Jump to content
IGNORED

Article: Dynamic Range Day


Recommended Posts

Some friends with an acoustic and vocal band just recorded a CD.  The first mix they got back was DR 5. I listened at their behest and explained why it was wrong.  They just knew they didn't like it as it sounded wrong. A couple more rounds and it will be done more sensibly to a DR 11 or 12.  What in the world are such people thinking? This was not metal music, and I wouldn't do it to DR 5.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment

Just an example of what I was referring to above this is the view of a track in Audacity.  I lowered the level by .1 db to get rid of multiple red clipping lines.  This is a traditional Christmas song "The Christ Child's Lullaby" with a mandolin, 12 string guitar, flute, violin and three female vocalists.  A DR 4 for this one track.  Heavy compression.  Limiting was so bad it made the mando sound more like a banjo.  This from a commercial studio in business for 30 years.   Please someone explain it to me, what was the guy thinking? 

 

Now to his credit once it was gotten across what they were expecting for the sound, this fellow did a first rate bang up job in making it sound nice.  He clearly has skills from his years of experience.  I just don't know why the first version looked like a track from Death Magnetic instead of a Christmas lullaby.

 

 

loudness wars v2.png

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, esldude said:

Just an example of what I was referring to above this is the view of a track in Audacity.  I lowered the level by .1 db to get rid of multiple red clipping lines.  This is a traditional Christmas song "The Christ Child's Lullaby" with a mandolin, 12 string guitar, flute, violin and three female vocalists.  A DR 4 for this one track.  Heavy compression.  Limiting was so bad it made the mando sound more like a banjo.  This from a commercial studio in business for 30 years.   Please someone explain it to me, what was the guy thinking? 

 

Now to his credit once it was gotten across what they were expecting for the sound, this fellow did a first rate bang up job in making it sound nice.  He clearly has skills from his years of experience.  I just don't know why the first version looked like a track from Death Magnetic instead of a Christmas lullaby.

 

 

loudness wars v2.png

I think it has just become so ubiquitous that the heavy DR is the "default", and no one thinks about it any more. Sad!

Main listening (small home office):

Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments.

Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three .

Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup.
Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. 

All absolute statements about audio are false :)

Link to comment
1 hour ago, firedog said:

I think it has just become so ubiquitous that the heavy DR is the "default", and no one thinks about it any more. Sad!

in the words of Avatar, "this is sad, very sad only".  Only it is worse than sad.  It is sad, it is insane, it is incomprehensible.  In  Platoon is the quote: "Hell is the impossibility of reason".  I think that fits best.

 

It is impossible to reason out why a Christmas lullaby ends up like this with voices and mostly stringed acoustical instruments.

loudness wars v2.png

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment

Having an increasing awareness of the extent of dynamic range reduction in modern or remastered older recordings has changed my music buying habits. I am wary of most new recordings, and do my best to check that newer releases and remasters are not brickwalled or have a lot of DR reduction before I make a purchase. For the past year I've been researching the best recordings/masterings of individual releases and am quite surprised how many good, higher-DR recordings, that are sometimes quite old, are out there that were completely under my radar. That said, most of my CD purchases these days are from Discogs or eBay and are usually of older releases of the music I like that have a reasonable DR. It is unfortunate though that for many new recordings from about the mid-90s and onwards are not available with a reasonable DR range. For example, I heard a cool Kristen Hersh tune on the radio the other day, but researching the CD found out the DR was abysmally low, between 5-8. Would I buy it? Maybe, but with a lot of disappointment that it couldn't be better, and with a low selling volume artist like her the chances of a future remaster to improve the DR aren't too high.

Link to comment

Thanks so much for this excellent piece on what may be the single most important topic in Audiophiledom.  Like other commenters, I've worked hard to find the highest DR versions, and sometimes skipped purchases altogether when I know I'll only be frustrated by a beautiful voice that's obviously truncated.  

 

These practices are stealing art!

Link to comment

OK, even thinking about this for the minute it took to write my appreciative comment gets me riled up.  Let's take one of my hero's--Bruce Springsteen--just for example.  Ironic that he scores well with Born in the USA in the graphic above.  Visit the excellent Dynamic Range Database page: http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list/album?artist=springsteen

 

Sadly, the Boss has allowed his great work to be steadily compressed over time.  The recent versions of his classics have deteriorated into the "amorphous wall of sound" (as opposed to the great Spector-inspired wall of sound).

 

It's not just the data--it's easy to hear the new versions of Born to Run et al have been severely compromised.  One irony here is the the official bootlegs of live performances sold on Bruce's website have better fidelity than his studio albums.  Of course, when I say fidelity in this context, I mean truth.  The bootlegs have all sorts of imperfections. But--unlike so many of the remasters--they are true to the music.

 

Hope this isn't too much of a rant.  I love music and I love Springsteen.  

