DR Dynamic Range

[ssully]

By your logic, EVERYTHING is lossy. Neither analog nor digital (as it currently exists) captures the original.

The 'original' is the master recording, not the event recorded.

 

[marcb]

This made the rounds a few years ago...maybe you missed it?

https://productionadvice.co.uk/tt-meter-not-for-vinyl/

I didn’t miss it. And I stand by what I wrote.

Do a little test. Pick a group like The Rolling Stones or Pink Floyd or Tom Petty or The Police (or whoever you want) with digital masterings which are known to be uncompressed. Then look at the vinyl pressings for the same albums. Way, way more often than not, the digital and vinyl masterings with the highest avg DRs will often be exactly the same - or maybe vary by DR1 (which could actually just be a fraction of a DR and/or just a little more or less bottom end).

Theory is great but the reality is the DR database is also a useful tool for vinyl too.

 

[marcb]

The 'original' is the master recording, not the event recorded.

You don’t need to convince me. I’m simply illustrating the entire line of thought is misguided.

If one is going to conflate terms and claim analog noise reduction is “lossy”, then why not just keep extending the logic to its conclusion - digital (at any resolution) doesn’t perfectly replicate the analog waveform and thus is also lossy from the get go.

 

[Plan9]

Oh, you're talking about the artifice of electronic pop music, sorry. Any live acoustical performance would have a measurable, DR at the time. A Hi Fi recording of such would, by definition, attempt to accurately replicate that DR, not enhance it for dramatic effect.

Only performances recorded directly to stereo (or other formats) by one microphone are not going through a mixing stage.
99.999% of commercial recordings are modified in some way, and this can change the DR. Even live recorded acoustical performances will undergo some form of high-pass EQ, compression, phase manipulation, etc... before they reach your ears.

 

[Plan9]

I’ve rarely found DRs for vinyl to vary from digital versions of the same mastering by 2-5 points. It’s generally more like a 1 or 2 pt increase - if anything at all. I’ve never seen a digital master of, say, a DR12 with a decent vinyl needledrop counterpart of DR17.

Nevertheless, more to the implication of the OP, dynamic range (or lack thereof) is not a digital vs vinyl thing. You can and do have vinyl with little dynamic range and digital with great dynamic range. It’s all in the mastering choices, not the medium. And it tends to be an “era” thing. You find few super squashed masterings prior to the early-mid 90s.

I was writing more in the context of a low-DR digital mastering pressed to vinyl, although not exclusively. A DR5 digital mastering pressed to vinyl and played back will typically measure 4 or 5 DR points more. That DR discrepancy is smaller with dynamic sources.
Also, typically vinyl masterings are more compressed than flat transfers of the mixes, which will close the gap between DR scores, although one is less dynamic (vinyl) than the other.
Not sure if I'm being clear.

 

[Plan9]

Brick-walling was invented long before any digit was recorded

The term "brickwalling" was coined specifically for the results of excessive digital limiting. It shouldn't really be applied to analog compression as the results aren't exactly the same.

 

[Arconada]

By your logic, EVERYTHING is lossy. Neither analog nor digital (as it currently exists) captures the original.

No no, proper digital mastering equipment allows for changes to be undone.

 

[Arconada]

The term "brickwalling" was coined specifically for the results of excessive digital limiting. It shouldn't really be applied to analog compression as the results aren't exactly the same.

Alright, excessive compression needed to be applied to AM and FM transmission as well.

 

[rjstauber]

This made the rounds a few years ago...maybe you missed it?

https://productionadvice.co.uk/tt-meter-not-for-vinyl/

I do know this video, but there are possibilities to draw different conclusions.

In my point of view, the differnce in the DR reading between vinyl and digital (in case vinyl is cut from the same file) might not be a problem with the DR tool.

If you do such comparisons with more dynamic recordings, you typically get the same DR readings, within a DR1 difference.

When this is done with dynamically reduced recordings (limited, compressed, etc.), you get larger differences in the reading, often DR3 to DR5 differences.

Perhaps this is a result of the cutting process. Even if the lacquer is cut using a digital file, the actual cutting is a mechanical (analog) process. I think this process cannot reproduce heavily compressed music. You cannot end up with a brickwalled vinyl record, like DR3 to DR7 readings.

I think it is this cutting process that introduces this difference in measured DR values, and not the tool performing incorrect readings.

Whether this really improves the overall sound quality, that is a different story. In my opinion, a vinyl record cut from a digital file with DR9 or less sounds often more pleasing to me than listening to the digital file. Less fatiguing to my ears. But that is a subjective thing.

I do a lot of vinyl recordings (often nick-named needledrops), And over time you get some experience when looking at the waveforms and comparing them to the digital source (CD, download, etc.). There are cases where I am assuming the same digital source was used (recent example "Goats Head Soup" remix by The Rolling Stones) and cases where I am pretty sure a different digital source was used (recent example would be the latest Deep Purple album "Whoosh").

 

[scifi]

Some relevant links here
http://www.rickresource.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=415855

 

[par4ken]

No no, proper digital mastering equipment allows for changes to be undone.

