Loudness Wars a Modern Example (Radiohead)

Please click here • Loudness Wars a Modern... for HQ stereo.
Radiohead made the stems for the different instruments available with little compression applied I made my own Mix and master so that I can have a more up to date example.
So you think In Rainbows sounded good? Well its does compared to many modern albums, as there is no clipping but it has very carefully it has been very heavily compressed which means that while you might not notice immediately anything wrong with it, its only because you don't know it any better, why is this a problem, well for one it shows it could have sounded alot better than it does, and secondly constantly loud grabs your attention but in the long run discourages repeat listening without most people even realising why.
Some people have stated this is how the band wanted it, oh so it's just artistic intent that In Rainbows is just as loud as everybody else, FWIW This is how it might have sounded had the song been released about the time as Pablo Honey.
It's a shame I couldn't do this to Jigsaw, that would have been awesome!

[@spillow762]

On my sound system the difference is so huge I can't even believe it

[@mikosoft]

This is so far the best example of what loudness war does to recordings I have heard

[@riffhousestudios96]

Huge difference

[@MrHugosantos1982]

Wow, this example shows clearly the non-sense of maximum loudness.

[@riffhousestudios96]

It’s funny because it sounds quieter

[@TerryGordonirish]

Thank you for putting this example on KZbin, I joined the loudness wars many years ago, and I refuse to master albums in this way, and I am persuading other sound engineers to do the same, ruining a good mix just to make it louder is madness.

[@DavidB-rx3km]

I hate it. I have a big playlist for the gym of random music and I can hear the comparison between generally older, well recorded stuff and new music is massive, there's absolutely no reason to make it loud just for the sake of it. Worse is constantly adjusting the volume in the car because the speakers can't take it.

[@RJLupin-zu9xv]

Wow. I wish that more artists released the stems to their albums. If, hypothetically, you would have a lossless copy of this around somewhere, I'd probably want a copy. :3

[@very025]

Ngl this kinda aged pretty well.

[@briancha7741]

holy shit. the snare gives it away so much. it sounds so damn full uncompressed.

[@Selrisitai]

I think the snare is often the giveaway because it's clearly one of the louder parts of a song.

[@lik_doyaya]

What a bunch of parroted nonsense. Compressing a snare drum makes it sound fuller. If anything, the "uncompressed" version would have a weaker, less "full" snare.

[@Selrisitai]

@@lik_doyaya "Compress" just means "make it less loud and quiet." How the eff would PREVENTING the snare from having a sharp spike of loudness, which is basically the whole idea behind this percussive instrument, make it sound fuller? By the way, have you ever been near a real-life snare drum when it was struck, or struck one yourself? It has a loud spike of sound that rapidly decays, and it has tons of textural over- and under-tones. What's more, you can actually _feel_ the sound pressure of a snare if you're within a foot or three. Yet, by your logic that must be impossible, because in real life, it's not compressed! How can that be?

[@hkat321]

The difference is noticeable even on just a cell phone speaker, dang

[@ajuk1]

The second version is not from the Vinyl, Radiohead released the stems for the song and so I was easily able to create a much more dynamic version.

[@jcims]

This is an excellent example. The soundstage in the stem is so much wider and more well defined...the guitar really pops in the right channel...great stuff.

[@darthnozo]

You can really hear the difference when the strings come in 0:45 vs. 0:13. Beautiful, the depth of sound.

[@UNBEK4NNTE]

Wow, I didnt expect to hear any difference but the 2nd one sounds a lot better!

[@GregoryEvansRacing]

The second one is so much nicer!

[@gmjones2001]

Wow! The guitar part is total mis-imaged in the first one, more centered and lost in the mix. In the second version, it's definitely more to the right channel and way more 'there'. First time through during the first version, I was reading comments and didn't even notice the guitar part, lol. When the second version started I thought "What a cool guitar line .. wait .. what?"

[@pignanelli]

Right. Once you chop off those peaks, there's no real way to know where they would have ended up, after the fact. Particularly the peaks upon peaks. =D (That's why you get that funny pumping sound in the high frequencies on bass-rich overcompressed tracks.)

[@Sam-xn1db]

Geez thought for a second that it was another song!

