Redbook x HDtracks dynamic range comparison

[Marino Marco]

Standard cd x 24 bit/96 kHz dynamic range with Deftones - Koi No Yokan.

 

Redbook x HDtracks dynamic range comparison - YouTube

What do you guys think? Its not very apparent in the video but the hdtracks version is quieter as well. Thats about the only thing I noticed when comparing sound quality, then I realized the dynamic range thing.

 

After that it was clear. The 24/96 really does sound much better.

 

 

 

 

[firedog]

The DR of HDT hi-res is dependent on the master they are given. If it hasn't been volume compressed, they distribute it that way;but often the hi-res master has already been volume compressed and then they sell it as they receive it.

 

David Chesky has stated in interviews that the regards the amount of volume compression as an artistic decision by the artist/producer about how he wishes his/her work to sound, and on principle doesn't think he should influence that decision.

[Robert Hutton]

The DR of HDT hi-res is dependent on the master they are given. If it hasn't been volume compressed, they distribute it that way;but often the hi-res master has already been volume compressed and then they sell it as they receive it.

 

David Chesky has stated in interviews that the regards the amount of volume compression as an artistic decision by the artist/producer about how he wishes his/her work to sound, and on principle doesn't think he should influence that decision.

 

I agree thoroughly with Chesky. i think we place far too much credence on amateur free internet tools that assign numbers to music but tell us nothing at all about the individual merits of the art at hand. In the days before everything was volume compressed to some degree to get it on vinyl and people evaluated a recording on its own sonic and musical merits.

 

I recognize that on a certain internet forum compression has become a near obsession and the term is bandied about rather carelessly, it has almost become a rallying cry for those who look at some arbitrary graph BEFORE they use their ears.

 

Hi-res is not all about dynamic range, although in certain musics, that is certainly one of the benefits. It is much more about how that extended dynamic range affects tonality, as well as musicality, and what I find to be its independence from the volume knob - CD always seems to have a sweet spot volume wise - too low, it sounds meek and bland, at a higher volume point, it sounds hard and fatiguing. Hi-res does not have that.The lower noise floor gives a blacker background. The extended dynamic range, particularly at higher sampling rates, it not about IMO some game of how wide the dyamic peaks and valleys are, it (particularly for those using super tweeters) is about how that increased dynamic range impacts tonality straight down through the audible range.

[Jud]

I agree thoroughly with Chesky. i think we place far too much credence on amateur free internet tools that assign numbers to music but tell us nothing at all about the individual merits of the art at hand. In the days before everything was volume compressed to some degree to get it on vinyl and people evaluated a recording on its own sonic and musical merits.

 

I recognize that on a certain internet forum compression has become a near obsession and the term is bandied about rather carelessly, it has almost become a rallying cry for those who look at some arbitrary graph BEFORE they use their ears.

 

Hi-res is not all about dynamic range, although in certain musics, that is certainly one of the benefits. It is much more about how that extended dynamic range affects tonality, as well as musicality, and what I find to be its independence from the volume knob - CD always seems to have a sweet spot volume wise - too low, it sounds meek and bland, at a higher volume point, it sounds hard and fatiguing. Hi-res does not have that.The lower noise floor gives a blacker background. The extended dynamic range, particularly at higher sampling rates, it not about IMO some game of how wide the dyamic peaks and valleys are, it (particularly for those using super tweeters) is about how that increased dynamic range impacts tonality straight down through the audible range.

 

Agree with a lot of what you've said here. As a little counterbalance, I'd say DR Database and the like can have value if used with perception and caution. I think these tools are best used to compare various remasters of the same recording to see whether there are significant differences between them.

