Dynamic Range : Is it a problem, No Problem, Or a solved problem?

[Bucknekked]

I had a friend refer me to an article about the audio disaster that is compressed or greatly reduced dynamic range in recordings made over the last 20 to 30 years. After reading the well researched and footnoted article, it sounds like the lack of dynamic range in recordings is an audio disaster.

I then read a difference set of articles today that took the position there really is no problem with dynamic range : the dynamic range of recordings is as good today as its ever been. Symantics is what the authors say is the issue. The music we listen to today has as wide a range as ever.

Not to rest when there's a dispute, I read another set of articles and low and behold this author claims the dynamic range discussion is moot because the problem has been solved with standard playback level software in streaming apps (Spotify & itunes), broadcasters (Radio & TV) and with audio standards that dictate a songs volume level playback. With no volume level advantage to be had : the issue of loudness is solved.

QUESTION TO THE BRAINTRUST: What's a guy supposed to believe? Big problem, no problem, or a solved problem?

 

[shadyJ]

It depends on what you listen to. Some sound engineers will max out the loudness at all times. Others are a lot more restrained. Radio stations do it a lot, and streaming channels can do it to. If you listen to bubble-gum pop music or heavy metal, those sound engineers tend squash out the dynamics. If you listen to string quartets or piano solos, chances are those recordings will have some dynamic range. I don't see it as a big problem, but it does remain a problem. One thing I don't see discussed much in this subject is dynamic range in movies. Some movies are constantly loud, even with mellow scenes that just have dialogue. Dialogue does not have to reach full scale sound levels! If you want to know if the content you are listening too is crushing out the dynamics, use a media player that has an oscilloscope plug-in. If the waveform is hitting the full scale of the range frequently, it is been heavily compressed.

 

[yepimonfire]

Ive actually seen more dynamic range in some of the heavy metal I listen to, it just depends on the recording. In almost all genres I've seen the range compressed to as little as 6dB during the attack (areas with constant sound) and about 12dB on release. One of the bands I listen to, Entomed, released several of their albums with no compression whatsoever. Personally I find the difference to be small, drums benefit the most from the wider dynamic range. It depends on the music as well. Rock or metal with lots of distorted electric guitars don't need a high dynamic range, since the input of the guitar to the amp is run through a compressor pedal in order to achieve consistent levels of distortion and tone (as an electric guitar player, I can tell you that without heavy compression on the input, it sounds like crap if you're trying to achieve a heavily distorted tone).

I disagree with the notion that dynamic range in modern recordings is as good or better than ever, dynamic range of the recording mediums are better than ever, but it goes to waste most of the time outside of movies or classical music.

I do agree that some dynamic range compression is needed, especially in music with varying levels of loudness, simply due to how masking works with human hearing. In pop, rock, and other forms of modern music (non classical etc) about 12dB-9dB is a good level to constrain a recording to, considering casual listening is generally done at about 70-75dB. This allows for a wide range of playback volumes without a loss of detail. Music played back at this level allows one to still be able to clearly hear a conversation, which occurs at about 60-65dB. Sound falling below this level, such as my air conditioner vents, which measures at about 45dBA, are entirely masked by music at 70dB. 12 dB also also a slightly greater than doubling of perceived loudness, and makes listening to a recording from 70dB to 95dB a pleasurable experience. With constraints of 6dB, or even worse, 3dB, playback above 80dB average is annoyingly loud.

Too much dynamic range compression ruins the ability to listen to music at an excitingly loud volume. Most of us turn the knob to -15dB for movies, during passages of loud sound with all 5/7 channels going, peaks of 105dB due to the combined sound from all speakers are not uncommon, yet none of us find this too loud, however, a constant volume with 6dB of dynamic range at this level would not only be very uncomfortable to listen to, but would damage your hearing rather quickly.

I'm sure that death metal fans are few and far between on this forum, but if you can handle having a listen to these two tracks, you can get an idea of just how different music sounds with absolutely no compression.

