Article: Dynamic Range Day

[esldude]

Some friends with an acoustic and vocal band just recorded a CD.  The first mix they got back was DR 5. I listened at their behest and explained why it was wrong.  They just knew they didn't like it as it sounded wrong. A couple more rounds and it will be done more sensibly to a DR 11 or 12.  What in the world are such people thinking? This was not metal music, and I wouldn't do it to DR 5.

[esldude]

Just an example of what I was referring to above this is the view of a track in Audacity.  I lowered the level by .1 db to get rid of multiple red clipping lines.  This is a traditional Christmas song "The Christ Child's Lullaby" with a mandolin, 12 string guitar, flute, violin and three female vocalists.  A DR 4 for this one track.  Heavy compression.  Limiting was so bad it made the mando sound more like a banjo.  This from a commercial studio in business for 30 years.   Please someone explain it to me, what was the guy thinking? 

 

Now to his credit once it was gotten across what they were expecting for the sound, this fellow did a first rate bang up job in making it sound nice.  He clearly has skills from his years of experience.  I just don't know why the first version looked like a track from Death Magnetic instead of a Christmas lullaby.

 

 

[esldude]

1 hour ago, firedog said:

I think it has just become so ubiquitous that the heavy DR is the "default", and no one thinks about it any more. Sad!

in the words of Avatar, "this is sad, very sad only".  Only it is worse than sad.  It is sad, it is insane, it is incomprehensible.  In  Platoon is the quote: "Hell is the impossibility of reason".  I think that fits best.

 

It is impossible to reason out why a Christmas lullaby ends up like this with voices and mostly stringed acoustical instruments.

[esldude]

2 hours ago, AlexMetalFi said:

 

I'd say the audiophile community at large is woefully under informed about these issues. Case in point:

 

http://www.stereophile.com/content/communication-breakdown#LQWzKCiFDDd7mmAV.97

 

Not to pick on Steve G. too much, but in this article he depicts audiophiles like myself as luddites who can't adjust to the "crunch" of a new Spoon record (thinking about what I'm listening to now - Dodecahedron's latest - it's kinda funny). I get what he was saying though, and I fully understand his point that DRC is also a tool for artistic expression and we need to accept that fact.

 

However, he misses what I feel is the main issue at hand: Put simply, if you asked artists and engineers what they would have done if volume was not a concern, would they have produced the same master? I'll bet the answer is mostly no for a lot of popular releases. It was volume driving a lot of the production decisions, not artistic intent.

 

Anyway, I will have more to say soon....I don't want to give away too much now! :-)

Well yet one more article where I don't agree with Steve G.  Nothing against him I simply usually don't agree. 

 

Some compression is needed for most music to be used in a moving car.  It actually sounds better and lets you hear more.  Most amplified music will sound a bit better imo with some compression even at home.  You don't need anywhere close the levels of compression/limiting that is the current fashion even in a noisy car.   Nor have I run across music that benefits from that.  I like Jimi's distorted guitar just fine thank you.  That isn't compression to these levels and adding compression to that distortion would have made it unbearable even back then when I was a teenager

 

I have done this for friends I recorded.  Add a bit of compression maybe a touch of reverb.  Let them hear it and the original.  Compressed is preferred.  Add a bit more compression and compare the two compressed versions where more compressed is preferred by them.  Rinse repeat a total of about 6 times.  Then play them the first compressed version and the last most compressed version.  Noses wrinkle, eyes squint, then they say something like what happened to that one.  The least compressed version is preferred and the highly compressed version in comparison sounds 'wrong'.  I wonder how often this accidentally happens and the last comparison never takes place side by side.  Your ear always prefers the slightly louder sound, and compression raises average loudness.  If comparing two already very compressed versions you still may go for the louder even at the point it is very messed up because both are messed up. 

 

I have seen many mastering guys say it is a tool and using it makes for better sound.  Sorry, not buying it.  Maybe it is old ears, but even if I like it you can't listen to much music for it just wears your ears out.  By the level of processing to limit (god I hate limiters) and compress that is the norm these days I can simply stream the music off of youtube.  It wouldn't sound much if any better at 384/24 when it is so compressed and limited.  I find a fare amount of music I like, but it is so badly recorded I vote with pocketbook by keeping it closed.  Youtube is free and all you need for the bulk of new music.  Truth is 32/8 is enough for most of this stuff now.

