The sadness of wasted bits

[CapMan]

Do you gentlemen think it is possible to isolate the audio experience from all other senses excited in a live event?

The joy on the musicians faces, the concentration, the smiles when tricky passages go well and the knowing glances when something goes a bit wrong… the physicality of a drummer pulling every bit of tone out of a drum head, the movement of the crowd in sync with the music

Nope - definitely not

 

[sigbergaudio]

Interesting discussion and I have same experience … while I have heard many outstanding systems, I have just never heard a system that fully replicates the experience of the live event. Some have come very close, but not quite there.

Assuming the “perfect” recording, what would the specs be of a loudspeaker system that could in fact come closest to the ideal transducer to replicate the live event, especially dynamics?

You know my answer to that. Generally speaking there are not many commercial speakers directed at the home audio market that can do this. You need to be able to play 100-110dB with additional headroom for transients, so 120dB+ clean capacity.

 

[CapMan]

Is a better question - how do you trade of faithful reproduction of extreme transients / single dynamics events (like a drum head being struck with great force) against the faithful reproduction of macro dynamics of the overall performance …the band is loud the band is quiet ?

Maybe one is the sum of the other parts - I don’t know !!

 

[sigbergaudio]

Is a better question - how do you trade of faithful reproduction of extreme transients / single dynamics events (like a drum head being struck with great force) against the faithful reproduction of macro dynamics of the overall performance …the band is loud the band is quiet ?

Maybe one is the sun of the other parts - I don’t know !!

Not sure I understand the question. But you don't have to choose between high dynamic capacity and high dynamic range (which is sort of the same), or quality.

 

[MRC01]

I think Bob Katz's K-system gets close to the amount of compression that is not over the top and takes into account practical considerations. It can take some studying and thinking to wrap your head around it. Once you do however it is not really complicated and quite sensible.

https://www.aes.org/technical/documentDownloads.cfm?docID=65

Great link. I'm quite familiar with Bob Katz but this doc is new to me - thanks!

 

[DVDdoug]

That's an interesting interpretation. Where do you get 256 levels from? 16^2? There are 2^16 = 65,536 "levels".

He's simply saying you have finer resolution... Smaller steps. With 24-bits you have 256 steps between each 16-bit step. It also means 256 steps (48dB) between the zero and 1 (the least significant bit) in the 16-bit format.... Where the 16-bit file drops to zero (total silence) the 24-bit file still has information (more dynamic range).

But that's not really the problem* The problem is the "Loudness War" production & mastering. And I suspect that one or two generations of musicians and producers have grown-up with the idea that music is supposed to be constantly-loud (or "constantly intense").

I remember when CDs were released I predicted that (popular-rock) music would be become more dynamic to take advantage of the available dynamic range... Boy, was I wrong!!!

I'll admit that I really don't want the loudness & dynamics of a rock band or orchestra in my living room or car. Especially in the car, I have some Broadway soundtracks that I have to turn-up to hear the quiet parts over the noise, and then turn down when it gets loud again. But I would like a better compromise with some "dynamic excitement" remaining in the music.

I have a shelf-full of video concerts and the dynamics seem to be better. ...But I wouldn't say "realistic".



* With low resolution (i..e. 8-bits) you hear quantization noise. You don't really perceive "low resolution" or a loss of dynamic range. You just hear a fuzz-noise on top of the music. Quantization noise is similar to regular analog noise in-that it's most noticeable with quiet parts but unlike analog noise it goes-away completely with digital silence. At 16-bits you can't hear the quantization noise under any "normal conditions" and most people can't hear the difference between a 24-bit original and a copy down-sampled to 16-bits (in a proper blind ABX test).

 

[computer-audiophile]

Assuming the “perfect” recording, what would the specs be of a loudspeaker system that could in fact come closest to the ideal transducer to replicate the live event, especially dynamics?

In my experience, the best way to achieve this is with a large horn speaker system. I have heard this time and again.

I had already shown my own photos of such systems several times in ASR.

At some point, you don't get anywhere further with hi-fi at home in terms of realism. I have realised this and now go to live concerts more often again - which had always been my habit anyway.

 

[CapMan]

But I would like a better compromise with some "dynamic excitement" remaining in the music.

Perhaps that’s the best summary !

It’s an understandable (but still weird) conclusion to reach that one of the most fundamental dimensions of musical performance (dynamics) is kinda beyond our reach … and some folks are worried about fancy audiophile power cables

Thanks for all your discussion points , appreciate the light you shine on these questions .

 

[Willem]

I was talking about the indoor reproduction of acoustic music such as jazz and classical. Those types of music have considerable dynamic range, and since dynamic range is a ratio, if the loudest passages cannot be reproduced at real levels in a smaller room, the softest passages will have to be softer. Thus, they may disappear in the background noise or below the listener's hearing threshold. Limiting dynamic range is one way of dealing with this, and it is of course inevitable given the limitations of domestic living rooms. Reducing background noise is another way to address the issue, with the benefit that it retains more of the dynamic range. It is not for nothing that people claim their systems sound better in the evening.
Of course, the loudness wars did not happen because engineers tried to carefully balance the needs of the domestic listening environment and the dynamic demands of the music. And hence, contrary to much pop music, most classical and many jazz recordings retain quite a bit of the original dynamic range, although less than I would like. Also, many DVD/Bluray recordings are good examples of what is possible.

