Tuttle et al v Audiophile Music Direct

[musicjunkie917]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

If anything, I’d say calling it one-step is kind of comical. I see multiple steps being advertised, even before the kerfuffle. 

 

It's called  "One-Step" because the vinyl the consumer ends up with is only "one step" from the lacquer instead of three steps.....

[musicjunkie917]

12 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

People paying $100+ for Santana's Abraxas seem to be a bit larger than this "vanishingly small %" you suggest.

 

Well, there are only 2500 copies of the One Step release in existence. I would think 2500 is a rather small percentage of the vinyl buying public. This page would indicate that 2500 people is an extremely small percentage of the vinyl buying public:

 

https://thehustle.co/the-insane-resurgence-of-vinyl-records/

[musicjunkie917]

33 minutes ago, Iving said:

 

This guy is an idiot. The "original" explanation from MoFi was just an apology for being so vague. The answers Jim Davis provided to Absolute Sound are based on why the chose to use DSD. Two different things. The answer the Enginneers gave said that a DSD copy of the master tape(s) is better than a tape copy regardless of tape size or speed. Jim Davis echoed that....

[musicjunkie917]

2 hours ago, firedog said:

The tool in Roon (works on average levels, not peaks, so is less sensitive to the impact of silence) gives some more difference in the results, but I don't hear a big difference in actual listening that seems to reflect the numbers. 

 

 

This was posted on the Roon forum:

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

Roon uses EBU R128 to calculate dynamic range while most people in the audio world, including the Dynamic Range database, use a crest factor algorithm. 

 

EBU R128 is perfect for volume leveling and the fact that Roon uses this to do volume leveling is great. People wanting the Dynamic Range Database DR numbers too is not a criticism of that choice. It is a realistic request based on the fact that the DR database numbers are more reflective of the actual amount of compression any given track may have. Look at this:

 

https://www.maat.digital/droffline/ 12

 

Specifically:

 

“Unlike R128 and BS. 1770 meters, DR measures dynamic range from the perspective of a music engineer’s needs. In contrast, R128 and 1770 are designed to control loudness for commercials , not measure dynamic range for music, especially pop music. DR isn’t designed for broadcast loudness control, it’s purpose is to gauge the amount of dynamic range reduction, or the absence of dynamic range contrast. Designed by a member of the EBU ploud committee, the same body that created R128, DR informs an engineer about how much the mix is being or has been “stepped on,” dynamic range-wise, not about “will it pass through a broadcast chain without loudness reduction?”

 

I used to use volume leveling but I have turned it off. Why? Two reasons. First, it was sucking the life out of the music. It was diminishing the soundstage by making it less 3D. Second, I started listening to full albums almost exclusively so volume leveling became unnecessary as I have a remote control volume and don’t mind making an adjustment for each album. Though most of the time I don’t feel the need.

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

 

I, personally, have found EBU R128 to be a poor indicator of dynamic range and compression compared to the crest factor algorithm used by the DR Database.