
The Dark Art of Mastering Music - jonbaer
http://pitchfork.com/features/article/9894-the-dark-art-of-mastering-music/
======
Benjamin_Dobell
This is a long article that starts off stating that mastering is difficult to
explain, and then proceeds to not explain mastering.

They're implying that poor mastering was to blame for Metallica's album.
Weren't people complaining it was over-compressed? That's mixing _not_
mastering!

Mastering is a matter of making sure that listening to an album from start to
finish sounds consistent. That's why songs that go on compilation albums are
mastered once on the original album, and again on the compilation - they most
certainly aren't mixed again.

Mastering may involve a small amount of compression across all components of
the song (although it really shouldn't), but it's mostly controlling loudness,
and loudness at different parts of the audio spectrum (more low-end, more
high-end). Mastering is effectively something you could do yourself with your
stereo's settings (if you were constantly adjusting the settings through-out
the song), mixing is fundamentally different and consists of combining
"tracks"; vocals, guitar, harmonies, drums, sound effects, adding samples over
drums (i.e. mix in a better sounding drum, or hit there-of, over the drumming
recorded for the song).

EDIT: For clarity, me stating:

> Mastering may involve a small amount of compression across all components of
> the song (although it really shouldn't)

is my subjective opinion. Master-bus compression does happen regularly enough
_during mastering_ (in addition to during mixing), but as stated, it is
typically only a _small amount_ , compared to what a Mixing Engineer can get
away with on a per "track" basis.

~~~
maldusiecle
Compression of individual parts happens during mixing, compression of the
entire audio track happens during mastering. (Compression of the master bus
sometimes also happens during mixing, but mastering engineers prefer not to
work with tracks that have already had heavy compression applied to the master
bus.)

The kind of brickwall limiting Metallica's album had, where the volume of the
track is maxed out at all times, can only come from compressing the master
bus, which is properly a part of mastering, not mixing. (See also: the
comically overcompressed mix of Raw Power that resulted when Iggy Pop was
allowed to remaster the album himself.)

~~~
Benjamin_Dobell
True, that is what I meant by:

> Mastering may involve a small amount of compression across all components of
> the song (although it really shouldn't)

Admittedly, I've never listened to the Metallica album in question so I don't
know what it sounds like. But I thought that in addition to complaints about
loudness and lack of variance (compression), there were lots of complaints
about distortion (i.e. clipping) etc. Whilst a mixing engineer could
theoretically introduce clipping (by pushing the volume beyond its peak) that
would be crazy, they typically just do small amounts of master-bus compression
to make it sound louder (as you stated).

But yeah, judging by its reputation that album was messed up by several people
along the way ;)

~~~
maldusiecle
That is the opposite of the truth. A small amount of compression across all
components of the song is absolutely a legitimate part of mastering; nearly
all records have this.

It's excessive compression and limiting that's the problem. Most of the time
this only sucks dynamics out of the record, but in extreme cases (like the
Metallica record, or the Stooges record) an inept mastering engineer can
introducing clipping to the track.

~~~
Benjamin_Dobell
That's subjective. Just because people do something doesn't mean that I can't
say they shouldn't do it. I didn't say it never occurs, I specifically said it
may occur.

I'm not against master-bus compression, but as it's fundamentally altering the
waveform, dynamics of a song and hence artistic expression, then I personally
considering it _mixing_ , even if for some reason Mastering Engineers decide
to do it.

EDIT: Man, I just realised how stupid that sounds. " _master_ -bus
compression" not considered _mastering_! Okay, perhaps I need to change that
perception... ah, nomenclature.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
If the mix engineer does it it's mixing.

If the mastering engineer does it it's mastering.

Either can use bus EQ and bus compression.

The mastering engineer usually approaches the job as a final polish of
something that's already finished.

The mix engineer can go back and change the mix after adding bus EQ and/or
compression. Usually the mix engineer makes [n, which may be a large number
depending on time and budget] of mixes, with feedback from the band and
producer and sometimes a record company exec.

Then everyone's favourite mix goes off to the mastering engineer for that
final polish, assembly into a consistent-sounding album (if it's an album)
followed by final format sourcing.

These days artists often do their own mastering. It's not hard to get
something better than cheap mastering, but DIY won't be as good the best full-
fat pro mastering.

