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

[lovinthehd]

I have the LP. It was my brother's and I just came across it the other day and actually forgot I had it from back when we were roomies in around 1980.

Think I've got at least two LPs of that one, one courtesy of an ex-roommate I think me and my bud Tim wore out his older brothers' copy at one point before I got one of my own....

 

[-Jim-]

Gents,

As much as you love the Classic old tunes, the recordings, especially the live ones, technically just can't compare with today's recordings when they are done well on Blu Rays.

Like I said earlier: "Try Eric Clapton - Slowhand at 70" The DTS Master Audio is very well done, and blows the doors off earlier live recordings of Clapton on Vinyl. Even the excellent (for it's time) Delaney & Bonnie and Friends: On Tour with Eric Clapton (1970 - which is typically highly rated at 9/10) pales in comparison.

I think you folks are confusing how the recording makes you feel, rather than how well it sounds.

 

[lovinthehd]

Gents,

As much as you love the Classic old tunes, the recordings, especially the live ones, technically just can't compare with today's recordings when they are done well on Blu Rays.

Like I said earlier: "Try Eric Clapton - Slowhand at 70" The DTS Master Audio is very well done, and blows the doors off earlier live recordings of Clapton on Vinyl. Even the excellent (for it's time) Delaney & Bonnie and Friends: On Tour with Eric Clapton (1970 - which is typically highly rated at 9/10) pales in comparison.

I think you folks are confusing how the recording makes you feel, rather than how well it sounds.

Oh, I wasn't making any quality claims; perhaps the DTS version has a slight advantage, but still limited by the original recording....it's just been a favorite record for a long time and a live recording that's decent.

 

[yepimonfire]

Gents,

As much as you love the Classic old tunes, the recordings, especially the live ones, technically just can't compare with today's recordings when they are done well on Blu Rays.

Like I said earlier: "Try Eric Clapton - Slowhand at 70" The DTS Master Audio is very well done, and blows the doors off earlier live recordings of Clapton on Vinyl. Even the excellent (for it's time) Delaney & Bonnie and Friends: On Tour with Eric Clapton (1970 - which is typically highly rated at 9/10) pales in comparison.

I think you folks are confusing how the recording makes you feel, rather than how well it sounds.

Analog recordings, like tubes, introduce distortion, which some find pleasing, but digital presents an exact copy of the recorded material, with perfect accuracy that never wears down with successive playback. I'd rather accuracy than pleasing coloration. Coloration might make poor recordings sound better, but it doesn't work on all content. Accurate reproduction sounds good with everything.

Many older recordings have much higher dynamic range, even taking the limitations of the medium into account, so they might sound better than a heavily compressed digital recording, but this has nothing to do with vinyl.

With things like classical, which is uncompressed, newer digital recordings sound much much better, and I've done my share of classical vinyl listening. If you like rolled off highs and an audible noise floor, than vinyls for you.

Sent from my 5065N using Tapatalk

 

[Verdinut]

The question of dynamic range is more prominent when we are dealing with classical music, opera and action films.

Since the invention of the digital CD format, and later with the development of formats such as SACD, DVD Audio disc, Dolby Digital and DTS HD Master, we have access to wider dynamic ranges than ever , but does this more recent increased sound impact that we can experience in our living rooms or theater rooms represent an ideal situation?

In my opinion, there are two arguments against a very wide dynamic range:

1. If you live in an apartment or any building which is not sound proofed and with neighbors, high audio peaks can disturb them. You also have to watch the time of the day you play the equipment. Then, if you put the volume a little too low, you miss the soft passages.
2. At the concert hall, from our seats, no matter where we sit, I may be wrong, but I would be surprised if the net dynamic range, even with a full forte symphonic orchestra peak or a very dramatic opera climax, exceeded 50 dB. Of course, some of the dynamic sound pressure is absorbed by the audience, the big space and some acoustic treatment.
   So, what are we doing with audio recordings and formats with possible dynamic ranges exceeding 100 db in a house or apartment?

Some AV receivers provide for compression of the dynamic range, and after reflections on the situation, I am inclined to think that it's definitely not a dumb idea after all.

What is your opinion?

 

[Bookmark]

Dynamic range is the difference between the quietest and loudest noise/frequency in a sample, track, movie etc.

Dynamic range of the format, Dynamic range of the media and auto leveling are all different things. The volume setting is not changing the dynamics, just the overall perceived loudness. Human hearing has a U shaped profile and we are most sensitive to the mid range. We fair worst at the upper and lower extremes so consequently to perceive a consistent level across full audio range it would need to be reshaped.

