Vinyl Record Noise Floor - A Call For Measurements

[MatrixS2000]

What do you mean when you say I'm spoofing the DR numbers? I hope you are not suggesting that I fiddle with the numbers.

NO!!! Definitely not saying you are doing anything nefarious.

What I mean by that is that you are simply looking at DR numbers. That is all. What I am showing you is that is not enough. The waveforms and the dynamic traces you created do not match the waveform or the dynamics coming off the vinyl rip. That is why I showed you the comparison of the vinyl rip dynamics to the dynamics of the modified CD back to original CD waveform. They are not similar so all that happened here is you landed on the same DR number but with a different waveform. You spoofed a DR number - you did not recreate the vinyl waveform that produced the higher DR number.

I use one of the most commonly used DR Metering tools, which is recommended by the DR Loudness-War webpage and available in Foobar2000, which is also widely used. As that one is probably one of the most commonly used DR Meters, the result will also be highly representative of many of the measurements posted on that popular webpage.

Just because it is common does not mean it is the best or even the preferred. It is also has not been developed for years so is outdated and uses a less accurate algorithm (PLR based) algorithm. PLR is Peak to Loudness measurement. Peak measurements are not as accurate as the tool I used. The loudness database tells you this:

MAAT DROoffline uses PSR. Any tool that uses PSR (peak to short term) as the measuring algorithm can be used. Tools utilizing this algorithm are much more accurate and can detect things such as squashed DR due to loudness maxmimation. I use Adaptr Audio AB Metric as it gives me a trace but there are also other tool such as Ian Sheppard’s Dynameter that can do the same but won’t give you the handy history graph that AB Metric does.

If the tool you use, for any reason, is not showing the same result as the most common tool used on the DR Loudness-War, it’s simply not representative for all the results posted on that website (which is by far the most popular website for these type of comparisons).

The last line on any album that is measured on the loudness database describes which algorithm was used. I tend to ignore the ones measure with PLR because it is not accurate but that also does not mean that that piece of music is the same as the CD version of a song with monoing of the bass, HPF and de-essing applied to it.

This is the dynamic range of the digital/CD release and the original master file:

View attachment 454137




And this is the dynamic range of the vinyl rip, which was made from an original master file with only DR8:

View attachment 454140




And here is the dynamic range of the digital/CD release after applying the usual things done in the preparation of a vinyl record, as a high-pass filter, mono bass, and a De-esser. The result ends up with the same DR as the vinyl rip:

View attachment 454145

I don’t doubt these numbers, I doubt your conclusion because as I showed, the dynamics of the CD with restored bass or without do not match the vinyl dynamics. You simply created a 3rd and 4th version of the song that happened to have the same DR numbers. The PSR graphs clearly show this.

If anything is spoofing the DR numbers, it's the commonly used tools used when preparing the audio file to avoid technical limitations of the vinyl format, which then show up in the reading of the dynamic range.

Again, mastering engineers are literally telling you that vinyl master have no loudness maximization process applied and that they are more dynamic.

And I'm not saying there are no vinyl releases out there that aren't more dynamic than their digital/CD counterpart. I'm just saying that the DR readings on their own can never be trusted, and even if the numbers look better, it's still possible that the vinyl was made from the same dynamically limited master as the digital/CD release.

Use better tools and you can trust them.

The example song you used did not have much limiting. If you followed the same as the Ian Sheppard video where the digital “master” was brickwalled, you would find that when you add back the bass, the DR drops again because you cannot get rid of what the limiter/compressor did to the file.

 

[goat76]

NO!!! Definitely not saying you are doing anything nefarious.

What I mean by that is that you are simply looking at DR numbers. That is all. What I am showing you is that is not enough. The waveforms and the dynamic traces you created do not match the waveform or the dynamics coming off the vinyl rip. That is why I showed you the comparison of the vinyl rip dynamics to the dynamics of the modified CD back to original CD waveform. They are not similar so all that happened here is you landed on the same DR number but with a different waveform. You spoofed a DR number - you did not recreate the vinyl waveform that produced the higher DR number.

Of course, I can't possibly recreate the same waveform as I don't use the same tools and can't possibly know precisely the settings they used; that would have been a lucky shot if it ended up looking identical. But there's no point in it being identical, as the vinyl rip is also not showing any form of true dynamic range. The true dynamic range of the original master made by Ian Shepherd for this song was only DR8, so the 50% increase in dynamic range you see in the vinyl rip can't possibly be of any actual music dynamic range as that were already lost when making the original master; it's just as in my example, a changed waveform caused by the phase shifts the preparation tool intruduced.

Just because it is common does not mean it is the best or even the preferred. It is also has not been developed for years so is outdated and uses a less accurate algorithm (PLR based) algorithm. PLR is Peak to Loudness measurement. Peak measurements are not as accurate as the tool I used. The loudness database tells you this:

View attachment 454163

MAAT DROoffline uses PSR. Any tool that uses PSR (peak to short term) as the measuring algorithm can be used. Tools utilizing this algorithm are much more accurate and can detect things such as squashed DR due to loudness maxmimation. I use Adaptr Audio AB Metric as it gives me a trace but there are also other tool such as Ian Sheppard’s Dynameter that can do the same but won’t give you the handy history graph that AB Metric does.