I was always a fan of the sound of the DBX Quantum processor, which is highly
rated by professional mastering engineers - not as highly as custom hardware,
but a good few steps up from most DIY mastering options.

------
neilh23
It's hard getting something that sounds consistently good in all listening
environments - I've seen cases where music is offered in digital format either
as 'play anywhere' loud .mp3s or 24-bit high dynamic-range .flacs for DJs, but
most commercial music is mastered for the poorest environments (in the car,
over the radio).

Getting a good master is very important - I'm reminded of a story I heard
about an album that was mastered by the artist, and pressed to CD with a high-
pitched whine over the top which the artist hadn't been able to hear - like
Aphex Twin's Ventolin, but unintentional.

~~~
goldbrick
Actually, the car is one of the best listening environments most people have
ready access to - an enclosed space (perhaps dolby 5.1) with sufficient bass,
with all the channels pointed more or less equally at your head. Many audio
engineers use a car as a reference point.

~~~
andrewflnr
I dunno. Between road noise and my crappy speakers, GP made perfect sense to
me. :)

------
kowdermeister
As a bedroom producer, I have to add that good mixing (carefully tuning each
audio channel to remove frequencies that interfere with another channel) is
more important than mastering. Mastering adds the finishing touches, but can't
really fix mixing errors.

Also don't get fooled by opinions like this:

“When you only use computer stuff, everything starts smearing together, and a
whole other mechanical aspect that isn’t musical creeps in. But the better the
quality of your gear, the more the thing will sound real.”

Obviously high end gear sounds great, but that doesn't mean that digital
plugins and emulations can't sound equally good.

The only part where I see an advantage on the whole audio - digital debate is
modulation, but that's a different stage of making music.

~~~
patrickbolle
bedroom producer here too ! the greatest thing about making music all in the
box (or majority of it) is being able to mix on the go.

majority of my tracks sound great (imo) before I even touch a
limiter/mastering chain.

lots of advice online says 'make the track and mix after' which is good if you
are in the flow and can bust out a track in a day.. but if I make a synth
sound I immediately mix it into the song and then start playing with chords

~~~
louthy
> the greatest thing about making music all in the box (or majority of it) is
> being able to mix on the go.

That's no different to working out-of-the box. I have a 32 channel analogue
mixing desk, many analogue synths and drum machines, outboard effects units
(Lexicon reverb, 3x Eventides), outboard compressors (2x 1176s, SSL G buss, 8
x SSL 9K channel comps, DBX 1066), etc.

The experience is much more like performing the studio, rather than tweaking
something with a mouse one knob at a time. I find sounds, play something live
with the track, get the levels right on the desk, EQ the channel on the desk,
patch in compressors to shape the sound, and have 6 auxes always setup for
reverbs, delays, etc. I can get to the sound I want much quicker than I ever
could before in-the-box.

Obviously it's horses for courses. Whatever works for you, it's the end result
that counts. But being able to mix whilst making the music isn't exclusive to
in-the-box.

------
cr1895
Relevant: the Dynamic Range database

[http://dr.loudness-war.info/](http://dr.loudness-war.info/)

~~~
austinjp
This is great, thanks.

Handy write-up on what "dynamic range" means in practice here:
[https://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep11/articles/loudness.htm](https://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep11/articles/loudness.htm)

------
diydsp
This is just a one-time reminder that this whole magilla is about one kind of
music: the recorded, mass-produced consumer object.

Although it may seem large and important due to its ubiquity and market value,
there's really much more to music than this. Music can sound good and be
valuable 100% live with no mics, outdoors with no special architecture. The
mastering engineering in the article espouses the virtue of unique equipment,
but in a live band, nearly every instrument and every performance quickly
becomes a unique one.

Ask yourself, who does it really serve, to experience music as a lithographic
impression rather than a unique experience? I'm not even arguing about
musician's pay or anything like that. I'm talking about qualia of richness:
diversity, local character, dynamic range, interplay with your mood,
involvement, movement.

My comment here is really to just break up the spontaneous hierarchy of
dollars + equipment + mystery -> ideal studio product. Now that technology has
empowered us all to make more music faster on our own I feel it's especially
important to ditch the last century's mindsets of scarcity and monoculture
with respect to music.

~~~
goldbrick
I seldom see such hippie bullshit espoused on HN outside of Bitcoin/Ethereum
threads.