 

[MRC01]

...
I remember when CDs were released I predicted that (popular-rock) music would be become more dynamic to take advantage of the available dynamic range... Boy, was I wrong!!!

I'll admit that I really don't want the loudness & dynamics of a rock band or orchestra in my living room or car. Especially in the car, I have some Broadway soundtracks that I have to turn-up to hear the quiet parts over the noise, and then turn down when it gets loud again. But I would like a better compromise with some "dynamic excitement" remaining in the music.
...

This is where "high def" marketing could actually become useful. Anything above CD quality, make it with no dynamic compression for those with big stereos and quiet listening rooms. Anything at CD quality, apply light to moderate compression, and in lossy streaming, optimize it for cheap earbuds in noisy environments.

This would give a practical reason for "high def" and people buying it would know what they are getting.

Better yet, don't compress the recordings, ever. Rely on playback equipment / DSP to apply what is needed for the listening environment.

 

[AudioSceptic]

He's simply saying you have finer resolution... Smaller steps. With 24-bits you have 256 steps between each 16-bit step. It also means 256 steps (48dB) between the zero and 1 (the least significant bit) in the 16-bit format.... Where the 16-bit file drops to zero (total silence) the 24-bit file still has information (more dynamic range).

But that's not really the problem* The problem is the "Loudness War" production & mastering. And I suspect that one or two generations of musicians and producers have grown-up with the idea that music is supposed to be constantly-loud (or "constantly intense").

I remember when CDs were released I predicted that (popular-rock) music would be become more dynamic to take advantage of the available dynamic range... Boy, was I wrong!!!

I'll admit that I really don't want the loudness & dynamics of a rock band or orchestra in my living room or car. Especially in the car, I have some Broadway soundtracks that I have to turn-up to hear the quiet parts over the noise, and then turn down when it gets loud again. But I would like a better compromise with some "dynamic excitement" remaining in the music.

I have a shelf-full of video concerts and the dynamics seem to be better. ...But I wouldn't say "realistic".



* With low resolution (i..e. 8-bits) you hear quantization noise. You don't really perceive "low resolution" or a loss of dynamic range. You just hear a fuzz-noise on top of the music. Quantization noise is similar to regular analog noise in-that it's most noticeable with quiet parts but unlike analog noise it goes-away completely with digital silence. At 16-bits you can't hear the quantization noise under any "normal conditions" and most people can't hear the difference between a 24-bit original and a copy down-sampled to 16-bits (in a proper blind ABX test).

Thanks. Apologies to Ray for not reading his post properly.

Yes, mastering is the real problem, so we're not using anywhere near the DR of 16 bits, let alone 24.

 

[Waxx]

Death metal is actually a very technically demanding genre, my guess is a lot of those guys could actually become passable jazz drummers without too much re-training.

No, absolutly not, the style is at the very other end of the spectrum. But i'm sure that a good metal drummer can be trained to play jazz also, even on a high level. But it will take more than a bit training as the way the drum is beaten is very different. Metal drumers drum mainly with their shoulders, jazz drummers mainly with their wrists. Both styles are very complex to learn and get on a high level. It's like a top jazz pianist need a lot of training to play classical piano right and reverse.

 

[bobster]

The "waste" is using extra storage, bandwidth, and energy for 24 bit files when the additional resolution (compared to 16 bit) is not audible.

One of the best explanations I've seen is from recording engineer David Moulton:

Moulton Laboratories :: Is Bits Really Bits

An excerpt:

If we accept –10 dBFS/+14 dBu as a “nominal” electrical signal level (and we have in practice done almost exactly that), this becomes the level we use to determine the acoustic playback level. For production work, we can assume that level is probably something like 85 dB SPL (it’s the film standard, for instance). That means that the 16-bit noise floor will be at –1 dB SPL, or just below the formally accepted “threshold of audibility” of 0 dB SPL. All well and good, I guess. However, the 20 –bit signal’s noise floor will be at –25 dB SPL and the 24-bit version’s floor will be at –49 dB SPL! Definitely inaudible to us humans. All this is exacerbated by the fact that the acoustical noise floor of the playback room can reasonably be expected to be at or above +40 dB SPL, which means that we can expect masking noises to be running some 90 dB HIGHER than our 24-bit noise floor.

In other words, the quieter sounds that 24 bit can capture would be masked by ambient noise in the room.

(The above all applies to files for the end user. In production, the additional bits are useful to reduce the possibility of audible artifacts from the manipulation of the signals.)

Also see Ethan Winer's videos on YouTube and his book "The Audio Expert."

FWIW, mastering engineer Bob Katz has an "Honor Roll" - "a collection of well-mastered pop CDs that have good micro (and macro) dynamic content."

