I don't understand the obsession with DR meters

[FooYatChong]

why he is doing that?

"The potential dynamic range of music in an acoustic environment is as high as 120 decibels (dB). The dynamic range of a CD is closer to 80 dB, FM radio is only about 50 dB, and AM radio a mere 30 dB. With these severe limitations on dynamic range, compression becomes necessary in order to allow the changing dynamics in music to be heard."

https://music.tutsplus.com/articles/encyclopedia-of-home-recording-dynamic-range--audio-11948

 

[garbulky]

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 do very amateur one take recordings. They are stereo recordings from stereo microphones of a real space (usually a living room or garden). They are uncompressed with no dynamic compression applied. Result - nice full sound which is also very detailed with an appropriately sized soundstage.. Granted the recording challenges aren't near as tough as recording a whole orchestra in a large space.

 

[Dimitri]

A lot of people seem to be circling back to the argument that



Is there actual evidence that this is the reason peak limiting is used? Can anyone find a direct quote from a mastering engineer that says explicitly that this is why he is doing that?

"direct quote", "explicitly" ...

take a look here.... https://www.prometheusradio.org/audio_processing_and_compressors

and as for studios ...take a look here (make you wonder what their purpose in life is with a name like that) : https://www.google.com/maps/dir//loud+recording+studio+nashville+website

 

[Duckeenie]

A lot of people seem to be circling back to the argument that



Is there actual evidence that this is the reason peak limiting is used? Can anyone find a direct quote from a mastering engineer that says explicitly that this is why he is doing that?

It seems odd that sound engineers would master for radio when radio stations apply their own compression anyway.

 

[mitchco]

A lot of people seem to be circling back to the argument that

Is there actual evidence that this is the reason peak limiting is used? Can anyone find a direct quote from a mastering engineer that says explicitly that this is why he is doing that?

What Happens to My Recording When it’s Played on the Radio

For folks that want to know about mastering, the best reference there is Bob Katz's: Mastering Audio: The Art and the Science.

The one hardware device released in 1967 and software plugin released in 2001, I want to focus your attention on is the Universal Audio 1176LN Peak Limiter:

The simple reality is that we have all heard the sound of this device since 1967 – that’s 53 years ago folks. In fact, if you are listening to mainstream music right now, it is likely that you are also listening to the sound of this device.

All broadcasts typically have this compression/limiting device, or similar, in line with the master outs before transmission. Same with all LP record’s ever cut, special limiters are used in circuit to prevent overloading the cutter head. And heavily used in recording, mixing and mastering scenarios. While the limiting function may not have engaged in all cases, the fact remains this device is in the audio circuit.

Source: spent +10,000 hours as a recording/mixing and live sound engineer at too many venues.

 

[Fluffy]

Why are you all getting references that talk about radio? The dominant market these days is streaming, there is no longer a need to master things to fit the standards of radio. Let's see examples from people who master for Spotify…

 

[mitchco]

Dear Fluffy,

Why don't you do your own searching and educate yourself. Folks here have left references for all sorts of articles on this subject for your edification.

While there is some goodness here on the loudness war, you need to understand that every streaming service is setting the loudness level as I previously mentioned using compressors/limiters. Most of which are using Bob Katz's K-System recommendations (which was also linked earlier). Buy his book and all your questions will be answered.

https://ask.audio/articles/spotify-...-to-14-lufs-what-does-this-mean-for-producers

 

[Fluffy]

every streaming service is setting the loudness level as I previously mentioned using compressors/limiters.

TF are you talking about? I've used Tidal and Deezer, and they apply absolutely no compressing/limiting. They play an exact digital copy of the music on their servers, I verified this myself. At least if you don't check boxes saying stuff like "normalize audio", cause why would you?

 

[mitchco]

"Look at Spotify, which has an always-on peak limiter. It processes ISPs for instance. "

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/mastering-forum/877227-bob-katz-declares-loudness-war-won-5.html

Good luck.

 

[StevenEleven]

"Look at Spotify, which has an always-on peak limiter. It processes ISPs for instance. "

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/mastering-forum/877227-bob-katz-declares-loudness-war-won-5.html

Good luck.

That‘s one service, Spotify, over five years ago, with some paraphrased info on a discussion board, and a lot of speculation heaped on top.

I think you are engaging in wild speculation and it‘s not constructive.

 

[StevenEleven]

Here is what you wrote. Proof please?

. . .every streaming service is setting the loudness level as I previously mentioned using compressors/limiters.

 

[Fluffy]

"Look at Spotify, which has an always-on peak limiter. It processes ISPs for instance. "

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/mastering-forum/877227-bob-katz-declares-loudness-war-won-5.html

Good luck.

