Dynamic range scores: a cautionary note

[Sentient]

I didnt feel like a continuous back and forth, so I just went ahead and described compression for you and for everyone.

Thanks for explaining hardware compressors. I've never used them, and can better appreciate their uses during the recording process.

It would be nice if you acknowledged that Digital Dynamic Range Compression is a different form of compression.

 

adding the explanation now for the +/-1 is cool and all, so thanks for that, but it conflicts with everything else mentioned to this date in this and the other thread, so I guess you just found it,

I missed the query, simple as that. I was focussing on the softest/loudest query, and overlooked the other. I went off double checking definitions of RMS to confirm my understanding, and didnt address the rest of the query. If you took the time to wade through the ShameList thread, you will see that I bend over backwards to offer people information. I dont intentionally avoid questions.

 

my objection was with the information provided not being complete or meaningful. it also seems to conflict with your previous understanding and claims

Seemed,,,,,, how about we leave it at a misunderstanding. That would be nicer, wouldnt it? Edited August 5, 2013 by ozmillsy

[Newman]

It's already public knowledge that Bernie Grundman compressed the 24bit version, he's admitted this. It's also public knowledge he passed his work back to Daft Punk to be proofed, they accepted it and further tweaked it. Artisitic intent? Possibly.

The evidence suggests that the vinyl is not from the Bernie Grundman digital master. 

 

I have searched high and low, but I can't find any production credits for Grundman working on this album. Since it seems to be public knowledge, I feel a bit left out. Can anyone help with a link, please?

[fetischizm]

Thanks for explaining hardware compressors. I've never used them, and can better appreciate their uses during the recording process.

It would be nice if you acknowledged that Digital Dynamic Range Compression is a different form of compression.

 

I missed the query, simple as that. I was focussing on the softest/loudest query, and overlooked the other. I went off double checking definitions of RMS to confirm my understanding, and didnt address the rest of the query. If you took the time to wade through the ShameList thread, you will see that I bend over backwards to offer people information. I dont intentionally avoid questions.

 

Seemed,,,,,, how about we leave it at a misunderstanding. That would be nicer, wouldnt it?

 

huh, it would be nice if you actually read the replies i've already made on compression; its not different, its just a different use of the same tools, I even mentioned it specifically. so no I wont acknowledge any omission just because you still dont understand.

 

OK instead of seemed like, how about it does conflict with your previous claims? is that better? you said you didnt think it represented the whole range, that was all you said in reply to him, you didnt miss it, you replied to it. OK lets call it a misunderstanding, its just that the whole thread and now this one contains a bunch of opinion that is shaped by those misunderstandings which are pretty fundamental to understanding the content.

 

the producer for RAM is for the studio master is Antoine Chabert - Chab

 

No, Bob Ludwig did a digital pre-master of the analog recording tapes (Ampex) in the US because they couldn't take analogue tapes through airport scanners or something. They took the digital pre-master from Ludwig then to Chab in France who mastered together with Thomas Bangalter the 88.2 HD version and from those they made adaptions for vinyl, cd and itunes.    

 

 

Edited August 5, 2013 by fetischizm

[Newman]

[to fetischizm]

 

I missed the query, simple as that.  I dont intentionally avoid questions.

 

I thought maybe you avoided my question, too, post #62. But it must have been an oversight. thanks

[Sentient]

huh, it would be nice if you actually read the replies i've already made on compression its not different, its just a different use of the same thing. can you really still be confused? I give up...

Maybe we should both give up. I've read your post in full, and understand it. You are talking us all through recording studio uses. I am not.

Dynamic Range Compression, applied to prep digital files for CD production, is a different beast. As I said, your compressors are designed to reduce and squish sound. DRC filters boost it. It really is a different process. I can acknowledge the uses of compressors in the studio. I dont think DRC filters improve the sound. Too many consistent examples, that demonstrate that it doesnt.

 

OK instead of seemed like, how about it does conflict with your previous claims? is that better? you said you didnt think it represented the whole range, that was all you said.

RMS does not represent the softest to the loudest range. Here I was trying to end it nicely, and you just have to drag it on. It's like pulling teeth, man.

