General question on dynamic range and music

[Sokel]

Is this track 19 from that album: https://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/131194? Because according to the TT meter measurement it would have a DR of just 6, but your graph shows a range of almost 74dB SPl variation. How to reconcile this?

It's this song:

How to measure output Power of an headphone amp with REW

A 30dB difference between average and peak is a bit high unless it is a song that builds up in volume. Or has high DR https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/measuring-a-dac-or-amps-dynamic-properties%E2%80%A6.41936/post-1487975 (with the ones that built up I have seen higher)

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[Ifrit]

How to reconcile this?

TT, MAAT (which descended from TT) do not calculate anything lower -30 dbfs, IIRC.

 

[Sokel]

Another good example:

(Bedřich Smetana - Má Vlast: Vltava ,London Philharmonic Orchestra)

 

[Cbdb2]

Dynamics are not easy to measure, there is the difference between quiet and loud parts (long term) and there is also the difference between a steady tone (strings playing a pad) and the dynamic of a timpani hit during the string pad. And than the stuff in between these 2. The first should be done by manual gain change (mixing) and have little effect on the quality, the second is by machine and what gets destroyed by hard limiting and is also hard to measure.
These measurement tools don't show the whole story. If you get one loud cannon blast during a 1/2 hour squashed (no dynamics) symphony does the tool show a large dynamic range when there isn't one?

 

[danadam]

Is this track 19 from that album: https://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/131194? Because according to the TT meter measurement it would have a DR of just 6, but your graph shows a range of almost 74dB SPl variation. How to reconcile this?

He shows a graph and DR is just a single number. Here are 3 tracks. Technically all of them have the same dynamic range and yet, you probably would want to assign them DR values that distinguish them somehow:

 

[Blumlein 88]

I still see comments mixing up concepts like DR rating or LUFS and dynamic range. Two completely different ideas.

To reiterate: one is about average levels vs peak levels. The other is about total dynamic range from quietest to peak levels.

Dynamic range vs needs of ours ears vs needs of a recording/playback medium can be a bit complex. I'm leery of introducing that for fear it will further cloud things rather than clear them up.

 

[Jochen]

It's this song:

How to measure output Power of an headphone amp with REW

A 30dB difference between average and peak is a bit high unless it is a song that builds up in volume. Or has high DR https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/measuring-a-dac-or-amps-dynamic-properties%E2%80%A6.41936/post-1487975 (with the ones that built up I have seen higher)

www.audiosciencereview.com

So this is what I get, a dynamic range of 78 dB for this track. In the other database with the TT meter measurements the value is much lower. Is this all because of the measurement difficulties?

 

[Jochen]

I still see comments mixing up concepts like DR rating or LUFS and dynamic range. Two completely different ideas.

To reiterate: one is about average levels vs peak levels.

Where do you see in this database that this definition is used for the measurements? So DR rating is defined MAX_value - AVG_value ? Is there some literature quote to define it that way? Isn't that a very strange and error-prone definition? A track playing almost all the time close to the average with just one large peak would have the same value as one oscillating wildly between the max and the average.

The other is about total dynamic range from quietest to peak levels.

This is how it I though it would be.

 

[Philbo King]

I think you might be confusing system dynamic range with program material dynamic range. An analogy would be thinking "my car can go at any speed between 0 and 90 mph, so why don't more people exercise that ability and hit 90 mph between every stoplight?"

As a music content producer, the widest DR mix I've done is 18 dB. And that requires a VERY quiet listening space to hear the quiet passages clearly without being deafened by the loud passages. Most of them come in at 14 dB (for jazz and acoustic blues) to 9 or 10 dB (for rock or pop). Going too far out of this 9 to 18 dB range causes the product to be effectively unlistenable.

There are certainly exceptions: symphonies, orchestras, and nature and environmental sound recordings are a few.

Movie Foley sound is another; a scene may change from someone whispering in a forest, to huge explosions, while keeping a musical background going the whole time. Excessive DR is a real affliction in movies, causing home listeners to constantly ride the volume control to hear the whispers while not being deafened by the explosions.

So it's not that wide DR program material cannot be made, it's more like no one would want to listen to it.

 

[Newman]

...for argument's sake, let's say he has a 20dB noise floor, and let's assume we can reach 96dB from our CD. Then he would have to play so loud that the highest sounds are 116dB for the softest sounds to still be audible above the noise floor. Not something to do for very long listening sessions at least.

Why not? The average might be 76 dB. The 116 dB peaks might be milliseconds each.

 

[Newman]

Do you have a home theater? Do you find the explosions are too loud because you turned up the volume to hear the dialogue? Thats 20db of dynamics.

That's 20 dB of peak-to-average headroom. To call that 'dynamics' is being loose with words.

 

[Newman]

Is this track 19 from that album: https://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/131194? Because according to the TT meter measurement it would have a DR of just 6, but your graph shows a range of almost 74dB SPl variation. How to reconcile this?

Don't even try. I have long pleaded to simply ignore the loudness wars database because of many inherent flaws and systematic misuse by people on the internet believing it.

