INTERACT FORUM
More => Old Versions => JRiver Media Center 18 for Windows => Topic started by: preproman on January 07, 2013, 07:19:42 pm
-
http://www.pleasurizemusic.com/
Do we have this capability?
-
Yes, join their site and download the dynamic range meter VST plug-in. Use replay gain in MC to get equal volume levels.
(http://www.dynamicrange.de/sites/default/files/image/DR_Quincy.jpg)
-
OK so we are able to use the plug in. Cool.
-
I've used the VST plugin in MC. It works. But what I'd really like is for MC to calculate the DR values (for tracks and the album as a whole) as part of the Analyze Audio analysis. I think the analysis algorithm is open so it may be possible to add that analysis algorithm to MC. I don't wanna have to go to Foobar just to do a DR analysis of an album.
Could this be a feature request for MC19?
-
From http://www.dynamicrange.de (http://www.dynamicrange.de)
The specifications of the TISCHMEYER TECHNOLOGY DYNAMIC RANGE METER are open source. In other words, they can be used by any developer and programmer who would like to integrate a DR display within a meter or who would like to program their own meter.
Please be aware that using the term "DR Meter" or "Dynamic Range Meter," as well as the use of the DR logo is only permitted after we have tested the implementation and have issued written approval.
There will maybe a small service fee charged for testing and consultation of your final implementation.
It is very important that every DR display always shows identical values under all circumstances.
To protect the integrity of the DR system the DR Meter has been registered for a world patent, which is pending.
Here are the specifications for the TT Dynamic Range Offine Meter (Software):
(This could be run as part of "analyze audio" in MC)
http://www.dynamicrange.de/sites/default/files/Measuring%20DR%20ENv3.pdf (http://www.dynamicrange.de/sites/default/files/Measuring%20DR%20ENv3.pdf)
-
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.
-
OK so we are able to use the plug in. Cool.
I've used the VST plugin in MC. It works. But what I'd really like is for MC to calculate the DR values (for tracks and the album as a whole) as part of the Analyze Audio analysis. I think the analysis algorithm is open so it may be possible to add that analysis algorithm to MC. I don't wanna have to go to Foobar just to do a DR analysis of an album.
Could this be a feature request for MC19?
Why wait until MC19? Make this function an MC18 deal is my vote.
However, being into instant gratification and wanting to avoid another registration process, I downloaded (and may the MC higher power not strike me down as I type this ;D ) foobar2000 and found the DR meter plugin out there on the web that integrates with FB2K. I'm progressively rating my collection for dynamic range and using this to weed out the chaff from the good stuff. Yet another job to add to the progressive tidy up of tags and album art. I would much rather have this happen all in MC because that is my preferred platform. I prefer a minimalist approach.
Please note that MC does provide a DR equivalent as "Intensity" that is included in "Analyse Audio", as I discovered here:
http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=20920.0 (http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=20920.0)
However I prefer the wider spread of the DR meter being on a 20 point scale as opposed to MC's intensity with 5. With the online database that's available:
http://dr.loudness-war.info/ (http://dr.loudness-war.info/)
it's handy to work with a standard measurement scale that you can use to check whether your music has been squished into a boomy audio format or has been mastered with a sensible appreciation for good sound and listening pleasure.
-
would be a great addition
-
On the one hand, I certainly agree that the loudness wars were a bad thing, and I am happy to have bought CDs back in the 80s.
However, I also want to caution that a version with a higher DR rating can sound worse than a version with a lower DR rating - it is not an automatic guide to better sound quality.
Ultimately, anything that cause people to use a device to measure sound quality, rather than using their own ears, is a bad idea.
So, in general, I oppose the DR meter concept.
-
I also use the offline tool to measure every new album I add to my collection. +1 for integration within MC.
-
I also use the offline tool to measure every new album I add to my collection. +1 for integration within MC.
