Dynamic range scores: a cautionary note

[Newman]

I have been observing, on SNA and elsewhere, a lot of discussion about music recordings that suffer poor sound quality because they have been post-processed in a way that compresses the dynamics of the music in an audible and unattractive way. This is closely related to the so-called Loudness War – look it up if you need it explained – and a lot of audiophiles are quite upset about having the studio-mastered sonics of a lot of desired music denied to them. I fully subscribe to these concerns. There has also been a sub-set of concern where audiophiles might be unhappy that any dynamic compression has been applied to the master files prior to distribution, given the fact that good-resolution digital media really don't need it. That is all well and good by me.

 

However, what is not so well and good by me, is the way audiophiles are approaching this issue by using three cornerstones of non-listening analysis: [1] The dynamic range (DR) score, typically using the TT-DR software; [2] The relative 'DR' scores of digital and vinyl copies of the same music; [3] The visual examination of the waveform plot of a whole song on a single-screen view on a computer. These three cornerstones are leading to a lot of unwarranted angst, underserved criticism of many recordings, and undeserved preference for a lot of vinyl pressings to digital editions of the same music.

 

Is vinyl really more dynamic?

If we peruse the online loudness war DR database, it does not take long to observe a general trend to higher DR scores for the vinyl editions over the CD or digital editions of the same music. However, it is almost certainly all a mirage. There are several mechanisms that artificially boost the DR score for vinyl: the RIAA equalisation; surface imperfections; and cartridge inaccuracies. This has been discussed elsewhere:

“There was also some discussion in another thread about what happens with the RIAA pre/post equalization and the electrical-mechanical conversion effects of the cutting head & playback cartridge. You effectively get an all-pass filter which shifts the phase differently at different frequencies while keeping the overall frequency response flat (or as flat as is possible with analog vinyl).

“The all-pass filter ends-up affecting the peaks, basically making half the peaks larger and half the peaks smaller. This does not affect the sound, loudness, or perceived dynamics, but some peaks are higher (up to 6dB, I think). So apparently, you can get a 6dB "improvement" in measured dynamic range with no change in the sound of the dynamics. i.e. If the peak of one "wave" (one cycle) in a file is increased or decreased by 6dB, your ear/brain cannot hear it.... Your brain sort-of takes a short-term average and a longer-term average.... Making some peaks "randomly" higher and other peaks lower doesn't change the short-term or long-term perceived loudness.

“This "false" increase in dynamic range on vinyl only happens when the original is compressed. It's related to how the various frequency components are limited together when you compress. If you shift some of the frequency components around in phase (and time), the average will be the same but some peaks will be higher and some peaks will be lower because different frequency components are compressed/limited at (very-slightly) different times.â€

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=101334&view=findpost&p=837098

 

Also: http://www.audiostream.com/content/dynamic-compression-have-and-have-not – questions the assumption that DR score is a guide to sound quality, and concludes that it may be, but only for re-releases of the same music.

 

Cartridges and their frequency response errors.

Let's look at the unsmoothed frequency response of the cartridge that is used to play the LP for digitising and then measurement with TT-DR. It is not as flat as one might wish. Let us say it is a Zyx 4-DX which has a maximum FR peak of 6 dB in the treble. This will almost certainly increase the peak signal by 6 dB, which will increase the DR meter result by --- up to 6 dB. Even though the vinyl doesn’t have this DR value in its grooves, the cartridge adds it to the signal and creates a false reading.

 

We now see that the DR score, if it is 6 or so points higher for the vinyl version, does not suggest a different master. Remember to subtract about 5 or 6 points AT LEAST from vinyl DR numbers to account for errors in the process.

 

An Example: Daft Punk, Random Access Memories.

 

“Caveat about the Dynamic Range Meter: it doesn't always work properly on vinyl rips, allegedly because of clicks and pops that artificially inflate the DR score. The most recent example of that is the vinyl release of Random Access Memories by Daft Punk (~DR12 IIRC), which I (successfully) ABXed against the CD, and also compared in Audacity. The vinyl sounded like it had some high frequency cut-off, and despite it's largely superior DR score, it didn't sound (nor look) like it had more dynamic range. The CD sounds really good, despite its lowish DR score of DR8 (I recommend it).†http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=101334&view=findpost&p=837023

 

“If you speak French, here is an interview with the mastering engineer of RAM.â€
Exclusif Qobuz : Chab raconte le mastering du nouveau Daft Punk ! http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f13-audiophile-downloads/daft-punk-random-access-memories-hdtracks-16161/index2.html#post232113

“Just a comment: for once, HD Tracks isn't to blame. The 24/88 is the master that, according to the interview with the Mastering engineer (in French) I've posted above, all other versions, including ITunes and Vinyl, are derived from.

