Miley Cyrus – Something Beautifull – Crushed by the Loudness War – Saved in Extremis by Dolby Atmos – Review – Vinyl record, Tidal max 24 bits 96 kHz

[Jean.Francois]

After years of artistic and personal growth, Miley Cyrus takes a bold new step with Something Beautiful, her ninth studio album, released on May 30, 2025. This release is also accompanied by a film.

Unfortunately, the album hasn’t escaped the infamous loudness war, which also affects the vinyl edition as collateral damage.

Comparing the waveforms of the excerpts for the Tidal Max [DR4], Tidal Dolby Atmos [DR12] downmixed 2.0 and vinyl record [DR10] versions clearly shows the differences in music dynamics on the different media.

The graph below compares the spectrum of the Vinyl Red – 2025 (white curve) with the spectrum of the Tidal Max – 2025 (blue curve).The two spectral curves align almost perfectly up to 10 kHz. Beyond this frequency, the red area reveals a significant level variation, with an excess of about 20 dB at 15 kHz on the vinyl version compared to the Tidal Max stereo version. This difference will affect the sound reproduction, potentially causing an excessive emphasis on sibilance.
This flaw is common in many lacquer cuts produced by Bernie Grundman Mastering.

The spatialization of Tidal Dolby Atmos – 2025 version varies from track to track, with values between 2 and 7.1.

Once again, the Dolby Atmos version delivers the most accurate and engaging sonic rendering, largely due to its superior dynamic range. This enhanced expressiveness breathes new life into the album’s reproduction, in part thanks to Dolby’s loudness normalization standard, which targets an integrated level of -18 LUFS.

Pursuing loudness at -6 LUFS has become anachronistic in the streaming era, where playback platforms apply loudness normalization based on a reference between -14 and -13 LUFS. As a result, such hyper-compressed masters are automatically attenuated, nullifying any intended loudness advantage and sacrificing valuable dynamic information in the process.

Find all the measurements and extracts HERE (link) to listen to the impact of these treatments on listening.

Enjoy listening,
Jean-François

 

[MaxwellsEq]

This flaw is common in many lacquer cuts produced by Bernie Grundman Mastering.

Interesting observation!

 

[Frank Dernie]

The HF on the LP looks like cutter or stylus misbehaviour to me.

 

[Jean.Francois]

The HF on the LP looks like cutter or stylus misbehaviour to me.

Yes, I also share this analysis, I've already seen this problem with certain cutting heads.

 

[dobyblue]

After years of artistic and personal growth, Miley Cyrus takes a bold new step with Something Beautiful, her ninth studio album, released on May 30, 2025. This release is also accompanied by a film.

Unfortunately, the album hasn’t escaped the infamous loudness war, which also affects the vinyl edition as collateral damage.

Comparing the waveforms of the excerpts for the Tidal Max [DR4], Tidal Dolby Atmos [DR12] downmixed 2.0 and vinyl record [DR10] versions clearly shows the differences in music dynamics on the different media.

Except the vinyl is most likely cut from the same digital files on the 24-bit sites (no vinyl mastering credit) and is likely also DR4. The DR meter is not designed to be used with vinyl rips and nothing prevents Grundman cutting DR4 masters and worse to lacquer.

Why you can't measure vinyl with the TT Meter - Production Advice

And let's get this straight - sometimes vinyl is deliberately mastered with better dynamics than CD and other digital formats.

productionadvice.co.uk

 

[DVDdoug]

And the sound?

"Processing" or vinyl cutting/playback can change the waveform and give you a "better" crest factor without changing the sound of the dynamics. The same thing can happen with MP3... I'll bet if you rip the CD to MP3 you'll get peaks over 0dB (which is possible with MP3) and crest factor will increase by maybe 1 or 2dB.

...It's sad to see them still trying to win the loudness war. Lucky for me I'm not a Miley Cyrus fan.