 

Look, for example, at the very large differences between the dynamic range figures of the 1991 and 2011 masters of Nirvana's Nevermind. Now look at the HDTracks version, and it's quite evident which master it came from. I bought it, and I can tell you the compression in the newer version leaves behind a lot of the drama in the tremendous changes from soft to loud that characterized many of my favorite tracks. But the same sort of examination can also reveal gems. Look at the Beach Boys' Pet Sounds. It appears the HDTracks version came from the same master used by MFSL, one that was done with apparent care and that may reveal more of the music. (I have a DCC gold CD version that sounds very good, but am still thinking of purchasing the HDTracks download.)

 

But then there are also situations where such sites may not be a good guide. Look at the Grateful Dead's Europe '72, for example. Are the two discs in the same album really so extremely different from each other? I find it difficult to believe this is not some artifact of the tool being used. And the HDTracks download of Workingman's Dead measures significantly worse on the database than the 1990 CD (though that's not the date of the CD currently available on Amazon), but many people on this forum say it was mixed by Mickey Hart (who better to know how the band should sound?) and sounds great.

 

So I'd say these sites can be used with appropriate caution as one source of information on different versions of a recording, but only one.

[Julf]

I recognize that on a certain internet forum compression has become a near obsession

 

Please tell us which site (privately, using PM, if you don't want to state it publicly), as I am always interested in sites with information on HD download quality - all too often the only way to get to listen and measure is by first shelling out the money, with little recourse when it turns out the particular recording was less-than-perfect.

[Robert Hutton]

Agree with a lot of what you've said here. As a little counterbalance, I'd say DR Database and the like can have value if used with perception and caution. I think these tools are best used to compare various remasters of the same recording to see whether there are significant differences between them.

 

Look, for example, at the very large differences between the dynamic range figures of the 1991 and 2011 masters of Nirvana's Nevermind. Now look at the HDTracks version, and it's quite evident which master it came from. I bought it, and I can tell you the compression in the newer version leaves behind a lot of the drama in the tremendous changes from soft to loud that characterized many of my favorite tracks. But the same sort of examination can also reveal gems. Look at the Beach Boys' Pet Sounds. It appears the HDTracks version came from the same master used by MFSL, one that was done with apparent care and that may reveal more of the music. (I have a DCC gold CD version that sounds very good, but am still thinking of purchasing the HDTracks download.)

 

But then there are also situations where such sites may not be a good guide. Look at the Grateful Dead's Europe '72, for example. Are the two discs in the same album really so extremely different from each other? I find it difficult to believe this is not some artifact of the tool being used. And the HDTracks download of Workingman's Dead measures significantly worse on the database than the 1990 CD (though that's not the date of the CD currently available on Amazon), but many people on this forum say it was mixed by Mickey Hart (who better to know how the band should sound?) and sounds great.

 

So I'd say these sites can be used with appropriate caution as one source of information on different versions of a recording, but only one.

 

Jud, to me, the greatest plus of hi-res music is that my wife isn't saying "can you turn that DOWN" all the time. The rest is all gravy.

[Jud]

Jud, to me, the greatest plus of hi-res music is that my wife isn't saying "can you turn that DOWN" all the time. The rest is all gravy.

 

!

[Johan]

For me most high resolution tracks are easier to listen to, and with higher spl's they still sound 'relaxed'.

[cjf]

From what I have experienced with many of the HDTracks Hi-Res Albums when compared to their RedBook equivalent is the RedBook seems to have more DR in most cases. I suspect most of this is because the HDTracks albums are newer remasters where someone, somewhere decided to add more compression this time around. Obviously this has nothing to do with HDTracks themselves but I use them in this example because that is who I purchased the HiRes content from.

 

On some albums, for example Fleetwood Macs Rumors my RedBook copy has an overall DR value of 14 where the HDTracks 24/96 version stands at 10 overall. When comparing these albums back to back I can here a noticeable difference in drum impact for the better on the RedBook copy verses the 24/96 version on every song but despite the lower DR value of the 24/96 copy I tend to favor its ability to bring out some of the lower level background nuances that are sometimes difficult to pick out on the RedBook copy.

