HDR Audio

[firedog]

57 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Now you've proven my point: a "DR of 12" is not "High Dynamic Range".  We're talking pop music here.  It's misleading or even disingenuous to suggest that restoring recordings to their pre-Loudness-Wars levels result in something that's "High Dynamic Range".

 

I would like all victims of the Loudness Wars restored to their past glory.  Californication is drenched in contemporaneous pop production values, including a vanishingly small dynamic range.  I think @The Computer Audiophile would be better served creating a Kickstarter campaign to hire Rubellan Remasters to remaster the title rather than this misleading concept that bestows a "High Dynamic Range" moniker to pop music.

 

 

You are arguing a pedantic, pointless point that has little to do with the issue.

Most pop music by it's nature won't have the DR of  orchestral music. That's just the type of music it is. DR of 12 is typical for pop music of the 60's and 70's.

 

Here's what's going on: DR of 12 is very high dynamic range compared to the same track remastered with a dynamic range of 4 or 5, as it is done today.

That's what people complain about. No one was complaining about the DR or those tracks 40-50 years ago. They started  to complain when it became commonplace for the distribution master to be mastered  at DR of 3-8. 

 

If you don't think a Shirelle's track mastered at DR10-14 sounds different than the same track remastered with a DR of 4-5,  I respectfully suggest you bow out of the discussion, as apparently you aren't capable of understanding it.

[Samuel T Cogley]

41 minutes ago, firedog said:

You are arguing a pedantic, pointless point that has little to do with the issue.

Most pop music by it's nature won't have the DR of  orchestral music. That's just the type of music it is. DR of 12 is typical for pop music of the 60's and 70's.

 

Here's what's going on: DR of 12 is very high dynamic range compared to the same track remastered with a dynamic range of 4 or 5, as it is done today.

That's what people complain about. No one was complaining about the DR or those tracks 40-50 years ago. They started  to complain when it became commonplace for the distribution master to be mastered  at DR of 3-8. 

 

If you don't think a Shirelle's track mastered at DR10-14 sounds different than the same track remastered with a DR of 4-5,  I respectfully suggest you bow out of the discussion, as apparently you aren't capable of understanding it.

 

This thread started with a (in my opinion) misguided idea that there could/should be an equivalent "HDR Audio" answer to HDR Video.  This forum in particular knows the pitfalls of misleading marketing claims (hello MQA).  When it comes to media consumption, the technology always drives the media formats, not vice versa.  HDR video is available on physical media as well as streaming.  Why?  Because TVs now have the ability to display a much brighter picture.  I think the marketing term "HDR Video" is apt, because people in their homes can now see content at contrast levels never experienced in movie theaters.  Put another way, it's the highest visual dynamic range ever seen in the home.

 

But we all know audio doesn't work this way.  I concede we haven't agreed on what level of audio dynamic range would qualify as "high", but to link it in any way to HDR video is misleading.  And the idea that "HDR Audio" can somehow gain traction without the requisite advances in consumer technology is just a pipe dream.  All of our systems are already High Dynamic Range.  Ergo, there's nothing new to buy, ergo, there is no way to drive consumers to The New Thing, ergo, there's nothing in it for the record labels.

 

I'm all for remastering all the victim recordings of the Loudness Wars.  But nothing in this concept provides any incentive for the record companies to do so.

 

And I'll just say as someone who bought up lots and lots of white-glove remasters in the Nineties, Augties and Teens, those were limited runs, rarely more than 10,000 units.  The market for white glove remasters has shrunken A LOT since then.  There are niche remaster labels like Rubellan Remasters, but gone are the heady days of DCC, Audio Fidelity, and MFSL (I note that MoFi now sells SACDs and digitally sourced vinyl exclusively, a niche in a niche).

 

While Californication isn't really my thing (I think they peaked with their 1984 debut), I would absolutely embrace an effort to remaster all those abused recordings.  But think about how much difficulty MQA has had convincing the broader market that MQA is a Good Thing.  I think "HDR Audio" would be an even tougher sell.

 

 

[sphinxsix]

1 hour ago, Summit said:

Yes you sure did. 

Have you read my posts there? There's no contradiction here. I haven't changed my mind since then - DR matters but it's not everything that matters and it's not necessarily the decisive factor as for SQ.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

16 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

This thread started with a (in my opinion) misguided idea that there could/should be an equivalent "HDR Audio" answer to HDR Video.  This forum in particular knows the pitfalls of misleading marketing claims (hello MQA).  When it comes to media consumption, the technology always drives the media formats, not vice versa.  HDR video is available on physical media as well as streaming.  Why?  Because TVs now have the ability to display a much brighter picture.  I think the marketing term "HDR Video" is apt, because people in their homes can now see content at contrast levels never experienced in movie theaters.  Put another way, it's the highest visual dynamic range ever seen in the home.

 

But we all know audio doesn't work this way.  I concede we haven't agreed on what level of audio dynamic range would qualify as "high", but to link it in any way to HDR video is misleading.  And the idea that "HDR Audio" can somehow gain traction without the requisite advances in consumer technology is just a pipe dream.  All of our systems are already High Dynamic Range.  Ergo, there's nothing new to buy, ergo, there is no way to drive consumers to The New Thing, ergo, there's nothing in it for the record labels.

 

I'm all for remastering all the victim recordings of the Loudness Wars.  But nothing in this concept provides any incentive for the record companies to do so.