Music can sound good and be valuable in any setting: it can sound better with
good audio engineering.

It serves everyone to have a high quality artifact.

> technology has empowered us all to make more music faster on our own

That's not what I want; that's not what any of us wants.

~~~
saturdaysaint
I would bet a few shekels that the parent just finished reading the recent
"Records Ruin The Landscape" by David Grubbs and is making it count on the
internet.

~~~
diydsp
I hadn't heard of that until you mentioned it. I'm familiar with many of the
works listed at [1], but considering the reported theses for a moment "new
genres in experimental and avant-garde music in the 1960s actively thwarted
the form of the LP" and

"listeners coming to know a period through the recorded artifacts of composers
and musicians that largely disavowed recordings." [1] I think is interesting
and ironic. But, my argument isn't about the mismatch of recording technology
and artistic activity, but of mass reproduction and especially the
optimization of recordings for profit.

Even without creative performances such as the Fluxus movements and sound
artists of that era, pop music can flourish without massive lithography. The
beautiful thing is it perpetuates itself through continuous reinterpretation
by musicians and listeners, resulting in an accelerated, rich evolution.
That's how we got dance steps like the Tango.

[1] [https://dukeupress.wordpress.com/2014/03/21/records-ruin-
the...](https://dukeupress.wordpress.com/2014/03/21/records-ruin-the-
landscape-an-annotated-playlist-by-david-grubbs/)

------
tacos
There are online mastering services and the results are tragic. Take a couple
devs who are into music and maybe have some math chops but no actual
mixing/mastering experience and no access to real equipment either. A little
open source software and some headphones will do. Now throw in a music
industry "endorser" (these guys are always investing in the wrong companies!)
and spew out some automated schlock.

[http://promasterhd.com/](http://promasterhd.com/)
[http://landr.com](http://landr.com)

"Pro" this and "industry" that. The desperation is palpable. And often plainly
visible in their faces:

[http://blog.masterlizer.com/index.php/2015/12/14/re-
imagine-...](http://blog.masterlizer.com/index.php/2015/12/14/re-imagine-
online-mastering-ready-to-masterlize/)

Regardless people always prefer "the louder one" so you can immediately see
where this is headed. Generate a "mastered" .wav file using open source tools
and a couple Python rules, convert it to MP3 without paying the license fee,
then charge people $9 if they want the "higher quality" .wav. $14 if they want
all 24 bits instead of you running it through ffmpeg a second time.

Meanwhile SoundCloud streams 128k MP3s like we're stuck in 1992. Imagine if
Vimeo or Flickr limited stuff to an equivalent lossy compression quality.
People would not stand for it. But with audio it's somehow okay.

Now all we have to do is combine the two. Say... robo-mastered junk being
served up as a SoundCloud MP3. Coming soon!

~~~
cr1895
>Meanwhile SoundCloud streams 128k MP3s like we're stuck in 1992. Imagine if
Vimeo or Flickr limited stuff to an equivalent lossy compression quality.
People would not stand for it. But with audio it's somehow okay

HD screens are pretty much ubiquitous. Headphones (or speakers) that aren't
trash I would guess less so.

~~~
trentlott
Also, humans prioritize and are sensitive to visual input more than sound to a
large degree.