 

[Jean.Francois]

Except the vinyl is most likely cut from the same digital files on the 24-bit sites (no vinyl mastering credit) and is likely also DR4. The DR meter is not designed to be used with vinyl rips and nothing prevents Grundman cutting DR4 masters and worse to lacquer.

Why you can't measure vinyl with the TT Meter - Production Advice

And let's get this straight - sometimes vinyl is deliberately mastered with better dynamics than CD and other digital formats.

productionadvice.co.uk

Hello,

I am very familiar with this video. I also conducted some cutting tests, taking the idea further (vinyl and magnetic tape): Does analog media force a dynamic on music? or Does Analog Media increase the dynamics?.
The problem is not the DR measurement, or even the representation of the waveform. The problem stems from how it is interpreted.

1: In analogue, on vinyl, the measured DR or any other measurement showing DR (LUFS integrated and True Peak) does not allow us to deduce the DR of the master. There is always a loss when copying in analogue, unlike digital, where the copy is perfectly identical.

2: The difference in DR between vinyl and digital simply shows that we are not respecting the analogue medium; we want to impose constraints on the analogue medium that are only supported by digital. This results in distortion on the analogue medium, which translates into a higher DR than the original master. If you have a high-quality master made for vinyl, you will have the same DR between the disc recording and the master. This simply proves that we are not treating analogue media with the respect it deserves. It is easier to say that the measurement is meaningless than to admit that we are cutting without taking analogue media into account.

3: We see the same behaviour with magnetic tape, as I show in the tests.

To put it simply, you have to respect the characteristics of an analogue medium, make a master that is suitable for that medium, and I agree with you, we have to stop trying to burn masters with low DR onto analogue media.

Jean-François

 

[dobyblue]

No it simply shows that the DR meter is only designed to be used with digital source material, nothing more nothing less.

The DR database should have a toggle for turning vinyl results off as they’re useless.

 

[Jean.Francois]

No it simply shows that the DR meter is only designed to be used with digital source material, nothing more nothing less.

The DR database should have a toggle for turning vinyl results off as they’re useless.

Simply saying that a measure should not be applied without scientific justification does not make sense.
DR is based on the RMS and peak measurements of an audio signal, simplifying the difference between these two values. Therefore, if DR does not make sense, neither do the RMS and peak values, and by extension LUFS, which leads to the same conclusions.
These RMS and peak values characterise a signal that is represented by the waveform. So if they should not be applied to an analogue signal, the waveform should not be applied either. As the behaviour is identical between vinyl and magnetic tape, a VU meter should not be used because it measures a peak or an RMS value on an analogue signal!

More seriously, DR or (RMS value, peak) can be used to characterise a signal. With digital technology, we have become accustomed to saying that this characterises the digital original because there is no loss during digital copying (in lossless mode).
But in analogue, each copy introduces differences, and from a DR or (RMS value, peak) we cannot deduce the DR or (RMS value, peak) of the source. This is where the problem of interpretation lies.
So, if a vinyl record has a higher DR than its digital master, it means that there has been a deformation of the signal, which means distortion, so the signal from the vinyl record has more distortion than the original master.

So if you are looking to reproduce the sound that is most faithful to the original, in this case, you shouldn't listen to vinyl. .

On the Purple Rain album and also in the article ‘Vinyl succumbs to Loudness War: more than just collateral damage!’, we see that the DR of the original CD version is DR13 (min DR11, max DR15), similar to the original vinyl edition DR13 (min DR11, max DR16). In this case, there is no problem. However, the vinyl reissues have a DR11 (min DR10, max DR13), based on the digitally remastered version, which has a DR7 (min DR5, max DR9). In this case, there is clearly a problem.
The DR allows us to compare the vinyl editions, and it also allows us to see that the original vinyl record and CD are similar, indicating a high-quality vinyl master, which is not the case with the vinyl reissue.

The DR is only a measurement, and like any measurement, its interpretation depends on its context.

 

[Juhazi]

The DR is only a measurement, and like any measurement, its interpretation depends on its context.