Yes, in the past, older formats had a much smaller dynamic range, higher noise floor and consequently media produced for then had to work within those constraints. Nowadays this is not really a problem.

Auto leveling is something I dislike in software as this is an artificial attempt to remove the different dynamics between tracks and artist. It, like Dynamic range compression does the same thing but for a different reason. In this I would also include AVR DRCs, Audyessy Dyn EQ, Night Listening modes, etc. They are all bad and should not be used by default. Fortunately they can all usually be turned off.

Dynamic range compression on the other hand is the bane of modern music and Micheal Bay Blockbusters. Everything must have punch to be heard above the drone of all the other mediocre entries. Consequently whilst everything is usually first captured in a studio without much compression it is at the mix desk where producers reek their magic. The sample/track is usually normalized, range compressed and then re-normalized usually to within an inch of max spl. The first normalization is so that we have a good/consistent starting point. The level is increased such that the loudest point is now near the maximum possible. We then compress this sample which averages the loud and quiet to get a smaller dynamic range, however this also makes the overall level quieter. So once again we Normalize (Makeup Gain) to bring up the overall level. End result we have punch, its loud and the dynamic range is limited.

Compressors can be employed numerous times when creating the final mix and each and every one will reduce the overall dynamics. Record producers and audio editors have a wide range of tools at their disposal to change the sound in a multitude of ways. They do not do this because they have to, but because that is what we the public like and want to buy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range_compression

 

[sterling shoote]

When someone tells me why something is done the way it is done, I expect that person is highly qualified to profess on the subject. So, when someone here tells me why recording engineers/producers do what ever it is they do, I expect that the comment is not just speculation on the matter but credentialed opinion, that's to say, the comments are coming from someone in the business of recording. This however seems not the case. Instead, I am reading comments from folks who just appear to be imagining or speculating about what's going on with dynamic range. My experience with the subject does not provoke any notion that what I am hearing could sound better with more or less range, except listening to classical music on particular FM radio stations while driving, whereby road noise will cover portions of low level music passages. At home, whether listening from iTunes or my SACD Player it's all good, as long as I initially adjust volume for anticipated loud passages instead of soft ones.

 

[WineOfTheVeins]

I've done a fair bit of homework on this myself years ago. I am quite passionate about it. The loudness wars habr greatly impacted dynamic range and musical enjoyment. It's something me and my audiophile buddy talk about a lot. The artists figured that if they didn't make their album as loud or louder than the other guy's; a lot of the time against the engineer's recommendations, that theirs will be perceived as poorer quality or less exciting. The volume knob (attenuator) is for loudness, leave the master as uncompressed and dynamic as possible! It is so aggravating to listen to some albums that are clearly over-compressed. There are no breaks, no swings, just brick-walling noise. A couple of Audioslave albums I have come to mind, ouch..

I have kept track on all my CD's for example, and the small LP collection I have. I have noticed that 80s-90s CD's are typically better than 00's-10's ones. By a long shot. To match dB level, the older ones need the volume knob cranked much higher, the new ones, if I dare go to that volume level my ears would bleed. I can tell right off the bat; with my preamp set to -36dB, if I pop a CD in, and it's already somewhat loud, I know it is going to be a bad, compressed album. If it is quiet, and I have to roll the knob a few times before I can hear it somewhat, I know it's going to be a winner. Try it sometime. Chances are, most of your older albums will be quieter, before the "one-upping" on loudness got out of hand. I have some original Pink Floyd CDs, Loreena McKennit, Michael Jackson, etc. that are beautiful, I could listen their dynamic goodness all day. On the flipside, I pop in some 2002-2012ish albums, not all but MOST I can only listen to them for an hour or so before my ears become aggravated.

On the upside, ONE good thing that non-physical music has been doing to the industry, is that the loudness wars are on their way out. Since streaming apps are grabbing a stronghold on the market, and they have certain qualifications/limitations when you add your music, they are being mastered at "quieter" levels because Spotify balances them all out to sound the same loudness anyway.

**READ THIS ARTICLE! I dug this up last year, I was so stoked to see it!! It might just change your mind on attacking all the engineers. Ultimately, the client is the boss; but this knowledge is finally seeping into the Boss's minds, and some artists care only about quality of music, not loudness; and it shows. I can reference a few of them if you're interested.
https://audioskills.com/tips/mastering/loudness/

Also, the attached picture. Sickening right? All that lost data lopped off. But also, CONSTANT NOISE. No breaks, no swings, no contrast, no dynamics. Disgusting.

