Loudness War


Having spent much time attempting to moderate my audio system to accommodate excessively loud remasters and new release albums, I have given up. Inline attenuators, tube rolling, etc etc, no method seems to stop effect of ridiculous mastering levels these days.

Does anyone have a suggestion as to some software or other means by which albums can have their dynamic range altered to a standard suitable for a good audio system?
bleoberis
I'm with Mapman on this. To me Thriller would have been successful without the high quality production, the question is would it have been the most successful album in the history of music if it sounded like most of the crap we get to day in pop/rock?

I feel back then quality played such a small part as to be inconsequential. billy Joel came out with his Innocent Man LP about the same time. A few others as I recall did well then too. most were well recorded.

Add in a promotional budget of 3/4 million bucks which was unheard of then... MJ launching the video on MTV which ran the promos for weeks in advance... that got a lot of eyes and ears on it that it would not normally have had.

A great recording studio and Quincy Jones did not play a big part in the sales initially..

We sold out that day and had ordered more than we ever had previously of any album. that kept up for weeks. trust me people hadn't even heard the whole album and it flew off the shelves. neither, by and large, did the crowd buying them have the wherewithall to own a great outfit on which to play them, save for Daddy's, perhaps.

It was THE latest big deal, given the press that was paid for it, it darn well should have been too..

but the kids/people coming into my store then to buy them weren't applauding the quality... just that it was the latest MJ album that even had Vincent Price on it. Most were hearing it at the clubs not at friends houses. It did sell well outside itÂ’s normal cultural arena, as the cuts were diverse and the appeal was very broad.

in retrospection, one can attribute quality as a factor to the bulk of the sales for that record, yet still I feel it would have had a very marginal effect on the total sales receipts.

I heard it several times on various outfits and formats. the quality was good but not astonishing. I'd say very good for pop music at the time. I never bought the recording myself... and gave away the SACD version of it someone had given to me.
Blindjim,

Why disparage the most successful album of all time?

Why not give credit where credit is due!

I feel back then quality played such a small part as to be inconsequential.

Hang on. Thriller was part of the 8O's - an era where, as far as I am concerned, music recording quality peaked. So many extended mixes from that period. Works by Trevor Horn and Alan Parson for example - these 80's productions were the pinnacle of what the recording industry has ever achieved. IMHO

I've no issue with the recording industry's upswing of quality being infused into their products begining back then in the 80s. None. I thought I said as much, though not as clearly as yourself.

My point is simple... the bulk of the MJ Thriller album sales was not based on it's quality, but it's hype.

Truth be told, I liked the thing back then and did not and do not care one wit about the artist. In fact I don't care for him then or now. he had severe issues and never addressed them sufficiently enough to prevent hurting others and worst of all, he hurt innocent children.

I'm unable to excuse such actions because of sheer notiriety or talent.

MJ's acclaim may have surpassed that of Elvis economically, but there's no fair comparison... that's like saying the vlockbuster flick of 2000 was out sold by the blockbuster flick of 2010... Tickets were cheaper in 2000... albums were cheaper and there were less people to buy them.

Elvis & The Beatles bodies of work will always out run MJ in my book... despite the $$$ signs.

had either of those promoted any album they produced in a likewise manner as was Thriller... a likewise result would have occured.

the notion of the presumed quality of the recording came purely as an aside in later years.. or now. Not back then.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
OK well it seems this thread has ended up more an argument of aesthetics than anything else. We'll see whether The Beatles or MJ are played in 200 years like Beethoven and Mozart. My pick would be The Beatles, heads and shoulders above MJ.

Anyway, not wanting to buy into this because it is a completely separate argument.

Anyone seen this site?
http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/

Fantastic database for the protagonists of the loudness war, but what software would give readings like this??