Dynamic Range=DR...?

That database is super helpful in understanding the problem. They all use the same freeware TT meter to do the analysis. It's not as simple as the difference in the highest and lowest peak levels...it's based on RMS analysis. So, closer to highest and lowest RMS analysis. Otherwise, every song with a "stop" in it would have some HUMONGO dynamic range. You know?

The only caveat I've found is that low end RMS contributes significantly to the "number"...so, the exact same master presented on CD versus vinyl, the CD will be 1-2db "less dynamic" due to its actually having content below 50hz. and being able to sustain low end RMS. So a Vinyl copy of Hotel California at DR14 is effectively the same loudness as the MoFi CD at DR12. Along with the inherent gain staging differences in a turntable output is the reason people who prefer vinyl DO, IMO.

I HATE reducing things to numbers conceptually. But, I've analyzed decades of my work AND my CD collection with that meter. It does pinpoint the problem. Double digits=better master. In every single case. I know some mastering guys have scoffed at it...but, I wonder how many have actually retro analyzed work masters they did that they loved and ones they didn't with it. Now, once you're in double digits...I certainly think Hotel Cali's new JCF converter DR11 master is better than the decades old Mofi DR12. A point here or there is missing the point. Vinyl isn't more dynamic than a GOOD digital master...it simply drops a couple digits due to the low end level and RMS.

The SOS article is simply misleading over analysis. Things like that cloud the waters where there's no need to cloud them. Music for 50 years regardless of style or digital or analog or what from DR17-DR11...then in the course of a few years everything HALVED the high side of that. It's quite clear what the problem is...and what the fix is.

The other thing to keep in mind is that vinyl measurements are taken once digitized. By....someone...with something...with some knowledge or lackthereof of engineering. I've found "needledrops" done with thousands of dollars in turntable gear digitized by some little maudio box that doesn't even have line inputs.

I think the take away from looking at numbers is to pan back--a couple DB here or there is virtually meaningless to "quality"...but, there's no situation where a DR6 sounds better than a DR12 of the same recording. Ever. And, I've found that mixing to single digits--actual traditional mixing...is nearly impossible. It requires lookhead limiting. and such tools to achieve...so, when they talk in the SOS article about it being maybe not the loudness itself but the side effects of what it takes to get there, I say "who cares"? Same difference. If you can't get there without those tools. And those tools sound like ass. The answer is still the same.

I've also done a LOT of comparison of actual vinyl by ear since this resurgence...and since I have a DAC capable of attenuating it's output before hitting the analog preamp...and new pieces of vinyl are often being cut from the CD masters. Promise. They "sound better" simply because they're reducing the PEAK output SO much that any vinyl preamp isn't going to spit out anything that distorts the analog preamp. As a side effect, I found that I could enjoy some loud modern masters (where I have no choice) by pulling their output down to about 70-75%--which is equivalent to what my vinyl preamp puts out. I could certainly wax on about my findings...but, I HATE that numbers don't lie here. If you discount any small variations...the big differences hugely impact the end user listening experience. Like DR14 to 12...or 12 to 11...at that point, master quality and sample rate determine quality. But a CD at DR12 will sound FAR better than an SACD at DR7. All day. Every example I've found.

I've since scoured record stores and online for original CD masters of things I only have the modern "remasters" of...and in every case but one-better. The one exception is the Beatles catalog. They were horribly NOT dynamic to begin with...and while they limited the new ones too much, the digital resotration, modern AD (at 192, I might add) and bringing everything to full scale makes a tangivle positive difference. I DO wish they'd released the stereo versions the way they did the mono--NOT limited, just restored. I find mono mixes odd...but, the tone is nicer on them on the modern masters.

Side note...if you want a quick pretty even handed comparison, download iTunes11, and turn on SoundCheck. Compare old masters with new. All it's doing is analyzing like the above (only K weighted) and writing an offset amount into the file--a tag, not altering the audio. They use the tag to offset the volume in shuffle playback. My last (personal) record? -1db. Shawn Colvin's Fat City (one of my desert island sonic discs) -.09db. Modern Colvin records? -10db. Modern "rock" tracks? -11 or 12db. With the offsets you can actually HEAR dynamics for what they are in the real world-auto volume matched. They've always had the feature...but, only implemented it to Katz standards with the latest version.It's cause for me to clean up my library and ensure I have the most dynamic masters in it I have--as opposed to "whatever" I encoded however many years ago.

