Just a few days ago I
came across a comment on discogs.com about this issue: [1] The issue
is that vinyl mastering is a special case and different from digital
mastering. You have to consider extra things like the width of the
grooves, they can vary depending on the runtime of a side, this
affects low frequencies as grooves might cut into each other and
you'll get skips. And high frequencies degrade the closer you get
towards the center of the record. I just think the people who can do
this craft are simply retiring or dying out. This affects major label
and indie artists alike.
HTML [1]: https://www.discogs.com/release/37244526-April-VISTA-Traditi...
sevenzero wrote 1 day ago:
This is mostly the result of a lot of vinyl factories having shut
down due to vinyl becoming mostly irrelevant after the release of
more convenient formats like the CD. At least irrelevant enough to
make factories unsustainable. Most modern vinyls have extremely bad
quality, I'd even go as far and say almost all freshly produced
vinyls. Source: I've worked in a high end luxury HiFi store for
years prior to getting into tech, selling turn tables, tube amps,
speakers and basically whatever you can think off in that space.
kevin_thibedeau wrote 2 days ago:
The fix is to disqualify album of the year eligibility for anything
showing evidence of severe clipping. The industry would rapidly shape
itself up.
Slow_Hand wrote 2 days ago:
And who, exactly, would approve that misguided proposal?
I suspect youâre not involved in contemporary record making. Like
it or not, clipping is a technique and a color that producers,
mixers, and mastering engineers all choose to impart for aesthetic
and technical reasons. It has itâs uses.
If your proposal were passed all that would be left for consideration
would be a handful lame DSD jazz records from those hi-fi enthusiasts
who are disconnected from the reality around how most records are
made these days.
breezybottom wrote 1 day ago:
You might find it lame, but jazz has the highest share of physical
media sales in the US
HTML [1]: https://www.statista.com/chart/32863/genres-with-the-highe...
aidenn0 wrote 1 day ago:
I don't know which genre they would divide the Blues into, but
whenever I discover a new (to me) blues group, I really struggle
to find CDs for them.
kevin_thibedeau wrote 2 days ago:
RIAA is a standards body.
mc32 wrote 2 days ago:
I thought that due to physical limits of the media that mfgs would
avoid this temptation -looks like Iâm way off.
kevin_thibedeau wrote 2 days ago:
Everybody is lazy nowadays and sends their ruined digital mixes out
for everything. It's the production teams that need to fix their
behavior.
What RIAA should do is promote universal use of ReplayGain across
digital distribution platforms. That way people can manage relative
volume as desired without the need to corrupt the audio. They could
make money with a signed tag certifying the mix meets quality
standards.
mrob wrote 2 days ago:
The modern equivalent of ReplayGain, EBU R 128, is already
ubiquitous in the industry. People brickwall records anyway,
presumably because more people are likely to complain about being
unable to hear the quiet parts in their car, or about their phone
speaker not being able to play it loud enough, than about the
whole thing sounding squashed.
The ideal solution would be to distribute high dynamic range
audio with metadata to configure optional playback-time dynamic
range compression for noisy listening environments or weak
playback equipment.
Melatonic wrote 2 days ago:
Agreed
Or make a sound format (like video containers) that could have
two separate mixes of a track.
mdhen wrote 6 days ago:
The main reason vinyl often sounds better is because it is better
mastered, so this is concerning.
BoingBoomTschak wrote 2 days ago:
I'd say "rarely" instead of "often" though it depends on the genre I
guess. There are also a lot of genres that can never sound as good on
vinyl simply due to the lack of dynamic range/silence; mostly
classical and electronic.
scns wrote 1 day ago:
> There are also a lot of genres that can never sound as good on
vinyl simply due to the
inability to encode very low tones.
esikich wrote 2 days ago:
That's just not true and vinyl doesn't sound better by any measure.
nighthawk454 wrote 2 days ago:
Itâs completely true, when the vinyl has a different mastering.