[@cisplatine]

The mixing is definitively different between the two versions ! This is a BIG reason to feel some much changes ! Listen to Jonny's guitar right at the start : the CD version pans it on the left side, whereas the vinyl's on the right speaker. Were the L&R channels voluntary swapped ?

[@pignanelli]

Also, the loudness advantage has been removed by scaling the overcompressed track down - which IS what happens in real life when you turn the volume knob down - it's just the when multiple tracks are playing sequentially without volume adjustment, the overcompressed tracks sounds louder, therefore better, particularly on poor reproducers. (In high noise environments, they might be the only ones you hear!)

[@frannyquacks]

Listen to "Talk Show Host" on The Bends compared to the version on The Best Of.The new edition has the drums clipped into oblivion.

[@tommysandal6930]

Radiohead is fucking amazing.

[@Redhotsmasher]

This is an excellent example of how something that sounds relatively smooth still sounds 9001 times better when not mixed like crap.

[@Jaspertine]

One word man: Gorgeous.

[@IlluminaudioOG]

If such a thing existed, professional audio engineers would no longer be needed.

[@Quanturos]

I really like this example. Probably the best one I've heard so far, as you can really hear the difference between the master/remaster. So you got both the CD and Vinyl to show this, or did you make the edits yourself?

[@Selrisitai]

He said he has the stems and was able to make the second master himself.

[@deSadetheImpaler]

okay,NOW i understand what all the fuss is about,thanks for the upload.there has to be some kinda grass roots movement to stop this sort of thing.and with a band like radiohead no less, WTF!?!

[@ajuk1]

The vinyl version of this album unfortunately not much more dynamic, which tell me the source might have already been brick walled and it wasn't done during mastering but I would love to be proved wrong if MFSL ever got their hands on this album, as for how I did this read the description.

[@nacho7742]

The first part belongs to the regular versions of this album (streaming, cd and 33 rpm vinyl), the second part is taken from 45 rpm limited edition vinyl, and its very expensive 😭 😢😢

[@Levdrekinn]

Even the shitty speaker on my found, I could tell which one sounded better. So you by any chance have all songs remixed? If so I'd love to give them a listen.

[@MVenk]

Now I feel the need of getting the vinyl lol

[@bkev93]

@bkev93 Actually, a more practical (legal) question: would their vinyl release be any better? Or is it mastered the same?

[@AwesomeDeadScum]

and this is a fair comparison and signal RMS has nothing to do with this anyway its from 2 totally different sources and you can see the dynamics on the video waveform as you see the first one is artificially clipped and the second one has no clipped dynamics.

[@wado1942]

@ajuk1 You can't "make it loud" without harming the audio. Any damage done to the audio is distortion. When a snare drum snaps and causes the limiter to push it down to the level of everything else, while pushing everything else down to a fraction of that level for a few milliseconds, that's distortion. Not only that, but very squishy and generally wimpy sounding.

[@Poraqui]

Amazing the difference. It goes from earing "stuff" to an organic musical experience

[@vikingfortiesfaeroes]

It speaks volumes that the best-mastered Radiohead album is probably The Bends

[@MarkNakib]

WOW! What a difference!! How long ago have producers been doing this do you reckon?

[@Kaopoke]

Which genres sound better without full dynamics then?

[@tvojoosrategace]

None

[@adamrieselala]

More dynamics !!!!

[@crazyedd123]

@ajuk1 ye but you can tell the difference in the drums mostly. i know what you mean though, i only noticed the drums being different in the 'better' version, the other instruments sounded fine

[@philosophiaentis5612]

So the uncompressed version is not available? They release just the compressed master? Are there any master of this album with less compression?

[@lazrpo]

@Progrogger potentially, but there is no real way to re-add dynamics. You can improve them, but not completely fix them.

[@oogenesis]

man, this hurts. the original mix is much gentler and cleaner sounding and not fuzzy at all.

[@googenshlagen]

@truefaith00 I agree as far as dynamic, and I would say, as a mix, Hail to the Thief has a lot more life. But I've always though In Rainbows was incredibly clean. What/Where (in the album) do you mean by that?