 

“The same engineer also explicitly said that the compression was added at request of Thomas Bangalter of DaftPunk to add more "punch". I agree that a 100% electronic recording like this shouldn't be judged the same way as regular acoustic recordings.†http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f13-audiophile-downloads/daft-punk-random-access-memories-hdtracks-16161/index2.html#post233672

 

It is interesting that this evidence, that the 24/88 release is the same master used for the vinyl, is confirmation of the view that vinyl gets boosted TT-DR ratings, and that the estimated amount of 6 points is confirmed.

 

It is a pity that so many music audiophiles do not understand this aspect of the DR database. There really should be a note on the home page about how to 'read' vinyl ratings. Maybe the database website owners expected it would be obvious, when time and again vinyl, that is obviously not a special master, rates 5 or so points higher than CD, even for CDs made in the era before the loudness wars.

 

“I bet that easily the majority of those records are sourced from similarly mastered tracks as the corresponding CD. The inaccuracies inherent in playing and recording vinyl act to exaggerate peaks and thus artificially inflate DR Meter values. I have encountered several times people on the Internet raving about how much better a record sounds than the CD of the same album when I know for sure they were produced from the same mastering (like Bob Dylan's recent albums, which have hilariously/frustratingly been held up as transformative and oh-so-great-sounding on vinyl, compared to the "fatiguing" CDs).

“Here's a rather simple way to check. Load a track from the CD into any audio editor and zoom in and find a peak that clips. The larger the flat line is the better. Then load the same song from the vinyl recording and don't be too impressed by the "more natural" appearance of many peaks sticking out above others in varying degrees. Locate the same place that you found the clipped peak on the CD version and look at it. It definitely won't be flat anymore, but it will likely be a curved line with less complexity than the stuff surrounding it – a straight line that has been bent. If this is so, that's a tell-tale sign the record has been pressed from the same bad mastering job, whether or not it was 24/96. If you don't see that, and if the same can be said for other places where there was clipping on the CD version, congratulations, you probably have a record that indeed was mastered better. If you do find the clipping, you'll probably also see that if you volume match like with ReplayGain and compare the two waveforms, the vinyl recording looks superficially different in peaks, but the average volume will be the same throughout (which it wouldn't be if you matched volumes and one was really different, like less compressed) and the brick-walled form is still there under the misleading peaks.

“There are many times with vinyl that the music gets changed in the process of getting that recorded sound to you. The engineer at the pressing plant may have to roll off high frequencies to prevent overheating of the cutting lathe, especially on very loud material. The pressing, I would guess, is not going to give an exact 1:1 representation of the waveform anyway. Your phonograph cartridge surely does not have a flat frequency response, and so is boosting and cutting different frequencies, acting like an EQ, and simply equalizing moderately a brick-walled recording is likely to boost the DR Meter's rating a couple decibels. There's also turntable rumble and vinyl artefacts like tracking distortion and treble distortion as the arm moves closer to the centre of the record. The signal is then sent, analogue (i.e. imperfectly, to some degree) to an amplifier that probably has its own tonal coloration, and if you're recording that's another device with its own characteristics. So finally, you end up with your recorded file, and those flattened peaks don't come out so flat anymore, but the damage is still there, even if it has been masked. Other people could probably even point out sound-altering steps in the vinyl chain I missed.

“It's true, the record may well sound better even on an album that's produced from the same master as the CD, but that's probably because you (that is, generic you, not necessarily you in particular, Dave) prefer the EQ that's effectively been done to it and a similar result could be achieved by playing the CD with an EQ curve approximating your cartridge's. Often it's a bass and treble boost, which makes drums and cymbals sound more present and most other things seem a bit nicer.†http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=101602&view=findpost&p=839683

 

And, same author….