Link to comment

How does one get the software to measure DR?   Thanks,  Larry

Analog-VPIClas3,3DArm,LyraSkala+MiyajimaZeromono,Herron VTPH2APhono,2AmpexATR-102+MerrillTridentMaster TapePreamp

Dig Rip-Pyramix,IzotopeRX3Adv,MykerinosCard,PacificMicrosonicsModel2; Dig Play-Lampi Horizon, mch NADAC, Roon-HQPlayer,Oppo105

Electronics-DoshiPre,CJ MET1mchPre,Cary2A3monoamps; Speakers-AvantgardeDuosLR,3SolosC,LR,RR

Other-2x512EngineerMarutaniSymmetrical Power+Cables Music-1.8KR2Rtapes,1.5KCD's,500SACDs,50+TBripped files

Link to comment

I have to say, nothing has contributed to me NOT purchasing new music as much as the loudness wars and lack of dynamic range. 

 

For example, when a new album is released, I just listen to it on Tidal frequently because the dynamic range is so bad. If there was a remaster with good dynamic range, I'd purchase the high resolution download from HDtracks without thinking twice. 

 

About a year ago I purchased Peter, Paul, and Mary's In The Wind from Audio Fidelity because it was a good master. I hate purchasing physical discs and waiting for UPS to arrive. These are the hoops many of us are willing to jump through because the alternatives simply suck. 

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
51 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I have to say, nothing has contributed to me NOT purchasing new music as much as the loudness wars and lack of dynamic range. 

 

Bingo!

Forrest:

Win10 i9 9900KS/GTX1060 HQPlayer4>Win10 NAA

DSD>Pavel's DSC2.6>Bent Audio TAP>

Parasound JC1>"Naked" Quad ESL63/Tannoy PS350B subs<100Hz

Link to comment

This problem is not news to anyone here. But how anyone could ignore the issue baffles me.

I would rather pass on a new release from an artist I like than pay $15-$20 for a CD, or up to $25 for a download that I can't listen to comfortably. If it says, "remastered from the original tapes" I run twice as fast.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I have to say, nothing has contributed to me NOT purchasing new music as much as the loudness wars and lack of dynamic range. 

 

For example, when a new album is released, I just listen to it on Tidal frequently because the dynamic range is so bad. If there was a remaster with good dynamic range, I'd purchase the high resolution download from HDtracks without thinking twice. 

 

 

+1

Main listening (small home office):

Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments.

Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three .

Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup.
Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. 

All absolute statements about audio are false :)

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, wwaldmanfan said:

This problem is not news to anyone here. But how anyone could ignore the issue baffles me.

I would rather pass on a new release from an artist I like than pay $15-$20 for a CD, or up to $25 for a download that I can't listen to comfortably. If it says, "remastered from the original tapes" I run twice as fast.

 

I'd say the audiophile community at large is woefully under informed about these issues. Case in point:

 

http://www.stereophile.com/content/communication-breakdown#LQWzKCiFDDd7mmAV.97

 

Not to pick on Steve G. too much, but in this article he depicts audiophiles like myself as luddites who can't adjust to the "crunch" of a new Spoon record (thinking about what I'm listening to now - Dodecahedron's latest - it's kinda funny). I get what he was saying though, and I fully understand his point that DRC is also a tool for artistic expression and we need to accept that fact.

 

However, he misses what I feel is the main issue at hand: Put simply, if you asked artists and engineers what they would have done if volume was not a concern, would they have produced the same master? I'll bet the answer is mostly no for a lot of popular releases. It was volume driving a lot of the production decisions, not artistic intent.

 

Anyway, I will have more to say soon....I don't want to give away too much now! :-)

Co-Founder/Chief Editor

http://www.metal-fi.com

Link to comment

I've now "blacklisted" most pop and rock music, in terms of buying HD versions of the albums.  I saw so many DR5 and lower, and didn't know how to tell before buying (grateful for the link to the database...)  The last straw was an Alabama Shakes album. JRiver said DR of 5 but it sounded much, much worse than that.

 

I experimented a bit with different files ranging from 24/96 down to MP3 at 320k and found that if the DR is really low, the album sounds no better in high res than it does in a compressed format.  The better the DR, the more there is in the high res version. Not sure I'd attribute it all to the DR, I think that albums with a wider DR also show many other signs of concern about musicality and engagement - a sound engineer that cares about DR cares about a lot of things.

 

Now, I buy pop and rock the cheapest way possible.  If it sounds better than the average iTunes file, I may re-buy in HD once I know how frequently I listen - I have heard enough comparisons now to be able to tell what is likely to be worth the extra $ for high res.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, ednaz said:

I've now "blacklisted" most pop and rock music, in terms of buying HD versions of the albums.  I saw so many DR5 and lower, and didn't know how to tell before buying (grateful for the link to the database...)  The last straw was an Alabama Shakes album. JRiver said DR of 5 but it sounded much, much worse than that.

 

I experimented a bit with different files ranging from 24/96 down to MP3 at 320k and found that if the DR is really low, the album sounds no better in high res than it does in a compressed format.  The better the DR, the more there is in the high res version. Not sure I'd attribute it all to the DR, I think that albums with a wider DR also show many other signs of concern about musicality and engagement - a sound engineer that cares about DR cares about a lot of things.