 

A perfect example of this is on the last track "Gold Dust Women" where towards the end of the song Stevie Nicks starts to howl and chant at the moon. During this part of the song I am able to hear this very enjoyable part of the song much more clearly on the 24/96 version. The same can be said about much of the impressive cymbal work that takes place on the album that is far more difficult to hear on the RedBook copy.

 

All in all I tend to enjoy the HiRes versions over the RedBook (Unless they are butchered) for the reasons stated above as I find it more interesting to hear these small details over more impact.

[Zakus]

I agree thoroughly with Chesky. i think we place far too much credence on amateur free internet tools that assign numbers to music but tell us nothing at all about the individual merits of the art at hand. In the days before everything was volume compressed to some degree to get it on vinyl and people evaluated a recording on its own sonic and musical merits.

 

What an insightful post.

[Julf]

I agree thoroughly with Chesky. i think we place far too much credence on amateur free internet tools that assign numbers to music but tell us nothing at all about the individual merits of the art at hand.

 

Indeed. If the graphs clearly show that a "hi-res" recording is upsampled from redbook, but our ears tells us it sounds great, shouldn't we just conclude that redbook is "good enough" and stop obsessing with hi-res?

[firedog]

Indeed. If the graphs clearly show that a "hi-res" recording is upsampled from redbook, but our ears tells us it sounds great, shouldn't we just conclude that redbook is "good enough" and stop obsessing with hi-res?

 

 

But the problem is when our ears tell us that a "hi-res remaster" marketed as an "audiophile" quality product doesn't sound great, apparently b/c its DR has been highly compressed. Personally, you'd have a hard time convincing me that any album with a DR of 4 or 5 is a quality sounding recording, especially when after about 5 minutes of listening it gives me a headache.

 

The only exception to this would be music that clearly was intended to have a limited DR by its nature, or that clearly has been compressed to achieve a specific "sound".

 

But this isn't the case, for instance, with catalog material that was originally released with a DR of 12 and is remastered with a DR of 5.

[Julf]

But the problem is when our ears tell us that a "hi-res remaster" marketed as an "audiophile" quality product doesn't sound great, apparently b/c its DR has been highly compressed.

 

Well, yes, that is a problem - with the material. But fortunately one of the cases where numbers, graphs and ears all agree.

[Jud]

But the problem is when our ears tell us that a "hi-res remaster" marketed as an "audiophile" quality product doesn't sound great, apparently b/c its DR has been highly compressed. Personally, you'd have a hard time convincing me that any album with a DR of 4 or 5 is a quality sounding recording, especially when after about 5 minutes of listening it gives me a headache.

 

The only exception to this would be music that clearly was intended to have a limited DR by its nature, or that clearly has been compressed to achieve a specific "sound".

 

But this isn't the case, for instance, with catalog material that was originally released with a DR of 12 and is remastered with a DR of 5.

 

You would think that one of the types of music that was intended to have a limited DR by its nature would be grunge, like Nirvana's Nevermind. But in fact this turned out to be one of my more disappointing HDTracks downloads. In remembering Nirvana's music we might tend to think of the dynamic peaks of the choruses, etc. - i.e., the loud parts. But we might tend to forget the often very quiet verses that set up those loud, dramatic choruses so perfectly. Or at least they do a perfect job if the dynamics haven't been squeezed right out of them by a remaster aimed at reigning victorious in the loudness wars, as was unfortunately the case with the remaster given to HDTracks to distribute. (Interesting that in an era when it is no longer necessary to compress dynamics just to make sure a stylus can track, as Robert Hutton mentioned, fewer and fewer recordings take advantage of that. This can easily be seen with just a glance at vinyl vs. current CD remasters on DR Database, or even earlier CDs vs. current remasters.)

 

My own amateur free non-internet tools - my ears - were not happy in the case of Nevermind.

 

I don't blame HDTracks for this sort of thing. They're such a small operation compared to the military-entertainment complex that if they began to complain too often I'm sure it would be the easiest thing in the world for the labels to cut them off. It's the labels once again demonstrating that the folks in charge there are the last people on earth who would understand (or care) what this market segment really wants.