+1
Kind of a pain to use Foobar just to get this info tagged to the files. BTW, Little Wing by Sting is my highest DR file.
-
However, I also want to caution that a version with a higher DR rating can sound worse than a version with a lower DR rating - it is not an automatic guide to better sound quality.
I have found that all low DR rated sound tracks sound bad. It is true that not all high DR rated sound tracks sound good.
-
The Dynamic Range number isn't a measure of quality. But it is a useful number in the right context. The DR measure has also gotten somewhat widely known and used. So it's a known measure. If I say "JRiver says that song has an intensity level of 4" nobody will know what that means. If I say "that song has a DR of 8" then some people will know what that means.
DR has become somewhat of a standard measure. It's handy and useful in the right context. It would be handy to have it integrated into JRiver to make it easy to calculate.
-
Yes, adding this to MC audio analysis would be a great service to users.
Oh how I would love to see DR analysis in MC. This would put it over the top in my books. (Plus I am a complete DR devotee)
Since I really discovered for myself just how bad mastering and limiting became at the start of the 2000's (Rush Vapor Trails - was the straw that broke it for me) I look to DR ratings now - well before even getting to any reviews of the actual music - BEFORE considering a purchase.
So it could be the biggest record from the biggest band ever - but if it has a DR of 7...forget it.
Would love to see some DR capabilities in MC tho.
VP
-
I would love to have this feature integrated into MC!
-
So the spec here:
http://www.dynamicrange.de/sites/default/files/Measuring%20DR%20ENv3.pdf
Basically says you compare the next-to-loudest 3 second section against the average of the loudest 20% of 3 second sections.
If a track has long quiet periods and some (25%) intense periods, it will show as having no dynamic range. Is that right?
-
As stated above, Intensity in JRiver is a similar measure. Roughly it looks at the percentage of the song with a loudness (RMS) that's close to the peak loudness.
With a CD like Metallica's Death Magnetic, 90% or more of the songs are about as loud as the loudest part of the song.
-
The DR measure seems to be more geared to measuring pop and rock style songs than something like classical or some styles of post-rock. I haven't looked at the details of the spec. I believe that the spec also includes a way of ignoring the very beginning and very end sections of the song so that a soft intro or a loud final climax don't affect the overall DR number. It's not perfect, and it is just a single number trying to represent something that is more complex than just a single number. The advantage of the DR number is that it has been adopted as a standard measure out in consumer audio enthusiast land.
-
As stated above, Intensity in JRiver is a similar measure. Roughly it looks at the percentage of the song with a loudness (RMS) that's close to the peak loudness. With a CD like Metallica's Death Magnetic, 90% or more of the songs are about as loud as the loudest part of the song.
Matt,
Well - Intensity in MC has never made any sense to me.
Example: Right now I am listing to a dreamy, very well recorded ambient track by The Orb (with David Gilmour) and it has a wonderful Replay gain value of -9.67 and an Intensity of 2 in MC
Then - Track 1 of the new Muse record has a horrific compressed tone and a brutal RG of almost -14.00 and MC is also reported having an Intensity of 2
The two tracks could not be further apart in dynamic range. Muse has none while the Orb has a a ton.
The advantage of the DR number is that it has been adopted as a standard measure out in consumer audio enthusiast land.
+1. The DR standard is growing in leaps and bounds worldwide and it's values are much more meaningful since I can tell you right now that an album or song with a DR12 is a keeper while DR7 is useless. It's also becoming well entrenched at broadcast as well.
Intensity in MC? I guess I just don't get it or what it's trying to say.
VP
-
+1. The DR standard is growing in leaps and bounds worldwide and it's values are much more meaningful since I can tell you right now that an album or song with a DR12 is a keeper while DR7 is useless. It's also becoming well entrenched at broadcast as well.
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.
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 ?
BTW, the same is true of "calories". It's not a scientific measure of how a food affects weight loss or gain, nor of the health value of a food. So, it gives people the false idea that there is an easy single number that tells them about a food.