It can be a completely different version. Itâs not because itâs
vinyl
esikich wrote 1 day ago:
Mastering doesn't change much. They're just going to roll off the
low end a bit. A separate mix is an entirely different thing
though.
shmageggy wrote 1 day ago:
Sorry, but you donât know what youâre talking about. Many
releases get mastered separately for digital and for vinyl, and
one or both of them often does âchange muchâ. Usually the
brickwall limiting (among other things) on the digital master.
esikich wrote 22 hours 28 min ago:
I absolutely know what I'm talking about and have released
multiple records. I don't think you know what mastering is
and how subtle it is. You're thinking of a separate mix
which, yes, does sound quite different.
shmageggy wrote 11 hours 3 min ago:
Just because you chose to have subtle mastering applied
doesnât mean that the commercial records weâre
discussing have done the same, particularly for their
digital releases, which is why they sound different. If you
listen to vinyl versus digital releases of certain albums,
it is obvious. Stop spreading misinformation.
nighthawk454 wrote 1 day ago:
It really does on some records, if youâre interested check
out some comparisons on YouTube. Many times itâs subtle eq
tweaks, granted, and that wonât much matter. But a lot of
older rock and pop records for example go from being super
dynamic and well produced to completely crushed with boosted
bass and treble to âmodernizeâ the sound.
You can see some examples of how dynamic range (they donât
track âmasteringâ overall) varies across releases on this
site:
HTML [1]: https://dr.loudness-war.info/
CarVac wrote 2 days ago:
It's true from time to time. Low's last digital releases are
actually unlistenable due to heavy-handed compression, but the
vinyl seems to have been spared.
I had to record the vinyl to get usable digital files.
wk_end wrote 2 days ago:
The loudness and compression on Low's last couple of albums is
very much deliberate, so it's surprising that the vinyl doesn't
have it. Though I heard similar claims about Sleater-Kinney's The
Woods, which was also intensely compressed for artistic effect.
breezybottom wrote 1 day ago:
I mean you literally just acknowledged evidence that it WASN'T
for artistic effect.
wk_end wrote 1 day ago:
I dunno if youâve listened to these records in question but
itâs very, very obviously for artistic effect. Theyâve
discussed it in interviews and stuff. Low wasnât looking to
get radio play with fractured collages of distorted noise.
The âvinyl canât reliably reproduce these waveformsâ
explanation someone else suggested makes the most sense.
breezybottom wrote 1 day ago:
Artists usually aren't involved at the mastering stage, at
that point the music is already recorded and mixed.
wk_end wrote 12 hours 48 min ago:
That's just not true. I just had my band's album
mastered; we weren't in the room or anything but the
mastering engineer asked us directly questions about how
we wanted the record to sound and we got final approval
on it.
Slow_Hand wrote 1 day ago:
This. The loudness is an aesthetic choice.
The reason it was backed off for the vinyl master is most
likely due to physical limitations of the medium. If the audio
channels are too loud (wide) there is risk that the needle will
jump out of the groove.
esikich wrote 1 day ago:
This is exactly why vinyl is inferior to tape and digital.
globular-toast wrote 1 day ago:
It's worse for recording arbitrary waveforms, sure. It's
very well suited for music, though.
CarVac wrote 1 day ago:
Sometimes limitations can have benefits.
majkinetor wrote 1 day ago:
You mean beside all the noise it has?
esikich wrote 22 hours 30 min ago:
A new dust free record shouldn't have any but yeah,
that'll happen over time.
CarVac wrote 1 day ago:
There's compression and distortion for sure on the vinyl, but
when you look at the waveform on the digital it's right up to
the max. It completely changes the sound.
jlarcombe wrote 1 day ago:
The thing is, vinyl (and tape) typically can't reproduce
waveforms like that accurately, so it's difficult to compare.
You can take a hyper-compressed master, cut it to vinyl or
record it to tape, then play it back in to a computer, and
it'll look different and less "brickwalled".
CarVac wrote 1 day ago:
Regardless, for me the CD is actually painful to listen to
even at low volumes, while the vinyl is excellent.
itchingsphynx wrote 6 days ago:
Great website!
sneela wrote 7 days ago:
Also covered by Tech Radar (2025) -- You need to be careful when buying
new vinyl â the digital music loudness war can mean they sound worse
than second-hand records:
HTML [1]: https://www.techradar.com/audio/turntables/you-need-to-be-care...
mauriciolange wrote 1 day ago:
Tech radar article links to the article mentioned by this post.
emsign wrote 1 day ago:
I prefer to buy original releases of CDs second hand on Discogs. I
then digitize them with Exact Audio Copy.