You could have brought a more reliable source, like Spotify themselves:

How does Spotify adjust loudness?

When we receive your audio file, we transcode it to delivery formats Ogg/Vorbis and AAC. At the same time, we calculate the loudness level and store that information as metadata in the transcoded formats of your track.

Playback levels are not adjusted when transcoding tracks. Tracks are delivered to the app with their original volume levels, and positive/negative gain compensation is only applied to a track while it’s playing. This gives users the option to adjust the Loudness Normalization if they want to.

• Negative gain is applied to louder masters so the loudness level is at ca - 14 dB LUFS. This process only decreases the volume in comparison to the master; no additional distortion occurs.
• Positive gain is applied to softer masters so that the loudness level is at ca - 14 dB LUFS. A limiter is also applied, set to engage at -1 dB (sample values), with a 5 ms attack time and a 100 ms decay time. This will prevent any distortion or clipping from soft but dynamic tracks.

The gain is constant throughout the whole track, and calculated to match our desired output loudness level.

To summarize, they do engage limiters, but only when they apply positive gain to tracks that are below -14 db LUFS in loudness. This is a measure against digital clipping, and no other compression is applied. Hardly a thing that would impact the overall dynamic range of tracks. Unless, someone has an actual example of a track that was "crushed down" dramatically by Spotify.

 

[mitchco]

Yes, no compression, my bad. As you quote, there is a peak limiter in the circuit and it can engage. If the limiter is triggered it will affect the dynamic range.

 

[StevenEleven]

Yes, no compression, my bad. As you quote, there is a peak limiter in the circuit and it can engage. If the limiter is triggered it will affect the dynamic range.

For one lossy streaming service.

 

[tmtomh]

What Happens to My Recording When it’s Played on the Radio

For folks that want to know about mastering, the best reference there is Bob Katz's: Mastering Audio: The Art and the Science.

The one hardware device released in 1967 and software plugin released in 2001, I want to focus your attention on is the Universal Audio 1176LN Peak Limiter:

View attachment 49318

The simple reality is that we have all heard the sound of this device since 1967 – that’s 53 years ago folks. In fact, if you are listening to mainstream music right now, it is likely that you are also listening to the sound of this device.

All broadcasts typically have this compression/limiting device, or similar, in line with the master outs before transmission. Same with all LP record’s ever cut, special limiters are used in circuit to prevent overloading the cutter head. And heavily used in recording, mixing and mastering scenarios. While the limiting function may not have engaged in all cases, the fact remains this device is in the audio circuit.

Source: spent +10,000 hours as a recording/mixing and live sound engineer at too many venues.

We have indeed heard the sound of analogue compressors for decades. But the fact remains that music produced with those compressors does not read nearly as low on the DR meter as more modern music produced with digital look-ahead peak limiting. As I noted in an earlier comment, the dynamic ranges we're talking about aren't that great - so certainly, years ago compressors produced music that, when run through a DR meter today, registers "only" DR10 or 11 - that is, 10 or 11dB between RMS level and the 2nd loudest peak of the track (which is how the DR meter calculates its readings).

But digital peak limiters can - and often do - reduce that already relatively narrow RMS-to-peak difference by an additional 20 to 40%. Proportionally speaking, that's a lot.

Now, that older, analogue-compressed music might very well read as low on the DR meter as modern peak-limited music once it's been passed through a typical FM station's added compression. But the LP, CD, or digital file itself was not DR6 in the 1960s, '70s, '80s, or most of the '90s. The evidence is in 10s of thousands of entries in the DR database, where CDs made from pre-Loudness War master tapes consistently do not have DR ratings as low as more modern masterings. It took digital peak limiters to achieve DR4-DR6 levels of compression.

IMHO this is what's getting lost in this discussion. Per the OP's question, it is indeed silly to split hairs and declare a DR10 mastering better than a DR8 one simply because of the DR number. But that does not mean that all compression is the same - nor does it mean that there is no evidence of a major shift in the dynamics of mainstream production styles of a lot of popular music. There is plenty of evidence, and no one is ignoring the past or dismissing your and others' expertise simply by referencing the fact that something did in fact change with dynamic range in production trends.

Finally, as some have pointed out, it is indeed true that all the major streaming services normalize their content, to avoid sudden volume changes in the random-play mode that most people listen to these services.

But unfortunately, the use (and overuse) of digital peak-limiting began before streaming took off, and for whatever reason there is ample evidence that despite the implementation of streaming normalization and the massive increase in streaming as a factor in the marketplace, tons of new music still is getting released with squashed dynamics. The fact that it's irrational does not mean it is not happening.