DR is similar - it gives people the false idea that there is an easy single number that tells them the sound quality of a track.
-
However, I also want to caution that a version with a higher DR rating can sound worse than a version with a lower DR rating - it is not an automatic guide to better sound quality.
The Dynamic Range number isn't a measure of quality.
DR is similar - it gives people the false idea that there is an easy single number that tells them the sound quality of a track.
Yes !!!
But nethertheless that DR offline analysis process would be a nice add-on for MC.
I have been using the DR VST-plugin for years (hosted in my system wide audio setup).
Originally different versions of the DR VST-plugin were created with different GUI and refresh rates.
I have created my own skin mods for version 1.4.
Version 1.4 uses a higher refresh rate, but has originally a less professional skin than 1.0 (though the versions numbers are not stringent logical in this case - technically it is more or less all the same).
I will open a new thread very soon to share these skin mods here. ;)
-
Many famous rock albums have little or no dynamic range on the original master tapes. Compressors were popular products in recording studios.
Agreed. However one mastering vs another can be worlds apart - even for the same record. The DR scales and analysis make it easy to see which pressings shine and which do not.
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 ?
Totally disagree here. The DR value is a definitive value for any specific pressing of any album or any song. The great thing about the DR standard is one can immediately tell the wheat from the chaff by quickly checking a few numbers.
ZZ Top's recent "Futura" comes to mind. Was excited to see the band releasing a new CD. Was not excited to see that Vlado Meller was mastering it. Sure enough - well before reaching for anything resembling a wallet - a quick check of the official DR database shows an overall DR value of 4 - meaning it's so bad (and so loud) that it's not even worth spinning up. This is the same guy that trashed that latest Chili Peppers and a whole raft of other horrible CDs.
The reviews on Futura were immediate and that was it. Zero dynamic range and a headache after one song. So why bother? Why subject my ears to this?
DR is similar - it gives people the false idea that there is an easy single number that tells them the sound quality of a track.
Each to their own. For me it's the best thing to happen to my collection in decades. I use it exclusively as a filter to ensure no "loudness wars" induced crap ever makes it to my system - and to seek out the most dynamic pressings of any given record.
My DR standard right now is 9 - anything new out there that exceeds that value is immediately ignored (like ZZ Top) or even removed permanently (I spent time last year analyzing more than a few suspect CDs that were purchased over the years) and trashed them outright regardless of whether I like the album, band , track or not.
The DR system has not let me down yet. I have yet to encounter a single disc or download yet with a DR value higher than 9 that I actually find enjoyable or would listen to for an extended period of time. Life is too short to put up with bad sounding music. MC (and my speakers) deserve better.
VP
-
My DR standard right now is 9 - anything new out there that exceeds that value is immediately ignored.....
....Life is too short to put up with bad sounding music. MC (and my speakers) deserve better.
But it is not that simple to identify good and bad sounding music.
DR 11 is not automatically better than DR 9.
Audio mastering is not that simple.
Of course a DR 6 production is probably very fatigueing (annoying).
But a DR value says nothing about the spectral balance.
So it happens that a DR 9 can sound better (less fatigueing) and more natural than DR 11.
Elsewise everybody could create in a few minutes good sounding music - by applying temporal gain reductions with a simple wave editor - as long as he/she keeps a very broad dynamic range.
The dynamic range is only one relevant criterion amongst many others.
-
Totally disagree here. The DR value is a definitive value for any specific pressing of any album or any song. The great thing about the DR standard is one can immediately tell the wheat from the chaff by quickly checking a few numbers.
ZZ Top's recent "Futura" comes to mind. Was excited to see the band releasing a new CD. Was not excited to see that Vlado Meller was mastering it. Sure enough - well before reaching for anything resembling a wallet - a quick check of the official DR database shows an overall DR value of 4 - meaning it's so bad (and so loud) that it's not even worth spinning up. This is the same guy that trashed that latest Chili Peppers and a whole raft of other horrible CDs.
