Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-ph5wq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T11:46:19.028Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Imperfect sound forever: loudness wars, listening formations and the history of sound reproduction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 May 2013

Kyle Devine*
Affiliation:
ERC Music and Digitisation Research Group, Faculty of Music, University of Oxford, Suite 5, Littlegate House, 16/17 St Ebbes, OX1 1PT, UK E-mail: kyle.devine@music.ox.ac.uk

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to provide some historical perspective on the so-called loudness war. Critics of the loudness war maintain that the average volume level of popular music recordings has increased dramatically since the proliferation of digital technology in the 1980s, and that this increase has had detrimental effects on sound quality and the listening experience. My point is not to weigh in on this debate, but to suggest that the issue of loudness in sound recording and playback can be traced back much earlier than the 1980s. In fact, loudness has been a source of pleasure, a target of criticism, and an engine of technological change since the very earliest days of commercial sound reproduction. Looking at the period between the turn-of-the-century format feud and the arrival of electrical amplification in the 1920s, I situate the loudness war within a longer historical trajectory, and demonstrate a variety of ways in which loudness and volume have been controversial issues in – and constitutive elements of – the history of sound reproduction. I suggest that the loudness war can be understood in relation to a broader cultural history of volume.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adorno, T. 1990. ‘The curves of the needle’, October, 55, pp. 4855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adorno, T. 2002. ‘The radio symphony: an experiment in theory’, in Essays on Music, ed. Leppert, R. (Berkeley, CA, University of California Press), pp. 251–70Google Scholar
Anon. 2008. ‘Fans say rock music too loud’, Rolling Stone, 1068/1069, p. 32Google Scholar
Anon. 2009. ‘The loudness wars: why music sounds worse’, NPR Music, 31 December. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122114058 (accessed August 2010)Google Scholar
Balmain, C. 1928. ‘Volume’, The Gramophone, 5/9, p. 401Google Scholar
Berger, K. 1984. The Hearing Aid: Its Operation and Development (Livonia, MI, National Hearing Aid Society)Google Scholar
Berlioz, H. 1882. A Treatise on Modern Instrumentation and Orchestration (London, Novello, Ewer & Co)Google Scholar
Bijsterveld, K. 2008. Mechanical Sound: Technology, Culture and Public Problems of Noise in the Twentieth Century (Cambridge, MA, MIT Press)Google Scholar
Brooks, A. 1928. ‘Round the recording studios’, The Gramophone, 5/12, pp. 487–90Google Scholar
Chion, M. 1994. Audio-Vision: Sound on Screen (New York, Columbia University Press)Google Scholar
Cockayne, E. 2007. Hubbub: Filth, Noise and Stench in England (New Haven, CT, Yale University Press)Google Scholar
Columbia. 1897. The Graphophone (Indianapolis, IN, Spear)Google Scholar
Connor, S. 1997. ‘The modern auditory “I”’, in Rewriting the Self: Histories from the Renaissance to the Present, ed. Porter, R. (London, Routledge), pp. 203–23Google Scholar
Corbin, A. 1998. Village Bells: Sound and Meaning in the Nineteenth-Century French Countryside (New York, Columbia University Press)Google Scholar
Demuth, N. 1947. An Anthology of Musical Criticism (London, Eyre & Spottiswoode)Google Scholar
Deruty, E. 2011. ‘To the limit: “dynamic range” and the loudness war’, Sound on Sound, September, pp. 174–82Google Scholar
Devine, K. 2012. ‘Imperfect sound forever: loudness, listening formations, and the historiography of sound reproduction’, PhD thesis (Ottawa, Carleton University)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edison Company. 1905. ‘Wonderful Edison offer’, Popular Mechanics, 7/11, p. 1188Google Scholar
Eisenberg, E. 1987. The Recording Angel: Explorations in Phonography (New York, McGraw-Hill)Google Scholar
Engh, B. 1999. ‘After “His Master's Voice”’, New Formations, 38, pp. 5563Google Scholar
Everest, F.A., and Pohlmann, K. 2009. Master Handbook of Acoustics, 5th edn (New York, McGraw-Hill)Google Scholar
Faulkner, C. 1994. ‘René Clair, Marcel Pagnol and the social dimension of speech’, Screen, 35/2, pp. 157–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feaster, P. 2007. ‘The following record: making sense of phonographic performance, 1877–1908’, PhD thesis (Bloomington, IN, Indiana University)Google Scholar
Frith, S. 1988. ‘The industrialization of music’, in Music for Pleasure: Essays in the Sociology of Pop (New York, Routledge)Google Scholar
Frith, S. 2002. ‘Look! Hear! The uneasy relationship of music and television’, Popular Music, 21/3, pp. 277–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frow, G., with Baumbach, R. 2001. The Edison Disc Phonographs and the Diamond Discs (Los Angeles, CA, Mulholland Press)Google Scholar
Gelatt, R. 1977. The Fabulous Phonograph, 1877–1977 (New York, Macmillan)Google Scholar
Gitelman, L. 2000. Scripts, Grooves and Writing Machines: Representing Technology in the Edison Era (Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guberman, D. 2011. ‘Post-fidelity: a new age of music consumption and technological innovation’, Journal of Popular Music Studies, 23/4, pp. 431–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hegarty, P. 2007. Noise/Music: A History (New York, Continuum)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiatt, B. 2008. ‘Fans complain Metallica disc is too loud’, Rolling Stone, 1063, p. 11Google Scholar
