Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[InflatableMouse]

Music reproduction is better when there is more dynamic range, it sounds more life-like.

But dynamic range is only one quality of good sound.

There is no one measurement that automatically means quality.

Yeh, totally agree and I hope my post doesn't imply there is because there isn't.

[Vocalpoint]

These are just 4 examples I tried. Based on this it seems to me that replaygain values tell the same but on a bigger scale (sometimes more than double).

In addition to my trusty DR metering - this is another "key" indicator for all my stuff....

If MC kicks back a RG value of -12 (or beyond -13, -14 etc)...it's listener beware.

However if the RG is between -5 and -10 - is music to my ears.

Cheers,

VP

[InflatableMouse]

I was reading an interesting article. I don't understand the technical bits of it but I thought the general idea was interesting.

[kstuart]

I was reading an interesting article. I don't understand the technical bits of it but I thought the general idea was interesting.

You linked to a page with 7 articles.

[InflatableMouse]

As I understand it they all deal on various aspects of dynamic compression. You can't open the articles themselves unfortunately (though it would be way beyond my comprehension anyways) but it was part 3 that I found particularly interesting. It deals with restoring dynamic range on compressed material.

Of course not compressing in the first place is always better .

[contium]

I sent an email to Friedemann Tischmeyer.

I'll follow-up if I get a response.

I take it no response? This would be a useful feature.

[mark_h]

Alongside the TT-DR there is now the new standard for measuring loudness in music and normalizing the playback level

http://tech.ebu.ch/loudness

Broadcasters in the US and Europe now use this standard for normalizing audio whether on TV or Radio and it is sure to find its way into other consumer devices, whether by choice or by law.

This is something that I'd very much like to see replace REPLAY GAIN within Media Center.

As with the TT-DR meter, I scan all my music using offline tools to gather this data and import the data into MC for use.

[jamesecox50]

Just a few comments....I have downloaded and used the offline process mentioned below to measure the dynamic range index of my music collection. There is a strong correlation between the music I listen to repeatedly (over many years) and the DR measurement. I was very disappointed to find that nearly every remastered CD I owned was of much poorer dynamic range the originals. I have searched for and purchased 100's of used CD's from the 1980's. The dynamic range of these audio tracks is fantastic compared to later re-issues which have almost always been compressed.

Yes, adding this to MC audio analysis would be a great service to users.

I 100% Agree.......

[DangerJP]

+1   

(and bump)

[Vocalpoint]

I have searched for and purchased 100's of used CD's from the 1980's. The dynamic range of these audio tracks is fantastic compared to later re-issues which have almost always been compressed.

I did the same - seeking out many originals and then actually removing and shedding/recycling newer versions that exhibit horrific compression and volume. Luckily I had a lot of originals from back in the day (and kept them and had audio analysis tools at my disposal as early as the year 2000 to figure out what the issue was long before I spent a fortune on "remasters".

Now I will not consider any used purchase of any CD after 1994-ish and any new CD of recent vintage (1995-present) undergoes an extensive DR history check prior to any purchase. If the DR rating is even close to failing (past 10) - on ANY CD - regardless of whether I like the artist/band or not - the intent to purchase is instantly withdrawn and I move onto the next one.

My tolerance for any music that gives me a headache due to excessive dynamic range compression has expired.

Cheers,

VP

[bebe]

... Many famous rock albums have little or no dynamic range on the original master tapes.   Compressors were popular products in recording studios.

Agreed

[contium]

Again, that is simply not the case.

Many famous rock albums have little or no dynamic range on the original master tapes.   Compressors were popular products in recording studios.

I'm sure your statement about some rock albums is true but not for my collection for albums recorded before the loudness craze. Compressors are popular because you can't squeeze a band out a home stereo. I just went to the DR Database and started looking up rock bands randomly and the all had good dynamic range for releases pre 1992 or so.

The DR value is only of value in contrast to other releases of the same album, and even then, it is important to compare them by ear.   So, then why not just compare by ear ?

Are you going to buy every release of an album to figure out which is the best? The DR database will narrow that search down which is the point.
There is no way that the 2012 release of Van Halen's "Van Halen" album with a DR of 8 is going to compare to the originals DR of 15 (and it doesn't).  Now the HDTracks version has a DR 12 so those might be worth comparing to the original. Most aren't using it as an be all end all measure of good quality but it is an indication of poor quality.

