More > JRiver Media Center 19 for Windows
NEW: Improved audio analysis and volume leveling (R128)
bobkatz:
--- Quote from: mojave on November 01, 2013, 12:52:18 pm ---I have the HD Tracks Elton John - Madman Across the Water. The Madman Across the Water track is DR8.
The MCA Records version I have is DR10.
Earlier this week I purchased the DJM Records 825 487-2 made in West Germany that is supposed to have it at DR13. I haven't received the disc yet.
It will be interesting to compare.
--- End quote ---
Thanks, Matt, for incorporating ITU standard loudness normalization in JRiver. Another obstacle to ending the loudness race has fallen!
Let's stop using these non-standard terms that mean nothing. The so-called terms "DR" which have been coined by a non-standards organization mean nothing. They use it to describe the level, not the dynamic range. The proper internationally-standardized loudness measurement is called "LUFS", for loudness units full scale. As Matt described earlier in the thread, the proper term for "dynamic range" is NOT DR, but rather LRA, for loudness range. This is also a standardized measurement by the ITU.
I do not believe that LRA is a good measure of sound quality, however. There will be something better down the pike, but until then, don't try to rely on LRA measurements as a judgment of whether you should buy a recording or not. For example, a good Steely Dan might have a rather small LRA, but be a very open-sounding, uncompressed recording with clean transients. But Tool's Aenima is purposely highly compressed---it has a very poor transient response and the sound is squashed to death. But loudness range? it has plenty of it. How did they get that? By manipulating the gain in mastering AFTER the compressor was applied. So I can make a recording which has a ton of measurable range but still sounds squashed and compressed. That's why LRA is a poor measurement of sound quality.
Stick with LUFS and that's about as close as you can get to an idea of whether a pop recording is overcompressed. But still far from perfect. No time to get into that today!
6233638:
--- Quote from: bobkatz on November 08, 2013, 02:15:40 pm ---Thanks, Matt, for incorporating ITU standard loudness normalization in JRiver. Another obstacle to ending the loudness race has fallen!
Let's stop using these non-standard terms that mean nothing. The so-called terms "DR" which have been coined by a non-standards organization mean nothing. They use it to describe the level, not the dynamic range. The proper internationally-standardized loudness measurement is called "LUFS", for loudness units full scale. As Matt described earlier in the thread, the proper term for "dynamic range" is NOT DR, but rather LRA, for loudness range. This is also a standardized measurement by the ITU.
--- End quote ---
I made a big push for this on the beta testing forum. Matt felt that it would be easier for people to understand "Dynamic Range (R128)" than "Loudness Range (LRA)" or something similar to it.
We had the same argument about using LU rather than LUFS. I was also of the opinion that Media Center should match the ITU as much as possible.
--- Quote from: bobkatz on November 08, 2013, 02:15:40 pm ---I do not believe that LRA is a good measure of sound quality, however. There will be something better down the pike, but until then, don't try to rely on LRA measurements as a judgment of whether you should buy a recording or not. For example, a good Steely Dan might have a rather small LRA, but be a very open-sounding, uncompressed recording with clean transients. But Tool's Aenima is purposely highly compressed---it has a very poor transient response and the sound is squashed to death. But loudness range? it has plenty of it. How did they get that? By manipulating the gain in mastering AFTER the compressor was applied. So I can make a recording which has a ton of measurable range but still sounds squashed and compressed. That's why LRA is a poor measurement of sound quality.
--- End quote ---
I agree - the crest factor is generally a much better indicator of track quality than the loudness range - that's why we have both. Dynamic Range (DR) is a measure of crest factor, and the results should match the TT-DR meter.
mojave:
--- Quote from: bobkatz on November 08, 2013, 02:15:40 pm ---Let's stop using these non-standard terms that mean nothing. The so-called terms "DR" which have been coined by a non-standards organization mean nothing. They use it to describe the level, not the dynamic range.