[@Cletonico]

hey, great Explanation about the Nude song on loudness wars, i really hoped their cd's werent trap in that. hey do you know if the vinyls (all new Lp's or just the radiohead ones) suffer from this too? beacuase of waht i've read they have more dynamics, and they must to be done in that way from where you could make you mix? it would be great then listen all in rainbows without compression

[@Trancefreak12]

Great video, I've actually heard worse compression than this, in which everything became quieter when the kick drum sounded.

[@mikafoxx2717]

Radioactive by Imagine Dragons is a good example of this effect

[@jonmattox]

Well done!

[@Cletonico]

other things that i understand form the mastering is that you can pull up or down and correct Freq's, so how this isn't so obvious in the remastered song's examples? The mastering is important as the mix, in a way that i understand that you have to know how is gonna be your mix (For example: style of music) to know what kind of mastering "treatment" you want. how can know really if it's or not the artist desire to really have it that way? obviously this is not exclusive to pop music only

[@AwesomeDeadScum]

@AverageCabbage maybe because first you record a digital version and before it can be amplified a DAC (digital-analog converter) needs to be used anyway... which makes the quality even worse

[@consortium1979]

Interesting, Listening to my CD version the compression didn't seem as bad as your demo. I recorded the same section of the track into Logic and left plenty of head room and the wave form is far more dynamic that the one you show (admittedly not as dynamic as your mix). While I agree that there is an unfortunate trend of over compressing at the mastering stage (the last metallica album even clipped at points) Im not sure that this is the best example.

[@Auralnoirr]

@ajuk1 while there is no barely any audible clicking and distortion, most of it is removed during mastering. also a better example would have been comparing the CD to the Vinyl version. Most notably the ending to All I Need.

[@Progrogger]

i was just wondering.. is it possible, if i had a realllly good expander, could i apply it to the overcompressed master and somehow revive the dynamics that were lost?

[@bkev93]

Did you alter the whole album? I'd be very interested in your changes...

[@spead]

I WANT TO FUCKING CRY!!!. There is an abysmal difference.

[@peckishere]

I think they have to put more 'effort' into it to make it sound louder. when this was recorded on the master it would of sounded like the second example rather than the first

[@Redhotsmasher]

I stand corrected.

[@lovelylychee2255]

Oh my god this drives me nuts... I've been comparing the clip to Apple Music and ughh with the Nirvana one I couldn't tell as much but for this song I cannnnnnn!!!!!!!! Cause when the bottom part hits it just has a different feeling, like it's sinks in better? Which probably doesn't make any sense, but I don't know how else to explain it and AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH this is so aggravating, I'm gonna go cry tears of sadness now TmT

[@TomJeefs]

The loudness wars are everywhere..but wow...this one really got destroyed

[@ajuk1]

@zdfhjk, there are loudness war examples of heavy rock music also on KZbin, and they also sound like crap when brick walled.

[@liquidribs]

where can i actually buy or download unscrewed music?

[@darthhomie]

I don't believe the original online release suffered from this. I DLed the MP3 version of the album on release. As Ironic as this is, I feel like the 160 kb/s MP3 has more depth due to this compression. I checked the sound wave file and it looks like the remastered version.

[@bustersgotavmax]

the channels are reversed in these examples, did they reverse them in post.

[@tempinternetname]

Yeah, I don't know how people don't notice it. Anyone semi-serious about music will have noted in the very obvious way: the dial on your speakers (or whatnot) is at a different location (lower, in this case) yet is significantly louder than other things.

[@ajuk1]

I know In Rainbows sounds good but it's bound to as you don't know it any better that is the point of this vid, it does sound good but it could be even better, I hope MFSL are allowed to do Radiohead one day.

[@billstpor]

@AverageCabbage Actually I'm closer to 40 now, so I'm more than familiar with its sound. It's just that as I was saying, those subjective impressions (depth, warmth, etc.. ) are a byproduct of the physical limitations of the format. However, both the equalization and amps used in the analog era were quite different than today's, which have a flatter response. Objectively, there's no more "depth" or "dynamic range" in those records than in a digital format, just for the fact of being analog.