From my limited technical expertise in audio, for me this is the whole point behind the DR scale.
And that is that it offers some kind of reasonable (and you can argue the toss on what "reasonable" means) measure that consumers can use as a guide to assist their choices. Here it is from the horses mouth rather than my paraphrase:
http://www.pleasurizemusic.com/en/our-aim (http://www.pleasurizemusic.com/en/our-aim)
Our aim is to re-establish dynamic as essential part and most important means of expression of all genres of music.
Our aim is to improve the sound quality of music in its various recorded formats – including data compression methods such as MP3 – as well as music destined for radio broadcast.
Only music that provides a positive musical listening experience has real market value. The Foundation's aim is to increase the value of music within the creative production process for the entire music industry.
The objective is to revive the willingness to pay for music and therefore to create a healthier basis for all creative participants within the music industry.
I get what they're on about and I really appreciate the objective. Plus, I love the aspect of providing "power to the people" via the internet and the development of a DR rating database. That's magic stuff because it offers a level of empowerment to people who don't live in the audiophile world or may wander into that world occassionally.
On the one hand, I certainly agree that the loudness wars were a bad thing, and I am happy to have bought CDs back in the 80s.
I'd disagree that the "Loudness War" can be referred to in the past tense, my view is that it's still raging. I am also glad that the majority of my music collection is pre-noughties Loudness nonsense.
Also bear in mind that any measure of this ilk is attempting to model quantitatively a subjective effect. Any model has limits:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_limitations_of_a_scientific_model (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_limitations_of_a_scientific_model)
That is why the principle of Occam's razor is relevant:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html)
- in this sense, make the model / measure the simplest that it can be but no simpler - and why I agree with various comments that the use of any measure as an absolute is unwise.
But having some measure that has a level of credibility and universality that can be used as a guide for screening, is potentially a great tool. In the case of the DR Meter, it's for these reasons that I'm putting it to use. This is my individual choice and I respect the choice of others who don't want to use it for their own reasons.
I'd still love to get an all in one out of the box solution that offers another column in the "Analyse Audio" data table.
-
The dynamic range is only one relevant criterion amongst many others.
And that's why the unscrupulous marketing types will "game" any system or measure to drive to a solution that has money at the end of it. It's human behaviour but the value of discussions like this, is that the less clued up get a better understanding of what to be wary of. My thanks to you and others for the useful input on the additional aspects. I value the education.
-
But it is not that simple to identify good and bad sounding music. DR 11 is not automatically better than DR 9. Audio mastering is not that simple. Of course a DR 6 production is probably very fatigueing (annoying). But a DR value says nothing about the spectral balance. So it happens that a DR 9 can sound better (less fatigueing) and more natural than DR 11.
Elsewise everybody could create in a few minutes good sounding music - by applying temporal gain reductions with a simple wave editor - as long as he/she keeps a very broad dynamic range.
The dynamic range is only one relevant criterion amongst many others.
Like I said - each to their own. And I did not say that a DR value or "this" is better than a DR value of "that". I am also not getting into what you think is better or spectral balance or any of the intricacies of mastering and mixing audio.
My use of the DR standard to have a valid baseline to build the best collection of dynamically pleasing pressings of music that I can find - so I can enjoy them for years to come. Nothing more and nothing less. Best of all - having these values prior to many a potential purchase has both educated me and saved me a ton of money - by not getting duped into giving money to the "brown stain" that is today's "louder is better" music business.
VP
-
If a track has long quiet periods and some (25%) intense periods, it will show as having no dynamic range. Is that right?
They say:
Limiting the DR-measurement to the upper 20% of the blocks with maximum RMS is a compromise that allows to somewhat compare a wide variety of different material in a quantitative way. Also in highly dynamic Material only the loudest parts, which usually best reflect the processing of the material (compression etc.), contribute to the DR measurement.