I did the same - seeking out many originals and then actually removing and shedding/recycling newer versions that exhibit horrific compression and volume. Luckily I had a lot of originals from back in the day (and kept them and had audio analysis tools at my disposal as early as the year 2000 to figure out what the issue was long before I spent a fortune on "remasters".

Now I will not consider any used purchase of any CD after 1994-ish and any new CD of recent vintage (1995-present) undergoes an extensive DR history check prior to any purchase. If the DR rating is even close to failing (past 10) - on ANY CD - regardless of whether I like the artist/band or not - the intent to purchase is instantly withdrawn and I move onto the next one.

My tolerance for any music that gives me a headache due to excessive dynamic range compression has expired.

Cheers,

VP

Agree 100%

[astromo]

Are you going to buy every release of an album to figure out which is the best? The DR database will narrow that search down which is the point.

There is no way that the 2012 release of Van Halen's "Van Halen" album with a DR of 8 is going to compare to the originals DR of 15 (and it doesn't).  Now the HDTracks version has a DR 12 so those might be worth comparing to the original. Most aren't using it as an be all end all measure of good quality but it is an indication of poor quality.

I think the developers of the DR measure would like to see the measurement data labeled on prospective CDs or electronic tracks to give the consumer guidance. If you can be offered bit depth and sample rate, why not DR?

Why not? [Fire up your conspiracy theories] Well, what would the main stream music industry corporate types have to say? If (when) the penny drops with the average punter (or Joe-public for you US types), can you imagine the screams (whimpers?) of outrage?

Buying a product using a trial and error method is not really 21st century standard, is it? But that's what we've got.. Good luck to us all -  ?

[Vocalpoint]

Buying a product using a trial and error method is not really 21st century standard, is it? But that's what we've got.. Good luck to us all -  ?

Trust me - the corporate types want to stay as far away from a DR database as possible and certainly do not want you and I "measuring" anything - or having any advantage whatsoever on the way over to the store.

They do not want you and I to "trial" anything and only want us to be on the side of "error" by releasing volume pummeled crap while hoping that you and I won't notice - until we get the disc home and cannot listen to more than two songs without getting a headache.

I have saved my self literally thousands by consulting the DR database first - rather than the store or online outlet.

VP

[kstuart]

"Buying a product using a trial and error method is not really 21st century standard, is it? But that's what we've got."

There is only trial and error.

Several different groups create computer models of the atmosphere.  Each group is sure they have it right.  The one that predicts the weather most accurately is chosen.  It's trial and error - even for "21st century" computer modelling.

[-JK-]

Measuring DR is a little outdated (though still preferred to Intensity, I guess). I would love to see a ITU BS.1770 compliant loudness analysis though! Check http://www.itu.int/rec/R-REC-BS.1770-3-201208-I/en for (very scientific) details.

[Vocalpoint]

Measuring DR is a little outdated (though still preferred to Intensity, I guess). I would love to see a ITU BS.1770 compliant loudness analysis though! Check http://www.itu.int/rec/R-REC-BS.1770-3-201208-I/en for (very scientific) details.

In the area of "doing my homework before buying" - DR values are much more valuable to me rather than any sort ITU BS.1770 values.

I can easily take a current CD full of completely useless tracks (with say - a DR of 4) and resample/relevel the audio using ITU BS.1770 tools to force it to a compliant "loudness" .

However - lowering the "loudness" does not suddenly "restore" the dynamic range of this recording - it's still a DR of 4 - just now playing back much quieter.  Quiet crap is still crap.

I am only looking to purchase CDs that have a proper dynamic range - not a specific "volume".

VP

[6233638]

In the area of "doing my homework before buying" - DR values are much more valuable to me rather than any sort ITU BS.1770 values.

I can easily take a current CD full of completely useless tracks (with say - a DR of 4) and resample/relevel the audio using ITU BS.1770 tools to force it to a compliant "loudness" .

However - lowering the "loudness" does not suddenly "restore" the dynamic range of this recording - it's still a DR of 4 - just now playing back much quieter.  Quiet crap is still crap.

I am only looking to purchase CDs that have a proper dynamic range - not a specific "volume".

R128 (which uses a slightly modified BS.1770) includes measuring dynamic range via statistical analysis - it is not just about loudness normalization:


1 LU = 1dB, so that means there is a 25dB dynamic range in this content.

I don't think any of the other dynamic range meters are doing anything as sophisticated as this.

