I don't understand the obsession with DR meters

[Fluffy]

It sometimes seems like DR meters are the holy grail of some people in the audiophile community, including this very forum. I get the notion that many believe that a recording of DR6 in automatically considered inferior to a recording of DR12, regardless of the recording/mixing techniques used. and I just don't really get what is so darn important about the dynamic range measurement.

I've heard fantastic-sounding albums that are very compressed and don't try to go far in terms of dynamic range. In fact, a lot of metal and rock recordings that I consider to be the gold standard of how it should be done, would have a very low DR measurement according to this scale. Most of the times I actually prefer digital remasters of old albums, that were originally recorded on primitive analog equipment, without the ability to properly mix them in the nuanced way made possible by today's DAWs.

And on the other hand, I think that too much dynamic range is actually a bad thing. Very sharp and high peaks in music are very jarring to me and irritating. One can effectively accentuate a moment in the music without needing to jump immediately by 18 db of volume.

Compression is a very effective technique in mixing that allow the music to sound fuller and bring up details that would have been lost if they have been left untouched at the original raw dynamics they were recorded in. This is not to say that you can't over compress things, this is certainly possible and can lead to degradation in fidelity. But the general fear of compression is really baseless, and sometimes ignorant.

This topic also connects to the general delusion of audiophiles to try and "recreate" some kind of image or soundstage of sound that existed during the recording. And the striving for large dynamic range comes from the flawed logic that if the instrument is very dynamic in person, it should sound as dynamic in the recording. News flash – almost no modern recording is in any way trying to capture an actual sound image. The studios almost always use a large array of microphones placed very close to the instrument, to capture as much of a clean signal as possible. Often, reverbs and echoes are added in software to simulate a space that doesn't actually exist. And that's only if there are actual instruments in the studio, which now days becomes rarer and rarer. Electronic music is born in the computer, mostly not passing through any acoustical space until it is played in your living room. And the types of modern music that do use instruments, usually use them as a basis for a long chain of processing and mixing that results in music that is sculptured to sound good and exciting, rather than realistic. And often, good sound depends on some sort of compression. Any starting music producer can tell you that.

 

[tw99]

I'd agree there are certainly some DR6 albums that sound good. But more often than not, DR6 (and lower) albums sound too loud and compressed to me.

Are you arguing that nothing should have been done about the "loudness wars" ?

 

[stevenswall]

It can certainly bring details to the foreground that would otherwise not be heard without a very low noise floor, if at all.

That being said, I think that part of why people enjoy live acoustic music is because a drum may very well get 18dB over the rest of the ensemble at some points, and if they want an experience like that at home, it's hard because studios cater more to the radio or compressing things to appeal quickly to people who want a lot of loud energy quick.

I'm totally fine with some compression, but I would say something with only 6dB of dynamic range doesn't make me want to turn it up, and feels like watching a video where the shadows are all lifted so that pitch black is 50% gray, and if I had an OLED TV, I could have enjoyed it much much more without that.

A solution could be to have artists use multiband compressors for aesthetic, but really ease up if they are just doing overall compression to make the whole thing louder. Let a consumer do that with their playback system if they want to.

 

[Blumlein 88]

No DR6 album is superior sounding to a DR12 album in my opinion. A DR6 album might sound good, but it will be in spite of not because it is DR6. This is my opinion according to my preference.

The sound stage thing is more complex. In recordings of things that happened in a real space an image and soundstage whether real or contrived fits better. For some totally artificial recordings there obviously is no right answer. Even then most people prefer to use some effects to give a sense of space. Its possible with younger people this is no longer the case. My preferences were formed long ago.

In my experience additional compression until around DR12 can be better in some circumstances and music types. Beyond that no you are crushing the chance of life out of the music. By DR6 you have a crappy recording no matter what you do to my ears.

 

[Fluffy]

Are you arguing that nothing should have been done about the "loudness wars" ?

Honestly, I never understood what the fuss was about. maybe because I was born in the 90's and pretty much grew up into the so-called loudness war. From my perspective, it always looked like old recordings sounded weak and unimpressive compared to newer recordings that were more impactful and rich. I think this is a very generational thing, and depends on the kind of music you grew up with (to @Blumlein 88 ).

And it also depends on genre, obviously. With all due respect, Metallica should sound loud and messy, that's the nature of the beast. On the other hand, when I listen to jazz, the dynamics are much more important.