[@billstpor]

Also, the overall quality (and musicality) of much of the consumer gear sold these days is pretty appalling. Not just the amplifiers, which nowadays double as home theaters, which means they need to heavily compromise on their musical performance, but also the low quality DACs (either in the CD/DVD player or the home theater depending on the type of output) that severely degrade the quality of the sound, even as it gets converted to analog.

[@h0lx]

it just sounds louder, compare it at matching subjective levels.

[@johnhairston6266]

I think the point of the compressed sound of the original mix was to give it a more “Phil Spektor, Wall of Sound” feel to it. however, your mix is nice.

[@potter531]

This is definitely a misleading video. This is not an example of the loudness wars at all. First, This section of the track takes place at the crescendo of the song, right after Thom's long wail. If the up-loader would have shown that the majority of the first half of the track looks like his own mix, even better than his own mix. Second, he only includes the waveform of the left channel. The right has much nicer peaks, and is where the drums are primarily placed anyway.

[@RollingHousesUK]

@ajuk1 it's not clipping in the sense of breaking the absolute zero limit of a digital recording (ie nasty distortion), but rather clipping the peaks. Of course technically it's compression, not clipping. But regardless, the CD master IS compromised in my opinion. The second example shown in this video has much better dynamics and the sound quality of the drums in particular is much, much better.

[@thagabagoop6115]

Wow I thought my headphones was good, but I can't even tell the difference with these on

[@Nettacki]

It actually started with Oasis and their album "What's the Story? (Morning Glory)"

[@redditbanditvideos7585]

Gives us the full version!

[@ajuk1]

Radiohead released the stems for this and Reckoner, unfortunately not Jigsaw.

[@GregoryEvansRacing]

LOL, "volume sliders". Whatever happened to knobs and dials?!

[@ajuk1]

There is no clipping, the sound quality isn't distorted, Radiohead are very careful to just have it loud.

[@dimensione90]

The attack of percussions it's destroyed. Loudness war represents perfectly human stupidity, the fact that some audio engineer defends it it's worse

[@LividAxis]

IT'S OVER 9000!!!!!

[@bombatta1544]

In every country, there are always different releases of albums and CD’s. For example, a CD or album released in Germany and Japan they will have different mixes and they will have a different dynamic range than a CD released in the U.S. Why is this? I do not know. If you go to the loudness war website, and look up an album it will tell you the specific dynamic range, the country it was released in and the serial number of the album or the CD. I do not have a great system but my stereo system is good. A few years ago, I put in “OK Computer,” and it was clipping and it sounded like crap. In fact, it sounded like my speakers were broken. I found out about the loudness wars. The dynamic range of “OK Computer,” was seven. A good dynamic range should be 15-16. There were a few versions of “OK Computer” with a dynamic range of ten. A dynamic range of ten is not great but I searched for it on EBay, got the copy and listened to it again. It sounded better. The only genre where dynamic range does not matter is electronic or house music.

[@vikingfortiesfaeroes]

CDs having different masterings in different countries was generally only prevalent in the 80s, and it's almost non-existent now. Radiohead albums particularly do NOT have different masterings, there's only one used worldwide.

[@bombatta1544]

@@vikingfortiesfaeroes Regarding Radiohead, what you stated is not true. The album mix is different from the American press that I had. Same with In Rainbows.

[@vikingfortiesfaeroes]

@@bombatta1544 I don't believe that there's an official CD of OK Computer that has an average DR rating of DR10, and the very site you mentioned - the Dynamic Range Database - verifies that every CD copy of In Rainbows has the same mastering! But anyway, you seem to be too preoccupied with DR numbers. There are several albums from the 80s and early 90s that have tracks that measure DR9 & DR10, and they sound fantastic. It's more about the quality of the mastering than how much dynamic range a track has.

[@Gabisprint]

i don't think the customer is responsible for the problem but mostly exec. producers and managers that just want their song to sound huge and loud. Exactly like ads they put the sound so loud so it gets people's attention. I don't think people really care about the loudness because there are headphones that have technology to isolate your ears or speakers that you can turn it up super loud that you don't need this compressed loudness so much. this is my 2 cents.