From experience I gotta say it works pretty good. My kid was listening to an old thrash metal band (Slayer) and I pointed out that it sucked and we should look up the DR value - it was 6, point made. I noticed the same album was originally released on CD in 1986 at DR 15!!!! I looked a long time and found one on ebay. It ain't exactly my kinda music but man does it sound better. We were both amazed when we heard it cranked up to match volume levels. So my quest began for old CD's.
-
My knowledge of this is pretty much limited to what I've read in this thread, and a brief review of their site, but from what i'm reading, it seems like a great tool to help manage my music library. Until i know more, i won't eliminate anything based on this value, but it sure does sound like it should help point towards music that is likely to be of lesser quality, which I appreciate.
I see on their site there is a foobar plugin (which expires in 2011??), and someone above mentioned a VST plugin that will work with MC.
I'll go look at the plugin forum right now, but in case anyone can write up a quick, 'how to' to get this at least somewhat incorporated into MC, or how to start to use this tool on my existing library, i'd sure appreciate it.
Matt, this seems like a quality addition to MC. Maybe you'll find the time to get this measure into MC before too much longer :)
-
My knowledge of this is pretty much limited to what I've read in this thread, and a brief review of their site, but from what i'm reading, it seems like a great tool to help manage my music library. Until i know more, i won't eliminate anything based on this value, but it sure does sound like it should help point towards music that is likely to be of lesser quality, which I appreciate.
I see on their site there is a foobar plugin (which expires in 2011??), and someone above mentioned a VST plugin that will work with MC.
Justin, hopefully you will find the DR meter useful. If you surf here:
http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/ (http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/)
There are a number of software links at the top right of that web page. Go to the FB2K component that takes you to the developer's latest version that works.
So my quest began for old CD's.
You and me both... 8)
-
thanks, I finally got my registration info, but your link is what I needed.
I downloaded the foobar plugin and copied it to the C:\Program Files (x86)\J River\Media Center 18\Plugins folder, then figured out (I thought) how to install it, but I'm getting the error...
The program can't start because the shared.dll is missing from your computer. Try reinstalling the program to fix the problem.
"MSCTFIME UI: PackageInstaller.exe - System Error" is the title of the error box, and I have to hit OK 6 times before it gives a generic 'your program failed to install' box which finally I can really close.
I'm not sure if that's a 'me' problem or a MC18 problem
-
I downloaded the foobar plugin and copied it to the C:\Program Files (x86)\J River\Media Center 18\Plugins folder, then figured out (I thought) how to install it, but I'm getting the error...
Justin,
I believe you need the offline\VST version of this plugin and not the Foobar one. My installer has a name of TT-DR-Install.1.4a.exe and creates a folder called Algorithmix upon install.
Let me know if you need a PM or more help.
Cheers,
VP
-
Download the software at the site astromo have a link to, just choose the 'windows software' link. Install it and then just point the MC plugin manager at "C:\Program Files (x86)\Algorithmix\TT-Dynamic-Range 1.4\DR-Meter\TT Dynamic Range Meter 1.4.dll".
Be aware that the meter response is closely related to the buffer setting in output mode. I am using 'minimum hardware size' and because of that I once and awhile experience dropouts. But I know how to fix it :)
-
I used the web form to ask the DR people if they would be interested in JRiver support.
You might do the same to tell them it's important to you.
Or if someone has a real contact email, please send an introduction to them and to me (matt at jriver dot com).
Thanks.
-
Or if someone has a real contact email, please send an introduction to them and to me (matt at jriver dot com).
Sent you a PM with some detail on more direct DR support.
Really appreciate the effort.
Cheers,
VP
-
I sent them a web contact/request also.
Unfortunately, the full stand alone analyzer only seems to work for wav or mp3 files, which is a small percentage of my collection.