That being said, I think that part of why people enjoy live acoustic music is because a drum may very well get 18dB over the rest of the ensemble at some points, and if they want an experience like that at home, it's hard because studios cater more to the radio or compressing things to appeal quickly to people who want a lot of loud energy quick.

I try to avoid live shows that do that. What purpose does it serve to get a gunshot-equivalent peak every time a snare is hit? For me it's very distracting.

What's the problem with wanting a lot of loud energy quick? Why is this so frowned upon? Me as a metal head, but also dance-music lovers and other types of music lovers, we all deeply enjoy loud, energetic, intensive music that hit you from the first beat with relentless sound-scape and doesn't ever let go. I personally can only achieve such exhilaration with heavily layered, compressed wall-of-sound type music. Sometimes I enjoy a more relaxed type stuff with dynamic range and quiet parts, but not all music needs to be like that.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Honestly, I never understood what the fuss was about. maybe because I was born in the 90's and pretty much grew up into the so-called loudness war. From my perspective, it always looked like old recordings sounded weak and unimpressive compared to newer recordings that were more impactful and rich. I think this is a very generational thing, and depends on the kind of music you grew up with (to @Blumlein 88 ).

And it also depends on genre, obviously. With all due respect, Metallica should sound loud and messy, that's the nature of the beast. On the other hand, when I listen to jazz, the dynamics are much more important.


I try to avoid live shows that do that. What purpose does it serve to get a gunshot-equivalent peak every time a snare is hit? For me it's very distracting.

What's the problem with wanting a lot of loud energy quick? Why is this so frowned upon? Me as a metal head, but also dance-music lovers and other types of music lovers, we all deeply enjoy loud, energetic, intensive music that hit you from the first beat with relentless sound-scape and doesn't ever let go. I personally can only achieve such exhilaration with heavily layered, compressed wall-of-sound type music. Sometimes I enjoy a more relaxed type stuff with dynamic range and quiet parts, but not all music needs to be like that.

I can't perceive how DR6 is good sounding. Yes it is generational and experiential. Not denigrating someone with a different preference. The Sex Pistols were about as loud, and messy as you could want. DR9 for their Nevermind the Bollocks album on CD. It is just a little too messy even for the intended effect. Better recording could have given a 12 and been equally intentionally messy the way I hear it. But I can only hear it the way I hear it.

Highly compressed music is stunning......stunning in the negative sense to your hearing. Now it is a preference thing and you'll never get the right or the wrong answer. I've been into intense discussions with mastering guys about the modern trends. All I can say is I'll never let one of those guys touch in any way any music I have something to do with. They are toxic to good sound to me.

Metallica Master of Puppets was originally a DR12.

 

[q3cpma]

DR only matters when it's very low or high, and doesn't tell anything more than the amount of compression used or the noise floor. Also, it doesn't "work" everywhere; stuff like Eurobeat has a very low DR, but it's supposed to be like this and you wouldn't like it otherwise.

 

[Dimitri]

I don't understand the obsession with DR meters

The obsession comes from realizing there is a method to measure the degree to which the so called "mastering engineer" sold his soul for a paycheck.

As technology advances it seems "performance" is going backwards.

With all the bitching and moaning over the years about vinyl having "limited dynamic range", digital has no excuse for being any more limited than that. No ands no ifs no buts.

 

[Shadrach]

It sometimes seems like DR meters are the holy grail of some people in the audiophile community, including this very forum. I get the notion that many believe that a recording of DR6 in automatically considered inferior to a recording of DR12, regardless of the recording/mixing techniques used. and I just don't really get what is so darn important about the dynamic range measurement.

I've heard fantastic-sounding albums that are very compressed and don't try to go far in terms of dynamic range. In fact, a lot of metal and rock recordings that I consider to be the gold standard of how it should be done, would have a very low DR measurement according to this scale. Most of the times I actually prefer digital remasters of old albums, that were originally recorded on primitive analog equipment, without the ability to properly mix them in the nuanced way made possible by today's DAWs.

And on the other hand, I think that too much dynamic range is actually a bad thing. Very sharp and high peaks in music are very jarring to me and irritating. One can effectively accentuate a moment in the music without needing to jump immediately by 18 db of volume.

