General question on dynamic range and music

[little-endian]

If I remember correctly, Syntrillium Cool Edit Pro / Adobe Audition can analyse a tracks' minimum and maximum level. However, it is questionable that this will tell you the "real dynamic range" of a musical piece then. What if the noise floor is low but the majority of the content is squashed together?

Where the DR meter definitely shows its shortcomings, is movies however, as there, the macro dynamic range is apparent while sequences of loud crushing may result in rather low numbers.

 

[Sokel]

Is there a simple toole to measure the real dynamic range (as opposed to the crest factor) of an audio file? What tootle is this measure with (I assume REW)? I have seen mentioning that there is a plugin for audacity, but could not find it.

Yes,it's REW,it's under SPL merer,I highlighted where to find it.
Set the weighting of your choosing (I use A usually) and happy measuring :



Edit: I see you want @staticV3 's tool,that's Adobe Audition.

 

[goat76]

@Jochen

The thing is, records with around 25 to 30 dB in Crest factor are already productions with pretty much all the dynamics intact, there's really not much missing from those recordings. And that's highly dynamic music and mostly classical music that reaches those levels with a Crest factor close to 30 dB.

For other genres of music that contain sound elements of completely different kinds of dynamic nature (like electric guitars, acoustic drums, vocals, and so on), it's often a must to take control over the dynamics, otherwise, they will most likely drown each other out in the mix.

Bass guitars, kick drums, and vocals are typical things that most often need some dynamic control. This is done in the mixing stage of the production, and believe me, you want this to be done because otherwise, you will probably not like what you hear (and don't hear).

 

[solderdude]

While I agree with your posting in general, I disagree with the "nothing", especially given such an emphasis as of course, the DR values in the database do have something to do with dynamic range or at least a sub-set of it depending on the definition (or rather the 'scope'). According to some explanation from the DR TT Meter back in the days, this tool deliberately only takes the loudest parts of tracks and effectively measures the average level to peak ratio in order to prevent giving music with quiet parts somewhere else higher results than they "deserve". Sure, the total (macro) dynamic range is the entire span from quietest to loudest, but the DR meter rather takes the micro dynamics approach.

They have nothing to do with the dynamic range as is softest (or noise floor) versus loudest recorded levels (the technical dynamic range) was my point.

 

[MattHooper]

I do a few amateur recordings. When I first did them of some friends with a little band I was happy with my results. I did no compression, just a pair of good microphones in a purist recording style. Sounded good to me late at night on my home system. When I distributed to the people in the group what did they say? Well I cannot hear it good in the car, I wanted to listen to ourselves with the CD in my car. So on and so forth. Even in quieter places than driving along in an automobile everyone complained you had to turn it up too much to hear it and then sometimes it was way too loud. So yes for many purposes you can have too much in the way of variable dynamic levels. You can also compress the music too much and it sounds worse. There is a sweet spot of sorts. And this really is crest factor we are talking about here.

When I was in a funk band (80s in to 90s) and we recorded, the music had to sound good on our car stereos. That was the ultimate arbiter as to whether we were getting what we wanted out of the recording.

Another bunch of friends, the singer one of Canada's most famous for while, has moved from new wavy-pop to more "sophisticated" stuff. At one point they attempted an audiophile-quality recording, mure purist/simpler mic techniques for a live off the floor vibe. Sounded impressive in the usual audiophile check boxes, but as an actual music product it sounded listless. Totally missed the energy of their more commercial recordings.

 

[Ifrit]

Sounded impressive in the usual audiophile check boxes, but as an actual music product it sounded listless. Totally missed the energy of their more commercial recordings.

I think it is the usual consequence of shifting mindset from music to sound. Unless your music is purely sonics.

 

[Jochen]

They have nothing to do with the dynamic range as is softest (or noise floor) versus loudest recorded levels (the technical dynamic range) was my point.

Nothing to do is probably not true. If the crest factor is high, that means that either the loudest signal is high or rms of the signal is low or both. In any case this will most probably also lead to a large "dynamical range" in the definition of the "softest (or noise floor) versus loudest recorded levels (the technical dynamic range)". Thus I would assume a quite high correlation between these two measures.

 

[Noske]

I'm wondering whether a measure used to calculate the fractal dimension of a recording may not be inappropriate. Probably way off topic?

I have a formula (there are a few) for calculating it in the time domain. It is a little bit clunky.

 

[Jochen]

I'm wondering whether a measure used to calculate the fractal dimension of a recording may not be inappropriate. Probably way off topic?

I have a formula (there are a few) for calculating it in the time domain. It is a little bit clunky.