[nathanb]

I buy from HdTracks, not iTunes...

[PewterTA]

Nirvana's Nevermind from HDtracks was taken from the wrong master I believe (well the one I would've liked to see them use that is). They got the remastered version which has a DR on it of a 7 and it shows. I also have Nevermind on vinyl and I think that is the same master that HDtracks used for it as it gets the exact same DR rating on all the tracks.

 

My favorite version is the originally released CD version, it gets a DR of 12 and sounds 10x better (well as better as Grunge/Alternative Rock can sound that is when it comes to quality).

 

Here's off the original CD:

foobar2000 1.1.6 / Dynamic Range Meter 1.1.1

log date: 2013-02-23 22:18:29

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Analyzed: Nirvana / Nevermind

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DR Peak RMS Duration Track

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DR11 -0.20 dB -12.83 dB 5:02 01-Smells Like Teen Spirit

DR11 -0.20 dB -12.23 dB 4:15 02-In Bloom

DR12 -0.20 dB -13.62 dB 3:39 03-Come As You Are

DR11 -0.20 dB -12.72 dB 3:04 04-Breed

DR11 -0.20 dB -12.64 dB 4:17 05-Lithium

DR10 -1.40 dB -13.59 dB 2:57 06-Polly

DR12 -0.20 dB -12.93 dB 2:23 07-Territorial Pissings

DR12 -0.20 dB -12.73 dB 3:44 08-Drain You

DR12 -0.72 dB -13.27 dB 2:37 09-Lounge Act

DR12 -0.20 dB -12.61 dB 3:33 10-Stay Away

DR12 -0.20 dB -13.44 dB 3:16 11-On A Plain

DR13 -0.20 dB -17.30 dB 20:35 12-Something In The Way

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Number of tracks: 12

Official DR value: DR12

Samplerate: 44100 Hz

Channels: 2

Bits per sample: 16

Bitrate: 422 kbps

Codec: FLAC

================================================================================

 

Here's the HDtracks version:

 

foobar2000 1.1.6 / Dynamic Range Meter 1.1.1

log date: 2013-02-23 22:20:41

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Analyzed: Nirvana / Nevermind

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DR Peak RMS Duration Track

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DR6 -0.08 dB -7.82 dB 5:01 01-Smells Like Teen Spirit

DR7 -0.08 dB -7.77 dB 4:15 02-In Bloom

DR7 -0.09 dB -8.37 dB 3:39 03-Come As You Are

DR7 -0.08 dB -7.72 dB 3:04 04-Breed

DR7 -0.09 dB -8.98 dB 4:17 05-Lithium

DR8 -0.10 dB -10.24 dB 2:57 06-Polly

DR6 -0.09 dB -7.97 dB 2:23 07-Territorial Pissings

DR7 -0.09 dB -7.73 dB 3:44 08-Drain You

DR7 -0.09 dB -7.80 dB 2:37 09-Lounge Act

DR7 -0.09 dB -7.63 dB 3:32 10-Stay Away

DR6 -0.05 dB -7.49 dB 3:16 11-On A Plain

DR8 -0.10 dB -9.98 dB 3:55 12-Something In The Way

DR7 -0.07 dB -8.62 dB 6:43 13-Endless, Nameless

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Number of tracks: 13

Official DR value: DR7

Samplerate: 96000 Hz

Channels: 2

Bits per sample: 24

Bitrate: 3088 kbps

Codec: FLAC

================================================================================

[Bromo33333]

But the problem is when our ears tell us that a "hi-res remaster" marketed as an "audiophile" quality product doesn't sound great, apparently b/c its DR has been highly compressed. Personally, you'd have a hard time convincing me that any album with a DR of 4 or 5 is a quality sounding recording, especially when after about 5 minutes of listening it gives me a headache.

 

I have bought a few tracks form HDTracks that I felt sounded worse than what I could stream on Spotify! (Cyndi Lauper ... I'm looking at YOUR album!)