I'm sure dogmen would have excellent audio systems and have perfected HD
smell-o-vision alongside black and white VGA monitors.

~~~
tacos
> Also, humans prioritize and are sensitive to visual input more than sound to
> a large degree.

Our evolved ability to detect and localize sound in the dark at night is why
we're here typing. Ironically codecs tend to see phase information and say
"hey, we can ditch most of that and save a few bits!"

Any filmmaker will tell you that audio can make or break a picture. But for
some reason audio always gets screwed commercially -- especially among
technologists. The early iPod headphones and even modern MacBook/iPad audio is
awful. The iPhone still only has a mono microphone. Beats headphones are
shameful. Satellite radio is godawful. Anyone here want to sing the praises of
"RealAudio"? Yet people tolerate it because there's no industry leader
standing up for quality. And even when someone does, they're usually off in
the weeds themselves (192k audio fad).

SoundCloud is a hopeless business, bleeding cash. Fred Wilson can claim he
loves music but apparently he's not willing to say "Hey, maybe y'all should
serve something that sounds at least as good as iTunes did in 2001." Like no
other artistic medium I'm aware of, music appears to be worth significantly
less than the bandwidth required to stream it properly.

------
6stringmerc
A neat read I think, even touches on LANDR, a new-ish and pretty compelling
service. I've only tried it once but it worked as intended - tweaked a file,
made a difference. Improved? Too subjective, but a tentative yes.

I do take such an article with a grain of salt though, because a lot of the
"tightest" sounding music since 2010 - in my PERSONAL opinion - is in drum &
bass and, more than likely, not run through too much outboard gear like is
romanticized here. Smart routing in Ableton and into iZotope isn't outside the
reach of intelligent, determined artists and producers of many stripes.

I just tend to think "Oh, yeah Grimes sounds pretty good, so does Radiohead,
but compared to what's happening in a Netsky or Camo & Krooked track, just
different ballparks altogether." Like I said, that's me and my ears. Having
great outboard gear can truly make a difference if the source material is
great.

------
bvm
> Traditionally, the “marketplace” has been radio, where a well-mastered song
> hits that sweet spot where you feel immersed in the music but not battered
> by it. If your song is poorly mastered, the logic goes, people won’t want to
> buy your album.

Part of the problem here is that many radio stations will run incredibly
aggressive limiters/maximisers across their output bus anyway, for the exact
same reasons given in the following paragraph. Your average pop track is being
compressed to hell and back at three stages: mixing (gotta make that synth
subgroup 'pop'), mastering (gotta be louder than my rival pop-group) and
transmission (gotta be louder than my rival station).

~~~
ssharp
To be fair, almost all cases where you're listening to FM radio, you're
listening on a crappy device.

I remember having Sirius in two of my previous vehicles and not noticing it
being that poor of sound quality from low digital compression rates, compared
to CD's or what I'd get from my iTunes on my phone. However, in my current
vehicle which has a pretty solid factory system, the digital artifacts are
exceptionally glaring.

When you're on a bad system, some of the compression or limiting happening to
the track is either a positive or not noticeable.

~~~
bvm
Have heard some arguments that the UK's (world's?) digital protocol, DAB is
actually a worse experience for listeners than a decent FM station, but I'm
not all that well informed on that.

Quick clarification on digital versus the kind of compression discussed in the
article: with the former you're making the file size smaller and losing a
little bit of quality in the process (sometimes leaving artifacts), whereas
with the latter you are seeking to make the loud bits quieter, meaning you can
make the whole lot louder without distortion.

Another thing worth noting is that for the vast majority of users, the car
will be the _best_ listening environment they are exposed to. When I had a
very minor foray into the recording world, I remember the mix engineers trying
out bouncedowns around the car park.

~~~
davidgerard
That's _mostly_ wrong. DAB uses 128kbps or 192kbps MPEG2 audio, which is
pretty similar to MP3 at those bitrates; either is way better than FM radio,
_except_ for material that breaks the algorithm (noise, applause of some
sorts).

~~~
bvm
...and cymbals? That's always my go-to tell.

~~~
tripzilch
Cymbals also tend to suffer very quickly with strong dynamics compression. The
most recent Prodigy album _The Day is my Enemy_ has a lot of that,
unfortunately. I much prefer their 2nd, _Music for the Jilted Generation_ :)

------
thebigspacefuck
Good headphones are essential. I've had a number of tracks/albums where I've
listened to them on my computer with nice headphones, then gone to the gym
with my portable headphones or driven home listening over the speakers and the
songs sound terrible.

I've often wondered if the rise of some genres has been due to shitty mp3
quality and even shittier earbuds.

~~~
rudolf0
Very true. I've also had the opposite experience. Bad speakers/headphones can
hide flaws. On good headphones, sibilant frequencies, compression artifacts,
and muddy bass can all become really apparent and annoying.

------
_greim_
Mastering is like buying good wine. There's a lot return for your buck at the
low and medium end. The returns begin diminishing steeply in the high end.
Above some point, it becomes purely a game of audio engineers impressing other
audio engineers.