[Sentient]

I thought maybe you avoided my question, too, post #62. But it must have been an oversight. thanks

Are you really interested in what I have to say Newman? I'd appreciate it if you cut out the snide comprehension insults.

 

So, what is the way that you would use to quantify "this stuff", i.e. the amount of bias in the DR score of a vinyl rip?

Kind of a leading question dont you think?

Would you agree that the biggest variable, in the DR values posted by different people onto the DR database, is that the values are from different systems. That the recordings are "home brews", and the values simply reflect any inherent in-accuracies in those systems (carts, phonos, setup/calibration, etc). Do we agree so far?

Edited August 5, 2013 by ozmillsy

[Sentient]

I have searched high and low, but I can't find any production credits for Grundman working on this album. Since it seems to be public knowledge, I feel a bit left out. Can anyone help with a link, please?

Apologies, my mistake, Bob Ludwig.

The album was mastered in two stages – initially by industry legend Bob Ludwig from the analogue mix masters. He then released the 88.2 kHz 24-bit files to the band, who made further changes and tweaks with Antoine Chabert (“Chabâ€) from Translab studios in Paris.

It would kind of make sense to use the analogue mix masters, for the analogue release. Dont you think?

http://productionadvice.co.uk/daft-punk-mastering/

[fetischizm]

Maybe we should both give up. I've read your post in full, and understand it. You are talking us all through recording studio uses. I am not.

Dynamic Range Compression, applied to prep digital files for CD production, is a different beast. As I said, your compressors are designed to reduce and squish sound. DRC filters boost it. It really is a different process. I can acknowledge the uses of compressors in the studio. I dont think DRC filters improve the sound. Too many consistent examples, that demonstrate that it doesnt.

 

RMS does not represent the softest to the loudest range. Here I was trying to end it nicely, and you just have to drag it on. It's like pulling teeth, man.

no, you dont get it, its not a different process, its a different use of the same tools.

 

RMS of the whole range represents the total power, RMS as calculated by these 'analysers' does not. which is a distinction you failed to make.

[fetischizm]

Apologies, my mistake, Bob Ludwig.

It would kind of make sense to use the analogue mix masters, for the analogue release. Dont you think?

http://productionadvice.co.uk/daft-punk-mastering/

no, they werent mixed, are you really saying you think this album could be produced with all analogue equipment? wow, talk about unrealistic expectations. Bob did not mix the album, he did not mix the tracks, he did the analogue master tracks which could not be taken through airport scanners back to france, so had to be scanned/sampled before digital mastering back there.

 

are you really demanding somebody do an entirely separate production, totally different mixes just to satisfy the vinyl market?

 

craziness, are you going to pay $150?

 

vinyl has to be EQ'd and cannot be mastered right to the top of its range, nor can it be sampled without headroom, the pops and clicks would totally overdrive and 'clip' (vinyl cannot clip, it rounds the tops) the track and the needle would have trouble tracking. its about the physical/mechanical limitations.

Edited August 5, 2013 by fetischizm

[Sentient]

no, they werent mixed, are you really saying you think this album could be produced with all analogue equipment?

Who said that?

Here is what the wiki has to say about the recording process.

Although the duo felt that the presets and parameters of digital tools would inhibit creativity and innovation,[3] they admitted that Random Access Memories could not have been made in the complete absence of computer technology.[20] The sessions were recorded simultaneously onto Ampex reels and as Pro Tools tracks; Daft Punk and Guzauski would then listen to each recording in both analogue and digital iterations, deciding which of the two they preferred. Subsequently the elements were edited by the duo with Pro Tools in a manner similar to how they would work with samples.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_Access_Memories

Ludwig is a post production mastering engineer. He takes the "studio mix" that the producer has completed, and then does some post processing mastering on it.

All I posted was the quote from the article (Click) that asserts there is a mix on analogue tapes. This is not unusual, where budgets are not limited. As the wiki confirms, tapes were used. So, it would not be surprising if they layed a final studio mix onto tape.

[Sentient]

Bob Ludwig:

He kinda looks sane, but cant keep his hands of the volume knob, apparently.