I never bought into the recent vinyl hype. Though I really like the
beautiful design of many new vinyl releases, I don't think they are
for being played. But I used to buy new and used vinyl as a teenager
to actually listen to them, and occasionally I still buy used vinyl.
Vinyl records from the flea market were as cheap as 1â¬, so that was
an efficient way to grow my music collection before file sharing was
a thing.
But now I prefer CDs because what really interests me is the music
itself and I simply prefer the version with the best mastering.
That's often CD releases from the early 1980s to mid 1990s.
And yes, I still buy music because I don't trust music streaming to
be around forever. At least I think there is a real chance CDs will
outlast individual services for sure. And in case the internet gets
shut down because of war, at least I still have music as long as I
have power.
sombragris wrote 1 day ago:
> I never bought into the recent vinyl hype.
This. I'm 55. My teenage years were in the 1980s, where CDs started
to appear but vinyl was still mainstream. I remember Dad having a
significant vinyl library and I also got my own collection.
But I hated caring for that thing. The medium is finicky, prone to
scratches and whatnot, and CDs had more length and also more range
and better sound. So as soon as I was able to get CDs, I got rid of
my vinyl collection faster than one does it with a hot potato in
their hands. I used vinyl daily, hated the whole burden of caring
for it; and against CDs, I really found them wanting.
Too bad the medium got degraded with idiots who used dynamic
compression, but inherently CDs and lossless digital audio in
general is way much better. I never understood the vinyl
resurgence, until some people explained it as being something more
performative and also a way to get better artwork and physical
mementos of the music. Understandable, but I still feel it's weird.
encom wrote 1 day ago:
>I never bought into the recent vinyl hype.
For me, it's the expense and the inconvenience... as the meme goes.
But anyway - I just like it; when I put on a record it's like "I'm
doing this now and nothing else". Sitting on the couch and
listening to Dark Side with a glass of wine. Remembering when my
dad used to play records and I wasn't allowed to touch it because
the stylus was expensive and fragile. It's a vibe, as the kids say.
soupfordummies wrote 2 days ago:
I prefer original pressings whenever possible. It's still sometimes
cheaper, but that is quickly going the other way.
buildsjets wrote 1 day ago:
I keep 3 pressings of Led Zep II out so I can demonstrate the
difference to people who donât believe that there is one. A
first-week Robert Ludwig mastered version, a second-week pressing
of the Ahmet Ertegun disaster, and 1977 remaster that really sounds
just as good as the 1969 RL mix and is a lot cheaper. $20 for a VG+
copy compared to $1300. I am not insane so I did not spend $1300
on a used vinyl record, I found mine for $2 at Goodwill.
HTML [1]: https://www.therevolverclub.com/blogs/the-revolver-club/th...
lmm wrote 1 day ago:
> I am not insane so I did not spend $1300 on a used vinyl
record, I found mine for $2 at Goodwill.
How is holding onto it instead of selling it for $1300 any less
insane than buying it for $1300 in the first place?
iainmerrick wrote 1 day ago:
Even if you think in purely transactional terms like "asset
currently worth $1300", what's wrong with holding onto an
asset? Especially one that's likely to appreciate, not
depreciate, as long as you look after it carefully.
And in the meantime, you get to enjoy owning it.
axus wrote 1 day ago:
This is the psychological basis of capitalism: we enjoy
owning things.
hidroto wrote 1 day ago:
all right let me buy one of your kidneys, after all you only
need one.
mrweasel wrote 1 day ago:
The logic is a little broken for me... If he really wanted the
record, and got it for $2, why would he then sell it and then
not have it? Replacing it would cost at least $1300.
You're logic is why so much in this world if fucking broken.
Everything is a grift, a hustle, an opportunity for profit.
NikolaNovak wrote 1 day ago:
People are getting angry at the math here. I'm Not the OP and
have no moral judgement here, but from strict bank account
balance perspective it's the same. Persuade me otherwise
through addition and subtraction, not moral appeals.
