is there any advantages on a new remaster cd with lower dynamic range over an old version with higher dynamic range or is it simply the version or format with the higher DR the better it sounds?
is there any advantages on a remaster cd with lower dynamic range than the original higher DR
- Thread starter ontheline
- Start date
steve_1979
Well-known member
The quiet parts of the music will be easier to hear in a noisy enviroment (such as in a car) on the lower DR version.
Because of how loudness/volume affects our perception of the sound, the CD remastered to be louder all round will at first listen sound "better". Or at least certainly more impressive, until you catch it clipping and get tired of the relentless nature of everything being at a similar volume. IT CAN BE LIKE SOMEONE TYPING IN ALL CAPS OR YELLING. It kind of grinds you down.
Most people don't have decent hifis that can play loud and clean, so I think it sounds much more impressive on cheaper kit, especially as mentioned above, when listening in noisy environments like your car or earphones when out and about, which is where most people seem to do most of their music listening.
Most people don't have decent hifis that can play loud and clean, so I think it sounds much more impressive on cheaper kit, especially as mentioned above, when listening in noisy environments like your car or earphones when out and about, which is where most people seem to do most of their music listening.
As pointed out above, all other things being equal, a CD with greater dynamic range will sound more engaging and interesting when played back on a decent system in a quiet environment. In a noisy environment (car is a good example), compressing the sound will allow more of the CD to be heard.
As a general rule, for 'hifi' listening, the wider the dynamic range the better.
You can of course still have dreadful mixes and rubbish sounding CDs with decent dynamic range.
As a general rule, for 'hifi' listening, the wider the dynamic range the better.
You can of course still have dreadful mixes and rubbish sounding CDs with decent dynamic range.
Another thing to consider is how fatiguing low DR music sounds. My GF likes pop, anything top 40 so when we're having a few on a Saturday night she likes to stick on a music channel. If we're listenig to this for more than 20 minutes even at background volume levels I start to get a headache. The music just becomes noise.
BigH
Well-known member
Dynamic range is not everything, you can have an album which is tizzy and boomy and too much bass, it will have more DR but it maybe not better. Some albums sound bright, some the high notes, like drum cymbals are too prominant. Some of the best remasters have slightly less DR. Full DR on classical can be a problem, as very quite may show up tape hiss etc. but then when the full orchestra come in its too loud, there are warnings on some cds.
TrevC
Well-known member
Not everyone's cup of tea, but check out the remaster of Genesis's album Foxtrot, available on Spotify. It sound absolutely fantastic when compared to the muddled muffled sound on the original CD.
SteveR750
Well-known member
TrevC said:
Excuse the stupid question (I've not looked at the spotify album and can't at the moment), but how do you know it's remastered? In the title? I'm genuinely interested as I posted similar question elsewhere (what is Spotify's resampling, if any, before converting to their different bit rates for streaming).
SteveR750 said:
Check the catalogue number on Discogs. That's what I do any way, and cross reference with DR database.
SteveR750
Well-known member
BigH
Well-known member
SteveR750 said:
Some of the early Genesis cds were quite bad apparently, the Atlantic ones were not good, the Barry Diament remasters are said to be much better.
BigH
Well-known member
matt49
Well-known member
It's worth pointing out that a 20/20 score on the DR Database doesn't mean no compression has been used. What it means is that within the parameters used by the DR Database, that recording has optimal DR.BigH said:
I honestly can't remember the last time I was bothered by optimal DR on a classical CD. Sure if I were listening in the car and were dumb enough to turn a CD right up so I could hear the pp passages over the background noise, then the ff passages might be a bit dangerous. But at home? No.
This is why on another thread (started by the same OP, who seems to have gone a bit quiet) I gave the example of Mahler symphonies. Mahler goes bloody loud (and quiet). A Mahler recording with a DR of 19/20 simply isn't a problem for a decent hi-fi set-up. On the contrary, I can't see why it wouldn't be desirable.
The DR database isn't a score out of 20. It's the dynamic range in dbs.
So that for example, Rickie Lee Jones Ghetto of my Mind from Flying Cowboys has a DR of 24 in the DR database.
And every album I've heard with a DR greater than 15 has sounded gobsmackingly superb on my main system, no matter what the tonal balance or mix was like. Maybe my ears, or my system are more tolerant of tonal balance changes than BigH's? As in: for sure, I can hear a large variation in the tonal balance between INXS Kick and Dire Straits first album, but they still both provide 40 minutes of magical listening pleasure.
So that for example, Rickie Lee Jones Ghetto of my Mind from Flying Cowboys has a DR of 24 in the DR database.
And every album I've heard with a DR greater than 15 has sounded gobsmackingly superb on my main system, no matter what the tonal balance or mix was like. Maybe my ears, or my system are more tolerant of tonal balance changes than BigH's? As in: for sure, I can hear a large variation in the tonal balance between INXS Kick and Dire Straits first album, but they still both provide 40 minutes of magical listening pleasure.
matt49
Well-known member
lindsayt said:
Yes, my 20/20 was sloppy. BUT properly speaking the DR numbers represent not the actual dynamic range, but the ratio of the RMS of the loudest 20% of the track to the absolute maximum loudness. Or something like that.
lindsayt said:
Nope, as pointed out above, the DR number is an index of dynamic range - the higher the number, the greater the dynamic range (as defined by the DR algorithm).
It is not 'dynamic range' in an engineering sense in the way that a 16 bit sample has a theoretical dynamic range of 96dB.
Doesn't make it a bad number, the DR algorithm looks a well thought through approach.
BigH
Well-known member
matt49 said:
I realise that, some are more than 20, but even they will be compressed, the warnings are on a few very rare uncompressed ones. Not sure exactly have the DR scale works its not = to the DR.
I don't like classical music in the car as can never get the sound level right.
BigH
Well-known member
lindsayt said:
Think you have misunderstood my point, which was an album with a higher DR will not necessarily sound better. There is more to the sound than the DR. For example the Led Zepp IV 2014 is meant to be better than the previous remasters, but the 2014 DR is 9 and earlier ones are 12. ALot of the Japanese remasters are no higher than the original cds, many sacds are lower than the cds, see Steely Dan- Gaucho SACD is 8, redbook cd is 14. Another one, Steve Hoffman remaster of Who's Next is well regarded but it has slightly less DR than many other versions. DR over 15 is pretty high, most albums are lower than that.
lindsayt said:
Dynamic range (from wikipedia) "the ratio between the largest and smallest possible values of a changeable quantity"
The DR measure certainly isn't that.
You are of course free to call it what you want.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram