[MLA] Not either or

[Bob Katz]

I was not part of the discussions/negotiations with Tidal, but I agree 
with Thomas that some applications may require track normalization. But 
if the tables had been turned, and Tidal had gone with track 
normalization in the interest of getting some normalization out there 
speedily, where would we have been?

Guys, this already is a big achievement. We got nearly a full loaf where 
there was none before! My sense is that the audience for Tidal masters 
is a high end, attentive audience that mostly will prefer album 
normalization. I feel their audience is probably 10 to 1 biased in that 
direction. This would not be the case for Spotify, Apple, etc. so I 
agree that offering track normalization as an option should be in the 
wings. It does complicate the algorithm and would take more time to 
implement. Let's learn from the Tidal experience. Anyone involved in 
programming knows that 2.0 comes after 1.0, no matter how "perfect" we 
think that 1.0 is.

A properly-normalized streaming service is a new experience for any of 
us, folks. I know that this is a beta test, even though everyone thinks 
of it as a release. Eventually there will be a 2.0 and I believe we did 
not let the "perfect" become the enemy of the good in this case, to 
repeat, I believe the Tidal masters listeners who would require track 
normalization are in the minority.

I cannot justify a Tidal subscription each month so I am not subscribed. 
But I am currently beta testing a new high resolution MQA streaming 
service that has not yet become public. The sound quality of the MQA on 
the stream made from good 2496 and higher resolution masters is 
astounding. If this service can obtain more high resolution masters and 
have a good selection, I would subscribe to them at $19.99 a month.

I have not yet brought up the issue of loudness normalization to them, 
as I suspect the director of the company will hit the roof being a crazy 
audiophile I know he believes that an "automatic volume control" can't 
sound good and he thinks his customers don't want that circuit. So I 
have to be delicate but we shall see. We shall see. Wish me luck.


Bob


On 12/12/17 4:56 AM, Thomas Lund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We have had some discussions after it became clear Tidal's system didn’t support Loudness-normalization based both on Track and Album; so they are stuck with the latter for now. If we jump to conclusions, more companies this group is used to advise, may find themselves taking one step forward and two backwards.
>
> For some applications, Track norm is better, for other applications Album norm should be preferred. It’s bad advice to impose an either/or decision, and in this case it might have ramifications for Tidal’s capability to comply with certain requirements or new track search criteria.
>
> Careful and unbiased guidance in these matters will better stand the test of time.
>
> Best regards,
> Thomas
> _______________________________________________
> MLA mailing list
> MLA at grimmaudio.nl
> http://grimmaudio.nl/mailman/listinfo/mla_grimmaudio.nl

-- 

If you want good sound on your album, come to Bob Katz 407-831-0233 
DIGITAL DOMAIN MASTERING STUDIO Author: *Mastering Audio *Digital Domain 
Website <http://www.digido.com/> No trees were killed in the sending of 
this message. However a large number of electrons were terribly 
inconvenienced.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://grimmaudio.nl/pipermail/mla_grimmaudio.nl/attachments/20171212/b75b576b/attachment.html>