Sent from my 5065N using Tapatalk

 

[TLS Guy]

This is the huge classical/pop divide. Pop music and some movies are highly compressed. This means there is little variation in spl.

If a recording has high dynamic range, the average play back level will be be lower than a compressed one. This is the big factor not tolerated by the icons of pop.

The only good reason for dynamic range compression is to keep program within the noise floor of the recording medium. This is how classical music and opera has been recorded and produced. So in the days of tape before noise reduction and in the LP era some dynamic noise compression was required. A lot of highly skilled engineers did this manually with the score in front of them.

For classical music the CD and digital recording was a game changer. For most program it allowed full dynamic range of the original performance. This allows for the composers and performers dynamics in performance to be delivered to the listener. Most classical works go from whispering quiet to very loud.

There are some huge works and opera that require SACD or higher bit rate BD to capture the full dynamic range.

This does require the classical music lover to go to much more trouble and expense to get full enjoyment from recordings.

For one thing issues like HVAC noise and other background noise has to be attended to.

Equipment needs to have excellent S/N ratio and careful attention needs to be paid to grounding and the elimination of any buzzes.

The equipment needs to be powerful enough to play the loud fortissimo passages.

With modern recording techniques the quiet passages are very quiet and very loud on the big crescendos, just like in the concert hall.

All this explains why in general the classical music lovers tend to be the owners of more powerful amps and speakers and in general the more accurate ones.

Dynamic range compression does allow the consumer to get away with less exotic equipment.

 

[Joe B]

It really is a shame that so many older rock and roll "re-mastered" discs are compressed. I've got re-mastered releases of Pat Benatar, Police, Michael McDonald, etc. that are so compressed I can only listen to them for a little while. The "Loudness Wars" did nothing good for the sound of music, but evidently the marketing ploy was to sell more CD's to people who only wanted it to be loud on their systems. This gave Mobile Fidelity a great opportunity; re-release older audio on CD from the original masters done correctly. Unfortunately, many of their releases are out of print, and purchasing them from a buyer costs an arm and a leg.

"For one thing issues like HVAC noise and other background noise has to be attended to."

This comment by TLS Guy is on the money. Most of my music is classical music. When I first set up my current system last summer I thought I was having issues with my receiver or sub. After lots of emails and phone calls with the guys at Paradigm/Anthem, I came to find that the discs that were giving me issues were the discs themselves. HVAC noise was detectable on one of the recordings. On another, I could hear what sounded like a truck pulling away from the church the recording was made in. I remember reading that when Telarc recorded John O'Conor playing John Field's "Nocturnes" in Worchester, MA, they recorded late at night and into the early morning and still had sessions ruined by the sound of a car or a truck that went by Mechanics Hall.

"With modern recording techniques the quiet passages are very quiet and very loud on the big crescendos, just like in the concert hall."

Unfortunately, this is what makes it impossible for me to listen to some of my classical music in my car. Road noise requires increasing the volume to hear the quiet passages, but when the music gets loud I've got to move fast with the volume before I waste my speakers. Solution: more jazz and rock while driving.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

It's really simple for me. I don't think about it too much.

If it sounds good, I listen all the time.

If it sounds bad, I never listen to it again.

 

[Verdinut]

I usually listen to classical music at an average SPL of 75-80dB and I never had to reduce the volume during playback of a CD, a DVD-Audio or an SACD. I have a collection of over 2500 CDs. However, when I played the following opera on CD:
It's a Warner Classics 2015 recording of Verdi's AIDA, with Anja Harteros and Jonas Kaufmann as the main singers, a production from the Accademia Nazionale di Santa Cecilia, Italy.

