HDR Audio

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Guys, I haven't thought through this one yet, but the idea just came to me over lunch. Perhaps it's a dumb idea, but upon first blush it seems like a good idea. 

 

 

The movie industry has HDR / high dynamic range specifications and I believe these specs are more important than the arms race to 4K and beyond. Similarly, I'm a huge fan of audio recordings with high dynamic range and believe it's more important than the arms race to 24/192 and beyond. 

 

Question: Shouldn't there be push for an HDR equivalent standard in audio and a corresponding logo to let consumers know a recording is HDR? It seems that this is potentially more valuable information than the Hi-Res audio logo developed several years ago. 

 

Caveat: Just like in movies, HDR in audio doesn't always mean good audio quality or lack of audio quality for recordings without it. 

[Allan F]

50 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Caveat: Just like in movies, HDR in audio doesn't always mean good audio quality or lack of audio quality for recordings without it. 

 

Perhaps not, but HDR exploited in audio it would present a welcome alternative to the compression of the "loudness wars".

[AudioDoctor]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Hi Guys, I haven't thought through this one yet, but the idea just came to me over lunch. Perhaps it's a dumb idea, but upon first blush it seems like a good idea. 

 

 

The movie industry has HDR / high dynamic range specifications and I believe these specs are more important than the arms race to 4K and beyond. Similarly, I'm a huge fan of audio recordings with high dynamic range and believe it's more important than the arms race to 24/192 and beyond. 

 

Question: Shouldn't there be push for an HDR equivalent standard in audio and a corresponding logo to let consumers know a recording is HDR? It seems that this is potentially more valuable information than the Hi-Res audio logo developed several years ago. 

 

Caveat: Just like in movies, HDR in audio doesn't always mean good audio quality or lack of audio quality for recordings without it. 

 

Sounds like a good way to counter MQA as well.

[Archimago]

Good one Chris. Indeed you're prescient and this is one of the things I was going to bring out in a post this weekend.

 

Years ago, I suggested that we really should advocate for an "Advanced Resolution" version of an album alongside the "Standard Resolution" version. Only then will we hear differences and potentially tap into the capabilities of hi-res.

 

Remember that "Advanced Resolution" as I recall was also the term used back in the day of DVD-A.

[JoeWhip]

HDRQ

[Rexp]

I would like to see a standards body for audiio recordings/studios along the lines of the Michelin Guide for restaurants. Most digital audio files would get zero stars in my book. 

[sphinxsix]

Good idea, was thinking about it some time ago!

[seeteeyou]

True 10-bit vs 8-bit + FRC Monitor | What is the difference?

https://www.isolapse.com/true-10-bit-vs-8-bit-frc-monitor-what-is-the-difference/

 

Why Your HDR Monitor is (Probably) Not HDR at All – and Why DisplayHDR 400 Needs to Go

https://www.tftcentral.co.uk/blog/why-your-hdr-monitor-is-probably-not-hdr-at-all-and-why-displayhdr-400-needs-to-go/

Quote

If you’ve got a screen which promotes HDR but lacks any kind of VESA certification, there’s a very good chance that it offers no real HDR experience. You’d have to delve in to the product specs to understand what it does or doesn’t offer in terms of local dimming, extended colour gamut, colour bit depth etc. Chances are, there’s nothing meaningful being offered and it might be hard to tell unless the manufacturer provides specific details.

 

Does THX Certification Matter?

https://www.technobuffalo.com/does-thx-certification-matter

Quote

We’ve all dreamed of duplicating that theater experience in our homes, and then you see the THX logo on home audio equipment, and think you truly can do it.  But can it possibly duplicate that theater sound?

The short answer is that it indeed can … if you have the wherewithal to hire someone to set it all up correctly and want to make sure every piece of equipment is also THX certified.

 

Thanks but no thanks, as if HDR weren't just as bad as MQA to begin with.

 

I would be really grateful if they're actually focusing on proper mastering (i.e. basics and fundamentals etc.) rather than inventing whole bunch of marketing buzzwords that genuinely mean less than nothing IMHO.

[The Computer Audiophile]

6 hours ago, seeteeyou said:

True 10-bit vs 8-bit + FRC Monitor | What is the difference?

https://www.isolapse.com/true-10-bit-vs-8-bit-frc-monitor-what-is-the-difference/

 

Why Your HDR Monitor is (Probably) Not HDR at All – and Why DisplayHDR 400 Needs to Go

https://www.tftcentral.co.uk/blog/why-your-hdr-monitor-is-probably-not-hdr-at-all-and-why-displayhdr-400-needs-to-go/

 

Does THX Certification Matter?

https://www.technobuffalo.com/does-thx-certification-matter

 

Thanks but no thanks, as if HDR weren't just as bad as MQA to begin with.

 

I would be really grateful if they're actually focusing on proper mastering (i.e. basics and fundamentals etc.) rather than inventing whole bunch of marketing buzzwords that genuinely mean less than nothing IMHO.

You do understand what dynamic range is for audio right? 

[Anonamemouse]

I think this would be a nice idea, but there are a few small problems...

 

The Dynamic Range Meter is attempting to cover this area. Unfortunately it is quite flawed. It measures thye wrong thing. You can create the most perfect super dynamic mix and master, but add a tiny bit of low end (bass) and down goes the DR measurement. 