[@ajuk1]

So they are doing it for aesthetic reasons, and it's just a coincidence Radiohead are nearly as loud as everybody else I hear fans of lots of bands try to say that about their favorite band. Its not really a remix, more a remaster with the drums having the correct relative volume. The second part has about the same dynamic range as their own first album.

[@Auralnoirr]

@MegaBigA2 its most likely the labels or the mastering engineers fault. Radiohead's albums aren't as loud as other albums out there. Actually In Rainbows is fairly "quiet" and somewhat more dynamic than most albums today. nothing compares to the loudness of Californacation though.

[@guigoaz]

This really explains why some tracks like Pyramid Song, The National Anthem and Morning Bell (Kid A), sound much less dynamic than others on their same respective albums.

[@leachim66]

Holy crap, your version is so much better, even to untrained ears.

[@merdufer]

If you listen to the whole song, it still has a good contrast even at this level of compression, especially at the start. I did feel the drum was kinda mushy when it got to this part, but the huge flood of sound was so awesome I really couldn't care less about drum articulation at that point. p.s. Why did you pan the guitar to the right? I liked it on the left :(

[@philosophiaentis5612]

The drums sound horrible on the first mix.

[@platipo]

Good Job on this master, completely agree. Still, listening to this through quality converters, a dedicated headphone amp and a pair of AKG K240, the difference sounds quite obvious. Switching to a pair of Beyerdynamic Earbuds, it becomes hardly audible though, and I'm quite sure you wouldn't find many people that wouldn't be fooled by the loudness advantage, which of course you made sure to remove.

[@irrellevents]

It's not clipping and thus doesn't have distortion, but it's lacking in clarity, and attack in the drums. The uncompressed versions has more "life" in it

[@joselotl]

Wow the second one makes funny things whit my ears :)

[@Hoefinity]

Do you regret this comment yet

[@WhistleWorld]

I think the second one needs more cowbell besides of even more compression… but that's just me ;)

[@tehrealjake]

Is there a program where you can reverse the compression and distortion?

[@hkat321]

tehrealjake Nope. Once you lose the quality by compressing it, you can't get it back.

[@drionshk]

Wow... in the better mastering, each and every little sound has its own position in space.. each sound comes from a certain direction. But wait, listen to the CD. there's that little guitar sound in the left ear. then in the vinyl version, it's in the right ear. Why is the stereo swapped?

[@cisplatine]

Sorry I didn't read the video description completely, the mix is indeed different ! I didn't know Radiohead published the song in multitrack!

[@googenshlagen]

I've listened to In Rainbows many times on pretty high quality systems, and while I understand what you are saying, I've always considered it a fantastic sounding album. In fact, better sounding than almost any album I've ever heard.

[@briab]

@bkev93 The vinyl version definitely sounds better and is mastered to be much more dynamic. Hail to the Thief, Amnesiac, Kid A, and OK Computer have much more dynamics on vinyl too. CD versions of Pablo Honey and The Bends sound pretty good, though.

[@advancedtechniquesinstitut9605]

Did left and right get inverted?

[@JuanPabloMartinez1820]

Advanced Techniques Institute nop, you can tell in the 1 sec example nearly the end of video. Toms panning is the same

[@regulargonzalez]

@liquidribs Classical music and opera seems to be relatively untouched by the loudness war, possibly because dynamics there are more noticeable and important than in many other types of music; aside from that, you're basically out of luck.

[@Adyman182]

Probably one of the reasons why I rank In Rainbows as only their 7th favorite album of theirs

[@dmjthetechguy]

Can you remaster this album please, your version sounds so much better, even if its only for nude and reckoner.

[@knivesout33]

Much much better, but, to be fair, you cheated by tweaking the volume of the drums. Still, great job.

[@abyss-yt]

Thats the point, if they didn't it'll sound "better" cause its louder, this actually lets you see the difference

[@IcyScythe]

wow huge difference

[@ajuk1]

Effort?

[@idunnolala]

second one is more dynamic, obviously. i prefer how the first one sounds though. it's a good effect for this particular song. somewhere in the middle of these two would be ideal, but if i had to choose from the selections id go with the first one. also im way better than you are rah rah

[@Twothirteenmurders]

Why did you reverse the pan?