~~~
peatfreak
Like pretty much most things.

~~~
_greim_
Haha yep! At least in subjective realms; maybe slightly less so for practical
realms.

------
alistproducer2
I see the "loudness wars" are still raging. Way back when I was a recording
engineer (early 2000's) I remember reading about it for the first time. I had
this "a ha" movement. Until then, I couldn't put my finger on why I got
fatigued listening to certain albums: even one's where I liked the content of
the songs.

Now if a record is over-compressed I don't even bother(sorry Foo Fighters, get
your shit together). Also, stay away from "remastered" version of old albums.
That really means they've over compressed it and killed all of the dynamic
range of an album you previously loved.

------
radiowave
Mastering is a subject about which a great deal of mumbo jumbo is talked, but
a very important point that this article does put across well is the necessity
of making sure the music sounds good across a wide variety of playback
environments. Unfortunately, this kind of "optimizing for all cases" comes at
the expense of how good the music can sound in any _one_ environment.

(For example, a lot of people will have heard recordings that produce
incredibly detailed spacial perception, but _only_ when listened to on
headphones - and which sound pretty poor on loudspeakers.)

We got into this situation because of the economies of mass produced physical
media, but we largely don't have those constraints any more. Since the cost of
digital distribution is basically a rounding error, we could be producing
different releases optimized for different settings and letting the listener
choose which is the most appropriate for them.

~~~
mbenjaminsmith
> Unfortunately, this kind of "optimizing for all cases" comes at the expense
> of how good the music can sound in any one environment.

Sorry, but that's not the case. The reason music gets mastered poorly today is
because of poor mastering engineers. I've had this conversation numerous times
with an engineer that has designed some of the most well-received studio
equipment (including analog compressors) ever made.

Listen to The Dark Side of the Moon. Regardless of your like or dislike of
Pink Floyd that album sounds good regardless of how you're playing it (car
stereo, single speaker boom box, headphones).

Now _why_ there aren't many good mastering engineers left (or properly
equipped studios) is a separate, lengthy conversation.

~~~
Kiro
I think you are wrong. Due to the rise of the bedroom producer and available
software we've never before had so many talented sound engineers. The
production value on electronic music today is through the roof.

~~~
fuzzfactor
Also, due to the rise of the bedroom producer and available software we've
never before had so many UNtalented sound engineers.

~~~
Kiro
Of course, but the competition is fierce.

------
riprowan
I always tell my clients that mastering is the final step in mixing: it's the
part where the mix engineer gives the mix to a different engineer in a
different studio with a different system and different ears and different gear
and different opinions to put the final touches on the 2-track mix. The tools
are almost always various flavors of EQ and compression, but the most
important part is all the "different" stuff.

The loudness wars of the late 1990s and continuing somewhat today I believe
are a relic of CD (and FM) audio and will pass now that we have ubiquitous
volume leveling playback devices.

It's well understood in audio (and demonstrable in ABX testing) that "louder
sounds better." If your CD is mastered a little louder than the other guys,
then when you change it (or when your CD jukebox changes it) then your CD will
"pop out" more, be heard better, and sound better.

Enter volume leveling.

When the playback device matches the playback volume of two songs, the one
which is overcompressed will sound quieter and yet be more fatiguing, while
the one which has better dynamics will actually feel louder and punchier yet
be less fatiguing. Volume leveling actually stands "louder sounds better" on
its head: louder will _not_ sound better. In a strange way, iTunes / Replay
Gain is helping to bring back audiophile mastering into vogue. And you can
tell - mastering has definitely changed for the better in the last five years.
There's a lot more attention to dynamics, especially with artists learning
about having to master their digital audio for vinyl, and how that changes
things.

I wrote about the loudness war in 2002 in "Over the Limit"[0] and about the
end of the loudness war in 2009 in "Over the Limit 2"[1]. In OtL2 I predicted
it would be another decade - until 2019 - before the loudness war finally
could be declared over.

From what I've seen I think I'm on track to hit my prediction. I'm glad.

[0] [http://riprowan.com/over-the-limit/](http://riprowan.com/over-the-limit/)

[1] [http://riprowan.com/over-the-limit-2/](http://riprowan.com/over-the-
limit-2/)

------
golergka
For a bedroom producer/DJ, LANDR is a godsend. When you have 10 2-minute
drafts, each of which was complete in an hour or two, and want to take them
for a test-drive in your next gig, before LANDR you had to spend an additional
20-30 minutes per each of them, to get them into a reasonably compressed and
loud shape, so you won't have to desperately ride levels and eq from track to
track in front of the crowd. And $15 per month for unlimited demos and drafts
is a very sweet price point compared to even the cheapest mastering engineers.