To tell you frankly, the first time I listened to it, I had to reduce the volume twice in the 1st Act as it was a little late in the evening. I listened to it a couple of times afterwards and most of the time, I still reduce the volume at least once. I am however amazed as there is absolutely no audible distortion in that recording. The singing is of the highest order and I recommend it without hesitation and I'm sure anyone who hears it for the first time will get one surprise or two with the outstanding dynamics.

This just proves again that a well engineered CD recording and pressing is possible. Unfortunately, so many CDs which have been put out on the market, either popular or classical, contain distorted passages because of incompetent sound engineering and transfer process.

 

[TLS Guy]

I usually listen to classical music at an average SPL of 75-80dB and I never had to reduce the volume during playback of a CD, a DVD-Audio or an SACD. I have a collection of over 2500 CDs. However, when I played the following opera on CD:
It's a Warner Classics 2015 recording of Verdi's AIDA, with Anja Harteros and Jonas Kaufmann as the main singers, a production from the Accademia Nazionale di Santa Cecilia, Italy.

To tell you frankly, the first time I listened to it, I had to reduce the volume twice in the 1st Act as it was a little late in the evening. I listened to it a couple of times afterwards and most of the time, I still reduce the volume at least once. I am however amazed as there is absolutely no audible distortion in that recording. The singing is of the highest order and I recommend it without hesitation and I'm sure anyone who hears it for the first time will get one surprise or two with the outstanding dynamics.

This just proves again that a well engineered CD recording and pressing is possible. Unfortunately, so many CDs which have been put out on the market, either popular or classical, contain distorted passages because of incompetent sound engineering and transfer process.

Yes, for sonic thrill and spectacle the Triumphal March in a good performance of Verdi's Aida is absolutely number one on the list on the whole catalog of theatric productions. It will give your AV system a really good work out also.

I will look into that disc you mention.

I don't recall a disc I have had to alter the volume during performance. As far as classical recordings are concerned, I have not come across a real dud of late. The quality of streaming from the BPO, Medici TV and Met Player are now very good.

The first night of the Proms is this Friday. The AV downloads, are 640 Kbs AC 3 plus MPEG 4. Video and audio quality is fantastic. Dymamic range is colossal on the blockbuster choral works with huge orchestra, massed choirs and the "Voice of Jupiter" underpinning it all. The start of a new Proms season is just eagerly awaited. This will be season 122.

 

[Verdinut]

Yes, for sonic thrill and spectacle the Triumphal March in a good performance of Verdi's Aida is absolutely number one on the list on the whole catalog of theatric productions. It will give your AV system a really good work out also.

I will look into that disc you mention.

I don't recall a disc I have had to alter the volume during performance. As far as classical recordings are concerned, I have not come across a real dud of late. The quality of streaming from the BPO, Medici TV and Met Player are now very good.

The first night of the Proms is this Friday. The AV downloads, are 640 Kbs AC 3 plus MPEG 4. Video and audio quality is fantastic. Dymamic range is colossal on the blockbuster choral works with huge orchestra, massed choirs and the "Voice of Jupiter" underpinning it all. The start of a new Proms season is just eagerly awaited. This will be season 122.

Mark,
The above mentioned Aida comes in a DeLuxe booklet type format and it's kind of ackward getting the discs out of it. Those marketing people!

In such situation, I just transfer the whole opera onto a DVD disc as a DVD-A file, while upsampling the sound track to a 24 bit-96 KHz format. This then becomes less time consuming to put one disc in the OPPO. Another advantage is that I have the complete opera on only one disc without any compression or impaired sound quality.

BTW, should you decide to purchase that recording, I would like to know your impressions on its dynamic range and performance.
Cheers,

 

[TLS Guy]

Mark,
The above mentioned Aida comes in a DeLuxe booklet type format and it's kind of ackward getting the discs out of it. Those marketing people!

In such situation, I just transfer the whole opera onto a DVD disc as a DVD-A file, while upsampling the sound track to a 24 bit-96 KHz format. This then becomes less time consuming to put one disc in the OPPO. Another advantage is that I have the complete opera on only one disc without any compression or impaired sound quality.

