Dynamic Range...

[Thompsonuxb]

The DR of a piece of music does not really say much about the quality of the recording, does it?

With ref that DR site linked to in one of the threads, I went ans checked out a few of my tag CD's

D'Angelo's Brown Sugar had a DR of 10 and so did Toni Braxton's Libre

Both albums sound superb on my modest kit but have only average rating.

DR is the quietest to the loudest peaks in your music which would suggest they'd sound mur.....they don't

So what's the deal.....?

Is the DR a real measure of how good things sound or just more hype to confuse or the site just rubbish?

 

[Gazzip]

I was reading the other threads on this and thinking exactly the same thing. Daft Punk Random Access Memories (Redbook CD release) gets a below average rating on the DR site, unfairly in my opinion.

This makes quite interesting reading:

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep11/articles/loudness.htm

Although quite a heavy going article they seem to be suggesting that the way DR is measured and presented as "Good" or "Bad" is not really relevant and/or linked to sound quality/loudness. At least I think that is what is being suggested. Like I say very heavy going and quite technically analytical. Worth a read though.

 

[davedotco]

As you say, dynamic range is the ratio between the lowest level sound on a recording and the highest peak level. As this is a ratio it is expressed in dBs.

The DR database is not quite the same thing, it measures the difference between average and peak levels and gives each recording a score, several in fact. This is not the actual dynamic range of a recording but simply a number, usually between 1 and 20 (higher scores are possible, but rare) that indicates the dynamic range of a recording in relation to other recordings measured in the same way.

It is simply a scale that allows us to compare the dynamic range of one recording with another, no more, no less.

To use the DR database as an indicator of the quality of the recording is absurd, many other facrors come into play.

 

[MeanandGreen]

You have to remeber that the way a recording is EQ'd plays a very important role. Great dynamic range doesn't necessarily mean it isn't going to sound bright and hard for example.

Low DR doesn't mean it's going to sound distorted and dull by default. It only gives an idea of how much compression was used to balance the volume from quietest to loudest and nothing more.

 

[SteveR750]

I was reading the other threads on this and thinking exactly the same thing. Daft Punk Random Access Memories (Redbook CD release) gets a below average rating on the DR site, unfairly in my opinion.

This makes quite interesting reading:

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep11/articles/loudness.htm

Although quite a heavy going article they seem to be suggesting that the way DR is measured and presented as "Good" or "Bad" is not really relevant and/or linked to sound quality/loudness. At least I think that is what is being suggested. Like I say very heavy going and quite technically analytical. Worth a read though.

That is interesting. I'd always assumed that DR was an absolute peak to trough measurement - the loudest and quietist part of the track, which in most cases would be the noise floor. It's clear now that only tell part of the story. Thanks for the link.

 

[davedotco]

That is interesting. I'd always assumed that DR was an absolute peak to trough measurement - the loudest and quietist part of the track, which in most cases would be the noise floor. It's clear now that only tell part of the story. Thanks for the link.

You are sort of correct, measuring the loudest and quietest part of the recorded music gives the dynamic range of the music, extending the quietest part down to the noisefloor gives you the possible dynamic range of the recording.

The SOS article is quite old and mainly attempts to relate measured dynamic range to what we actually hear which is a somewhat different subject. Although it does mention 'loudness wars' it does not really go into the primary problem of overdone peak limiting which is the primary cause of the bright, harsh sound that so many people complain about.

A lot of people seem to confuse dynamics with dynamic range, the Daft Punk album mentioned earlier has explosive dynamics but mediocre dynamic range, two different things.

 

[SteveR750]

That is interesting. I'd always assumed that DR was an absolute peak to trough measurement - the loudest and quietist part of the track, which in most cases would be the noise floor. It's clear now that only tell part of the story. Thanks for the link.

You are sort of correct, measuring the loudest and quietest part of the recorded music gives the dynamic range of the music, extending the quietest part down to the noisefloor gives you the possible dynamic range of the recording.

Exactly, this is the easily made mistake. I can understand why you need to make an RMS evaluation in order to compare the music.

EDIT - it's a rather convoluted article to get to the main point, which is an analysis of average musical volumes and absolute volumes. It seems that the "first paradigm loudness" is the area we need to be in, or more specifically preserving the crest factor if we want to retain the maximum dynamic impact of recorded instruments.