[Felipe]

I have bought a few tracks form HDTracks that I felt sounded worse than what I could stream on Spotify! (Cyndi Lauper ... I'm looking at YOUR album!)

 

could you post the Dynamic Range? This is the 1983 japanese redbook

 

foobar2000 1.2.3 / Dynamic Range Meter 1.1.1

log date: 2013-02-26 15:53:34

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Analyzed: ? / ?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DR Peak RMS Duration Track

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DR12 -1.31 dB -15.78 dB 5:05 01-CD Track 01

DR10 -3.58 dB -16.02 dB 3:58 02-CD Track 02

DR12 -2.48 dB -17.68 dB 5:06 03-CD Track 03

DR11 -4.36 dB -18.75 dB 4:04 04-CD Track 04

DR11 -2.90 dB -16.44 dB 3:52 05-CD Track 05

DR11 -2.09 dB -16.48 dB 4:32 06-CD Track 06

DR12 -2.34 dB -17.40 dB 3:41 07-CD Track 07

DR12 -3.11 dB -16.80 dB 4:12 08-CD Track 08

DR13 -1.44 dB -18.39 dB 4:05 09-CD Track 09

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Number of tracks: 9

Official DR value: DR12

Samplerate: 44100 Hz

Channels: 2

Bits per sample: 16

Bitrate: 1411 kbps

Codec: CDDA

================================================================================

[Felipe]

Michael Jackson - Got To Be There

This album has three very different sounding versions. The best way to hear is getting the tracks separately from Michael Jackson and J5 1986 anthologies, not the fuller sound but by far the best tonality. The 1986 Motown first press Got To Be There and Ben albums have similar dynamic range to the anthologies but an in-your-face and an ear-bleeding EQ. I don't know if this is in the master tape, maybe the anthologies are from safety copies... All I know is this HDTracks new release sound more similar to the in-your-face one, without the ear-bleeding but heavily bass boosted

 

Redbook (86's Got To Be There - MOTD 5416)

foobar2000 1.2.6 / Dynamic Range Meter 1.1.1

log date: 2013-06-01 01:08:55

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Analyzed: ? / ?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

DR Peak RMS Duration Track

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DR13 -1.60 dB -16.21 dB 4:13 ?-Ain't No Sunshine

DR13 -1.60 dB -17.45 dB 3:03 ?-I Wanna Be Where You Are

DR12 -1.60 dB -15.79 dB 3:51 ?-Girl Don't Take Your Love From Me

DR12 -1.67 dB -16.95 dB 3:41 ?-In Our Small Way (got)

DR14 -1.60 dB -17.70 dB 3:25 ?-Got To Be There

DR13 -1.60 dB -16.36 dB 2:35 ?-Rockin' Robin

DR13 -3.07 dB -18.69 dB 3:25 ?-Wings Of My Love

DR14 -1.60 dB -17.92 dB 3:43 ?-Maria (You Were The Only One)

DR13 -1.60 dB -16.75 dB 2:54 ?-Love Is Here And Now You're Gone

DR13 -1.60 dB -16.53 dB 4:54 ?-The Jackson 5 - You've Got A Friend

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Number of tracks: 10

Official DR value: DR13

 

Samplerate: 44100 Hz

Channels: 2

Bits per sample: 16

Bitrate: 1411 kbps

Codec: PCM

================================================================================

 

 

HDTracks 24/192:

foobar2000 1.2.6 / Dynamic Range Meter 1.1.1

log date: 2013-06-01 01:02:07

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Analyzed: ? / ?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

DR Peak RMS Duration Track

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DR12 0.00 dB -13.50 dB 4:12 ?-01-Ain't No Sunshine