1. I have 10,000 in my bank account.
2. I see a 1,300 record I like
3. I buy it
4. My bank account now has 8700
5. There's 1,300 difference if I choose to buy it or not
1. I have 10,000 in my bank account
2. I have a 1,300 record
3. If I sell it my bank account will have 11,300
4. 1,300 difference if I choose to sell it or not
No "end of the world, this is what's wrong with everybody"
gross hyperboles please, I don't care one iota about whether
anybody buys or sells expensive records, I don't make any
moral judgement whatsoever and would appreciate people in
turn not making extreme assumptions about what I think about
expensive records. But economically, buying an expensive item
or selling expensive item is the same - Prove it wrong with
numbers not appeals to emotion please.
kube-system wrote 1 day ago:
This calculation is faulty because neglects all of the
intangible value.
The reason anyone buys anything other than the minimum
clothing, food, and shelter for mere survival is because of
intangible value.
Any time you see someone who is not opting to optimize
tangible value, it is likely that you are simply failing to
observe some intangible value.
> Prove it wrong with numbers not appeals to emotion
please.
This is a false dichotomy. Intangible value is not some
fallacious appeal to emotion -- it is a real thing that
economists overwhelmingly agree exists, but also recognize
is difficult to put a number on.
econrebuttal1 wrote 1 day ago:
friction and transaction costs exists in our world which
are absolutely factors that would delineate the economic
utility of purchasing a new luxury item from selling an
already owned luxury item.
Spend $2.
Receive album worth $1000.
Make $300 an hour at job.
Have no immediate use case for $1000 in cash.
Have somewhat immediate want for music on that album.
Time to sell album with high quality images/ description,
deal with questions from discerning buyers (tire-kickers),
post the album: 4 hours
Opportunity cost- $1,200
Sale value - $1000
Replacement album cost - $20
Deciding to sell would put this hypothetical guy down $220
vs just listening to his cool, potential appreciating album
and working for the same amount of time.
happyraul wrote 1 day ago:
I don't think it's useful to account for time spent
outside of work by the same hourly income as a way to
measure how much something costs. By that logic, spending
an hour listening would also "cost" $300.
dash2 wrote 1 day ago:
Turns out HN users have the Endowment Effectâ¦
jmalicki wrote 16 hours 43 min ago:
And are crazy defensive at pretending it is somehow
rational!
mrweasel wrote 1 day ago:
> Prove it wrong with numbers not appeals to emotion please
But my point is that I don't care about the numbers. If
fact my complaint was that it was made into a financial
decision, just because the record happens to be worth
$1300.
If it was a $10 record, bought used at $2, then few would
argue that you should sell it and make $8. My argument is
that it doesn't matter if you could make $8 or $1298, not
if you enjoy the record and wish keep it. It's the
defaulting to "You could make money" in so many of aspects
of life that's starting to annoy me.
NikolaNovak wrote 1 day ago:
The thread started with calling those who buy a record at
1300, and I quote, insane. Argument was made that keeping
a 1300 record is equally insane or not. That is the
discussion here. It started about whether 1300 was sane
or not. It was not turned into that discussion by people
who hussle.
It is a massive massive massive privilege of us here to
even ponder keeping a record we bought for 2 which could
be sold for 1300. For a lot of other population this
would be not even an argument.
Again, I don't actually care, but I do believe that
mathematically, if one starts with assumption / claim
that buying a 1300 record is insane, not selling it is
equally insane (or not;). Crux of my argument is that two
sides of that equation are equal, not whether we should
consider that equation or not. I find it dishonest to
make one side of the claim, but go all "modern culture is
all about hussle!" When pointing the equivalence of the
other side of the claim.
Jach wrote 1 day ago:
You are assuming symmetries where there are none. I
want a thing, discover it's readily available for
$1300, that seems insane, so I don't buy it. By chance
I acquire the thing from a source that was unaware of
its fair market value for $2, amazing deal. I have the
thing without having to pay an insane price, I am
happy. Now here comes an insane person who wants it
enough to offer me $1300. Both parties must benefit
from an exchange for there to be a transaction, but the
benefit is always subjective to them, depends on public
and private information, there's no symmetry in
buying/selling, and the equations have inequalities
rather than equal signs. Now if the offer is
sufficiently higher than $1300, or I know I can find
the thing again for sufficiently less, or I find myself
in need of the $1298 unrealized gain for other things,
then sure, it becomes insane to not sell, but absent
such factors refusing a fair market offer at a price
you wouldn't ever entertain paying yourself is not
insane. Additionally, prices aren't static, platonic
things. If someone is insane enough to offer $1300,
perhaps they are insane enough to offer $2600 in a
year, I will be enjoying the thing in the meantime.