Compression is a very effective technique in mixing that allow the music to sound fuller and bring up details that would have been lost if they have been left untouched at the original raw dynamics they were recorded in. This is not to say that you can't over compress things, this is certainly possible and can lead to degradation in fidelity. But the general fear of compression is really baseless, and sometimes ignorant.

This topic also connects to the general delusion of audiophiles to try and "recreate" some kind of image or soundstage of sound that existed during the recording. And the striving for large dynamic range comes from the flawed logic that if the instrument is very dynamic in person, it should sound as dynamic in the recording. News flash – almost no modern recording is in any way trying to capture an actual sound image. The studios almost always use a large array of microphones placed very close to the instrument, to capture as much of a clean signal as possible. Often, reverbs and echoes are added in software to simulate a space that doesn't actually exist. And that's only if there are actual instruments in the studio, which now days becomes rarer and rarer. Electronic music is born in the computer, mostly not passing through any acoustical space until it is played in your living room. And the types of modern music that do use instruments, usually use them as a basis for a long chain of processing and mixing that results in music that is sculptured to sound good and exciting, rather than realistic. And often, good sound depends on some sort of compression. Any starting music producer can tell you that.

I don't understand it either. It's nice if a recording shows your system well but a good tune is a good tune on any piece of kit.
I also have some heavily compressed music, but I still like to listen to it.
Maybe with classical music and some acoustic numbers a decent dynamic range may bring a greater degree of realism, but dynamic range as a goal in itself seems rather pointless. I don't go to a concert and think what wonderful dynamic range the orchestra, or whatever has.
Just for clarity; dynamic range, the difference between the loudest and softest signal.

 

[blackmetalboon]

I find myself agreeing with @Fluffy on this, high DR isn’t required for certain genres and in fact a low DR can be an artistic choice.
I did ask a musician (whose albums don’t fare particularly well on the DR Database) for his thoughts on DR, his answer pretty much aligned with mine.

 

[Dimitri]

In fact.... A n y t h i n g can be "an artistic choice".
Including but not limited to animal or the "artist's" very own excrement smeared on white canvas. Someone can argue it's an artistic choice, but it doesn't change what it is.

 

[Dimitri]

ust for clarity; dynamic range, the difference between the loudest and softest signal.

Also just for clarity...the performance DR being "drastically" different from the "released version" is what the issue is.

 

[Dimitri]

DynamicRangeInWritingSometimesIsBestDemonstratedLikeSo.FunToDoForaSentenceOrTwoButKindOfannoyingWhenReadingANovel.LessPaper,SmallerFileSizes.AWinWin!!!

 

[blackmetalboon]

In fact.... A n y t h i n g can be "an artistic choice".
Including but not limited to animal or the "artist's" very own excrement smeared on white canvas. Someone can argue it's an artistic choice, but it doesn't change what it is.

So, are you insinuating that music with a low DR is excrement?

Also just for clarity...the performance DR being "drastically" different from the "released version" is what the issue is.

I think providing a clearer definition of “performance“ would help.

 

[Fluffy]

I was going to respond seriously to Dimitri, but he looks more like a troll than a serious commenter, so I don't see a reason to.

dynamic range as a goal in itself seems rather pointless

I agree. Dynamic range doesn't translate directly to quality. You can make a crappy sounding album with fantastic dynamic range, or an amazing sounding one with minimal dynamic range. Moreover, the technique for measuring it is not perfect by itself. I downloaded the TT DR Offline Meter 1.4 to play around with. It can be fooled by certain manipulations, and you can make something that sounds plain wrong but measures as DR15+. It's a very crude measurement of sound quality, to be honest.

If we are going to measure music in any way to determine sound quality, something like tonal balance is way more influential. At least for me as a 29 year old youngster, there are far too many albums that boost the treble to uncomfortable levels. I'm guessing that's due to the aging sound engineers working in the industry that can't hear well above 10khz so they boost that area dramatically.

 

[Dimitri]

So, are you insinuating that music with a low DR is excrement?

I never for one second thought we were talking about music.
mu·sic
/ˈmyo͞ozik/
noun

1. 1.
   vocal or instrumental sounds (or both) combined in such a way as to produce beauty of form, harmony, and expression of emotion.

We are talking about the magical result of either deaf ,ignorant, or just plain sold out "mastering engineers" that take the original recording and rape it into compression states unheard of before.

I think providing a clearer definition of “performance“ would help.