BTW, should you decide to purchase that recording, I would like to know your impressions on its dynamic range and performance.
Cheers,

I see that production is audio only CD! I only listen to opera with a picture now. No more audio only opera for me. Audio only is only a fraction of the experience and pleasure of AV. In fact I far prefer the AV experience of opera to the opera house. I'm far from alone in that. I find the drama is much more intense on the big screen. I have lots of BD discs and can stream from Met Player and Medici TV.

To my mind opera really makes the case for AV like nothing else.

If you do not have a subscription to Met Player you should.

 

[Bucknekked]

I was hoping @TLS Guy would find some time for a post or two on this topic because he has a couple of items on his resume that matter a lot in this topic.
1. He has done recording and studio work
2. He understands the topic (I must admit I still struggle with parts of it)
3. He is a classical music guy. The classics get dynamic range
4. He also embraces new tech and isn't mired in the past (even though he has quite a past)

The loudness war, or limiting dynamic range to gain a playback volume level advantage, may sound strange to new tech guys that don't have an old analog background. I can't tell you the amount of music I've listened to in a car that had a single crappy speaker mounted in the dash. Limiting the musics range to smush all the relevant (very subjective) sound down so it would sound presentable through a single speaker in a car was part of how it all got started.

Then folks figured out there were other avenues where a seemingly louder song would sell or get played more than one with better numbers, but less average loudness. The race was on and I think it is fair to say in the pop and rock categories, the consumer ultimately got screwed with poorly recorded music. Like @TLS Guy said, it is something you don't see in classical music because the classics (orchestral is easiest to envision) require it to sound good.

I think like @AcuDefTechGuy said, and I believe @shadyJ alluded to, if it sounds great I'll listen to it and if it sounds bad, I won't. Therfore, I don't think about it too much. That's true except sometimes I really wonder why songs I remember so fondly often sound like s-h-i-t on my greatly improved system. I think this is one of the culprits. I know the system is tuned up and performing at a very high level, the best I have ever had. I just get really disappointed when I expect a tune I remember fondly turns out to be thin and dull.

On the flip side, I'm an really enjoying all the new music that's superbly recorded that I never paid much attention to before. I am discovering well recorded, good sounding stuff nearly every week.
Now, if I could just find some classical music that would set my hair on fire, I'd be set. I'm still searching.

 

[KEW]

It's really simple for me. I don't think about it too much.

If it sounds good, I listen all the time.

If it sounds bad, I never listen to it again.

What if it sounds good because the music is beautiful, but the recorded sound quality is clearly not up to potential?
Don't you ever incur a "mixed bag"?

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

What if it sounds good because the music is beautiful, but the recorded sound quality is clearly not up to potential?
Don't you ever incur a "mixed bag"?

No. If something is still not right and I just can't find a better recording, then I'll have to move on. I won't settle for mixed bags.

 

[Bucknekked]

Ive actually seen more dynamic range in some of the heavy metal I listen to, it just depends on the recording.
I'm sure that death metal fans are few and far between on this forum, but if you can handle having a listen to these two tracks, you can get an idea of just how different music sounds with absolutely no compression.

yepimonfire
I'm going to wager that these two sentences don't appear much together : "I see more dynamic range in heavy metal" and "listen to these metal tracks for an example of no compression" (edited).

I think your post helps illustrate some of the difficulty in the topic: if we share Spotify examples or Youtube examples those may not exhibit any of the great dynamic range or compressed and compromised dynamic range because they really aren't the same as what was on the CD. Spotify and other services use volume adjustment algorithms to keep selections at the same volume (at least they try to). This may spoil the differences.

So in the case of the Entombed samples, they sounded exactly the same to me. On CD, they may sound very different. But as two youtube samples, just youtubes own mechanics may have ruined the differences. Or, because I'm not a metal head, I'm just not able to discern the difference because I'm not listening for the right things. Give me two classical orchestral pieces and I'd have the very same problem: wouldn't know what to listen for.