NikolaNovak wrote 6 hours 58 min ago:
>> You are assuming symmetries where there are none
That's the Crux of the conversation here, with two
differing perspectives. I'm not assuming it, I'm
putting my perspective forward. and asking either
clear disproof or acknowledgement of two
perspectives.
My perspective to be clear :
If I buy a thing for $2, somebody offers me $1,300
for it, and it is not worth $1,300 to me, I will
likely sell it; or I will acknowledge that it's
clearly worth 1,300 to me and not call others who buy
it for 1,300 insane :).
(This is the opposite of claiming there is no
sentimental value. This is acknowledging that
somethings absolutely have sentimental value to me
and others are more utility based).
Dylan16807 wrote 1 day ago:
It's fine if you want to own and use an expensive thing.
The argument is not "you could make money", the argument
is that if you got the expensive thing for free and
choose not to sell then you're roughly as "insane" as the
person that paid full price. Go ahead and splurge but
try not to be a hypocrite about it. It's not lmm that
was passing judgement, it was the person that owns the
record passing judgement.
williamdclt wrote 1 day ago:
If they don't need $1300 cash, they don't have any real reason
to sell it
bravura wrote 1 day ago:
Who taught you this? And why do you think this way?
jmalicki wrote 16 hours 46 min ago:
It's called the fallacy of sunk costs.
thatguy0900 wrote 1 day ago:
It's the thought process you learn by having some financial
issues in life. You feel guilty for owning expensive things
instead of selling them to buy other things.
I have the same problems with trading cards I own from a long
time ago that are now expensive, I can keep them for
sentimental reasons or sell them to put it towards some bill
pembrook wrote 1 day ago:
OP has a valid question though.
If you think its insane to spend that amount of money on it
(essentially: it's not worth that much to you), then you
holding onto it instead of having $1300 is pretty much the
exact same scenario? By holding onto it you're saying it is
worth that much to you.
It sounds like believing you hunted down a 'deal' causes you
to wildly change how you perceive value at an emotional
level.
I would probably do the same thing. It's just funny to see
expressed on HN where everybody complains that advertising
and marketing are evil/scams and proclaims loudly how
rational they are.
hluska wrote 1 day ago:
I donât see any sign they own the original pressing which
is $1300. Instead they own the 1977 remaster which
apparently sounds as good as the original pressing though I
donât own the original. The 1977 remaster sells for
between $5 and $50 depending on grade. I paid $3 for mine
and it might be worth $25 or $30 of if I did a lot of leg
work.
Youâre making a lot of assumptions here in your thinking.
The first one is that you can just randomly turn around and
sell that record for $1300. Hitting those peaks usually
only happens with in person sales or amongst collectors who
know each other well. Itâs incredibly expensive to get to
that point and requires thousands of hours of work. For a
normal person without extensive contacts, itâs still a
lot of leg work for a fraction of that price. That might
yield maybe $30 an hour.
Some people value their time higher than that; itâs
really not that deep.
chownie wrote 1 day ago:
He wants the thing. He does not value the thing at 1300
dollars so he would not buy it for 1300 dollars. He found
it for a lower value, he kept it because the point at the
start was he wanted the thing.
On the topic of HN users, is it our collective first day on
earth?
pembrook wrote 1 day ago:
The point is it's irrational behavior. And we all do it.
It's burning $5 in gas and $20 in time to go to a store
further away and save $25 on a sale item. And then
proudly bragging "I'm not like those idiots who pay full
price!"
OP didn't find a record...he found a $1300 arbitrage,
then decided to spend the proceeds on the record by
keeping it.
In other words, this is why selling stuff to consumers is
a nightmare.