 

[Covenanter]

DR is nothing to do with quality of music as others have said. In the classical world, for example, Haydn and Mozart symphonies would I suggest have a lower DR whereas, for example, Shostakovich symphonies would have a higher DR. All these examples are high quality music. So you can listen to the Haydn and Mozart in a car whereas if you try to listen to Shostakovich you have to have the volume up very high in order to hear the quiet passages over the background noise and the loud passages then blow your ear-drums out!

Where DR does impact on quality is on playback. Can your kit handle high DR music? That is to say when you have the volume high enough to hear the quiet passages at the level you wish can your kit reproduce the loudest passages without distortion.

Chris

 

[SteveR750]

I've started looking at the DR database as I'm listening to tracks - what are the measurements of DR, DRmin and DRmax of?

Apologies if it's buried withing a thread somewhere....

 

[Gazzip]

DR is nothing to do with quality of music as others have said. In the classical world, for example, Haydn and Mozart symphonies would I suggest have a lower DR whereas, for example, Shostakovich symphonies would have a higher DR. All these examples are high quality music. So you can listen to the Haydn and Mozart in a car whereas if you try to listen to Shostakovich you have to have the volume up very high in order to hear the quiet passages over the background noise and the loud passages then blow your ear-drums out!

Where DR does impact on quality is on playback. Can your kit handle high DR music? That is to say when you have the volume high enough to hear the quiet passages at the level you wish can your kit reproduce the loudest passages without distortion.

Chris

Listening to Haydn or Mozart whilst in the car makes me drive really fast, wheras anything by Shostakovich makes me pull over immediately and masturbate. Is this normal?

 

[SteveR750]

DR is nothing to do with quality of music as others have said. In the classical world, for example, Haydn and Mozart symphonies would I suggest have a lower DR whereas, for example, Shostakovich symphonies would have a higher DR. All these examples are high quality music. So you can listen to the Haydn and Mozart in a car whereas if you try to listen to Shostakovich you have to have the volume up very high in order to hear the quiet passages over the background noise and the loud passages then blow your ear-drums out!

Where DR does impact on quality is on playback. Can your kit handle high DR music? That is to say when you have the volume high enough to hear the quiet passages at the level you wish can your kit reproduce the loudest passages without distortion.

Chris

Chris, this is exactly how I have interpreted a low vs high DR. The difference between the quietest passages and the loudest parts. I guess the problem with rock for example is the whole song is played at a similar level, so there is much less musical DR, but that does not mean it is or has to be compressed (reduce crest factor, eg Metallica and Death Magnetic)

Mind you I've just compared two songs, one scord badly (Scorpions - Comeblack) and a "good" album (Talking Heads - Littel Creatures). The latter is obviously a less loud overall recording, but even when attempted to volume match it, it's not a blow me down kind of difference. So, does the nature of the music skew the results? Does all of Motorhead's catalogue fall into the "bad" score simply because it's all at one loud volume?

 

[Covenanter]

DR is nothing to do with quality of music as others have said. In the classical world, for example, Haydn and Mozart symphonies would I suggest have a lower DR whereas, for example, Shostakovich symphonies would have a higher DR. All these examples are high quality music. So you can listen to the Haydn and Mozart in a car whereas if you try to listen to Shostakovich you have to have the volume up very high in order to hear the quiet passages over the background noise and the loud passages then blow your ear-drums out!

Where DR does impact on quality is on playback. Can your kit handle high DR music? That is to say when you have the volume high enough to hear the quiet passages at the level you wish can your kit reproduce the loudest passages without distortion.

Chris

Listening to Haydn or Mozart whilst in the car makes me drive really fast, wheras anything by Shostakovich makes me pull over immediately and masturbate. Is this normal?

I think you need guidance if any music makes you do that! This isn't perhaps the best place to get that advice and if I were you I would start with my GP.

Chris

 

[Covenanter]

DR is nothing to do with quality of music as others have said. In the classical world, for example, Haydn and Mozart symphonies would I suggest have a lower DR whereas, for example, Shostakovich symphonies would have a higher DR. All these examples are high quality music. So you can listen to the Haydn and Mozart in a car whereas if you try to listen to Shostakovich you have to have the volume up very high in order to hear the quiet passages over the background noise and the loud passages then blow your ear-drums out!

Where DR does impact on quality is on playback. Can your kit handle high DR music? That is to say when you have the volume high enough to hear the quiet passages at the level you wish can your kit reproduce the loudest passages without distortion.