 

[tmtomh]

You could have brought a more reliable source, like Spotify themselves:



To summarize, they do engage limiters, but only when they apply positive gain to tracks that are below -14 db LUFS in loudness. This is a measure against digital clipping, and no other compression is applied. Hardly a thing that would impact the overall dynamic range of tracks. Unless, someone has an actual example of a track that was "crushed down" dramatically by Spotify.

You are correct that streaming services do not compromise the dynamics of the music - they simply normalize the volume to avoid sudden changes in volume since most people use streaming services as giant random-play jukeboxes.

But where you are wrong is in your earlier claim (or implication) that because streaming services normalize volume, music producers and engineers do not compress the music for loudness purposes. They shouldn't compress it - and it is indeed irrational to compress it so much to make it louder when the streaming service is just going to normalize it anyway. But the evidence shows that by and large they are still doing it - it's an industry habit that started before streaming took off. I don't claim to know why this habit is so stubborn, but a quick look at the DR Database shows that it does indeed persist.

So the fact that it is illogical and pointless to squash dynamics for loudness in an era of streaming volume normalization does not, sadly, mean that producers aren't doing it anyway. They are. There are some remasters that are less squashed than earlier remasterings of the same material from, say, the mid '00s. And there are some new albums from artists that are somewhat more dynamic than albums they released in the early to mid '00s. But overall the practice of loudness mastering via digital peak-limiting remains pervasive. That's a fact.

 

[Sal1950]

Finally, as some have pointed out, it is indeed true that all the major streaming services normalize their content, to avoid sudden volume changes in the random-play mode that most people listen to these services.

Yes but at least IME it is switchable in "Settings"

 

[ernestcarl]

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.

It's so easy to damage one's hearing over time with these types of music... and a lot of guys are killing off their auditory hair cells permanently every single day.

Yes, it can sound good when certain music is engineered from the ground up that way -- I absolutely agree -- but one has to be incredibly self-controlled and self-aware to dial-down the volume knob all the time when listening to such LOUD tracks consecutively. Again, it only takes a few hours of listening to very loud music for hair cells to die-off permanently. How many people even calibrate their systems and religiously follow safe listening guidelines?

FF. track engineered from the ground up to sound as loud as possible, and yet still 'good':

Mumbai Power on Spotify

Mumbai Power on Apple Music

Mumbai Power on Tidal

Mumbai Power on Youtube

I did my own level meter test with Spotify Premium with and without volume normalization:

With normalization OFF and routed directly to JRiver's WDM driver

Probably even louder in stereo with no crossovers re-routing.

Normalization turned ON

Looks better, and yet, still hurts my ears over time...


Normalization ON and enabled my usual MCH DSP correction chain for my sitting desk setup

All in all, I'd still prefer to listen to this already heavily attenuated track at 80% volume at most in JRiver.

Sounds good... and I get to keep/preserve remaining auditory hair cells from dying today... and, hopefully, tomorrow as well.

---
Youtube attenuates the volume quite a bit, too:

 

[maverickronin]

I'm mostly with @Fluffy on this one. I think that most modern masters are only a tad over compressed, and even when they are, it doesn't really bother me that much.

At worst, this obsession with DR ratings is something fashionable for audiophiles to complain about and at best it's just a difference in taste.

 

[tmtomh]

I have to disagree - not in principle, but empirically. The Loudness Wars seem to have let up a bit, but there are still way, way too many modern masters of all kinds of music that are mastered too loud.

By "too loud," I don't meant that the mixing and mastering are too compressed - that's an artistic decision, and popular music of all kinds has routinely been compressed ever since the rise of 1960s AM radio rock, if not before.

The issue is that with the advent of look-ahead digital limiters, mastering engineers (usually at the behest of artists and/or labels) are taking those already compressed waveforms and simply turning up the volume on the entire thing, and letting the limiter squish the peaks so it will still "fit" below digital 0.0.

I have no problem with light peak-limiting: If you take a DR10 waveform and turn it up 2dB and let the peak limiter attenuate a small number of the loudest peaks accordingly, so you end up with a DR8 waveform, most people will probably not be able to hear the difference. But if you take, say, a DR11 waveform of music that has tons of loud peaks because of its style, and you turn it up 5dB to end up with a DR6 waveform with 1000s or 10s of thousands of peaks severely limited/attenuated, the result is going to sound like garbage.

And now it's largely pointless anyway, since all the streaming services normalize volume (to avoid jarring volume changes during shuffle play). So your DR6 track is just going to be normalized by the streaming service to 5dB lower volume than your original DR11 mix down would have - your track will play at the same volume it would have, and you'll just have a more boring, monotonous-sounding track because 5dB worth of dynamic peaks will be missing.