 

“In regards to a DR rating of 6 for the CD versus 11 or 12 for the record likely not being caused just by cartridge EQ: it may not be just that, but with the combination of it and some other factors that I named, it certainly is possible. The very first song I did a comparison of from stuff I already had on my hard drive was The Strokes' "Under Cover of Darkness", which the DR Meter rates a 6 on the CD, but gives the recording from the 7" single release a 12. I have done the clipped peak/average volume test, and, indeed, the record is surely the same (loud) master. I can give screenshots and the DR logs, if you want. The recording certainly does sound different, but that's not the mastering's merit.†http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=101602&view=findpost&p=839689

 

 

Closing comments on DR scores

 

By the time you add corrections for cartridge response, for the phase effects of RIAA on the DR meter, for clicks and pops, for high distortion at high frequencies…… if we are not taking at least 6 points off of the DR scores for vinyl, we are perpetuating a myth. Best solution is not to use DR metering at all on vinyl.

 

So, in most discussions (and in threads like the SNA Shame List Bad Redbook CD Transfers), I don’t think the DR scores have been used very effectively. The general line of argument is that a higher DR score for vinyl tells us that the digital release is unnecessarily and damagingly compressed. This is not a good argument: lots of perfectly good digital music is being dismissed, using this wrong analytical technique. The Daft Punk RAM album is an illustrative example. It appears that the 24-bit download is the original master file, and the vinyl originates from that file. But the digital is criticised and described (wrongly) as artificially dynamically compressed, because the vinyl edition (which distorts the original in a way that scores a 5-points-higher DR rating) is assumed to be closer to the master based solely on that higher DR score! What follows is pure auto-suggestion, whereby we perceive the vinyl as more dynamic because we are biased by DR scores and, in some instances, biased by vinyl itself.

 

What would be an intelligent way to use the DR scores? First of all, forget vinyl, and only compare digital releases. Secondly, never compare different songs or albums; instead, restrict comparisons to different digital versions of the same song or album. Thirdly, remember that exclusive audiophile labels could easily manipulate DR numbers (with or without making any audible changes) if they sense that their audiophile customers are using DR number as a purchase criterion. Fourthly, remember that some music is played or produced with low dynamics by the musicians, as part of their artistic intent.

 

Hmm. Maybe the intelligent way to use DR scores is to not use them, and use our ears to determine if we think some specific music is being sonically compromised, then look to DR database or online discussions for evidence, based on DR scores (of digital formats), that some better alternatives exist – excluding vinyl.

 

 

Waveform plots.

We can also get the wrong impression of dynamic post-compression from looking at waveform plots of songs in a superficial manner. I think the quote below matches my thoughts on this point.

 

http://audiamorous.blogspot.co.uk/2008/09/waveform-plots-considered-harmful.html:

 

“What is to be done?

• “Avoid the use of zoomed-out waveform plots to prove points about sound quality. They convey less information than you might think, and they are easy to misinterpret.

• “Do not trust the sound quality of a record simply because it looks good on a waveform plot. The ear is not an oscilloscope. Waveform plots are an informational tool, but the only relate to the perception of hearing in an abstract sense. There are plenty of ways that a good-looking waveform plot can sound terrible!

• “Avoid using any numeric measurement for evaluating audio quality, unless you understand exactly its exact meaning for audio perception. Most numeric tools today are fairly flawed. They can be used to make meaningful statements about mastering quality in specific circumstances, but they can also make lots of meaningless or flawed statements.

• “Do not buy vinyl on mastering merits alone, unless you have information coming from the vinyl mastering engineer attesting to its superiority over other release. As a rule of thumb, the cost of a vinyl remaster is high enough that those labels that choose to remaster will make it quite clear to potential customers that they did so, and the labels that didn't, won't. But of course, just because a special mastering job was done for a vinyl release doesn't mean that the mastering changes were significant. Caveat emptor.

• “Enjoy music purely on its subjective merits, but pay attention to your perceptions and look for ways to quantify it. There's too much good music out there today to ignore because the mastering is crap. And despite the shrill cries of the hi-fi set, the sound quality of music today is still considerably better than what it was for (most of) the last 60 years. And if all the kids today have no problem listening to the music, who's to say that us old farts can't listen to it too?
  