Chris

Chris, this is exactly how I have interpreted a low vs high DR. The difference between the quietest passages and the loudest parts. I guess the problem with rock for example is the whole song is played at a similar level, so there is much less musical DR, but that does not mean it is or has to be compressed (reduce crest factor, eg Metallica and Death Magnetic)

Mind you I've just compared two songs, one scord badly (Scorpions - Comeblack) and a "good" album (Talking Heads - Littel Creatures). The latter is obviously a less loud overall recording, but even when attempted to volume match it, it's not a blow me down kind of difference. So, does the nature of the music skew the results? Does all of Motorhead's catalogue fall into the "bad" score simply because it's all at one loud volume?

Music as composed has the DR it has and that is neither good nor bad, it just is! Of course you can argue that a wide DR enhances the music by adding contrast but that's a matter of taste as much as anything.

What is insidious is the compression of music to make its DR suitable for use with low grade kit and / or in noisy environments. Motorhead isn't my thing but if it were I would want it as they played it and not compressed.

Chris

 

[Frank Harvey]

I've only read the initial post in this thread.

No, the rating on the loudness wars site doesn't tell you anything about the quality of the music - yes, music will sound better with a greater dynamic range, but it doesn't tell you anything about the recording as a whole. You could have the most distorted, messy sounding album possible, but its dynamic range may be very high on their scale. A few albums I have that I like the sound of, sound great overall, and use regularly in demos get average ratings.

Interestingly, there's a number of albums I've checked out that get higher ratings on vinyl, and some of the SACD versions aren't as good as the original CDs, which I think is crazy (and wrong). Nine Inch Nails' Downward Spiral has the best rating for the vinyl version, and oddly enough the 5.1 SACD mix downmixed to 2-channel sounds better than the actual 2-channel SACD mix! We shouldn't have to research this - vinyl should be the worst, CD better, and SACD best (both 2ch and 5ch should be equal).

 

[Gazzip]

DR is nothing to do with quality of music as others have said. In the classical world, for example, Haydn and Mozart symphonies would I suggest have a lower DR whereas, for example, Shostakovich symphonies would have a higher DR. All these examples are high quality music. So you can listen to the Haydn and Mozart in a car whereas if you try to listen to Shostakovich you have to have the volume up very high in order to hear the quiet passages over the background noise and the loud passages then blow your ear-drums out!

Where DR does impact on quality is on playback. Can your kit handle high DR music? That is to say when you have the volume high enough to hear the quiet passages at the level you wish can your kit reproduce the loudest passages without distortion.

Chris

Listening to Haydn or Mozart whilst in the car makes me drive really fast, wheras anything by Shostakovich makes me pull over immediately and masturbate. Is this normal?

I think you need guidance if any music makes you do that! This isn't perhaps the best place to get that advice and if I were you I would start with my GP.

Chris

I do always find a safe place like a lay-by to pull over so that the wife and kids can get out and have a walk about. I don't want you to think that I am reckless. Safety first!

 

[SteveR750]

DR is nothing to do with quality of music as others have said. In the classical world, for example, Haydn and Mozart symphonies would I suggest have a lower DR whereas, for example, Shostakovich symphonies would have a higher DR. All these examples are high quality music. So you can listen to the Haydn and Mozart in a car whereas if you try to listen to Shostakovich you have to have the volume up very high in order to hear the quiet passages over the background noise and the loud passages then blow your ear-drums out!

Where DR does impact on quality is on playback. Can your kit handle high DR music? That is to say when you have the volume high enough to hear the quiet passages at the level you wish can your kit reproduce the loudest passages without distortion.

Chris

Listening to Haydn or Mozart whilst in the car makes me drive really fast, wheras anything by Shostakovich makes me pull over immediately and masturbate. Is this normal?

I think you need guidance if any music makes you do that! This isn't perhaps the best place to get that advice and if I were you I would start with my GP.

Chris

I do always find a safe place like a lay-by to pull over so that the wife and kids can get out and have a walk about. I don't want you to think that I am reckless. Safety first!

I'll have whatever you've been smoking this morning...🙂

 

[SteveR750]

I've only read the initial post in this thread.

No, the rating on the loudness wars site doesn't tell you anything about the quality of the music - yes, music will sound better with a greater dynamic range, but it doesn't tell you anything about the recording as a whole. You could have the most distorted, messy sounding album possible, but its dynamic range may be very high on their scale. A few albums I have that I like the sound of, sound great overall, and use regularly in demos get average ratings.

Interestingly, there's a number of albums I've checked out that get higher ratings on vinyl, and some of the SACD versions aren't as good as the original CDs, which I think is crazy (and wrong). Nine Inch Nails' Downward Spiral has the best rating for the vinyl version, and oddly enough the 5.1 SACD mix downmixed to 2-channel sounds better than the actual 2-channel SACD mix! We shouldn't have to research this - vinyl should be the worst, CD better, and SACD best (both 2ch and 5ch should be equal).