R128 is coming to europe?, A/85 to USA(dumb that it's not the same standard, but better than nothing).. If this is true, it will be an amazingly great thing for every person who truly loves music, loudness wars will be OVER!!

Anyone using the new Apple Soundcheck in iTunes 11? I mean, it's always been there...but, with the Katz approved algorithm? It does some WEIRD stuff. I mean, as much as I love hearing a Mobile Fidelity Linda Ronstadt master blare out of the speakers (they boost it 3.5db) and a Hendrix remaster sound like a small tinny AM broadcast (cut by 9db)...that's gonna immediately lead some people to turn it off. When Shawn Colvin playing with only her acoustic guitar sounds louder and brighter than a Metallica track...I suppose grand scheme, leveling those algorithmically would be too much to ask.

So, you listen to next to nothing made since 1995?

R-128 has been on the way for a while. I've been hearing about it, well, since I joined the industry (That's 5 years - nothing in EU time). I think it's great, but I know in Ireland our main problems are enforcement and audio quality. I was listening to a Classics/Golden Oldies station last night and they were playing "So Here It Is (Merry Christmas) and every time the kick came in our there was a hard S sound the audio seemed to over-modulate or something. Sounded like a horrible chorus pedal with all the knobs turned to 10 being triggered by waveform peaks - blegh! There was notable distortion in the form of clipping on some other songs too.

another revealing video, I hope the loudness standards end up being an audio gift from the gods??! I'm personally all about drums in my music life, listening to drums specifically on all this over compressed, "staring at the sun through the peephole in the door" stuff, juxtaposed to the more dynamic stuff.... it's no wonder i've had such discontent in my heart for modern rock. Could we be looking at the resurgence of the human "sounding" drummer? one can only hope.

Well,
R128 is a recommendation of the EBU that aims primarily at the demands of TV programs for loudness equality, because the consumers were widely annoyed by the huge loudness differences in the program material, which still is an issue especially in the commercial producing world......
It is a not so simple standard that was investigated by a huge group of 250 people.
The program material is k-weighted (not Bob Katz k-scale!) so the psychoacoustic influence of the different frequency ranges on perceived loudness is taken into account. Then loudness over 400ms is measured as "immediate loudness", there is a gate that stops measurement when the signal drops by 10dB, to take foreground sound into account, then.....etc.etc.etc..
So it is not as easy as it sounds.
And - it is a recommendation. Nothing more. It is for broadcast. TV first, step by step. There was alot of confusion how certification for and by the stations is done. RTW made an expensive hardware box for it. The penguin meter was a quasi standard also.
And this says nothing about music production for CD. Or internet formats. No rules.

Best regards,
Martin

Thanks Popmann. I just ask as I saw a trend from cheaper units having begun under 100db and units like Apogee having DR's of 114-120, through the years. Now most are well over 100 and usually over 110. So the ranges have narrowed over the last few years - every one has seemingly increased theirs.

Sorry to interrupt and thanks.

A higher DR would be a higher fidelity recording, unless you're using the term in a subjective sense. The very old ones that are very compressed and distorted don't tend to have a high DR either.. especially for the musical styles!

What is fidelity? What is old? Why would DR be more/less desirable?

I feel like I'm going to sound pretentious, but it's the fundamental questions we have to answer before anything.

Everyone is allowed to have an opinion, but I wanted printout mix DR hasn't changed significantly....ever. Except in world of amateurs who think they're listening to mixes. Its not really semantics. It's a difference in MASTERING. EVEN CLA...loudest rock mixer around...spits out double digit mixes with L1s on every channel to optimize conversion level to the desk.

I challenge you to name a single instance where a (significantly-more than a couple DB) less dynamic master of the same material sounds better once rms matched. They're easy to find. Almost anything prior to the mid 90s were double digit DRs...and almost everything post 95 and certainly by 2000 were WELL into single digits. 

just listening to the matched rms mixes on the second vid, its remarkable the difference, wider dynamic range just sounds better to me by a long shot, more interesting, more excitement...ugh,..well,...more dynamic lol