To what degree DR reflects SQ?

[Summit]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

 

I'm thinking (perhaps incorrectly) that DR as shown in DR Database and as defined in a standard reflects the difference between the loudest parts of a track and the *average* loudness (rather than the quietest part).

 

For me it's most useful when comparing different versions of the same track, realizing (1) vinyl will always show 2-3dB more range for a given version (this is an artifact of the test process; I forget the reason); and (2) 1-2dB difference in DR is likely not going to be very noticeable.

 

It's *one* factor to evaluate when choosing among versions of a track or album. Older versions will often have higher DR and *may* sound better.

 

Yep, that's right.

 

"The “Unofficial” Dynamic Range Database uses a sliding scale from 1 to 20 (1 being the worst, 20 being the best) to rank the dynamic quality of each of the recordings they list. This number represents the difference between the peak decibel level on a recording and the recording’s average loudness. DRD applies the following descriptors to these ranges: 1-7=bad; 8-13=transition; and 14-20=good. Evaluation for each album on the website includes the album’s average dynamic range, the track with the weakest dynamic range, and the track with the greatest. The Unofficial DRD also provides individual dynamic range measurements for each track on the album."

https://www.stereophile.com/content/unofficial-dynamic-range-database

[Summit]

3 hours ago, sphinxsix said:

 

Discuss  

 

 

 

I believe that DR correlate with SQ especially if you compare different versions of the same record. In all other cases the correlation is less consistent, but, t's still better than nothing and can grossly indicate if a record is very compressed or not.   

[Summit]

22 hours ago, sphinxsix said:

I wouldn't agree with it in 100%. I have personally in many cases preferred a well done mastering with lower DR, and I know it's not only me (scroll down if you are interested):

 

 

Don't want to engage too much into this discussion but I believe the DR factor had gained its popularity and almost fetish status first of all due to loudness war of course. Secondly it's easy to just measure DR (not many even know about the existance of DR R128 which takes into account slightly different factors than DR) which takes a second and not to engage into time and attention consuming listening comparisons - the higher the better - end of story 

IMO the DR is widely and highly overrated as a tool to judge and even compare the SQ of the same music material and in many cases a better mastering (e.g. smoother, more detailed with more 'air' around the instruments) can sound better than a worse mastering with higher DR. 

Of course the optimum would be a good mastering without or with minimal dynamic compression.

 

 

 

DR is one SQ factor for people that believe that dynamic range is important. I’m one of them and do dislike the very compressed and lifeless sound of many records with low DR. I can’t say that I have fund that DR has gained a fetish-like status. Anyway like I said before I do consider that DR is most useful then comparing different versions of the same record. I use this one: http://dr.loudness-war.info/