 

[Jochen]

Don't even try. I have long pleaded to simply ignore the loudness wars database because of many inherent flaws and systematic misuse by people on the internet believing it.

Well, I assume that the measurements in itself are done properly (just running a software), so what you are saying is that the method is flawed or overly simplistic ? Do you know any other good source or database?

 

[Newman]

Let's summarise what the many excellent answers so far have said in answer to your original questions.

So my question would be, why is it not possible (or desirable?) to record the full dynamic range of live music and why is the capacity of the standard CD not taken advantage of?

It is possible and it is desirable. One key way that it is taken advantage of, is 'fade to black' as part of music. This is a very sweet thing if you are listening sensitively to the music, and CD makes it possible. Before digital recordings and CD it was 'fade to tape hiss' and 'fade to groove friction noise', both of which bring the listener out of the music itself and into the world of hearing the gear.

Is the 96dB - 25dB = 71dB difference of capacity minus actual content on CD actually wasted?...Or am I mixing things up?

Yes, it's a mixup, as discussed in the thread by others.

cheers

 

[Newman]

Well, I assume that the measurements in itself are done properly (just running a software), so what you are saying is that the method is flawed or overly simplistic ? Do you know any other good source or database?

Good source or database...for achieving what exactly?

If you mean 'how to tell when dynamics are compressed and by how much', then no, there is no good source, because of the complexity of mixing and mastering and its relationship to listening scenarios.

BTW that does not mean the TTDR database is 'the best there is', because it is actually worse than nothing, being so flawed (the number can leap up and down by changing various things other than the dynamic compression).

cheers

 

[Newman]

BTW your OP says you are not talking about "3 dB loudness wars abominations", so my comments above are all in the context that we are not discussing that issue. There are plenty of other threads discussing that issue.

cheers

 

[Bob from Florida]

Jochen

Something to try. Get yourself the app “Audio Tools” for your smartphone or tablet. If you have an Apple device, the internal microphones are pretty consistent from phone to phone. Use the SPL meter tool to run some listening tests. First, take note of the background noise levels with no music playing. Th lowest level passages are going to have to exceed the background noise to be heard. Play some music and take note of the peaks versus the minimum sounds you hear. This will roughly get you the dynamic range if that recording. Like others have said, the maximum soft to loud range of the best recordings are around 40 db. Even a 40 db swing is going to have some loud peaks. Having wider dynamic range has other impracticalities as others have mentioned. Assuming your equipment is capable of playing sufficient louder without clipping, you could crank the volume until you double the the max peaks previously measured and get some idea of whether your hearing could stand it. An un-amplified orchestra can have greater range than any recording you can find. The extended possible dynamic range of 16 bit and higher recordings makes no sense in the real world.

 

[Jochen]

Good source or database...for achieving what exactly?

If you mean 'how to tell when dynamics are compressed and by how much', then no, there is no good source, because of the complexity of mixing and mastering and its relationship to listening scenarios.

BTW that does not mean the TTDR database is 'the best there is', because it is actually worse than nothing, being so flawed (the number can leap up and down by changing various things other than the dynamic compression).

cheers

Could you please go into more detail what exactly is flawed on these measurements? Is it the approach in itself ? Is there no way another, better suited approach to be taken?

 

[Jochen]

There are certainly exceptions: symphonies, orchestras, and nature and environmental sound recordings are a few.

One of the entries in the database with the highest DR is a nature recording by Dallas Simpson - "The Shore of Stones Suite". It sounds phantastic and I am still not convinced (depending on the genre that is) why even higher DR shouldn't be beneficial. Even if the difference would be almost inaudible, 24-bit/192kHz audio is as well almost inaudibly different from 16-bit/44.1kHz and there is still a market for it.

So it's not that wide DR program material cannot be made, it's more like no one would want to listen to it.

I guess I would like to.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Where do you see in this database that this definition is used for the measurements? So DR rating is defined MAX_value - AVG_value ? Is there some literature quote to define it that way? Isn't that a very strange and error-prone definition? A track playing almost all the time close to the average with just one large peak would have the same value as one oscillating wildly between the max and the average.

This is how it I though it would be.

I've said I slightly simplified what TT meter does. What it should be called more accurately is a crest factor. Short term peaks versus longer term levels. If you will start thinking about and referring to crest factor (TT meter DR values) and dynamic range as two separate ideas which they are it will help clarify things.

Read this article about crest factor, think about it, read it a few times, and it will clear things up. Currently LUFS is a standard for such things. Prior to that DR levels in TT meter sort of provided a similar kind of info (though with more flaws than LUFS) for recordings. There have been other ways to get an insight into similar info. Graphically Audacity shows that if you know how to read it. Crest factor in recordings is related to compression levels and making music listenable in different environments. It is in no way directly related to dynamic range as technically defined. You need to separate those in your mind or it will never make sense.

What Is Crest Factor and Why Is It Important?

Find out what "crest factor" means in the world of audio mastering, how to interpret different readings, and how to use them to inform mastering decisions.

www.izotope.com