  “Nevertheless, reduced dynamic range and increased distortion in modern mastering are real issues. Solving them requires subjective and objective evaluations of sound quality, rigorous in their execution, to convince the audio world that this is not mere idle talk of ignorable audiophiles.â€

 

 

Here is an anecdotal example from a record producer, of a Stereophile reviewer, with a bias for vinyl, fooling himself:

 

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/5511973-post15.html “I once had a reviewer from Stereophile call and was raving, raving I tell you, about the sound of an LP done the same way: I sent my eq'd CD master and someone else cut the lacquer.

"The depth, the detail, the microdynamics are beyond compare, it's just more proof of the superiority of analog."

"But it was cut from a 16 bit digital source."

"Impossible."

"I was at the session."

"Don't you tell me what I'm hearing!"

"Uh, I gotta get back to work......."

 

 

By the time we add together the way we are using dynamic range scores and the way we are using zoomed-out waveform plots, I think it adds up to an over-reaction and an over-simplification. Yes, there are songs and albums being distributed with gross clipping and crude dynamic compression that are clearly audible. But, IMHO, the tools we are using are wrongly leading to many healthy babies being thrown out with the bathwater.

[fetischizm]

great post mate, makes perfect sense, well I do disagree on a couple points. there are styles of music and this is one of them, where it makes sense to use compression as totally uncompressed simply doesnt suit all styles of music, makes it really difficult, or near impossible for the recording engineer for multitracked albums, or bands and could easily not be as involving. adds bite and pop to kicks, edge to guitars etc

 

analogue and now high depth analogue modelled compressors are part of the sound and actually you will find many artists in electronica and rock/alternative (even the ones who predominantly use old analogue synths) will actually have collections of expensive old and new compressors they will choose from for a particular sound, or a particular instrument. this is the case with quite a lot of rock too. I can tell you as long as its not overdone and as long as it doesnt result in clipping or full bore loudness wars (which RAM clearly doesnt if you look at the spectrograms of the HDTRACKS master) its a good thing. this can obviously be taken too far, but there is a marked difference between compression (as in compressors) and limiting, they are not the same thing. brick wall filtering is the latter mostly.

 

hillarious watching that guy vinylphile on CA that is so convinced the vinyl is superior he has completely dismissed the perfectly logical conclusion that noise, mistracking, RMAA  and half wave distortion is the reason for the higher DNR as seen in the DN database. He keeps banging on about it even with the producer confirming its the master for the vinyl. in fact surface noise is one of the reasons top vinyl preamps need good slewrate and bandwidth, so the surface noise and transients dont cause oscillation or overload.

 

funny how people are so sure of measurements when they help them make their point even if they wouldnt usually be so sure. you can bet hes one of those 'measurements are not that important' chaps otherwise

 

also several comments saying they liked this latest album so much better than their others, but that they mustn't be audiophiles, just completely and utterly making **** up. any real daft punk fan will tell you while this is a great album, the first album homework is the best whether they are audiophiles or not, they have better gear than you buddy, they regularly commission custom discrete solid state DIY stuff for their studio and having seen some of it, there aint many/any corners cut, probably less so than most commercial audiophile gear.

Edited August 3, 2013 by fetischizm

[Gee Emm]

Hello Newman.

Is this a long winded way of saying you personally prefer digital ?

Graham

[betty boop]

Newman, I can understand your post on this topic in the debate section. especially since your supporting justification to prop up your argument is other peoples opinion ? from other forums ? and blogs ? havent you got anything better. and am not really being dismissive here, just hope you realise there is only so far you can get with propping up an argument based upon opinion, worse still other peoples opinion

 

I dont personally have a problem with dynamic range of LPs or vs the range compressed CD releases. you see I am format agnostic, ie cd, sacd, dvd-a, digital streams, vinyl LPs, to me they are just sources of music and its just a means to an end. 