You have to trick them into believing they "won one over"
on everybody else, via discounting and promotions, no
matter if ultimately they're the ones losing by spending
hours of their time jumping through hoops on a product
that they legitimately value at full price.
ToucanLoucan wrote 1 day ago:
> On the topic of HN users, is it our collective first
day on earth?
The disease of financialization at work. Money is all
that matters to people, everything is converted into
money. It's only value is what you could get from selling
it, and/or what you spent to acquire it.
Like those weird fuckers who buy $200k supercars so they
can sit in a damn garage. (She said, having put 30k miles
on a Corvette inside of 3 years)
genewitch wrote 1 day ago:
10k mi/yr is a nice round "lease" number of miles. Are
you sure you don't value the resale value of your car
more than the joy value?
someone, above:
> believing you hunted down a 'deal' causes you to
wildly change how you perceive value at an emotional
level.
I'm going to quote myself, paraphrased, because i
forget the exact phrasing.
"All else equal, which tastes better: ice cream you've
paid for; or ice cream that cost you nothing?"
edit: i didn't intend the above to be snark, even
though it may read that way.
ToucanLoucan wrote 1 day ago:
> 10k mi/yr is a nice round "lease" number of miles.
Are you sure you don't value the resale value of your
car more than the joy value?
I mean it's helped by the fact that I can only
realistically drive it like 7-8 months out of each
year, and it's my fun car, not a commuter. As much as
I'd love to drive for fun every day that's just not
feasible, lol. That said it's resale value has never
once entered my mind. I'm waiting until the loan is
paid off at which point I'm planning several
modifications to get more power out of it, and
probably a lambo-door-hinge kit.
Dylan16807 wrote 1 day ago:
> He does not value the thing at 1300 dollars
If you decline to sell a thing for an easy 1300, doesn't
that mean you value it at 1300 or more?
GuinansEyebrows wrote 1 day ago:
it could simply be that you value owning the object in
terms other than money. sentimental reasons,
completionism tendencies, novelty, some other
"non-rational"/emotional reason; any of these can have
a stronger pull on the mind than $1300 to someone who
doesn't immediately need the cash for survival. i have
some records like this (not in that price-range but
still) along with a few other collectible items (some
rare handmade keycaps that were going for over $500 a
piece at one point) that I refuse to part with for
money because i just... like them :)
brazzy wrote 1 day ago:
Only if you actually need the 1300 cash, or think that
you won't be able to sell it in the future.
jmalicki wrote 16 hours 45 min ago:
If you don't need the 1300 cash, or think that you
could sell it in the future, you could also buy it
rather than merely not selling it.
Borealid wrote 1 day ago:
Technically no, because selling a thing is both a risk
and a cost (of time and money).
foobarbecue wrote 1 day ago:
Take me to your reader
thaumasiotes wrote 1 day ago:
He thinks that way because it's the only correct way to
think.
Try raising the value of the record and see what you think
about it.
prmoustache wrote 1 day ago:
The fact it sold once at that price doesn't mean there is
still someone willing to buy it at that price.
And he doesn't necessarili need thos $1300
JKCalhoun wrote 1 day ago:
I have no idea, have not looked into the value of my record
collection.
An easy end to that line of reasoning for me.
NikolaNovak wrote 1 day ago:
Mathematically that's absolutely true.
Emotionally, it feels different. It's fascinating to see
downright angry gut reactions!
A few years ago my friend was selling his expensive camera
on Kijiji. I asked him to sell it to me for slightly less
as a friendly discount. He told me that's the same as just
randomly one day giving me a wad of cash, so why would he
do that?? I thought he's crazy and was a little bit
offended. Actually maybe a fair bit offended!
It took me YEARS to realize that 1. He's absolutely
completely Inarguably correct, and 2. People would find me
no less crazy if I adopted same perspective.
Buy for $x, have and not sell for $x, same mathematically.
But oh boy will people get instantly riled up emotionally
:).
jerf wrote 1 day ago:
"Buy for $x, have and not sell for $x, same
mathematically."