DR value is just a coarse indicator of dynamics. More important is to look at the waveform graph. Also zoom the time scale to look for clipping at dB0 level.
As far as I have checked copied music files with Audacity, vinyl records (pop/rock) of 80-90s are close to perfect. Also CDs of same era are good and often exact copy of vinyl (same master for cutting). Then in 2000s loudness compression set in, obviously because of mobile listening.

 

[dobyblue]

The scientific justification is that measuring vinyl rips is not what it was intended for because you're not measuring source material, it's as simple as that. No two people will get the exact same DR log when ripping the same vinyl record, yet every single person on the planet will get an identical log when measuring the same CD.

 

[Jean.Francois]

The scientific justification is that measuring vinyl rips is not what it was intended for because you're not measuring source material, it's as simple as that. No two people will get the exact same DR log when ripping the same vinyl record, yet every single person on the planet will get an identical log when measuring the same CD.

This is not a scientific justification. The DR measurement measures the medium, not its source. It is a digital extrapolation to say that you get the source as long as it is lossless.
Obtaining the same measurement on an analogue basis can indeed lead to variations, so averages must be taken. This is a classic scientific approach in analogue and physics.
The same principle applies to magnetic tapes, which are also analogue. And we do talk about dynamics with tape recorders; we measure the difference between two measurements.

However, when the mastering work is done well, we find the same DR values (based on RMS and peak measurements). Since we accept comparing waveforms, DR (or RMS and peak measurements) only mathematically characterise what we see. It is not logical to say that we can compare graphs but not the measurements that characterise them.

It's like the difference between a cyclist on a normal bike and one on an electric bike. You can measure the speed of both, but in the second case, you're not measuring the speed of the source, which is the cyclist, because there's an electric motor providing the energy. If the motor is turned off, we end up in the first case. But we don't say that we can't measure the speed because it doesn't correspond to the cyclist (source).

Finally, there is also a problem with measuring the DR of SACDs, because it is converted to PCM for measurement. Depending on the conversion and the type of filtering in the high frequencies, different measurement results can be obtained.
The same is true for lossy compressed formats.

What we need is for the major labels to produce two masters and provide a digital version of the vinyl master. In that case, we could compare and verify the quality of the vinyl master. If the work was done properly, we would get the same measurement between the media and its source.
I will come back with an example of a production doing this soon.

Rather than saying that this measurement is meaningless, say instead that record companies should stop making poor quality products!

 

[dobyblue]

False, it doesn’t measure the medium. A 16/44.1 PCM track will be EXACTLY the same whether I measure it on CD, DVD-Video, DVD-Audio, Blu-ray, USB, digital download or 4K UHD disc. We measure a source file, the medium is irrelevant. A needle drop is not the source for a vinyl record, so we are not measuring the actual dynamic range of the vinyl master.

We already have lots of vinyl cutting files available showing that the TT meter is inaccurate, from NIN to Beatles to DMB…

 

[Jean.Francois]

False, it doesn’t measure the medium. A 16/44.1 PCM track will be EXACTLY the same whether I measure it on CD, DVD-Video, DVD-Audio, Blu-ray, USB, digital download or 4K UHD disc. It measures a source file.

We already have lots of vinyl cutting files available showing that the TT meter is inaccurate, from NIN to Beatles to DMB…

That's not accurate; you're oversimplifying your reasoning. You're measuring the content of the distribution media, not the studio master. But the characteristic of digital media, if you use lossless encoding, is that the copy is perfect, so you could say that you're measuring the original master source. The proof is that if you're not using lossless encoding, the value can change.

Analogue measurement (and all physical mechanisms) can be imprecise, as there are many criteria that influence the result, such as the quality of the disc, the linearity of the cartridge, etc. That is why it is necessary to have a measurement procedure and to be aware that there is a measurement accuracy factor, as in all analogue or physical system measurements. In addition, the DR introduces rounding that reduces accuracy. Having a value with an accuracy of +-1 provides a sufficient order of magnitude to get an idea. Then, measurements must be taken to understand the various phenomena that occur in analogue, as I did HERE.
I prefer to try to understand by studying the phenomenon and realise that some record companies do whatever they want with vinyl record masters.