Honor Roll - Digido.com

Digital Domain - we ensure musicians, independent artists and record labels get the best sound possible. Bob Katz provides the best in mastering and mixing.

www.digido.com

 

[MRC01]

... contrary to much pop music, most classical and many jazz recordings retain quite a bit of the original dynamic range, although less than I would like. ...

Same here. Classical used to be well outside the blast radius of the loudness wars, but over the years I've seen it creeping closer, finding some classical music recordings that apply moderate dynamic range compression. Yuck. If any classical music mastering engineers are listening, don't do that! The purpose of recording is to preserve the musical performance as closely and realistically as possible, not to turn it into a cartoon caricature of the event.

 

[gnarly]

The problem is not always even the recording, its your loudspeakers. For example, a drumkit can go up to 130dB. Can your speakers do that without compression?

Yes. My experience is when a speaker starts sounding too loud, it's because it's failing.

(Or sometime a track's tonal balance is simply whacked from the gitgo, and needs adjusting with major SPL)


I do have speakers that can go up to 130dB...and whenever I listen at high SPL, I like to keep an SPL meter visible for safety because it's crazy how loud it can get, without sounding loud.
Especially stoned...it just keeps getting better with volume

 

[gnarly]

IMO, So much of perceived dynamics are a result of tactile sensation which headphones and small speakers simply can’t do.

An upright bass in a small jazz club can easily resonate your chest with notes as high or even higher than A2 (110hz). A 6.5” studio monitor cannot do that, full stop.

I work in live sound and am incredibly spoiled to have the opportunity to listen to live music where I have something like 64 12” woofers and 48 18” subs playing. Even at 90db(A) the system will have a sense of scale and realism and tactile sensation in your body that is simply unmatched by 99% of consumer home gear.

I’m not qualified to speak on psychoacoustics but I can say I own various recordings of extremely high-level orchestras, done by my close friend, recorded with absolutely zero compression or limiting, and the difference in perceived realism from playing them on the FOH monitor system vs the main PA, levels matched, is jaw dropping.

Live music, whether amplified (thru a good PA), or acoustic, simply has a sense of scale and tactile realism that I’ve not been able to achieve in consumer settings. Exotics like Danley Hyperion and Genelec 8351/W371 get closer imo but still not comparable. I’d need more time with them and to play songs I am intimately familiar with to know forsure. I was at mercy of the demo team when listening to both.

Background noise is such a weird stance to take in this discussion. The ambient background noise of any live music venue is like -20db under the music. And no one is complaining about lack of dynamics in those settings. Not to mention the klippel test results prove that the threshold for audible distortion and noise is surprisingly low (around -33db avg if I recall)

Take everything above with a grain of salt, like I said I am not qualified to speak on psychoacoustics, but even commercially recorded content thru large scale speaker systems (level matched) sounds far more dynamic and “real” than over other forms of reproduction to literally everyone I’ve spoken to about this in my industry.

I find myself in agreement with all your well said points.

I'd like to play with the Hyperion and Genelect rig too....but am almost sure I know the result will be 'close but no cigar'....
...compared to how a quality PA can impart a sense of scale and tactile realism.

I do really love my large DIY unity/synergy's

 

[Willem]

However, this thread was not really about how loud you play, but about dynamic range.

 

[CapMan]

No, absolutly not, the style is at the very other end of the spectrum. But i'm sure that a good metal drummer can be trained to play jazz also, even on a high level. But it will take more than a bit training as the way the drum is beaten is very different. Metal drumers drum mainly with their shoulders, jazz drummers mainly with their wrists. Both styles are very complex to learn and get on a high level. It's like a top jazz pianist need a lot of training to play classical piano right and reverse.

It’s a totally different balance between the different instruments on the drum kit. In jazz the ride cymbal leads , the hi hat keeps time, the bass drum and snare drum add subtle embellishments in a syncopated way. They are played quietly. In rock, metal and pop music the bass drum and snare drum keep time and are played loudly, mostly on the beat.
Jazz drummers have an additional instrument - their ears - listening is a huge part of playing jazz

This is a great clip of drummer Billy Ward (the US one not the UK one) covering the essential styles of the jazz greats in about 5 mins !

 

[computer-audiophile]

However, this thread was not really about how loud you play, but about dynamic range.

Lifelike dynamics to be more precise. Not many speakers can deliver this impression.

By the way, percussion can be a sophisticated art form in its own right and there are famous percussion ensembles that play contemporary compositions (no pop or jazz).
One of the very best percussionists I know is Professor Isao Nakamura, who taught for a long time at the University of Music in Karlsruhe.

 

[computer-audiophile]

Ten years old video:

Whirlwind – Japanese drummer Isao Nakamura # 12.08.2012 # Arts.21 – DW – 08/12/2012

He made his debut at the age of eight, with the traditional Japanese matsuri drum, at a festival in his home country. Nowadays Isao Nakamura teaches percussion at Karlsruhe University of Music. And he presents new music like no one else can. He’s incredibly likeable, with a playing style so...

www.dw.com