This is disingenuous IMO.
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Inside High-res audio: PCM vs MQA vs CD: 2L Sampler Comparison
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
OP
- Thread Starter
- #202
And you thought his comment that no one has heard -60 db not???
the transducers will crash if you play with.
I don't agree with it but suspect it may be a translation problem from somebody who is not a fluent English speaker.
Edit: It seems it is a question of greatest actual dynamic range @Frgirard has seen on a recording and IME that won't be far out. I have heard of a recording with 70dB but only one.
Last edited:
All my plugins show between - 48 and - 72 dB.
The avg is - 60. A professional deformation.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 22,735
- Likes
- 41,971
I've run across a couple in the mid 70's. 74 db for one and I think 76 db for the other. That is using one number of course and realizing how that can lead one astray about audible noise levels.
Grooved
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2021
- Messages
- 688
- Likes
- 446
Just checked one of the few files I tested these last days : Thomas Strønen - Bayou - FLAC 24-96 Qobuz
I even cut the lowest parts at the beginning and the end and redo the analysis : you still have more than 60dB between lowest and highest RMS and 5 more to peaks
OP
- Thread Starter
- #208
Your plugins are wrong. There is no way to properly determine dynamic range of music as its level can sink below noise floor. The tools you use time window averaging which doesn't work for this purpose. Here is Adobe Audition Amplitude Statistics Settings for example:
50 miliseconds of averaging would easily burry low level samples. Here is a random file in my library being analyzed with that setting:
Now see what happens if I changed that to 1 millisecond:
See how it now shows 10+ dB lower sample values.
Unfortunately it won't go any lower than 1 msec so you can't see the true lower floor. With that setting, it still shows much better dynamic range than you claimed:
Without averaging, any silence in the clip would set the lowest floor, giving you huge dynamic range. This could be faulty of course because it could be fade to silence. Alternatively noise/dither could hide true correlated musical content.
Net, net, don't run off with tools without understanding what they really do. Just because a program spits out a number it doesn't mean it is what you want.
The only solution here is proper analysis of recording venue/room noise and max loudness which is referenced in the papers I showed you.
Attachments
OP
- Thread Starter
- #209
Neither one of you has the tools to make this analysis. None exists that provide the values. The only person I know that has developed such a tool is Bob Stuart of Meridian MQA fame! It came up in my discussions with him some 20 years ago. More recently I read a white paper by the people who built musicscope analyzer trying to address MQA. They did not disclose the data but said to have developed a tool for such statistic analysis.
Bottom line, he is just repeating all the myths out there about this topic. I wrote that article for WSR magazine because I got tired of writing the same corrections and quoting the authoritative papers on the topic. If you have a paper that shows such low dynamic range in music with proper analysis, let's see it. Otherwise, let's follow the science and not spready common objectivists myths that are just as wrong as some subjectivist ones.
Quite.
https://www.sonicvisualiser.org/download.html does not accept DXD either. It also seems to down-convert 192kHz PCM to 44.1kHz at least for playback. Although it might well be pilot error, as I just now downloaded this program and have yet to take my driving test in it,
Last edited:
I was messing around to see if I could get Audacity to do something similar, it turns out that The Doors probably wasn't a good candidate for high res audio:
This was recorded in the 60's, so I have to imagine that tone is the capstan or slack take up motor (seems to only be on the guitar track, hey-o early use of stereo mixing). It is down at -68 dB. The symbol hits do actually reach into the higher frequencies, as you would expect. I got this version from HD tracks because the version I already had (itunes maybe?) had a bunch of crackling in it for some reason that I only caught once I upgraded from my ATH-A900's.
Edit: Wow this Bob Marley album has remarkably good mastering from what I can see:
And since I happen to also have Rain by The Lake Poets from B&W's service,
And yeah there's that peak.
This was recorded in the 60's, so I have to imagine that tone is the capstan or slack take up motor (seems to only be on the guitar track, hey-o early use of stereo mixing). It is down at -68 dB. The symbol hits do actually reach into the higher frequencies, as you would expect. I got this version from HD tracks because the version I already had (itunes maybe?) had a bunch of crackling in it for some reason that I only caught once I upgraded from my ATH-A900's.
Edit: Wow this Bob Marley album has remarkably good mastering from what I can see:
And since I happen to also have Rain by The Lake Poets from B&W's service,
And yeah there's that peak.
Last edited:
Similar threads