Absolutely! Here you go:

noun: performance; plural noun: performances
an act of staging or presenting a play, concert, or other form of entertainment.
"Don Giovanni had its first performance in 1787"

 

[Dimitri]

I was going to respond seriously to Dimitri, but he looks more like a troll than a serious commenter, so I don't see a reason to.


I agree. Dynamic range doesn't translate directly to quality. You can make a crappy sounding album with fantastic dynamic range, or an amazing sounding one with minimal dynamic range. Moreover, the technique for measuring it is not perfect by itself. I downloaded the TT DR Offline Meter 1.4 to play around with. It can be fooled by certain manipulations, and you can make something that sounds plain wrong but measures as DR15+. It's a very crude measurement of sound quality, to be honest.

If we are going to measure music in any way to determine sound quality, something like tonal balance is way more influential. At least for me as a 29 year old youngster, there are far too many albums that boost the treble to uncomfortable levels. I'm guessing that's due to the aging sound engineers working in the industry that can't hear well above 10khz so they boost that area dramatically.

Ok, kettle
BTW, no one is measuring "music" or talking about "the music". We are talking about the "end result" that either gets put on CD or is made available for download after Mr Bonehead has "technologized" it.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I was going to respond seriously to Dimitri, but he looks more like a troll than a serious commenter, so I don't see a reason to.


I agree. Dynamic range doesn't translate directly to quality. You can make a crappy sounding album with fantastic dynamic range, or an amazing sounding one with minimal dynamic range. Moreover, the technique for measuring it is not perfect by itself. I downloaded the TT DR Offline Meter 1.4 to play around with. It can be fooled by certain manipulations, and you can make something that sounds plain wrong but measures as DR15+. It's a very crude measurement of sound quality, to be honest.

If we are going to measure music in any way to determine sound quality, something like tonal balance is way more influential. At least for me as a 29 year old youngster, there are far too many albums that boost the treble to uncomfortable levels. I'm guessing that's due to the aging sound engineers working in the industry that can't hear well above 10khz so they boost that area dramatically.

Yes, high DR can sound bad. Low DR sound amazing.....I've never heard one. Heard some that I'd think, "you know had the mastering guys not squashed the life out of this you'd have a good recording. But they smashed and trashed it."

Yes DR can be gamed, and isn't the one and only indicator of quality. Just one metric.

About those bright recordings..............hehehe............those are quite often the inevitable side effect of compression and limiting which artificially increase harmonics leading to a bright sound. Some geniuses even boost to brighten and then try to re-balance with EQ. BTW, most brightness is below 10 khz. Above 10 khz you hear air and coldness.

The terrible is to hear things with music, with voices of excellent performers, squashed so bad you cannot enjoy it or even listen to it for long. Example: the last couple of albums by Adele. She has a beautiful voice, and the mastering on the last two is a crime against humanity.

 

[2020]

I too grew up in the 90s, but if you have good hearing, you can hear all this compressed, ****** sounding stuff. Even on bad speakers it's apparent. At one point I could guess DR level just by ear, that is why it's important. It is a baseline metric of sound quality.

JusticeForAudio used to have a forum where we would take our hands at remastering music to bring back dynamics and reduce the harshness of things. We were effectively remastering stuff as a way to optimize them for our speakers but it really got me interested in mastering and basic DSP, and you could achieve some crazy transformations. It was a vibrant community, but now it is all dead because the site stopped being funded. I have some posts saved in archive format if I can find them. I'm actually nostalgic for that community.

A good dynamic range expansion is subtle. It will make the track sound more open, larger, and sharper. You can achieve some extreme things every once in a while but it depends on the source material. Ultimately your goal is to identify how/why the song is lacking in dynamics and then undo it, as well as any lossy compression (if you have a lossy source). I was doing this with various VST plugins, with great results. If I wasn't so depressed, maybe I would have passion for this again...

BTW, another DR meter is the one from Brainworx (bx_meter). There is drama around it but I ultimately prefer it. It is more punishing and responds faster to the signal, whereas the original Algorithmix DR meter lets things "breathe". Haven't tried the new MAAT one.

 

[mitchco]

Any musicians in this thread? How about drummers? Or if not a drummer, ever stand by a drum kit being played?
Which drum sound do you prefer in this demonstration? The ones that sound lively or the the ones that sound neutered?