Sort of. People are being less irrational than it sounds
if you account for transaction costs. There's a lot of
stuff I might "sell" if I could point a video-game-like
pointer at it and right click and hit "sell", and it just
instantly disappeared and money was credited to my bank
account. Perhaps even more if buying was just as easy and
I didn't need to hang on to something like my drill which
I don't use very often and I could trivially "rent" it
from the market by buying, using it, and selling in mere
minutes.
But in practice one-off selling for anything less than
$100 or so is a waste of time because there are
significant transaction costs for one-off events like
that.
jorvi wrote 1 day ago:
Usually you give your friends a friendly discount because
it saves the hassle from advertising, packing, etc. and
also your friends return the favor.
But I would never sell something expensive to a friend,
period. There be dragons.
ssl-3 wrote 1 day ago:
Even giving things to friends can invoke dragons.
If I want a thing gone, for whatever reason I want that
to happen, then I want it gone. I never want to see it
again.
When I get rid of a thing with eBay or Craigslist or FB
Marketplace or whatever this decade's thing is, or with
a dumpster, then it is gone from my life. It will
never resurface.
But friends have a habit of bringing things back.
Whether it's "Hey, remember that camera you gave me?"
or "Hey, my old lady is kicking me out -- can I store
some shit in your garage [like these four giant
rackmount Elo touchscreens that I wouldn't let you bin
two years ago]?", things given to friends have a bad
habit of coming back 'round.
dmurray wrote 1 day ago:
I'd be inclined to pay more for it getting it from my
friend than on a second hand marketplace. It removes
the chance I'm going to be scammed, or the product
isn't as described, or the seller will leave me a bad
review.
On the other hand, I wouldn't ask my friend to pay more
if selling, so maybe a par price is fair.
JKCalhoun wrote 1 day ago:
You hit all the salient points.
throw0101a wrote 1 day ago:
> Buy for $x, have and not sell for $x, same
mathematically. But oh boy will people get instantly
riled up emotionally :).
Price and value are not the same. The logic of your
friend was basically putting a price on how "special" (or
not) he saw your relationship versus some rando-buyer
online.
That is why people (close to you) get riled up
emotionally: they're being treated in a way no different
than a complete stranger.
Dylan16807 wrote 1 day ago:
If you ask your friend for $100 for no particular
reason, just because you want $100, that's an annoying
request and "no" is a reasonable response. It's not
putting a price on your relationship. It's technically
the same answer they'd give a stranger, but that
doesn't mean you're being treated like a stranger.
(I do think a slight discount often makes sense just
because a friend is probably quicker and easier to deal
with. But anything more substantial turns into asking
for free stuff, and yes and no are both perfectly fine
answers to that.)
throw0101a wrote 6 hours 38 min ago:
> If you ask your friend for $100 for no particular
reason, just because you want $100, that's an
annoying request and "no" is a reasonable response.
If a stranger walks up to you and asks for $100,
you're unlikely to give it to him. If a friend does,
there's a more likely probability that you will
consider the request.
And depending on the relationship, you may expect for
the money to be paid back (eventually), or you may
not (considering it a gift). (Often the advice is to
consider "loans" to family and friends as gifts in
practice, as otherwise the expectation of repayment
may sour the relationship.)
Dylan16807 wrote 3 hours 9 min ago:
Sure you'll consider it. The point is you could
say yes or no without being a bad friend if their
reason for the money is "friendship I guess?
*shrug*".
I don't know why so many people are acting like I
said a "no" is the only acceptable answer.
NikolaNovak wrote 1 day ago:
That's the thing. This was a $3000 camera. A 20%
friends discount is 600. We've been best friends for
two decades, but most days he doesn't give me $600 on
cash. Don't get me wrong, we don't keep track who
paid for dinner or cinema ticket or whatever. But
there IS a threshold at which it really becomes a
random cash gift.
Yes dealing with friends is nicer than strangers -
but also when you're selling stuff, sometimes it's
better to do strangers. Expectations of long term
service and support are clearer and have more defined
boundaries.
throw0101a wrote 6 hours 35 min ago:
> But there IS a threshold at which it really
becomes a random cash gift.