 

And I'll just say as someone who bought up lots and lots of white-glove remasters in the Nineties, Augties and Teens, those were limited runs, rarely more than 10,000 units.  The market for white glove remasters has shrunken A LOT since then.  There are niche remaster labels like Rubellan Remasters, but gone are the heady days of DCC, Audio Fidelity, and MFSL (I note that MoFi now sells SACDs and digitally sourced vinyl exclusively, a niche in a niche).

 

While Californication isn't really my thing (I think they peaked with their 1984 debut), I would absolutely embrace an effort to remaster all those abused recordings.  But think about how much difficulty MQA has had convincing the broader market that MQA is a Good Thing.  I think "HDR Audio" would be an even tougher sell.

 

 

 

Perhaps it starts with a label (not record label). Nobody needs to change anything in their audio system or on the recording. If we see the same album on Qobuz twice, one is labeled HD and DR4, while the other is labeled CD and DR12. If anything it starts with educated and this would put the information in people's hands. 

 

Most people won't care, but we can say the same thing about video. If DR12 streams more than DR4, then the content owners have incentive to create DR12. 

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Perhaps it starts with a label (not record label). Nobody needs to change anything in their audio system or on the recording. If we see the same album on Qobuz twice, one is labeled HD and DR4, while the other is labeled CD and DR12. If anything it starts with educated and this would put the information in people's hands. 

 

Most people won't care, but we can say the same thing about video. If DR12 streams more than DR4, then the content owners have incentive to create DR12. 

 

 

There's a reason HDTracks doesn't publish DR numbers.  The record labels don't want them to.  If the MQA debacle has taught me anything, it's that the record labels loathe their consumers more than almost any other media companies.

 

When HDTracks had an "uncompressed version" of Band On The Run, I absolutely purchased it.  I also note that the 192kHz version of the Van Halen catalog had little to no peak limiting where the 96kHz and below versions DID.  And I purchased the 192kHz versions as well.

 

But again, HDTracks is a niche.

 

Bob Katz somewhat famously predicted that Mastered For iTunes would end the Loudness Wars.  That hasn't really happened.  If you want to talk specifics about how we socialize this media DR labeling idea to the record labels, I'm all ears.  But "piggy-backing" on HDR video is foolish.  It's not even close to the same market.

[Allan F]

18 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

What do you suppose was the dynamic range of the typical pop 78?  Or Phil Spector's entire career output?  Pop has pretty much always been compressed.

 

I understand the notion of "HDR Audio" being some way to bring the Loudness Wars to heel, but let's call it that, and not try to compare it to HDR video.  The analogy fails on so many levels.

 

Perhaps you can assist me because I must have missed it. I can't seem to find a comparison or, for that matter, any reference to HDR video in my post. 🙂

 

Moreover, your reference to the Loudness Wars would certainly appear to be agreement that the degree of compression in pop music has increased as a consequence thereof which, of course, was my point.

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 hour ago, Allan F said:

 

Perhaps you can assist me because I must have missed it. I can't seem to find a comparison or, for that matter, any reference to HDR video in my post. 🙂

 

Moreover, your reference to the Loudness Wars would certainly appear to be agreement that the degree of compression in pop music has increased as a consequence thereof which, of course, was my point.

 

In the OP's first post, the correlation to HDR Video is right there.  A real logo for HDR video side-by-side with an imagined logo for "HDR Audio".

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

In the OP's first post, the correlation to HDR Video is right there.  A real logo for HDR video side-by-side with an imagined logo for "HDR Audio".

Both logos are for HDR video 

[Samuel T Cogley]

25 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Both logos are for HDR video 

 

 

As long as we're on the topic, do you know how many nits of brightness your TV has?  My Sony claims to be 900 nits.

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

 

As long as we're on the topic, do you know how many nits of brightness your TV has?  My Sony claims to be 900 nits.

Only thing I know is that my computer display has 1600 nits. 

[AudioDoctor]

11 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

 

As long as we're on the topic, do you know how many nits of brightness your TV has?  My Sony claims to be 900 nits.

 

Who cares?

IN the context of this topic I know that a music file that has not been compressed sounds better than a music file that has been compressed.

[AudioDoctor]

13 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Only thing I know is that my computer display has 1600 nits. 

 

About that. My monitor is 600 nits and I have to browse in dark mode, especially at night or the thing is just far too bright. I can't even imagine what 1600 nits must look like.

[Samuel T Cogley]

If your display device isn't giving you sunburn, it's not bright enough 😊

[fas42]

The potential brightness of the screen means almost nothing - what one needs to do is carefully adjust, if necessary, the settings of the TV so that the full range of brightness is always used - so, a black which is slightly less than full black shows up as a different shade, visibly; and a white which is a touch less than the maximum brightness, is clearly distinct from full on screen 'power'. If one does this, on even a very ordinary TV, then the imagery comes across very nicely - none of the potential detail is lost ... hmmm, sounds sorta familiar, 🤣.

[The Computer Audiophile]

54 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

If your display device isn't giving you sunburn, it's not bright enough 😊

That’s how I get the virtual reality feeling when I watch the beach scenes in Jaws. Sunburn here I come. 

[AudioDoctor]

4 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

If your display device isn't giving you sunburn, it's not bright enough 😊

 

I am VERY Minnesotan. If I suntan it could lead to death... 

[lucretius]

6 hours ago, AudioDoctor said:

 

I am VERY Minnesotan. If I suntan it could lead to death... 

 

Probably just so happy it's not winter.  🙂