--- End quote ---
From Sound On Sound's Sept. 2011 Article on Dynamic Range: "For instance, one criterion commonly used to describe the dynamic behaviour of a piece of recorded music is the 'crest' factor. Put simply, the crest factor is the difference between the RMS level and the peak level over the course of the song. Intuitively, it measures the amplitude of the emerging 'peaks' in the audio stream. It's considered a good marker of the amount of dynamic compression that was applied to the music: more compression generally means a lower crest factor. Some professionals consider good handling of the crest factor as the cornerstone of successful mastering. Also, still generally speaking, the lower the crest factor, the louder the music."
JRiver's Dynamic Range (DR) is a measure of the crest factor and, in my library, seems to represent compression or lack of compression quite well.
Here are the specifications for Dynamic Range (DR) implemented by JRiver.
--- Quote ---That's why LRA is a poor measurement of sound quality.
--- End quote ---
I haven't read any posts here of anyone that thinks LRA is a measure of sound quality.
Vocalpoint:
--- Quote from: mojave on November 08, 2013, 03:21:59 pm ---JRiver's Dynamic Range (DR) is a measure of the crest factor and, in my library, seems to represent compression or lack of compression quite well.
--- End quote ---
Despite the plentiful amount of measurement and analysis columns available in v19 - the TT-DR meter column (DR) is the only number I care about when considering a purchase or when considering inclusion into our library.
If that specific column value is painfully high (7,6,5,4) then regardless of what kind of sound quality the source has - it's totally irrelevant to me. Any source with a DR higher than maybe 9 (using TT-DR) gives me a headache after 2 tracks so it's immediately dismissed.
These DR numbers driven by TT have never failed me yet. I have yet to encountered ANY source file with a deafening DR (8,7,6,5) that either sounds good or is worth putting in the library and I have never heard a source file with a nice DR (14,13,12,11) that sounds bad or causes me to stop playback and reach for an Advil.
The R128 stuff is a technical dream to have in this class of program - but unless you know what all those columns mean in a professional sense - I think the TT-DR numbers are a nice easy way for Average Joe to instantly know if he's in the right ballpark and the source is not crushed to death.
VP
bobkatz:
Mojave. Using "DR" for crest factor is a stupid, misleading, misuse of the English language. For over 100 years, the term "dynamic range" has referred to the distance between loudest and softest passages, NOT the distance between average level (or loudness) and peak level. I thoroughly detest this reinvention and reuse of one term to substitute for another. I thoroughly endorse the use of a new term such as (invented by Thomas Lund) "PLR" for the quantity you wish to describe. PLR standing for "Peak to Loudness Ratio". But please cease and desist using the term "DR" to represent something which it is not. Thank you.
By the way, I'm glad that no one except some of those in the European Radio production community has mistakenly latched on LRA as a measure of sound quality. As you say, (but using a misleading term), PLR is a much better measure of sound quality. Let's call a spade a spade and tell the people at Sound On Sound and a few other places that they are opening a can of worms by trying to reapply "dynamic range" to another quantity.
BK
--- Quote from: mojave on November 08, 2013, 03:21:59 pm ---From Sound On Sound's Sept. 2011 Article on Dynamic Range: "For instance, one criterion commonly used to describe the dynamic behaviour of a piece of recorded music is the 'crest' factor. Put simply, the crest factor is the difference between the RMS level and the peak level over the course of the song. Intuitively, it measures the amplitude of the emerging 'peaks' in the audio stream. It's considered a good marker of the amount of dynamic compression that was applied to the music: more compression generally means a lower crest factor. Some professionals consider good handling of the crest factor as the cornerstone of successful mastering. Also, still generally speaking, the lower the crest factor, the louder the music."
JRiver's Dynamic Range (DR) is a measure of the crest factor and, in my library, seems to represent compression or lack of compression quite well.
Here are the specifications for Dynamic Range (DR) implemented by JRiver.
I haven't read any posts here of anyone that thinks LRA is a measure of sound quality.
--- End quote ---
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version