 

some good articles, comparison of dynamic range CD, LP, DVD-A, SACD. a five part series from audioholics

 

http://www.audioholics.com/education/audio-formats-technology/dynamic-comparison-of-cd-dvd-a-sacd-part-1

 

http://www.audioholics.com/education/audio-formats-technology/dynamic-comparison-of-cd-dvd-a-sacd-part-2

 

http://www.audioholics.com/education/audio-formats-technology/dynamic-comparison-of-cd-dvd-a-sacd-part-3

 

including LPs vs Cds

http://www.audioholics.com/education/audio-formats-technology/dynamic-comparison-of-lps-vs-cds-part-4

 

http://www.audioholics.com/education/audio-formats-technology/dynamic-comparison-sacd-vs-cd-part-5

 

I do agree quoting dynamic is something to be very carefull about though, the editorial below from TNT audio sums up well with regard the "new" universal studio blu-ray audio releases that are claiming 144db dynamic range ! :lol:

 

http://www.tnt-audio.com/edcorner/june13.html

 

as he says in his premise CD/SACD are doomed as digital formats and vinyl and digital downloads are taking over. and the situation isnt helped at all with the majors when they are taking old tired masters and trying to turn them into the emperors new clothes. a lack of understanding of codec or format dynamic range vs room and system capability is also obviously lacking. even with codec people for instance dont realise that codecs like dolby truehd (and this is from amir m from microsoft whom co developed dolby truehd, whom gave us the great bit of info) compresses "loss less" by or instance is it looks for gaps of what it sees as silence and rather than storing silence .... just considers it as silence ! any surprise there is a 144db dynamic range.

 

only have to then see that though the top capability of 24 192 is 144db your average blu-ray player is only specd to 100db or so ! . your top line oppo 105 has to go to 32 bit upsampling to try achieve 135db ! 

 

I for my self have a well recorded CD/SACD/blu-ray (2L) comparison discs which have replayed on a flaghip player, processor and can tell you there isnt the level of difference that has me screaming from the roof tops that blu-ray audio is the king and cd, sacd and vinyl are dead ! simply isnt the case. I'll continue on to be format agnostic. and enjoy each for what it is

 

so tell us newman are you a vinyl fan

Edited August 3, 2013 by :) al

[betty boop]

"Hello Newman."

~

Graham

 

jerry sienfeld ?  

 

Edited August 3, 2013 by :) al

[Newman]

Newman, I can understand your post on this topic in the debate section.

Maybe I should have put it in the Music section? Happy to take guidance from the mods on this. I actually didn't want a debate; I just wanted to advise caution in this area.

And to people who want to re-badge this topic as digital vs vinyl, I want to emphasise that my focus with this thread is that many perfectly good recordings are being dismissed based on numeric measurements that are wrong in a major way, and visual evidence that is actually quite misleading. People are then turning to versions that are no better, possibly worse, but have a misleadingly high score. I think that's important (to our community).

[Newman]

some good articles, comparison of dynamic range CD, LP, DVD-A, SACD. 

 

only have to then see that though the top capability of 24 192 is 144db your average blu-ray player is only specd to 100db or so ! . your top line oppo 105 has to go to 32 bit upsampling to try achieve 135db ! 

 

No, you have the wrong idea of the topic I am raising. It is not about the maximum available dynamic range in each format. It is about the dynamics in music as recorded and released in various masters, and how badly we are using non-listening methods of estimating it.

[LogicprObe]

This compressor just got a rave review in AT Magazine.

 

http://charteroakacoustics.com/SCL1_DETAIL.html

 

I suspect we'll be hearing it whether we know it or not!

[betty boop]

No, you have the wrong idea of the topic I am raising. It is not about the maximum available dynamic range in each format. It is about the dynamics in music as recorded and released in various masters, and how badly we are using non-listening methods of estimating it.

 

you dont think I understand that ? *blink* that particular illustration is about how even a huge studio such as universal can mislead people with dynamic range ! and with particular discussion re the actual dynamic range of recordings - and the other factors that impact. caution is indeed needed. thats what my post was about. obviously went through to the keeper *whatever* I use my ears just as anyone else does with regard music. but also dont have a problem with other means people might have to judge or evaluate music as with any measurements can be interpreted in many ways .... 

Edited August 4, 2013 by :) al

[hochopeper]

I want to emphasise that my focus with this thread is that many perfectly good recordings are being dismissed based on numeric measurements that are wrong in a major way, and visual evidence that is actually quite misleading. People are then turning to versions that are no better, possibly worse, but have a misleadingly high score. I think that's important (to our community).

 

Quoting the above because it's what I was about to write myself 

 

It's all about the music (New)man!! 

[betty boop]

Maybe I should have put it in the Music section? Happy to take guidance from the mods on this. I actually didn't want a debate; I just wanted to advise caution in this area.