[fetischizm]

at the Hoffman forums, posted by a French Mastering Engineer more on that page too. Bob did what is termed 'pre-mastering' part of the same process, but not the final cut. actually the same guy you link posted a translation of that french interview and then removed it due to some of the content in the interview being incorrect, so whether hes just left that bit youve quoted up as a minor part of that page of content you linked we'll see, but the posts in the above thread I link seem to indicate it as more of an analogue transfer, perhaps because of his great reputation theyve given him full honors in the details out of respect, its all rumor.

 

but while on the subject of that site, production advice UK, you might like to do some further reading instead of cherry picking

 

I have found some very interesting links there, this is the best one, Ian Shepard a mastering engineer from the UK, did a very instructive video analysis and commentary covering most of the stuff i've been talking about and with particular reference to the Daft Punk RAM release format (using the last, most compressed track), perceived differences, not being what they appear. He makes reference and illustrates the DB meter fooling us (and he didnt even touch a number of other more technical differences), phono pres changing EQ etc. using some very nice software. the comparison he uses is between the CD and vinyl unfortunately, but you should get the point, he should be applauded for the effort he put into this!

Edited August 6, 2013 by fetischizm

[Newman]

Are you really interested in what I have to say Newman? I'd appreciate it if you cut out the snide comprehension insults.

 

There seems to be a bit of Pot-Kettle-Black going on here. How about you and I agree to get married in a white gown and pretend it's a fresh start?

 

Daft Punk - RAM - an example of questionable DR scores

 

Regarding the sonic origins of Daft Punk's RAM (which I used as an example in the OP), my futile search for Grundman's credits led me to learn more than I wanted to know about this album's complex signal path. Apparently, the original taping was all-digital, plus analog duplicate feeds for drums, bass and keyboards only. (so, there is no all-analog original possible). The mixing team led by Guzauski would then pick their preferred drums, bass and keyboard sounds (digital being clarity, analog being soft round bottom) for each song and even for specific sections within each song. Guzauski then created several analog masters at different speeds and saturation levels, and picked the preferred sound, song by song. At this point they needed to get it to France for final mastering by Chabert, without damage going through airport security detectors, so Ludwig was engaged to transfer the analog tapes to 24/88 digital -- for which he gets mastering credits and quite rightly so. 

 

At this point the story becomes relevant to this thread. Chabert worked up final release masters, including the addition of compression at the request of Daft Punk (Bangalter) -- this clearly is artistic intent and should not be removed. Chabert reports that the resulting 24/88 master is exactly the file we can download at HD Tracks and Qobuz. (Fantastic!) Chabert also reports that the vinyl release is derived from the 24/88 final release master (i.e. the file on HD Tracks). Yet when people measure the dynamic range of the two releases with the TT-DR tool, they get DR8 for the master and DR12-ish for the vinyl.

 

I repeat: DR8 for the master, and DR12 for the vinyl that is derived from this master. Do we really want to believe that somehow, in transferring the 24/88 master for vinyl, the musical content was de-clipped, de-compressed, de-limited, (all in opposition to artistic intent!) to make music that actually sounds more dynamic? I don't think so. I certainly hope not: it would be so disrespectful to the vinyl buyers (and Bangalter). Far more likely, is that the vinyl transfer involved the usual gentle massaging to make it 'safe' for vinyl: a bit of treble attenuation, conversion of low bass to mono, and possibly a bit of gentle dynamic compression in places -- although I doubt that this type of music needs it in general. The net result should be a file that would measure DR8 or DR7, ready for transfer to vinyl.

 

But the vinyl measures DR12. And of course, some owners claim it sounds more dynamic, too, but that is just too unlikely, given its origins.

 

We clearly have a case here, where the vinyl DR score cannot be trusted. I believe the mechanisms are generic, as laid out in post #1, and hence widespread. I don't think it is reasonable to keep the head in the sand on this issue.

[ArthurDent]

Bob Ludwig:

He kinda looks sane, but cant keep his hands of the volume knob, apparently.