..rant over

 

[MrBoat]

I have known some studio engineers. The majority of the time, their directive with SQ correlates directly with budget. Studio time, is studio time. The one studio owner/engineer (so called) that I still know, measures his SQ input right down to the nickel. It's another, self important area of the business I would never be able to get along with.

The other issue is qualification. It really takes an engineer that is passionate with the genres they are working with. In other words, you definitely don't want someone passionate about rap and hip hop, mixing your R&R music, no more than you would want them choosing your car stereo. You'd be surprised how many engineers think that their experience is industry wide. I have found the contrary to be more true. Some even harbor a complete bias against genres outside of their particular interest. The one I happen to know who happens to mostly follow classical music, does not even consider R&R as music at all, and often voices strong opinions to that effect nearly constantly. I do not trust anything he says with recording, the right type of speakers for my needs, or much of anything else, for that matter.

Same with speakers. If I am to expect an honest input from a designer for a speaker that is excellent for the genre, he should be able to explain, with some passion based on a lot of actual listening, and live performance experience, what their strengths are to that end. Someone who is unmoved by say, the intro to Whitesnake's "Still of the Night," or Randy Rhodes' work with Ozzy, really is not the guy for the job. These days, the computer and lab coats tend to be given a free pass in which to generalize across the board.

 

[Bucknekked]

When someone tells me why something is done the way it is done, I expect that person is highly qualified to profess on the subject. So, when someone here tells me why recording engineers/producers do what ever it is they do, I expect that the comment is not just speculation on the matter but credentialed opinion, that's to say, the comments are coming from someone in the business of recording. .

Sterling
I applaud your point of view and sentiment. It flies directly in the face of what most forums promote, but I still like it. A long time ago, in a land far far away, I made a post on a topic that I didn't know much about but decided to post anyway. One of the erudite folks who did know basically told me to shut up and go away unless I had something to add to the discussion. I was momentarily offended, but, I did get the point and made one of those "notes to self".

If the requirement to post actually entailed having actual working knowledge and credentials on the subject, I am afraid most of our forums would be completely bare. We settle for those who have some sort of qualified opinion and can both support that opinion with observable facts and practical examples. Hopefully.

I understand why you posted your idea. Particularly on the gnarlier subjects, we see some pretty far fetched "technical experts" lay down some pretty thick stuff without much of a factual basis other than some obscure references to other peoples work.

Dynamic range arguments, the loudness problem, and the recording techniques that bring it all about, have been kicked around pretty thoroughly. I will state plainly I am no expert and have no standing in the recording community. I am a music listener. Some music, even with incredibly compressed dynamic range, still sounds great. Other music, with wonderkind range, still sounds like cats in a burlap bag. I will leave the techno arguments to those who wish to make them. I can only judge what I like by listening. And reading opinions like yours which I enjoy doing.

 

[Alex2507]

When someone tells me why something is done the way it is done, I expect that person is highly qualified to profess on the subject

"I know everything. Ask me anything".

 

[Bucknekked]

You'd be surprised how many engineers think that their experience is industry wide. I have found the contrary to be more true. Some even harbor a complete bias against genres outside of their particular interest. The one I happen to know who happens to mostly follow classical music, does not even consider R&R as music at all.

I would agree with the idea that industry people with expertise in a slice of the world tend to generalize their expertise to cover everything on the subject. You can see it in medicine, technology, and other fields of endeavor that have a wide range of coverage. Expertise in one slice doesn't always transfer well to other areas of the same subject. Medicine is a pretty good example of a doctor/professional who may be world class in a specialty and not have much of a real understanding of other areas. The lack of any real understanding often won't stop pontificating at cocktail parties though.

Back to the topic at hand, you dang sure don't want someone with classical music recording expertise mastering your Hip Hop album. And probably you don't want the obverse either. The dynamic range on a classical album needs to be there because the orchestra (if its an orchestral piece) can often choose musical scores that use all the range a human ear can hear. Hip Hop? I have no idea. That's not music..................

 

[Bucknekked]

"I know everything. Ask me anything".

I knew you spoke the truth when you told me I was absolutely correct in my views. You sir are a gentleman and a scholar. Trustworthy in every way. I shall quote you in the future in my footnotes.