I think this is a fascinating topic because it leads us to our own human perceptions in what we listen to and what we can pick up and appreciate. I may not be able to tell the difference between two samples of Entombed ---Supposed to Rot, but that deficiency is on me as a listener. It also points out just how different two peoples musical tastes can be and therefore how very different our tolerances for things like compression and range limiting can be.

I'm kinda with AcuDefTechGuy and Shadyj on my conclusions: if it sounds good, I'll listen to it. If it don't sound good, I won't. A lot of music never gets a second listen because it sounds like crap to me. That doesn't mean its actual crappy music: it just means it isn't for me.

 

[yepimonfire]

yepimonfire
I'm going to wager that these two sentences don't appear much together : "I see more dynamic range in heavy metal" and "listen to these metal tracks for an example of no compression" (edited).

I think your post helps illustrate some of the difficulty in the topic: if we share Spotify examples or Youtube examples those may not exhibit any of the great dynamic range or compressed and compromised dynamic range because they really aren't the same as what was on the CD. Spotify and other services use volume adjustment algorithms to keep selections at the same volume (at least they try to). This may spoil the differences.

So in the case of the Entombed samples, they sounded exactly the same to me. On CD, they may sound very different. But as two youtube samples, just youtubes own mechanics may have ruined the differences. Or, because I'm not a metal head, I'm just not able to discern the difference because I'm not listening for the right things. Give me two classical orchestral pieces and I'd have the very same problem: wouldn't know what to listen for.

I think this is a fascinating topic because it leads us to our own human perceptions in what we listen to and what we can pick up and appreciate. I may not be able to tell the difference between two samples of Entombed ---Supposed to Rot, but that deficiency is on me as a listener. It also points out just how different two peoples musical tastes can be and therefore how very different our tolerances for things like compression and range limiting can be.

I'm kinda with AcuDefTechGuy and Shadyj on my conclusions: if it sounds good, I'll listen to it. If it don't sound good, I won't. A lot of music never gets a second listen because it sounds like crap to me. That doesn't mean its actual crappy music: it just means it isn't for me.

Spotify and YouTube don't apply dynamic range compression, Spotify optionally applies replay gain, which is entirely different.

Sent from my 5065N using Tapatalk

 

[Pogre]

Ive actually seen more dynamic range in some of the heavy metal I listen to, it just depends on the recording. In almost all genres I've seen the range compressed to as little as 6dB during the attack (areas with constant sound) and about 12dB on release. One of the bands I listen to, Entomed, released several of their albums with no compression whatsoever. Personally I find the difference to be small, drums benefit the most from the wider dynamic range. It depends on the music as well. Rock or metal with lots of distorted electric guitars don't need a high dynamic range, since the input of the guitar to the amp is run through a compressor pedal in order to achieve consistent levels of distortion and tone (as an electric guitar player, I can tell you that without heavy compression on the input, it sounds like crap if you're trying to achieve a heavily distorted tone).

I disagree with the notion that dynamic range in modern recordings is as good or better than ever, dynamic range of the recording mediums are better than ever, but it goes to waste most of the time outside of movies or classical music.

I do agree that some dynamic range compression is needed, especially in music with varying levels of loudness, simply due to how masking works with human hearing. In pop, rock, and other forms of modern music (non classical etc) about 12dB-9dB is a good level to constrain a recording to, considering casual listening is generally done at about 70-75dB. This allows for a wide range of playback volumes without a loss of detail. Music played back at this level allows one to still be able to clearly hear a conversation, which occurs at about 60-65dB. Sound falling below this level, such as my air conditioner vents, which measures at about 45dBA, are entirely masked by music at 70dB. 12 dB also also a slightly greater than doubling of perceived loudness, and makes listening to a recording from 70dB to 95dB a pleasurable experience. With constraints of 6dB, or even worse, 3dB, playback above 80dB average is annoyingly loud.

