The Loudness War Ended and Nobody Announced It
Streaming normalisation quietly removed the reward for crushing a master. The habits took longer to fade than the incentive.
For about twenty years, records got louder because loud won. Then the reason evaporated, and it took the industry a surprisingly long time to notice.
You can listen to our full playlist which contains the artist’s music, and know more about the artist’s work by scrolling down the page.
PLAYLIST
The Incentive Disappeared Quietly
The loudness war ended without an announcement, because what ended it was a technical change to playback rather than a change of heart in mastering.
For decades there was a genuine competitive reason to master loud. A louder record sounded better in direct comparison, and comparisons happened constantly — on radio, on shuffled CD changers, in shops. Being quieter meant sounding weaker.
Streaming loudness normalisation removed that. Platforms now adjust playback level so tracks arrive at broadly similar perceived loudness, which means a heavily limited master is simply turned down to match a dynamic one.
Turning It Down Exposes What Was Lost
The consequence is worse than neutral for the loud master, and this is the part that changed practice.
When a crushed track is attenuated to match a dynamic one, the listener hears it at the same volume but with all the transients gone and no dynamic range. Set beside a well-mastered record at equal loudness, it sounds flat and lifeless rather than powerful.
So the trade that once bought competitive advantage now buys a straightforward disadvantage. The record gave up its dynamics and received nothing in return, which is the clearest possible argument against the practice.
Genre differences are substantial and rarely acknowledged. Material that is dense and mid-heavy suffers most from limiting, while sparse acoustic recordings can absorb a surprising amount before anything audible happens, so a single loudness target was always going to damage some music more than others.
Habits Outlasted the Reason
Despite the incentive vanishing, aggressive limiting continued for years, and the persistence is instructive.
Part of it was that loud masters had become the expected sound, and clients hearing a dynamic master in an unnormalised context judged it as weak. Engineers were asked for loudness by people comparing files on a desktop, where no normalisation applied.
Part was simply established practice. A generation of engineers had learned mastering in an environment where loudness was the objective, and professional habits do not change because a specification did.
Measurement Made the Argument Winnable
What eventually shifted practice was the availability of standard loudness measurement, which turned a subjective argument into a numerical one.
Integrated loudness measured to a common standard gave everyone a shared vocabulary. An engineer could show a client exactly how much the platform would attenuate their master and demonstrate the consequence.
Tools that simulate platform normalisation during mastering made this concrete. Hearing your own loud master turned down against a dynamic reference is more persuasive than any explanation.
Client education turned out to be the decisive factor rather than any technical development. Engineers who could demonstrate the effect on a client’s own material, at matched loudness, won arguments that no amount of general explanation had settled.
Dynamics Are Now a Choice Again
The current situation is that loudness is no longer a competitive variable, which returns dynamic range to being an artistic decision.
Genres where relentless density is part of the point can still be mastered that way, deliberately, and normalisation costs them nothing they were trying to keep. Material where dynamics carry meaning can retain them without being disadvantaged.
That is a considerably healthier arrangement than the one it replaced, where every record was pushed toward the same target regardless of whether it suited the music.
What Has Not Been Recovered
One consequence is permanent and worth stating: a great many records mastered during the loudness era exist only in crushed form.
Where the original mixes survive, remastering can restore dynamics, and a number of albums have been reissued with the limiting removed. Where they do not, the loud master is the record.
That is the lasting cost. The incentive lasted roughly two decades, and the recordings made under it carry the compromise permanently, which is a reasonable argument for treating any current mastering convention with some suspicion.
Vinyl provided an unexpected corrective. A cutting engineer cannot cut an over-limited master cleanly, so records intended for vinyl were frequently prepared from a more dynamic version, and in several cases that version is the better-sounding release.
