[MLA] Not either or

Bob Katz bobkatz at digido.com
Thu Dec 14 16:41:25 CET 2017 

I was also a tester for Eelco and I felt the same way as Ian, the tracks 
that were supposed to be soft just feel wrong in my gut. However, I can 
see how even when it feels wrong, track normalization can solve a lot of 
issues for background listeners. Also, what about "parties", where DJs 
flip from song to song and there's a lot of noise?  I think that 
situation fits track normalization better than album norm.

As several of us have pointed out, the devil in having a user-switch 
between track and album is a devil, and we would have to work out the 
ergonomic details before advocating such a switch. And a beta test!

I am confident that what Tidal is doing for their product and their 
audience was the right thing, especially if you regard it as a live beta 
test!  But we have to think about the track versus album details before 
moving on to any further recommendations.


BK



On 12/12/17 6:54 PM, Ian Shepherd wrote:
>
> Having been one of Eelco’s test subjects, I have to say that for me, 
> even at low levels & background listening, I preferred the 
> album-normalised stream. Both provided sufficient normalisation, but 
> the track-normalised version simply had certain songs that caught my 
> attention as being “wrong”, whereas the album-normalised version didn’t.
>
> Also I agree with Bob - there is so much that’s positive about this 
> result (enabled by default, for starters) and it can be refined in 
> future if necessary.
>
> Having said all that, I greatly respect your opinion Thomas, and am 
> curious about the problems you see with not providing a 
> track-normalised mode, if you’d like to comment ?
>
> Ian
>
>
>
>
>> On 12 Dec 2017, at 16:40, Kevin Gross <kevin.p.gross at gmail.com 
>> <mailto:kevin.p.gross at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> For listening at low levels or in noisy environments, we do need to 
>> talk about DRC. Maybe track normalization is part of that discussion 
>> but it will definitely not solve the problem on its own. Telling 
>> listeners track normalization is for these situations is not very 
>> satisfying advice.
>>
>> Unless/until we can justify and explain how to use a track 
>> normalization mode, we should not be advocating that it be included 
>> in player implementations.
>>
>> If you want to do your own listening tests, no Tidal subscription is 
>> required; Most players with ReplayGain allow you to choose album vs 
>> track normalization. I use MediaMonkey.
>>
>> Kevin
>>
>> On Dec 12, 2017 8:02 AM, "Bob Katz" <bobkatz at digido.com 
>> <mailto:bobkatz at digido.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     I think that background listeners playing background music at low
>>     level would prefer track normalization. I would in that case as
>>     the softer tracks become non-viable.
>>
>>     Given that I believe that Tidal listeners are more critical doing
>>     foreground listening, that track normalization is not as urgent a
>>     requirement as it would be with Spotify, Apple, etc.
>>
>>     I have no idea how to tell listeners how to specify mode, but if
>>     I were trying to make life easier like Apple attempts to do I
>>     would not give them that advice, I would try to estimate what
>>     kind of a listener they are based on the SPL they are listening
>>     at. So some form of a smart player would be necessary. It's
>>     probably impractical to implement, but I can dream, if the
>>     computer uses its internal microphone to judge the loudness of
>>     the music being played versus the noise of the room, it could
>>     judge whether to use track or album normalization.
>>
>>     Since that's currently science fiction, I have not easy idea on
>>     how to present the options to the user. No matter how you do it,
>>     it will be confusing. Beta test. Beta test Beta test. Refine.
>>     Refine Refine.
>>
>>     Bob
>>
>>
>>
>>     On 12/12/17 10:34 AM, Kevin Gross wrote:
>>>     You've read Eelco's paper right? Aside from the fact that album
>>>     worked best subjectively for normal and corner cases, one
>>>     practical issue is that if you include an album/track option for
>>>     users you should explain what it is for. I'm curious what advice
>>>     you would give to users on selecting mode. You say track
>>>     normalization is better in some cases. What cases are those
>>>     exactly?
>>>
>>>     Kevin Gross - AVA Networks
>>>
>>>     On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 1:56 AM, Thomas Lund <thomas at lund.one
>>>     <mailto:thomas at lund.one>> 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 <mailto:MLA at grimmaudio.nl>
>>>         http://grimmaudio.nl/mailman/listinfo/mla_grimmaudio.nl
>>>         <http://grimmaudio.nl/mailman/listinfo/mla_grimmaudio.nl>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>     MLA mailing list
>>>     MLA at grimmaudio.nl <mailto:MLA at grimmaudio.nl>
>>>     http://grimmaudio.nl/mailman/listinfo/mla_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 <tel:%28407%29%20831-0233> 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.
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     MLA mailing list
>>     MLA at grimmaudio.nl <mailto:MLA at grimmaudio.nl>
>>     http://grimmaudio.nl/mailman/listinfo/mla_grimmaudio.nl
>>     <http://grimmaudio.nl/mailman/listinfo/mla_grimmaudio.nl>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> MLA mailing list
>> MLA at grimmaudio.nl <mailto:MLA at grimmaudio.nl>
>> http://grimmaudio.nl/mailman/listinfo/mla_grimmaudio.nl
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20171214/3bef87c6/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the MLA mailing list