Hopefully they respond with some useful/helpful info and Matt can do his magic :)
thanks everyone
-
Justin,
I believe you need the offline\VST version of this plugin and not the Foobar one. My installer has a name of TT-DR-Install.1.4a.exe and creates a folder called Algorithmix upon install.
Let me know if you need a PM or more help.
Cheers,
VP
And to get that plugin, from what I can tell you have to contribute money to become an 'Active' member on the site.
-
And to get that plugin, from what I can tell you have to contribute money to become an 'Active' member on the site.
Yes - it's a small donation for membership to the foundation...not a big thing tho.
VP
-
Actually, once I downloaded the right program (windows, not foobar), it installed the stand alone, and also the plugin, so I was able to get it working in MC.
Sadly, there is no way to 'put' this DR info into MC, or to run the program on most of my collection, so it's 'neat' at this point, but functionally not very useful, so far.
-
I sent an email to Friedemann Tischmeyer.
I'll follow-up if I get a response.
-
I sent an email to Friedemann Tischmeyer.
I'll follow-up if I get a response.
Sweet.
VP
-
This has been very interesting. I greatly appreciate all the comments. I can’t really add too much at this time except that in a different way this tool will be very useful for me.
Last year I developed a new hobby of buying used records and remastering them to 24/96 files. I use sound forge 10.0 and use an Isotopes 3.0 plugin to compress or maximize the levels. After comparing a mobile fidelity remastered cd of Crosby Stills and Nash to my raw recording of the LP. The CD clearly sounded fuller there was a significant amount of bass that was less present on the LP. I came up with a sort of one click solution and all my new records got processed that way. Well that didn’t work so well. Some records sounded great compressed and others like sh*t.
I believe most people will fall for the louder is better way of mastering. You would have to sit them down and make them listen to the 2 versions and after you point out the differences maybe they will change the minds. All the while they are sure Pandora is good enough for them.
When I listen from the PC I use Sound forge will DR work with it?
-
Last year I developed a new hobby of buying used records and remastering them to 24/96 files. I use sound forge 10.0 and use an Isotopes 3.0 plugin to compress or maximize the levels. After comparing a mobile fidelity remastered cd of Crosby Stills and Nash to my raw recording of the LP. The CD clearly sounded fuller there was a significant amount of bass that was less present on the LP. I came up with a sort of one click solution and all my new records got processed that way. Well that didn’t work so well. Some records sounded great compressed and others like sh*t.
I do needledropping with a passion - but one thing I do not do is allow any plugins (especially iZoTope) to have any hand in "recasting" the sound based upon a plugin chain. My rule for needledrops is to be kept as natural as possible and the only real tweaks I will do (outside of declicking, setting markers for tops n tails and fades is to normalize the peak levels of any given track to never exceed 0.03 dbFS. (This is not like compressing/maximizing) - I would never touch any transfer with a compressor and certainly not a maximizer.
Recording them properly from a very clean (scrubbed, rinsed and vacuumed) source with an excellent TT, cart and phono stage is the real trick. I frequently use the DR standalone app to check my work and my needledrops consistently boast DR values of 12 (or lower - in the case 13, 14 15 etc). Which is ideal. A track with a DR value of 12 should end up with a Replay Gain value of somewhere between -8.00 and -10.00 in MC (if Volume Leveling is on, in Track based mode and a Fixed adjustment of +6)
When I listen from the PC I use Sound forge will DR work with it?
The current DR VST plugin may work fine with Forge. I have never tried it tho. As long as you can find the dll and place it's path where Forge can find it - it should load.
-
but one thing I do not do is allow any plugins (especially iZoTope) to have any hand in "recasting" the sound based upon a plugin chain. My rule for needledrops is to be kept as natural as possible and the only real tweaks I will do (outside of declicking,
I always had the same belief, do as little processing as possible. Then I bought used records of the same cds I have had for years. I figured the records would sound better. In fact IMHO the cds sounded better at least on some and it was because of the remastering.