~~~
SyneRyder
Couldn't you do much of that just by using presets in mastering software like
Izotope Ozone 7? I don't really understand the benefit LANDR offers, unless
there really is some secret sauce in the settings LANDR chooses automatically.
But if that's the case, I imagine Ozone will features similar functionality
soon.

~~~
golergka
First of all, Ozone costs a lot more. Second, every time you're using a tool
with a lot of settings you find yourself reaching to tweak them — which is one
of the reasons why in making music it's often better to use minimalistic tools
that don't offer too many options. And finally, judging by the results I'm
getting, LANDR is more "intellectual" that Ozone and tweaks it's settings
depending on many properties of the source track.

------
21
> Professional audio engineers operate out of carefully calibrated rooms
> designed to eradicate odd resonances and echoes, and their speakers cost
> more than your car.

That is not exactly true. I've seen many pictures from studios and most
engineers use professional speakers (called studio monitors) in the $5K range.

However you can spend a lot more on acoustic treatments, they make a massive
difference.

I like to think that color-grading, another mysterious dark art (to me at
least), is the visual equivalent of mastering.

~~~
jdietrich
Decent nearfields cost $4-5k a pair. A proper pair of main monitors from the
likes of PMC or Quested cost $50k to $150k.

It's easy to overlook the main monitors, because they tend to be recessed in
the walls.

[http://vintageking.com/pmc-loudspeakers-qb1-pair](http://vintageking.com/pmc-
loudspeakers-qb1-pair) [http://vintageking.com/quested-
hm415-active](http://vintageking.com/quested-hm415-active)

~~~
kowdermeister
Define decent. You can buy a pair of Mackie from the MR series from about
$500. That good enough for a long period till you learn what you are doing.

Audio gear has the tendency that the value you get with more bucks decreases
exponentially.

~~~
spdustin
If you haven't learned what you're doing, you're not the professional audio
engineer referred to by TFA :)

~~~
kowdermeister
That's true, all I'm saying is that you don't have to pop $4k on a monitor
speaker, you can buy decent ones for 1/10th of the price.

------
amelius
I personally think we should be able to buy music in its pre-mastered form.
Yes, that will be a lot of data, but nowadays that is not really an issue
anymore. The experience will be so much better than our current option, which
is basically only the EQ settings on our amps.

~~~
blackhole
So, from the comments here, it seems that people are under the impression that
mastering engineers work off of the individual instrument tracks (the stems).
This is not true. The article itself explains that a _mixing engineer_ takes
the individual tracks and _mixes_ them. The final mixdown is then sent to the
mastering engineer. It's called "mastering" because this stage of processing
happens on a single track - the _master_ track. Buying music in a pre-mastered
form would still be a single lossless file, which is no different from
Bandcamp allowing you to download the final lossless mastered version. The
pre-mastered tracks will just sound worse and have wildly different volume
levels depending on how they're normalized.

If you want the actual _stems_ of the song, that would actually be the music
in it's _pre-mixed_ form. It wouldn't even be mixed at that point, let alone
mastered.

~~~
Sephiroth87
Apart from the misunderstanding, I think it would be actually interesting if
you could buy the un-mastered version, plus "mastering" files to use depending
on your setup (e.g.: crappy headphones, car stereo, home stereo), but that
would require multiple mastering sessions and wouldn't probably be very cost
effective...

Or you could crowd-source them but then it might go against the creators
intentions...

~~~
BugsBunnySan
In a different field (digital cinema) the above is being done for color,
lookup the ACES colorspace and workflows...

(Very) Basically the camera's recording goes through a process to make it into
a standardized ACES colorspace. It will then being processed by editing, VFX,
grading, etc... and then there's output transforms from ACES for each output
device, like a cinema projector, a home TV or a mobile phone.

And yes, AFAIR, that does need grading for each targeted output device,
because of how we see and perceive color depending on the environment we're
in...

It would be awesome (EDIT: to have something like that) for music as well

------
dunk010
There's a good article from 2001 which explains this in depth:
[http://www.cdmasteringservices.com/dynamicrange.htm](http://www.cdmasteringservices.com/dynamicrange.htm)

------
giancarlostoro
Edit: Whoops wrong thread. :)

~~~
SyneRyder
I think you might've posted in the wrong thread, and actually meant to post
here instead:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11754414](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11754414)

~~~
giancarlostoro
Thank you for catching that.