And to people who want to re-badge this topic as digital vs vinyl, I want to emphasise that my focus with this thread is that many perfectly good recordings are being dismissed based on numeric measurements that are wrong in a major way, and visual evidence that is actually quite misleading. People are then turning to versions that are no better, possibly worse, but have a misleadingly high score. I think that's important (to our community).

 

still wouldnt mind knowing if you are a vinyl fan

 

but look if dont want people to debate what you post, and just accept it compliantly. then yeah first suggestion might be ...dont post in the "great debate" sub forum !  :lol:

[darthlaker]

Newman, just for fun (if you'd like), I have the HD download of RAM and also the LP.

 

More than welcome to pop over for a listen sometime........

[metal beat]

WOW Newman, I am impressed.  Lots of detail without any reference to actual listening to the music or if the measures of CD, vinyl correlate to how it sounds.

 

Listening to the music is how I assess if the recording is nice dynamic one.  Personally I hate the shame file loudness thread as frankly a lot of the albums that are soooooo bad, frankly sound fine on lp. 

 

I have never not bought an album because it was on the shame file. Poor digital remasters of LP's I all ready have is another matter.

 

For me if I dig the music, I buy the album, generally on vinyl as to me it sounds more enjoyable.

 

cheers

Edited August 4, 2013 by turntable

[hired goon]

[...]a similar result could be achieved by playing the CD with an EQ curve approximating your cartridge's

Intuitively, I agree with the OP's point about being careful when comparing waveforms and DR ratings derived from multiple sources. It would be interesting if one could take a digital waveform, run it through a database of EQ curves (approximating different cartridges and RIAA implementations) and see how close it maps to the waveform from the vinyl rip. Then one would have greater confidence in assessing whether different masters where used, or if yer wasting yer money buying one format over the other (assuming the appropriate EQ could be applied to get the sound yer happy with).

--Geoff

[betty boop]

Intuitively, I agree with the OP's point about being careful when comparing waveforms and DR ratings derived from multiple sources. It would be interesting if one could take a digital waveform, run it through a database of EQ curves (approximating different cartridges and RIAA implementations) and see how close it maps to the waveform from the vinyl rip. Then one would have greater confidence in assessing whether different masters where used, or if yer wasting yer money buying one format over the other (assuming the appropriate EQ could be applied to get the sound yer happy with).

--Geoff

 

wouldnt that discussion also take you to what sonic charecter the dac in a digital system impacts on end result. or for that matter different filters say many players / dac involve that do impact end result. can easily compare here (as I have done many times ) say between your average dvd player with throwaway analog stage/dacs and power supply and  vs a dedicated cd player with decent dac and power supplies and analog stage. one will sound flat and anemic the other with a fuller sound with greater dynamics

[Telecine]

I observe that even if five or six points is deducted from the vinyl score, it is still as dynamic as the CD. Format selection therefore will come down to preference.

[Benje]

Newman, just for fun (if you'd like), I have the HD download of RAM and also the LP.

 

More than welcome to pop over for a listen sometime........

Newman

 

I appreciated your post - thanks.

 

DL - if this happens, let me know.  I missed meeting newman at on of the sessions earlier this year.  Not sure I have met him yet, despite mutual correspondance.

[hired goon]

wouldnt that discussion also take you to what sonic charecter the dac in a digital system impacts on end result. or for that matter different filters say many players / dac involve that do impact end result.

The point of this thread is about comparing the waveform from a digital source (as delivered over the internets, or as ripped) against a a waveform derived from an analog source, and why conclusions drawn from naive comparisons may not be warranted. If it can be shown that one waveform approximates a simple transformation of another (e.g. via typical EQ of analog playback), then that's useful information.

What we hear on our rooms (analog or digital, through DAC, pre-amp, speakers, room, etc) is a different subject.

--Geoff

[betty boop]

WOW Newman, I am impressed.  Lots of detail without any reference to actual listening to the music or if the measures of CD, vinyl correlate to how it sounds.

 

Listening to the music is how I assess if the recording is nice dynamic one.  Personally I hate the shame file loudness thread as frankly a lot of the albums that are soooooo bad, frankly sound fine on lp. 

 

I have never not bought an album because it was on the shame file. Poor digital remasters of LP's I all ready have is another matter.