My TT is far from the best A project audio TT , grado phono stage, shure v15v feed directly into an echo mona audio card captured at 24/96. So it’s not crap either.
I think there is definitely an argument for mastering and using some of the tools to get you there. I picked up Jefferson airplane surrealistic pillow and besides to record was in kind of bad shape the sound of how it was mastered in 1967 by today’s standards sounded like am radio. I brought it back to life and if 9 out of 10 people have the perception that it sounds better, it’s knowing where to stop that I’m working on. I think DR can help me there.
-
I think there is definitely an argument for mastering and using some of the tools to get you there. I picked up Jefferson airplane surrealistic pillow and besides to record was in kind of bad shape the sound of how it was mastered in 1967 by today’s standards sounded like am radio. I brought it back to life and if 9 out of 10 people have the perception that it sounds better, it’s knowing where to stop that I’m working on. I think DR can help me there.
I have Surrealistic Pillow (very very early 70's or late 60's pressing) vs a more recent CD and there is no contest. I will take the original 1967 vinyl "master" any day of the week. My mid 80's CD sounds like crap.
But again - for me - it's always about preserving the original master release and fixing/changing nothing - except any obvious pops ticks or flaws that would otherwise detract from listening to the material. But I would never ever mess with the tone, add compression, EQ and especially any limiters or maximizer that would effectively "remaster" and change the actual sound of the transfer.
If it was Jefferson Airplane's intent to give me an "AM radio style" mastering back in 67 - then so be it. My transfer goal in this case - would be to make my files sound exactly like they would have on a summer day in 67 when a fan opened an original vinyl copy and placed it on the turntable for the first time. But I would not try to "1997" my transfer by cranking up the RMS and limiting. That kind of "volume" treatment just kills the headroom and impact of recordings (especially needle drops) - it does nothing to make them "better".
So - a very slight peak adjustment is all I do - and only just enough to get the song in the same "volume" pocket as it would be if played from the turntable. But all my transfers are nowhere near the ridiculous volume of most of today's useless "loudness war" releases.
And they all sound spectacular in MC :)
VP
-
I have Surrealistic Pillow (very very early 70's or late 60's pressing) vs a more recent CD and there is no contest. I will take the original 1967 vinyl "master" any day of the week. My mid 80's CD sounds like crap.
I'm saying I like my tweaking of the raw recording over the unprocessed recording. I did not have the store bought cd of Surrealistic pillow. To qualify my statements the used records I buy are generally in fair to good shape some poor. The CDs were all Mobile Fidelity remasters so they were very clean compared to the raw recording with surface noise. I think 9 out of 10 people will pick the CDs every time over the older records. Well recorded records in perfect shape a different argument.
At the end of the day there is no absolute right or wrong just personal preference and I take heed to your point of view and re-evaluate mine.
-
At the end of the day there is no absolute right or wrong just personal preference and I take heed to your point of view and re-evaluate mine.
Noted. Whatever works for you is - of course - the best way to go about it.
However - since the thread title is "Dynamic Range"...just a gentle suggestion to ease off the compressors/limiters and maximizers etc if dynamic range (in your transfers) is what you hope to attain :)
Also - there is a very important reason why Mobile Fidelity CDs sound like they do - and that is the almost universal rule of "flat" transfer from master tape to CD - with just about nothing done to the source material. MF engineers take great pain to ensure their discs retain all the dynamics and wonderful headroom of the original master recording and always refrain from making any of their releases as hot/loud as today's typical line of volume blasted recordings.
Good luck with your transfers and hopefully the use of DR in MC.
Cheers!
VP
-
Mastering discussion split here:
http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=77486.0
-
This whole DR discussion triggered me to compare a few of my CD's I have both in their original and remastered releases. One particular release I also have as an MFSL release. In particular:
Eric Clapton - Behind the sun (original and remastered).