[Vocalpoint]

I don't think any of the other dynamic range meters are doing anything as sophisticated as this.

Agreed. But then we would need someone to reanalyze ALL the entries in the DR database and republish it

I too am hoping for true ITU BS.1770 ( or R128) to someday come to MC...would definitely put it head and shoulders above all other "players" out there...they could be the first (that I am aware of) that would actually offer this type of function.

VP

[astromo]

"Buying a product using a trial and error method is not really 21st century standard, is it? But that's what we've got."

There is only trial and error.

Several different groups create computer models of the atmosphere.  Each group is sure they have it right.  The one that predicts the weather most accurately is chosen.  It's trial and error - even for "21st century" computer modelling.

If there was only trial and error, then the scope of science would be limited accordingly and there would be no need for engineering as a field of endeavour.

My views on the value of models that can be used to guide consumer choice has already been made:
http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=77129.msg523173#msg523173

To use your weather reference, meteorologists don't stop using models because they're wrong sometimes. They seek to understand the errors and improve it where they can. If they didn't, we'd be stuck with a wetted finger in the air and poring over animal entrails to divine the weather.

Ultimately, in my view, some kind of tool based on scientific principles is better than nothing.

However, as I've said before, any measure can be corrupted for marketing purposes so the end consumer needs to beware. That said, I do find it reassuring that a number of apparently independent sources comment on the strong correlation between the DR measure and their own aural perception and preferences. Each to their own.

I'll stick with the group who value the DR database. I'll continue to use it as a guide when I purchase music and avoid relying solely on trial and error.

[kstuart]

"They seek to understand the errors and improve it where they can."

That's exactly what I said - there is only trial and error.  They try their computer model, then they seek to understand the errors and improve it.

If that is not clear, then you don't understand "trial and error".

( Not using trial and error, would mean staying in an underground bunker, with no windows or meteorological instruments, and then devising a computer meteorology model, and never comparing it to any actual weather. )

[Mikkel]

"They seek to understand the errors and improve it where they can."

That's exactly what I said - there is only trial and error.  They try their computer model, then they seek to understand the errors and improve it.

If that is not clear, then you don't understand "trial and error".

( Not using trial and error, would mean staying in an underground bunker, with no windows or meteorological instruments, and then devising a computer meteorology model, and never comparing it to any actual weather. )

I agree Kstuart, but the context in which you wrote it indicates that in buying music albums there is only trial and error (at least that is how I understood it) while others say that the DR is a measure which reduces the need for trial and error since the DR-value is a good indicator of generally better quality.

Personally I would say that both statements are true in the sense that a) DR is not the only measure of quality (as people here seem to also agree on), personal taste when it comes to reverb, front stage width, microphone placement etc. also matters, so some trial and error is required to pick the best album to one's taste, b) better DR usually means less listening fatigue. I would prefer the combination of a and b, though, since I then would get both subjectively good audio quality as well as some nice dynamic range to make the music experience less ?fatiguing?.


Best regards,
Mikkel

[kstuart]

My error here - I did not phrase the post clearly enough, now that I re-read it (the first one about trial and error and weather modeling).

I was only replying to the phrase "21st Century"in astromo's post, which was implying that Trial and Error was restricted to some primitive stone-age technology.

Vocalpoint's situation of not being able to hear the disk and using someone else's DR test to pre-select the best use of his limited funds, is entirely reasonable and practical.   I just find it important to occasionally point out that it is not an automatic quality indication.

[Vocalpoint]

Vocalpoint's situation of not being able to hear the disk and using someone else's DR test to pre-select the best use of his limited funds, is entirely reasonable and practical. 

Hey - I never said I had limited funds  What I do have is extremely limited (actually zero) tolerance for any CD with a DR over 9 tho. And that's regardless of anyone else's ears, any "trial and error" or any industry hype or current reviews.

Hey - even if it's my favorite band - like Rush - I refuse to wield. Their last three releases were ruined by completely incompetent engineers. But even tho they remain as my "Top 1" - I still did not purchase these last three records - as soon as I got a reading on the DR levels.

VP

[astromo]

Found this over at another forum:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=99557

The link shows the change of dynamic range with time (from about 1985) using data sourced from the unofficial DR database.

[astromo]

http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=82780.0

19.0.26 (8/13/2013)

3. NEW: Added DR dynamic range analysis to the audio analyzer.

Nice work guys ... thanks for listening ...