 

Now, I buy pop and rock the cheapest way possible.  If it sounds better than the average iTunes file, I may re-buy in HD once I know how frequently I listen - I have heard enough comparisons now to be able to tell what is likely to be worth the extra $ for high res.

Good post. I'm with you. As you say, it is really sad when the artists themselves don't know or don't care.

Your mention of the Alabama Shakes reminds me of a friend. He considers himself an audiophile, and has a  high-end, five-figure system. He loaned me a few recently- released albums on a flash drive to check out, including that paticular record, and every one was horribly compressed. I asked him how he can possibly listen to this crap, and he replied that it doesn't bother him...

I guess you can't change the world singlehandedly, but I am mitigating my frustration by contributing to the Dynamic Range Database.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, AlexMetalFi said:

 

I'd say the audiophile community at large is woefully under informed about these issues. Case in point:

 

http://www.stereophile.com/content/communication-breakdown#LQWzKCiFDDd7mmAV.97

 

Not to pick on Steve G. too much, but in this article he depicts audiophiles like myself as luddites who can't adjust to the "crunch" of a new Spoon record (thinking about what I'm listening to now - Dodecahedron's latest - it's kinda funny). I get what he was saying though, and I fully understand his point that DRC is also a tool for artistic expression and we need to accept that fact.

 

However, he misses what I feel is the main issue at hand: Put simply, if you asked artists and engineers what they would have done if volume was not a concern, would they have produced the same master? I'll bet the answer is mostly no for a lot of popular releases. It was volume driving a lot of the production decisions, not artistic intent.

 

Anyway, I will have more to say soon....I don't want to give away too much now! :-)

Well yet one more article where I don't agree with Steve G.  Nothing against him I simply usually don't agree. 

 

Some compression is needed for most music to be used in a moving car.  It actually sounds better and lets you hear more.  Most amplified music will sound a bit better imo with some compression even at home.  You don't need anywhere close the levels of compression/limiting that is the current fashion even in a noisy car.   Nor have I run across music that benefits from that.  I like Jimi's distorted guitar just fine thank you.  That isn't compression to these levels and adding compression to that distortion would have made it unbearable even back then when I was a teenager

 

I have done this for friends I recorded.  Add a bit of compression maybe a touch of reverb.  Let them hear it and the original.  Compressed is preferred.  Add a bit more compression and compare the two compressed versions where more compressed is preferred by them.  Rinse repeat a total of about 6 times.  Then play them the first compressed version and the last most compressed version.  Noses wrinkle, eyes squint, then they say something like what happened to that one.  The least compressed version is preferred and the highly compressed version in comparison sounds 'wrong'.  I wonder how often this accidentally happens and the last comparison never takes place side by side.  Your ear always prefers the slightly louder sound, and compression raises average loudness.  If comparing two already very compressed versions you still may go for the louder even at the point it is very messed up because both are messed up. 

 

I have seen many mastering guys say it is a tool and using it makes for better sound.  Sorry, not buying it.  Maybe it is old ears, but even if I like it you can't listen to much music for it just wears your ears out.  By the level of processing to limit (god I hate limiters) and compress that is the norm these days I can simply stream the music off of youtube.  It wouldn't sound much if any better at 384/24 when it is so compressed and limited.  I find a fare amount of music I like, but it is so badly recorded I vote with pocketbook by keeping it closed.  Youtube is free and all you need for the bulk of new music.  Truth is 32/8 is enough for most of this stuff now.

 

I was at the studio where my friends recorded their CD.  The monitors in the control room were very rolled off having no treble and limited upper midrange.  I thought maybe it was for working all day every day to protect the guy's hearing.  And maybe it is if you crunch everything though we were listening to the mic feeds.  My friends went to hear the first mix (I wasn't with them), and said it sounded pretty okay in his studio, but when they took it to their vehicle to hear it over a car system they weren't sure if their speakers were broken.  So were I go talk to that guy again I would ask if he has measured his monitors or has them rolled off on purpose. 

 

Sorry for the long rant, it is depressing we have the best fidelity possible in history by far, and you really have to search to find something not crunched to DEATH.  Some jazz and much classical is about your only refuge.

 

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment

I actually get angry when I hear some new releases (via TIDAL) where the loudness just ruins the art. In my mind, I see a record company executive arriving at a mastering session threatening to withhold payment unless he or she gets the levels desired.

 

I will then retreat into dynamic range bliss like this...

 

 

Screen Shot 2017-03-31 at 3.12.11 PM.png

71TZ7GlvwAL._SX355_.jpg

Link to comment

The ending paragraph from the quoted site hits a chord so to speak.

 

Here is also another sad truth, or if you prefer, perspective: More often than not, the weakest link in your playback chain is not what format you use, but rather the source material you are pumping through it.

 

That is so true, sound reproduction comes alive with great recordings, even for the earbudphile. Linking the bad DR numbers to the engineer or producer and calling them out is one step to avoid giving them cash. As usual though, the artists and the listeners suffer, as always.

AS Profile Equipment List        Say NO to MQA

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...