When the peaks have all been squished to the exact same level there is no way to undo it!

 

[par4ken]

Alright, excessive compression needed to be applied to AM and FM transmission as well.

Excessive compression is never necessary nor desirable. Compression and maybe peak limiting is only needed to ensure that the radio station doesn't over modulate or over deviate it's carrier which could cause interference to other services and violate the stations license terms. Many stations use it more aggressively to make their station sound louder (bad practice). With brick-walled sources additional compression won't do much or anything! Sometimes when listening to FM radio these days I start to think that something is wrong with my amplifier or speakers as the sound is so bad.

 

[J. PUPSTER]

See my previous post here. It only happens with SACD conversions as the silent channels are not empty, there’s low level noise in those ‘silent’ channels which the DR meter sees as not silent so it includes them. You can fix by removing the converted silent channels with real silent channels, then measure DR.

EDIT: DR for each channel is basically the average difference between loudest and quietest. The noise in a SACD silent channel is extremely low but is almost 0 DR as loudest and quietest is almost same. No DR. That low channel score is then included in the MCH DR average which causes the MCH DR to be lower.

EDIT2: It’s quite possible the silent channel noise is an artefact of the DSD to PCM conversion process and exists in all channels. But it’s so low you would never hear it when music is playing or your amp is at normal levels. (But it can be measured).

I see what you're getting at now Garry. The Center and LFE that I add to Quads are not totally blank (silent); so I guess the question for me is- with these new receivers that don't like 4.0 files, do they need that small amount of info in order to play the files? In other words, if they are empty channels, are they still playable?

 

[HomerJAU]

if they are empty channels, are they still playable?

Yes. The AVR Quad issue is during playback Initialisation the firmware doesn’t recognise the channel layout (not content) and defaults to stereo output. I’ve seen similar code in media player s/w. The programmer never realised 4 channel audio ever/still exists.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

I see what you're getting at now Garry. The Center and LFE that I add to Quads are not totally blank (silent); so I guess the question for me is- with these new receivers that don't like 4.0 files, do they need that small amount of info in order to play the files? In other words, if they are empty channels, are they still playable?

As long as 6 channels are defined they play as 5.1, regardless if they are empty or not.

 

[Sal1950]

Agree with everything here except the part about DRs with vinyl. They may not be as reliable as with digital, but (if the needledrop is properly declicked) they are still fairly reliable and repeatable - more importantly can still be useful in evaluation of a particular vinyl cut vis vis other digital or vinyl masterings.

The very best thing I can say about LP's is that they make great frisbee's at back yard parties.

 

[Sal1950]

I have one heck of a time with digital 4.0 files, nothing seems to want to work correctly accross the board. Only a few files I have really register as a 4.0 file on my Marantz 7703 pre/pro, and the ones that do make a mess of the channel layout with channels in the wrong place or missing entirely. And the same file will react differently into my pre/pro depending on what media player I use. The situation has driven my nuts over the years to the point I often just avoid playing them any more.

 

[ssully]

I do know this video, but there are possibilities to draw different conclusions.

In my point of view, the differnce in the DR reading between vinyl and digital (in case vinyl is cut from the same file) might not be a problem with the DR tool.

If you do such comparisons with more dynamic recordings, you typically get the same DR readings, within a DR1 difference.

When this is done with dynamically reduced recordings (limited, compressed, etc.), you get larger differences in the reading, often DR3 to DR5 differences.

Perhaps this is a result of the cutting process. Even if the lacquer is cut using a digital file, the actual cutting is a mechanical (analog) process. I think this process cannot reproduce heavily compressed music. You cannot end up with a brickwalled vinyl record, like DR3 to DR7 readings.

In both cases you get 'large' DR with the vinyl The point of the video is that that is not necessarily because the vinyl DR is accurately measured...and that would hold true in both cases.

Did you actually watch it? He suggests the reasons why vinyl reads 'large', there.

And yes, you can get 'brickwalled' vinyl, e.g. when you cut a brickwalled recording to vinyl . It simply won't *look* as brickwalled. The lack of brickwall appearance does not mean you 'unbrickwalled' the sound.

 

[ssully]

I have one heck of a time with digital 4.0 files, nothing seems to want to work correctly accross the board. Only a few files I have really register as a 4.0 file on my Marantz 7703 pre/pro, and the ones that do make a mess of the channel layout with channels in the wrong place or missing entirely. And the same file will react differently into my pre/pro depending on what media player I use. The situation has driven my nuts over the years to the point I often just avoid playing them any more.

Use the Music Media Helper to add silent C and LFE tracks. (Silent C alone might be enough)

 

[ssully]

You don’t need to convince me. I’m simply illustrating the entire line of thought is misguided.

If one is going to conflate terms and claim analog noise reduction is “lossy”, then why not just keep extending the logic to its conclusion - digital (at any resolution) doesn’t perfectly replicate the analog waveform and thus is also lossy from the get go.

Then again, an LP is certainly lossy wrt to the master. So?