You are talking about the Hausdorff dimension? Do it, I would like to the see the result of the calculation.

 

[Jochen]

@Jochen

The thing is, records with around 25 to 30 dB in Crest factor are already productions with pretty much all the dynamics intact, there's really not much missing from those recordings. And that's highly dynamic music and mostly classical music that reaches those levels with a Crest factor close to 30 dB.

Yes, I got this meanwhile. The confusion stemmed from the different measures with the same name. Because a real dynamic range with 25 to 30dB would be pretty low. I assume that the real dynamic range of most of the music with crest factors of 25 to 30 dB is 60 to 80 dB.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Nothing to do is probably not true. If the crest factor is high, that means that either the loudest signal is high or rms of the signal is low or both. In any case this will most probably also lead to a large "dynamical range" in the definition of the "softest (or noise floor) versus loudest recorded levels (the technical dynamic range)". Thus I would assume a quite high correlation between these two measures.

I've said this already, but I'll repeat myself. Until you get the two concepts fully separate in your mind this will never make sense to you.

 

[Noske]

You are talking about the Hausdorff dimension? Do it, I would like to the see the result of the calculation.

I use a formula derived by Vicsek from circa 1990-ish, and as with these things it is an estimation at best, similar to the Hurst exponent.

Despite my best efforts I cannot find the paper in which he provides the formula. I have it on an old hard drive somewhere, but I have coded it into something I use which has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Phew.

I think that, like SINAD, it provides a number which in this case is a ratio of a ratio. Sort of. This should make intuitive sense in the current context.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Yes, I got this meanwhile. The confusion stemmed from the different measures with the same name. Because a real dynamic range with 25 to 30dB would be pretty low. I assume that the real dynamic range of most of the music with crest factors of 25 to 30 dB is 60 to 80 dB.

I don't see a benefit in adding complication yet. If you really get into it, nothing is quite that simplistic in how dynamic something sounds to a listener. Has to do with sliding time constants of our hearing and thresholds that vary with frequency. Some of that went into the LUFS standard. The basic dynamic range measurements are simplistic.

In simplified terms few recordings have dynamic range above 60 db. I don't think I know of any beyond 80 or 81 db.

It seems to me you are more interested in DR rating, or LUFS or some variation on crest factor as it effects perceived dynamics. Keeping on about linking that to technical dynamic range is getting you no where. They are two different things.

 

[Jochen]

I've said this already, but I'll repeat myself. Until you get the two concepts fully separate in your mind this will never make sense to you.

I totally got it now. Do you want to claim that there is no correlations between these two measures? I mean, both involve the loudest signal. It is just that one puts in in relation to the rms and the other to the noise floor. They MUST be correlated (I am talking about the mathematicl sense, if you calculate the correlation coefficient, it will turn out to be positive, probably even close to 1).

 

[Jochen]

I don't see a benefit in adding complication yet. If you really get into it, nothing is quite that simplistic in how dynamic something sounds to a listener. Has to do with sliding time constants of our hearing and thresholds that vary with frequency. Some of that went into the LUFS standard. The basic dynamic range measurements are simplistic.

In simplified terms few recordings have dynamic range above 60 db. I don't think I know of any beyond 80 or 81 db.

It seems to me you are more interested in DR rating, or LUFS or some variation on crest factor as it effects perceived dynamics. Keeping on about linking that to technical dynamic range is getting you no where. They are two different things.

Look at this, I copied it from another thread. It is almost 80 dB dynamic range.

 

[RayDunzl]

If that is calculating the first second or two..

Then any tune with a fade-out would have maximal "dynamic range".

-78dB would be a flat line on that graphic at that scale - less than a pixel tall.

Here's a tune and itself at only -50dB, same scale:

 

[Newman]

Look at this, I copied it from another thread. It is almost 80 dB dynamic range.

Trim off the silences at the start and end and measure it again.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Look at this, I copied it from another thread. It is almost 80 dB dynamic range.

As Ray has already posted, that includes the fade in/fade out. Even then it is barely above what I posted by a couple db.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I totally got it now. Do you want to claim that there is no correlations between these two measures? I mean, both involve the loudest signal. It is just that one puts in in relation to the rms and the other to the noise floor. They MUST be correlated (I am talking about the mathematicl sense, if you calculate the correlation coefficient, it will turn out to be positive, probably even close to 1).

No there is no necessity of correlation. Maybe from a wax cylinder where the surface noise is so high, but in modern tape based or digital recording other influences set the noise floor and it is well below the crest factor when music is playing.

 

[Jochen]

Trim off the silences at the start and end and measure it again.

The quiet part at start and end are not below the noise floor, so what should this change?