Too much dynamic range compression ruins the ability to listen to music at an excitingly loud volume. Most of us turn the knob to -15dB for movies, during passages of loud sound with all 5/7 channels going, peaks of 105dB due to the combined sound from all speakers are not uncommon, yet none of us find this too loud, however, a constant volume with 6dB of dynamic range at this level would not only be very uncomfortable to listen to, but would damage your hearing rather quickly.

I'm sure that death metal fans are few and far between on this forum, but if you can handle having a listen to these two tracks, you can get an idea of just how different music sounds with absolutely no compression.

Sent from my 5065N using Tapatalk

I'm a metal head. The heavier the better, but this is next level stuff. Just a little too thrashy for me, though I didn't hate it either. I like my heavy a little more on the progressive side. You surprised me with this song.

 

[Bucknekked]

Spotify and YouTube don't apply dynamic range compression, Spotify optionally applies replay gain, which is entirely different.

Sent from my 5065N using Tapatalk

the automatic volume leveling is perhaps the "replay gain" you mentioned. Forgive me if my post made it sound like Spotify applied dynamic range compression. They don't. And I didn't mean to say that if I did.
What they do (optionally as you point out) is adjust the gain on the volume so a range of songs play at the same perceived volume. By doing that, they take away any advantage to a song that's had its average volume boosted by any number of forms of compression. Hopefully in the long run this reduces the need or the temptation to crush dynamic range in favor of extra average volume.

Sorry if I added to the confusion in some way

 

[Bucknekked]

I'm a metal head. The heavier the better, but this is next level stuff. Just a little too thrashy for me, though I didn't hate it either. I like my heavy a little more on the progressive side. You surprised me with this song.

Pogre
Since I know you're a metal guy (and by the way Metal may sound great on Salk speakers ) could you hear any difference between the two Entombed selections?

 

[Pogre]

Pogre
Since I know you're a metal guy (and by the way Metal may sound great on Salk speakers ) could you hear any difference between the two Entombed selections?

I actually got them matched up to the same section of the song and kept switching back and forth. I'm struggling to hear a difference.

*Edit: I just listened again. A lot more critically this time. If anything the first one sounds better to me. They're so close though. If I couldn't switch back and forth, and listen to the same section of song back to back, I don't think I could tell a difference.

 

[Bucknekked]

I thought I would try an repeat a "loudness test" that was recommended by someone to illustrate the issue. The issue is compressed dynamic range can be misused to increase the apparent volume of a song. How to show that?

1. Get the CD's containing your material. Best way to insure you are comparing what you think you are. If you have your own rips: that works. If you have good downloads: should work too.
2. Pick a pair of songs. One with good to great dynamic range and one with compressed or squashed range.
3. Set your listening volume so its comfortable with the good dynamic range song. Use a db meter so you can be reasonably sure where you are at. Pick a comfortable listening level for you.
4. Without adjusting the volume, then play the song with the reduced range. If the song was produced to squeeze volume out of the range, the song should play louder. It should play loud enough to not only measure the difference but the difference may approach an uncomfortable listening level.

I can offer two sample songs that work. Lyle Lovett, She's Already made up her mind. Great dynamic range. Santana, Migra (from the supernatural album). Terrible dynamic range (great tune, but compressed as hell). Lyle Lovetts some where in the mid teens in the DR database and Santana Migra is a solid 7db.

Lyle's song when listening at a good volume for me averages between 65db and 75db. There's a lot of soft stuff in there. Without changing anything when I fire up Santana and Migra, I'm getting 80 to 85 db. That's about 10+ db of difference. And on the Santana song, the volume never really dips at all.

I could also repeat the test with some Ray Charles duets and the results were similar. Anyone have a similar pair of songs to test, give it a whirl.