Yup. I've already stopped looking at it, it's added nothing to my listening pleasure, and unlikely to either.

 

[Frank Harvey]

Yup. I've already stopped looking at it, it's added nothing to my listening pleasure, and unlikely to either.

Don't get me wrong, it isn't going to affect my listening pleaseure either, and it isn't going to influence which format I'd buy an album (although I do usuaully end up with both vinyl and CD, the latter more dor demo purposes or to transfer to iPod), but it is still an interesting read.

 

[TrevC]

Some records sound better with a low dynamic range. Phil Spector, Motown singles, stuff like that. :O)

 

[pauln]

I think that if one were to take two examples of the same recording, let's say an original CD from the late 80's with a high DR value and a remastered, compressed version from recent years with a low DR value, the former will sound better on a good quality system (headphones in my case) and the latter will sound better in a car or on lesser quality speakers for reasons already given. I think it's pretty straightforward really. I've got some music that I can't listen to on headphones, it hurts my ears, but in the car it sounds fantastic.

Both flavours should be available - it can't be that hard.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

I think that if one were to take two examples of the same recording, let's say an original CD from the late 80's with a high DR value and a remastered, compressed version from recent years with a low DR value, the former will sound better on a good quality system (headphones in my case) and the latter will sound better in a car or on lesser quality speakers for reasons already given. I think it's pretty straightforward really. I've got some music that I can't listen to on headphones, it hurts my ears, but in the car it sounds fantastic.

Both flavours should be available - it can't be that hard.

I don't think that's true.

Quality CD's sound like quality CD's regardless.

I do alot of MixCD's for my personal use if they sound good on my set it sounds good in the car.

compressed stuff sounds compressed and not enjoyable. but then again I'm comparing with what I know well recorded stuff 'can' sound like.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

So dynamic range in this context with ref to the website is a red herring regards the recordings sound quality?

 

[BigH]

So dynamic range in this context with ref to the website is a red herring regards the recordings sound quality?

Not really its part of it but its not everything which is what some people seem to think.

 

[lindsayt]

On how many recordings that score 15 or more on the DR database have they mucked up other aspects of the recording, such as the clarity, focus, pitch, the mix - to the extent that it spoils the enjoyment of the music?

I haven't come across any.

If they've taken the care to preserve the dynamic range, it stands to reason they'd take good care of the other aspects of the recording.

For sure the natural dynamic range of music will depend upon the instrumentation and the type of track that it is.

But the DR in the DR database is a pretty good guide to how dynamic the recording will sound. And dynamics are vitally important in making a recording sound like actual music and less like a recording replayed through a sound system.

There's a game that we can all play. Listen to an album. Guess the DR. Look it up in the DR database to see how close you were.

 

[andyjm]

I think that if one were to take two examples of the same recording, let's say an original CD from the late 80's with a high DR value and a remastered, compressed version from recent years with a low DR value, the former will sound better on a good quality system (headphones in my case) and the latter will sound better in a car or on lesser quality speakers for reasons already given. I think it's pretty straightforward really. I've got some music that I can't listen to on headphones, it hurts my ears, but in the car it sounds fantastic.

Both flavours should be available - it can't be that hard.

I don't think that's true.

Quality CD's sound like quality CD's regardless.

I do alot of MixCD's for my personal use if they sound good on my set it sounds good in the car.

compressed stuff sounds compressed and not enjoyable. but then again I'm comparing with what I know well recorded stuff 'can' sound like.

There's not much point having part of the music below the noise floor in the environment you are listening to it. You can't hear it. Compressing makes sense for this, and is a valid part of a mixing engineers' toolkit.

I always thought it made most sense to have the compressor located in the device doing the playback - a car radio is unlikely to be a listening room source, so have all car radios compress the received signal and broadcast uncompressed music for those who want full strength. The same argument could be made for CDs or downloads. Have the material at full strength, high dynamic range, but have compression a (switchable?) option on the playback device.

Ignoring the loudness wars, the approach adopted for radio dates back to the time when it cost real money to have a couple of extra transistors in a radio receiver, so the signal was pre-conditioned at source. One compressor was required in the studio instead of one in each radio. It was common to have a switchable, low quality mono loudspeaker in a studio along with the fancy monitoring loudspeakers so that the programme material could be checked on equipment likely to be found at home or in the car - the mix was adjusted so that it was still acceptable on poor quality equipment.