James, F. 1998. The EMG Story (Abertillery, Old Bakehouse Publications)Google Scholar
Jones, S. 2005. ‘The big squeeze: mastering engineers debate music's loudness wars’, Mix Magazine, 1 December. http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_big_squeeze/ (accessed August 2008)Google Scholar
Keightley, K. 1996. ‘Turn it down! she shrieked: gender, domestic space and high fidelity, 1948–59’, Popular Music, 15/2, pp. 149–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kittler, F. 1999. Gramophone, Film, Typewriter (Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press)Google Scholar
Lambert, C. 1934. Music Ho! A Study of Music in Decline (London, Faber & Faber)Google Scholar
Lastra, J. 2000. Sound Technology and the American Cinema: Perception, Representation, Modernity (New York, Columbia University Press)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, R. 2007. ‘The death of high fidelity’, Rolling Stone, 1042/1043, p. 15Google Scholar
Luff, L. 1928. ‘Volume’, The Gramophone, 5/9, p. 401Google Scholar
Mackenzie, C. 1925. ‘The gramophone: its past: its present: its future’, Proceedings of the Musical Association, 51st sess. pp. 97119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mauro, P. 1900. ‘Recent development of the art of recording and reproducing sounds’, Journal of the Franklin Institute, 150/1, pp. 3543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millard, A. 2005. America on Record: A History of Recorded Sound (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milner, G. 2009. Perfecting Sound Forever: An Aural History of Recorded Music (New York, Faber & Faber)Google Scholar
Mitchell, O. ca. 1922. The Talking Machine Industry (London, Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons)Google Scholar
Moogk, E. 1975. Roll Back the Years: History of Canadian Recorded Sound and Its Legacy, Genesis to 1930 (Ottawa, National Library of Canada)Google Scholar
National Phonograph Company. 1900. The Phonograph and How to Use It (New York, Allen Koenigsberg)Google Scholar
Negus, K. 2006. ‘Musicians on television: visible, audible and ignored’, Journal of the Royal Musical Association, 131/2, pp. 310–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Percival, M. 2011. ‘Stone deaf forever: discourses of live loudness in popular music journalism’, presented at The Business of Live Music, 30 April–2 May (University of Edinburgh)Google Scholar
Peters, J.D. 2004. ‘Helmholtz, Edison and sound history’, in Memory Bytes: History, Technology and Digital Culture, ed. Rabinovitz, L. and Geil, A. (Durham, NC, Duke University Press), pp. 177–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plambeck, J. 2010. ‘In mobile age, sound quality steps back’, New York Times, 9 May, p. B1Google Scholar
Read, O., and Welch, W. 1976. From Tin Foil to Stereo: Evolution of the Phonograph (Indianapolis, IN, Howard W. Sams)Google Scholar
Rothenbuhler, E., and Peters, J.D. 1997. ‘Defining phonography: an experiment in theory’, The Musical Quarterly, 81/2, pp. 242–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schafer, R.M. 1994. The Soundscape: Our Sonic Environment and the Tuning of the World (Rochester, VT, Destiny Books)Google Scholar
Schicke, C. 1974. Revolution in Sound: A Biography of the Recording Industry (Boston, MA, Little, Brown & Co)Google Scholar
Schwartz, H. 2011. Making Noise: From Babel to the Big Bang and Beyond (New York, Zone Books)Google Scholar
Sherwin, A. 2007. ‘Why music really is getting louder’, The Times, 4 June. http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/article1878724.ece (accessed August 2010)Google Scholar
Smith, E. 2008. ‘Even heavy-metal fans complain that today's music is too loud!!!’, The Wall Street Journal, 26 September, p. A1Google Scholar
Smith, M. 2001. Listening to Nineteenth-Century America (Chapel Hill, NC, University of North Carolina Press)Google Scholar
Southall, N. 2006. ‘Imperfect sound forever’, Stylus Magazine, 1 May. http://www.stylusmagazine.com/articles/weekly_article/imperfect-sound-forever.htm (accessed August 2010)Google Scholar
Sreedhar, S. 2007. ‘The future of music’, IEEE Spectrum, August. http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/the-future-of-music (accessed August 2010)Google Scholar
Sterne, J. 2003. The Audible Past: Cultural Origins of Sound Reproduction (Durham, NC, Duke University Press)Google Scholar
Sterne, J. 2006. ‘The death and life of digital audio’, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 31/4, pp. 343–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sterne, J. 2012. MP3: The Meaning of a Format (Durham, NC, Duke University Press)Google Scholar
Stokowski, L. 1935. ‘New vistas in radio’, Atlantic Monthly, 155/1, pp. 116Google Scholar
Straw, W. 2008. ‘Squawkies and talkies’, Parallax, 14/2, pp. 2030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, E. 1995. ‘Machines, music and the quest for fidelity: marketing the Edison phonograph in America, 1877–1925’, Musical Quarterly, 79, pp. 131–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weston, B. n.d. ‘Loudness’, Chicago Mastering Service. chicagomasteringservice.com/loudness.html (accessed August 2010)Google Scholar