Not wrong, but it is also possible that the $600
'cash equivalent' discount would be considered a
birthday or Christmas present, or a form of
'repayment' for the time he helped you out with the
Thing with the Guy in the Place. (âI'd never been
to Belize.â)
soulofmischief wrote 1 day ago:
I guess friendship means different things to
different people. I've had friends spot me plenty
more than $600 and I've spent thousands on friends
in return. I can't imagine having such an
indifferent attitude towards someone I care about.
Dylan16807 wrote 1 day ago:
"Spot you" implies you actually had a level of
need for the money.
Declining to give you $600 out of the blue
because you'd rather have more money is not being
indifferent.
soulofmischief wrote 22 hours 4 min ago:
It can imply that, but it can imply other
things too and you shouldn't draw conclusions
from one interpretation. You've never just paid
for a friend's dinner or ticket?
Perhaps this is a cultural thing. I routinely
buy gifts for friends, pay for their meals,
travel and vice versa. Having more money is not
some supreme objective that is more important
than the people around you. Money is just a
tool for enjoying life. I come from an
impoverished and deprived background, spent
years homeless since I was a teenager, and I
still recognize that putting money before
friends is a scarcity mindset.
Dylan16807 wrote 18 hours 18 min ago:
Gifts are nice but deciding not to give
someone a gift out of absolutely nowhere is
not "putting money before friends".
soulofmischief wrote 16 hours 4 min ago:
"deciding not to give someone a gift out of
absolutely nowhere" as a matter of course,
as a guiding philosophical principle, is
categorically putting money before friends.
Dylan16807 wrote 14 hours 47 min ago:
That's reading way too much into the
earlier posts.
soulofmischief wrote 12 hours 17 min
ago:
I'd say I'm reading into them the
regular amount. Your entire premise is
that you wouldn't just hand money to a
friend for no reason. I challenged this
mentality and whether or not such a
friendship is ideal, offering a
perspective into why there are more
important things in life than money.
If this isn't your intent, you should
reflect on how you've presented your
argument.
Dylan16807 wrote 2 hours 25 min ago:
I didn't say you have to say no, I
said you can say no without any
negative implications on your
friendship.
I have no idea where you got saying
no as a matter of principle.
Also if saying no is putting money
above friendship then so is the
friend asking for money for no
reason!
soulofmischief wrote 10 min ago:
> I have no idea where you got
saying no as a matter of principle.
right after this yous say:
> Also if saying no is putting
money above friendship then so is
the friend asking for money for no
reason!
No, it isn't, and the fact that you
see it that way perfectly
illustrates the point I've been
trying to make.
pbhjpbhj wrote 1 day ago:
Yes, strictly true, but friendship is worth it, no? Do
you spend a couple of hours with a friend and then hand
each other bills for the hours? Clearly there was a[n
opportunity] cost to both of you, after all. Just
spending time together without charging would be like
randomly handing over a wad of cash ...
>Buy for $x, have and not sell for $x, same
mathematically.
They're not the same.
£20 item to buy, I have £100; buying leaves me £80.
Either, I have £100; not buying/selling leaves me £100
£20 item I own, I have £100; selling leaves me £120.
In the first case maybe I can't make rent now. In the
last case I have more cash, but then I need to spend
money if I want entertainment/utility that the item had.
In the first case I lose 25% of my cash; in the last I
gain 20% (this matters when you're sharing your money
across different needs).
Dylan16807 wrote 1 day ago:
If you're trying to make rent right now it makes a
difference. In the long run it's looking at X income
and comparing how much better/worse off you'd be with
X-1 and X+1 income, and those two deltas are almost the
same. The fluctuation in value of the object will make
a bigger difference than the technicalities of buying
versus selling.
embedding-shape wrote 1 day ago:
> He thinks that way because it's the only correct way to
think.
I typed up something, but ended up almost antagonistic. I
realize I just feel sad that for some people money is
literally the single goal in their life, seemingly nothing
else matters.
Dylan16807 wrote 1 day ago:
What are you talking about?
They didn't say anything about what decision is correct.
They just said that the two decisions are equivalent.
Please note the use of the word "insane" is specifically
because buildsjets said it was insane.
prollings wrote 1 day ago:
Why? We know the price was $1300. Doesn't mean anyone would
buy it for that much.
So try lowering the number and see what you think?
The value is what someone is willing to pay for it.
DIR <- back to front page