 

I was at the studio where my friends recorded their CD.  The monitors in the control room were very rolled off having no treble and limited upper midrange.  I thought maybe it was for working all day every day to protect the guy's hearing.  And maybe it is if you crunch everything though we were listening to the mic feeds.  My friends went to hear the first mix (I wasn't with them), and said it sounded pretty okay in his studio, but when they took it to their vehicle to hear it over a car system they weren't sure if their speakers were broken.  So were I go talk to that guy again I would ask if he has measured his monitors or has them rolled off on purpose. 

 

Sorry for the long rant, it is depressing we have the best fidelity possible in history by far, and you really have to search to find something not crunched to DEATH.  Some jazz and much classical is about your only refuge.

 

[esldude]

2 hours ago, firedog said:

I can agree with SG's stance to an extent, especially with modern, pop, hip-hop, rock - it is supposed to sound like that, so WE need to accept that or just not listen  to it. Complaining about it doesn't make much sense.

 

Where he's totally wrong: a) legacy material - why should e.g., a Springsteen album that had DR of 14 in the 80's be remastered to have DR of 6? It makes no sense, and claiming that the remaster VC is an "artistic" decision is a pretty weak one. And don't mention "hi-res" releases that this is done to; b) acoustic instruments - jazz quartets, etc. They are also starting to appear with volume compression to bring the DR from 16 to 8. Not unlistenable, but why? I'd guess even the people that buy them would prefer them without the added VR. And it adds NOTHING to the "art" - it merely reduces our ability to hear the subtleties of the playing. 

I think the reissues pretty well indicate the idea it is an 'artistic' decision of modern times is at best a fig leaf of coverage.  And the leaf is mostly fallen to the wayside. Which also makes me think the idea it is the art of current music is also probably not true for the most part.

 

For all I care rap and hip hop can have DR0.  Rock, modern rock, sorry, but so far I only hear things that would be good were they not ruined by the excessive loudness.  Haven't heard one thing that could even possibly be better due to it being so loudly mastered. So I accept it, listen on youtube or other streaming and otherwise spend not dollar one on such horrid recording releases.

[esldude]

Here is just a supposition.  Not yet tested out, but someone with a vinyl rip could check it easily enough.

 

Is the difference that vinyl has significant low frequency wobble or wow that artificially increases the DR measured.  Take a look at the screen shot.  One is the waveform view of a DR4 track.  The other is the same track with a -20 db 3 hz added to it. See how it modulates the flat top wave shape to something like the vinyl looks in the video above?  Most obvious is the tail in what was previously silence at the end.

 

Notice how this view of a vinyl rip middle of this page has a similar thick tail of silence at the end.  Lower level than my example.  Still all that is needed is for someone with a vinyl rip handy to see if noise in the single digit hertz range is present in the groove between tracks.

 

https://www.metal-fi.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=186

 

 

 

 

 

[esldude]

It also occurs to me you could take the vinyl file and do a brickwall high pass filter at 30 hz and see if the DR value starts to approach that of the CD.  That would let you know it is being modulated by some low frequency speed variation.

 

[esldude]

1 hour ago, Pure Vinyl Club said:

 

Here are screenshots of DR states from LP rip The Crusaders - Images (1978, USA).

The whole process: from recording without RIAA (RAW)  and to converting (SRC) to CD format):

 

1. The Crusaders - Images (1978, USA)  (Raw)

 

2. The RIAA curve is applied and cut into separate tracks

 

3. Gain Output Levels (software): Side A - 3.39dB and Side B - 3.84dB

 

4. Gain Output Levels (software): separately each track

 

5. Conversion (SRC) of tracks to the quality of CD (16/44.1)

 

So now put a steep filter in to roll off everything below 30hz on the 16/44 file and see if that reduces DR ratings.

[esldude]

24 minutes ago, Pure Vinyl Club said:

 

Ok, I applied a steep filter of 30Hz and added a "brickwall" to all 16 / 44.1 files. I used this software:

 

Here is the result of DR measurement:

So that does not appear to be why the DR reading is different by so much from the CD.  Thanks for doing this.