 

[DVDdoug]

EBU R128 Loudness Range may be better because it measures a range a perceived loudness range.

The amplitude peaks are almost useless because short-term peaks aren't necessarily heard as loud and phase-shifting different frequencies can change the way the different frequency components sum-up, changing the waveform peak without changing the loudness peak.

Probably at least half of my MP3s have peaks over 0dB but the dynamics don't sound any better (or any different) than the CD. MP3 actually has more dynamic range capability than CD* but compressing/converting to MP3 doesn't expand the dynamics.

There's no perfect measure of program dynamics ("dynamic contrast"). There are short-term drum hits and songs that start-out quiet and end loud, etc.



*MP3 can go both louder and quieter but you can't take advantage of "louder" because your DAC clips at 0dB. If the MP3 goes over 0dB and you normalize both for 0dB peaks, the MP3 will be quieter. Digitized vinyl is usually quieter for the same reason, but since we don't cut our own vinyl we don't know if they were the from same master.

 

[dobyblue]

That's not accurate; you're oversimplifying your reasoning. You're measuring the content of the distribution media, not the studio master. But the characteristic of digital media, if you use lossless encoding, is that the copy is perfect, so you could say that you're measuring the original master source. The proof is that if you're not using lossless encoding, the value can change.

Analogue measurement (and all physical mechanisms) can be imprecise, as there are many criteria that influence the result, such as the quality of the disc, the linearity of the cartridge, etc. That is why it is necessary to have a measurement procedure and to be aware that there is a measurement accuracy factor, as in all analogue or physical system measurements. In addition, the DR introduces rounding that reduces accuracy. Having a value with an accuracy of +-1 provides a sufficient order of magnitude to get an idea. Then, measurements must be taken to understand the various phenomena that occur in analogue, as I did HERE.
I prefer to try to understand by studying the phenomenon and realise that some record companies do whatever they want with vinyl record masters.

Every single word I typed is 100% accurate, sorry but DR logs from vinyl rips are useless to informed consumers.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

EBU R128 Loudness Range may be better because it measures a range a perceived loudness range

+1

The DR tool is useful, especially in demonstrating music that is injured or maimed during the loudness war (including remasters). But R128 Loudness Range is a better algorithm for what we might perceive.

Even then, I'm sure many of us have content that doesn't "score" as highly as we feel it should: e.g. long tracks that build slowly from silence, or tracks which have a relatively short, very quiet section relative to the main body of the music.

 

[Jean.Francois]

There are indeed different types of measurements, and it is necessary to use the measurement that is appropriate for the desired analysis.

The objective is to measure the dynamics of the music in order to determine whether or not it has been compressed.

To do this, all major streaming services (Tidal, Amazon, Apple, Deezer, Qobuz, YouTube, etc.) and Dolby in its recommendations for Dolby Atmos now calculate the dynamics between the integrated loudness value (LUFS) of a track and the true peak.
Another older but similar calculation method is DR, which is based on the average RMS value of a track and the peak.

These two measurements achieve the same objective, i.e. a dynamic value that determines whether a track is compressed or not.

LRA (R128) is the difference between the lowest and highest loudness measured throughout the track. It is based on average deviations, thus smoothing out all peaks. It varies little or not at all depending on the compression for the same track, except at extremes.

It is a measurement that characterises the variation in loudness.

The following example shows the same track uncompressed (DR19) and compressed with DR14, 9, 8, 7.

Between DR19 and DR9, there is virtually no variation in LRA; it decreases slightly at DR8 and a little more at DR7.

Another example that shows that this is indeed a measure that compares sound levels is that it calculates the distribution between low and high average sound levels.

This is why RLA is not used to characterise dynamics, but rather the difference in average loudness in a song or film.