 

For me if I dig the music, I buy the album, generally on vinyl as to me it sounds more enjoyable.

 

cheers

 

never bought one thing on back of any shame file/thread or loudness data or anything. but thats the beauty of forums isnt it? people can derive and report on all sorts of basis, listening and also measuring. I for one dont see one problem anyone posting in that thread that they found otherwise. whether with the media in question or from another medium. its all good info as far as I can see. and ofcourse people can take it or leave it

 

and yep I buy whatever it is for the music as well

[betty boop]

The point of this thread is about comparing the waveform from a digital source (as delivered over the internets, or as ripped) against a a waveform derived from an analog source, and why conclusions drawn from naive comparisons may not be warranted. If it can be shown that one waveform approximates a simple transformation of another (e.g. via typical EQ of analog playback), then that's useful information.

What we hear on our rooms (analog or digital, through DAC, pre-amp, speakers, room, etc) is a different subject.

--Geoff

 

what we hear in our rooms is indeed important thats what new man is talking about. you cant hear a digital source without rest of the chain to deliver to your ears. as you cant hear an analog source without the rest of chain either.

 

my point is your comparison of RIAA and carts and difference they make is no different to talking different dacs and players wiht their various different implementations

Edited August 4, 2013 by :) al

[betty boop]

Newman, just for fun (if you'd like), I have the HD download of RAM and also the LP.

 

More than welcome to pop over for a listen sometime........

 

I for one have a real problem with supposed "hd downloads" especially where they label things as 24 192 when infact thats just up sampled whatever. we dont and never will ever really know. someone has to keep the b@stards honest. whether with measurements or listening or both combined. other wise we get the corporations trying to pull wool over the eyes with claims of the 2nd coming with 144db dynamic ranges when its all BS ! 

[hired goon]

what we hear in our rooms is indeed important thats what new man is talking about. you cant hear a digital source without rest of the chain to deliver to your ears. as you cant hear an analog source without the rest of chain either.

 

my point is your comparison of RIAA and carts and difference they make is no different to talking different dacs and players wiht their various different implementations

But you do not use DACs and transports to produce digital waveforms. You do use carts and RIAA curves to produce waveforms from vinyl. And if you are going to compare waveforms from digital sources against analog sources, then the way that carts and RIAA curves affect the waveform need to be considered when drawing conclusions about the waveforms. 

Of course, even if it can be shown that the waveform from a vinyl rip is a transformation of the waveform from the digital source, it does not necessarily follow that you should be agnostic between formats. It may be the case that in your rig in your room the vinyl will sound better than the CD, even if both are derived from the same master and their waveforms are functionally equivalent. This is where the choice of DAC, pre-amp, cart, etc comes into play. This was mentioned in the original post, in that you may prefer the EQ that is applied by yer analog rig, or yer analog rig may just be better quality than yer digital rig. Get whatever floats yer boat and provides the sound that pleases you in your room with your system.

But it may be misleading to simply assert, based on comparing two waveforms, that "the vinyl has a better master than the CD" or "the vinyl will sound better than the CD" (ceteris paribus) without taking into account why the waveforms may be different, and if that difference is relevant. Nothing to do with playback here.

--Geoff

[betty boop]

misleading ? I dont think its anyones intent to mislead anyone. as long as measurements are presented as such. I dont have a problem with them. just as peoples own listening impressions. you could take those as misleading as well. I for one take them at face value. doesnt mean I might experinece the same or be gullible enough to just accept. I tend to do my own listening to come to my own conclusions

[davewantsmoore]

I observe that even if five or six points is deducted from the vinyl score, it is still as dynamic as the CD. Format selection therefore will come down to preference.

 

Not sure I quite understand what you're saying here.    Do you mean that if a vinyl has a DR value of 6 less than the CD ... that it will sound roughly the same?

 

 

EDIT:   Just in case you're worried I'm trying to trap you.... Yes, is a perfectly reasonable answer.    (There' splenty of reasonable reasons why)   

Edited August 4, 2013 by davewantsmoore

[davewantsmoore]

wouldnt that discussion also take you to what sonic charecter the dac in a digital system impacts on end result.

 

No.

 

 

EDIT:   To explain.    There is no DAC involved in the test which HG proposed.   (The digital data remains digital)

Edited August 4, 2013 by davewantsmoore