 

Would that be one of the two big silver knobs with the nice fat concentric purple, possibly illuminated panel markings. Does invite touching and twiddling.

[darthlaker]

Fremer's review of RAM is up:

 

http://www.analogplanet.com/content/daft-punks-random-access-memories-retro-disco-ear-candy

[betty boop]

Fremer's review of RAM is up:

 

http://www.analogplanet.com/content/daft-punks-random-access-memories-retro-disco-ear-candy

 

just another opinion....

[metal beat]

Sounds like RAM is the audiophools new recording pin up just like Moby's Play was and mofi's DCD spiritchaser reissue.

Like prof said, Meh!

[Newman]

Meh, I agree! Goodness knows why it's a pinup, although the production is certainly good.

 

The point being, in this thread, that the RAM LP was produced from the same file as we can download in 24/88, yet measures DR12/13 for the LP and DR8 for the 'master' that the LP is derived from. I advise extreme caution in 'falling for' these numbers. People have been known to comment that the LP sounds 'better' and 'more dynamic', but how can this be? It is either equal or lesser dynamics. Perhaps people are perceiving the non-flat frequency balance of their cartridge-phono combinations as having more 'punch' and 'life'?

 

It is not the main point of the thread, though. The main point is that the DR scores are unreliable (artificially high) when an LP is measured. By a variable and unpredictable amount, but a starting point might be 6-ish. But my advice is not to deduct the LP score, just ignore it altogether.

[Gee Emm]

It is not the main point of the thread, though. The main point is that the DR scores are unreliable (artificially high) when an LP is measured. By a variable and unpredictable amount, but a starting point might be 6-ish. But my advice is not to deduct the LP score, just ignore it altogether.

Hello Newman

 

Do you actually listen to vinyl?

Have you owned a turntable in the last 20 years?

Have you purchased any vinyl in the last 20 years?

 

One of the reasons I ask these questions is because I don't know the answers.

 

Graham

[darthlaker]

Hello Newman

 

Do you actually listen to vinyl?

Have you owned a turntable in the last 20 years?

Have you purchased any vinyl in the last 20 years?

 

One of the reasons I ask these questions is because I don't know the answers.

 

Graham

 

 

Newman????

[Newman]

I replied by PM to Graham.  :o  (A bit OT after all?) We had a nice little chitty chat.

[darthlaker]

Oh, OK.

 

Yes, perhaps OT, would be good to share.....

 

Also, invitation is still there to listen to RAM in High Rez digital and vinyl.........for fun!

 

[metal beat]

Oh, OK.

 

Yes, perhaps OT, would be good to share.....

 

Also, invitation is still there to listen to RAM in High Rez digital and vinyl.........for fun!

 

Which one do you prefer purely on musical merit?    The only measure being your ears and emotional impact.

 

Cheers

[darthlaker]

tt,

 

Firstly your Avatar is most distracting.

 

(If she is Mrs. tt then I meant that in a most complimentary fashion)!

 

(and does she have a sister?)

 

In regards to RAM, using my ears and on musical merit (of course - is there any other way?   ) - I prefer the vinyl over the HD file.

 

I find it sounds more dynamic, has deeper bass with a wider sound stage. Just more "fun" to listen to. With the exception of changing sides/albums of course.

 

How is this possible? Who knows!

 

How do you find it?

[metal beat]

tt,

 

Firstly your Avatar is most distracting.

 

(If she is Mrs. tt then I meant that in a most complimentary fashion)!

 

(and does she have a sister?)

 

In regards to RAM, using my ears and on musical merit (of course - is there any other way?   ) - I prefer the vinyl over the HD file.

 

I find it sounds more dynamic, has deeper bass with a wider sound stage. Just more "fun" to listen to. With the exception of changing sides/albums of course.

 

How is this possible? Who knows!

 

How do you find it?

 

Avatar is no relation, just for viewing pleasure. 

 

I have no opinion on RAM as I am not really a fan so do not own it, IMO a lot better electronica out there with similar or better production.

 

It does not surprise me the lp sounds better - still some sort of magic in vinyl playback that may include subliminal as well as aural.

Edited August 14, 2013 by turntable