DR13 0.00 dB -15.80 dB 3:01 ?-02-I Wanna Be Where You Are

DR12 0.00 dB -13.46 dB 3:48 ?-03-Girl Don't Take Your Love From Me

DR13 0.00 dB -14.27 dB 3:43 ?-04-In Our Small Way

DR14 0.00 dB -15.73 dB 3:17 ?-05-Got To Be There

DR13 0.00 dB -14.02 dB 2:36 ?-06-Rockin' Robin

DR12 0.00 dB -13.92 dB 3:23 ?-07-Wings Of My Love

DR13 0.00 dB -14.79 dB 3:42 ?-08-Maria (You Were The Only One)

DR12 0.00 dB -13.47 dB 2:50 ?-09-Love Is Here And Now You're Gone

DR13 0.00 dB -14.46 dB 4:54 ?-10-You've Got A Friend

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Number of tracks: 10

Official DR value: DR13

 

Samplerate: 192000 Hz

Channels: 2

Bits per sample: 24

Bitrate: 9216 kbps

Codec: PCM

================================================================================

[Udayan]

Hello,

 

This is my first post and I don't know if a thread exists to introduce myself...

 

 

Nevermind, I have no 24/96 track so far to compare with redbook issue, but concerning the DR, I remember very well the huge difference between normal vinyl and Direct disc labels like "Sheffield lab", "Direct Disc lab", " East Wind"...

 

To my ears, more dynamic/better DR is one very important part of the perceived quality of a record.

 

 

Cheers

 

 

 

Udayan

[CatManDo]

I think the DR value comparison is extremely useful, as it enables to easily check one aspect of the mastering quality without having to listen. It is of course only relevant when the difference is significant (such as in the Nirvana example, DR12 vs DR7).

 

In most cases, when I suspected added compression on one CD version compared to another, I was able to confirm that by comparing the DR values.

[Udayan]

I don't know if I am right because I am not a sound engineer or mixing tracks, but I have the feeling that compression is clearly now part of music composition/tool/creativity.

 

I would say around 70's or early 80's I believe that some artist started to include compression as part of their toolbox!

 

Therefore, it is not really surprising to discover that some albums have been over compressed for whatever reason.

 

It can be because at that time highly compressed music was "in" or "fun" or because the targeted listener are supposed to have entry level sound systems that will suffer from a fully uncompressed records.

 

At the beginning, I guess that compression was introduced to make possible reproduction of music on system with low S/N ratio. In France for instance, radio station are overcompressed but it is to increase comfort when listening to radio in your car. Consequence being that I am not listening to radio at home.

 

Anyway, the problem is that (at least in France) high-end system able to handle uncompressed records are really very few compare to low cost or I-pod station... And, as artists/musicians have to leave from their art, they simply accept music compression to give listenable records to the mass...

 

But I agree with all of you, it is quite unacceptable to have HD records with highly compressed material!

 

Sorry i it is not clear, English is not my mother tongue...

 

Cheers

 

 

 

Udayan

[Julf]

At the beginning, I guess that compression was introduced to make possible reproduction of music on system with low S/N ratio.

 

The history, reasons and background are described pretty well in the Wikipedia entry on Loudness Wars.

[Udayan]

Hi Julf,

 

Thank you for the info.

 

I will have a look on your link...

 

 

Cheers

 

 

Udayan

[bdiament]

The Loudness Wars predate CD by a decade or more.

More info here.

 

The idea that compression is "needed" in order to cut music onto lacquers for vinyl is 100% erroneous, perpetrated by folks who are not particularly good vinyl cutters. The best vinyl mastering engineers (I'm thinking of George Piros as an example) *never* used compression in their work.

 

Dynamic compression started as a "flavor", a way of coloring the sound to achieve a certain end result. It was also used as a means of raising the lower level parts of a signal above what were some noisy recording and delivery media.

 

Record makers started using peak limiting, a particular form of compression to remove the loudest peaks in a recording in order to allow the *average* level to be raised without having overloads caused by the peaks. Some felt this helped their recording stand out when played on the radio (but as radio stations added compression of their own, the end result turned out to be the opposite).

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

Barry Diament Audio