Simple Minds - Streetfighting Years (original and remastered).
Supertramp - Crime of the Century (MFSL and remastered).
Pink Floyd - Dark Side of the Moon (original, japanese release and recent bluray remaster).
I usually take replaygain values as a general lead to determine which version is the better one. Very low values are typically bad productions. This turned out to match DR. I installed foobar with the plugin to check it out.
The original (and the MFSL) releases are typically 4 or 5 points higher on the DR scale than the remasters. Intensity (from MC) is generally the same between the releases with a few tracks where its one point higher for the original and MFSL. Replaygain values are typically somewhere between 6 and 13dB lower for all the remasters.
Eric Clapton and Simple Minds were pretty hard to distinguish, I felt the originals were easier to listen to, less tiring.
Supertramp and Pink Floyd however, there was no comparison. In both cases the remasters sound just plain bad. Especially Crime of the Century (the song), around the 4 minute mark when the sax comes in, all the way towards the end its really easy to follow the piano and the violins. Its airy, you can basically point to and pick apart any instrument, focus on it, like you can set it apart from the rest, isolate it in your mind. With the remaster its almost impossible. Its a mess, its tiring and playing it loud is even unpleasant. The piano gets pushed around and even almost dissapears at times. Then all the way at the end, the harmonica; doesn't even sound like a harmonica on the remaster. I can hear something but it sounds more like a squeeling mouse than anything else.
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).
-
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.
Another problem sometimes found with remasters is subtle corrupting of the timing of the sounds (sometimes called "smearing"). Nowadays, equipment reviewers use the term "PRaT" - Pace, Rhythm and Timing - to describe this aspect of music, and the term is very applicable to different masterings as well. (When a recording makes you want to tap your feet, or get up and dance, it has good PRaT.)
A classic example is the first MCA remasters of the Jimi Hendrix albums on CD in 1993. Some particular processing that was used, that significantly reduced the PRaT, relative to the previous 1987 Reprise label CDs. The cymbals or vocals may be clearer or have more detail, but I'd much rather listen to the earlier Reprise CDs.
This is just one example how Dynamic Range is a good thing to have, but it is not an automatic indication of better sound quality.
When you buy a car, you don't just look at horsepower, and you don't just look at gas mileage. You also have to like how the car handles on corners, what it looks like, how comfortable the seats are, and so forth.
There is no one measurement that automatically means quality.
-
Another problem sometimes found with remasters is subtle corrupting of the timing of the sounds (sometimes called "smearing"). Nowadays, equipment reviewers use the term "PRaT" - Pace, Rhythm and Timing - to describe this aspect of music, and the term is very applicable to different masterings as well. (When a recording makes you want to tap your feet, or get up and dance, it has good PRaT.)
A classic example is the first MCA remasters of the Jimi Hendrix albums on CD in 1993. Some particular processing that was used, that significantly reduced the PRaT, relative to the previous 1987 Reprise label CDs. The cymbals or vocals may be clearer or have more detail, but I'd much rather listen to the earlier Reprise CDs.
Fascinating.
-
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.
-
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
-
I was reading an interesting article (http://www.aes.org/events/130/papers/?ID=2637). I don't understand the technical bits of it but I thought the general idea was interesting.
-
I was reading an interesting article (http://www.aes.org/events/130/papers/?ID=2637). 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.
-
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 :P.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.......
-
+1 :)
(and bump)
-
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
-
... Many famous rock albums have little or no dynamic range on the original master tapes. Compressors were popular products in recording studios.
Agreed
-
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%
-
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 - ?
-
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
-
"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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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:
(http://www.abload.de/img/r128-lrajsu6g.png)
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.
-
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
-
"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 (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.
-
"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. )
-
"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
-
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'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
-
Found this over at another forum:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=99557 (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.
-
http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=82780.0 (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 ... ;)