A much better unit would be the LUFS measurement, as used in studios. Unfortunately I don't think there is any (free or really cheap) software program to analyse music for the LUFS levels that can be installed/used by consumers. 

 

Until you find a way to tackle this so that consumers can fill a database like the Dynamic Range Database AND you can convince the guy that runs this database to close shop (which he just might agree to, I have not seen any maintenance been done for over a year now) so a new initative has a chance to grow, it's going to be a challenge.

[lucretius]

20 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Hi Guys, I haven't thought through this one yet, but the idea just came to me over lunch. Perhaps it's a dumb idea, but upon first blush it seems like a good idea. 

 

 

The movie industry has HDR / high dynamic range specifications and I believe these specs are more important than the arms race to 4K and beyond. Similarly, I'm a huge fan of audio recordings with high dynamic range and believe it's more important than the arms race to 24/192 and beyond. 

 

Question: Shouldn't there be push for an HDR equivalent standard in audio and a corresponding logo to let consumers know a recording is HDR? It seems that this is potentially more valuable information than the Hi-Res audio logo developed several years ago. 

 

Caveat: Just like in movies, HDR in audio doesn't always mean good audio quality or lack of audio quality for recordings without it. 

 

 

What would that look like for audio? And do we really need more dynamic range than what could be provided by a 24bit or 32bit file?

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, lucretius said:

 

 

What would that look like for audio? 

 

Perhaps something similar to the way the DRDB does it with Red, Yellow, and Green dynamic range labels. Or, just an HDR label on albums or tracks with a DR level at a certain spec. Not really sure. 

[lucretius]

27 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Perhaps something similar to the way the DRDB does it with Red, Yellow, and Green dynamic range labels. Or, just an HDR label on albums or tracks with a DR level at a certain spec. Not really sure. 

 

One get a lot of dynamic range out of Redbook.  I'd be happy if studios explored that instead of levelling/squashing the audio.  Maybe really give the Surprise Symphony some kick?

[The Computer Audiophile]

33 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

One get a lot of dynamic range out of Redbook.  I'd be happy if studios explored that instead of levelling/squashing the audio.  Maybe really give the Surprise Symphony some kick?

Yes. That’s kind of why I’m thinking of this. The arms race to more kilohertz but with no dynamic range is ridiculous. 

[Confused]

In rough terms, with redbook you can get close to 100dB dynamic range (ambient to uncomfortably loud), with 24 bit maybe 140dB dynamic range. (ambient to hearing damage)

 

So no new technology is needed, just sensible mastering to suit decent audio kit.

 

I would imagine the studios would like this idea too, yet another way to sell the classic albums again.  To be fair, if the mastering was indeed done properly and to a reliable standard, I would be a buyer.

 

[davide256]

 

10 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Yes. That’s kind of why I’m thinking of this. The arms race to more kilohertz but with no dynamic range is ridiculous. 

Would love to get the experience of Sheffield Direct to DIsc with digital audio. HD storage is cheap ... no issues with upping my storage from 2TB to 20Tb to house

the same library at full dynamic range

[yamamoto2002]

The most important concept of HDR10 is, they define 1:1 relation between digital signal value and pixel output illuminance, now content creators decide end user monitor's brightness ( Candela per square meter) , end user cannot adjust monitor brightness.

 

Equivalent of audio is to fix sound pressure level of users' speakers and remove volume knob from amplifier. I think it is possible in movie theaters...

 

[AudioDoctor]

1 hour ago, lucretius said:

 

 

What would that look like for audio? And do we really need more dynamic range than what could be provided by a 24bit or 32bit file?

 

 

I dont think it's about MORE dynamic range as it is identifying the masterings that have the dynamic range they should have and are not compressed to hell.

[AudioDoctor]

I can count my 16/44 albums that have zero hits on HQPlayers new counter of limiter hits on one hand. Less compressed files would be very welcome, and listen up music companies, if real, would make me spend money again buying music.

 

The only problem I see with this approach is that there are types of music that by their nature have very little dynamic range.

[danadam]

I wouldn't count on the audio industry to agree/follow any standard. It literally took technological companies (spotify, youtube) to implement loudness normalization for them.

But there still is The Dynamic Range Day Award 🙂

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 hours ago, lucretius said:

 

 

What would that look like for audio? And do we really need more dynamic range than what could be provided by a 24bit or 32bit file?

 

That’s the theoretical dynamic range. I’m talking about the dynamic range used. 

[JoeWhip]

When I listen to the Pittsburg Symphony’s rendition of Bruckner’s Symphony Number 9, I hear excellent dynamics, especially the second movements. I have it in AIFF 24/192. The the CD on dynamic range database has the three movements as 11 9 and 13. Sounds a lot more dynamic than that for me.

[KeenObserver]

It seems as though the big studios do not want to put out their music at top quality. The boutique and small classical labels put out some outstanding recordings.

Instituting a quality rating that would push the majors to put out better quality music would be of great benefit.

[lucretius]

1 hour ago, JoeWhip said:

When I listen to the Pittsburg Symphony’s rendition of Bruckner’s Symphony Number 9, I hear excellent dynamics, especially the second movements. I have it in AIFF 24/192. The the CD on dynamic range database has the three movements as 11 9 and 13. Sounds a lot more dynamic than that for me.

No reason we couldn't have 16 or 17.

[lucretius]

20 hours ago, JoeWhip said:

HDRQ

There's that Q again!  😃