I never said it's the best because it's the most common DR Metering tool. The main thing here is that it is the most common tool for that webpage, which means that most measurements you find there are done with that tool, and that is what most people see, no matter if the metering is correct or not. People in general who visit the site don't know much about that, they just look at the measurements and judge by the numbers they see.

The last line on any album that is measured on the loudness database describes which algorithm was used. I tend to ignore the ones measure with PLR because it is not accurate but that also does not mean that that piece of music is the same as the CD version of a song with monoing of the bass, HPF and de-essing applied to it.

You may look at that last line and draw some kind of conclusion out of that, but that's not something most other people will do. They just look at the measured numbers and compare those to other releases of the same album.

No, it doesn't mean that the piece of music seen in a vinyl rip is the same as what a CD would look like if it had gotten the same typical vinyl preparations, but the main thing here is that we can't possibly know much at all about the DR numbers we see on that webpage when it comes to vinyl rips.

I don’t doubt these numbers, I doubt your conclusion because as I showed, the dynamics of the CD with restored bass or without do not match the vinyl dynamics. You simply created a 3rd and 4th version of the song that happened to have the same DR numbers. The PSR graphs clearly show this.

Again, I can't possibly know the exact tools and settings they used when making the vinyl. All we know is that some preparation/processing was done to the vinyl master, which caused an increase to DR12 from the original master track that had a dynamic range of DR8. Different studio tools cause different amounts of phase shifts, and it's also possible that more was done and/or more extreme settings were used. But we do know it ended up at DR12 from the original DR8, and with the same tools used again with the same settings, we would end up at the same number as the vinyl rip. Especially if it was matched to the same bass level as the vinyl version instead of me matching it back to the CD, which has a little higher level of bass than the vinyl rip.

Again, mastering engineers are literally telling you that vinyl master have no loudness maximization process applied and that they are more dynamic.

And the mastering engineer who did the mastering of the song we are talking about, says that the master sent to make the vinyl was the same DR8 one as the digital/CD release. Some mastering engineers will just use the same dynamically limited original master as the digital release, while others will not and go for a more dynamic master for the vinyl. We just don't know which is which without extended research, as we can't trust the numbers we see on a website like DR Loudness-War, something most users of that site will not do.

Use better tools and you can trust them.

Yes, say that to all the people who put up their measurements of their vinyl rip in that database.

The example song you used did not have much limiting. If you followed the same as the Ian Sheppard video where the digital “master” was brickwalled, you would find that when you add back the bass, the DR drops again because you cannot get rid of what the limiter/compressor did to the file.

The example track I used is taken directly from his YouTube video. It has the same dynamic limitation as the original track found on Tidal, with the only difference that the waveform of the sound file taken from YouTube will look a little bit different because of the lossy format. But it doesn't matter how it looks, the dynamic range is still the same, and when applying the same high-pass filter, the mono bass, and the De-esser to the same segment of the same track from Tidal, it also goes from DR8 to DR11.


The track from Tidal without any processing:

Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

And the same file from Tidal, but now with the same HP-filter, mono bass, and De-esser as the file I used from the YouTube video:

Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

 

[MatrixS2000]

Of course, I can't possibly recreate the same waveform as I don't use the same tools and can't possibly know precisely the settings they used;

Exactly and those setting also include whether a HPF (which is where all the DR gains were achieved) was used or whether the file you are using was the file that was used as the vinyl master.

But there's no point in it being identical, as the vinyl rip is also not showing any form of true dynamic range. The true dynamic range of the original master made by Ian Shepherd for this song was only DR8, so the 50% increase in dynamic range you see in the vinyl rip can't possibly be of any actual music dynamic range as that were already lost when making the original master; it's just as in my example, a changed waveform caused by the phase shifts the preparation tool intruduced.

That is because you are using the wrong tool. You need a tool that reads PSR which will detect where a limiter is the cause of the DR decline. I showed this with the Tool example where the digital version and vinyl releases are different masters. Take the digital version, do exactly what you did to it and then re-add the bass back in and the DR will drop back to the original digital version because the digital version has loudness maximization processing while the vinyl does not. So the DR drop is due to the limiter and the vinyl DR is the true DR because it does not have the limiter applied. Like I mentioned your example was a file with little limiting, so it was very easy to spoof the DR number but try it with a brick-walled file and you will see that it gets increasingly more difficult to come even close as the use of loudness maximization increases.

I never said it's the best because it's the most common DR Metering tool. The main thing here is that it is the most common tool for that webpage, which means that most measurements you find there are done with that tool, and that is what most people see, no matter if the metering is correct or not. People in general who visit the site don't know much about that, they just look at the measurements and judge by the numbers they see. You may look at that last line and draw some kind of conclusion out of that, but that's not something most other people will do. They just look at the measured numbers and compare those to other releases of the same album.

People gravitate to free, people think ethernet cables make a difference, people think power cords make a difference. You and I can’t control what other people believe or how far they want to dig into a topic.

No, it doesn't mean that the piece of music seen in a vinyl rip is the same as what a CD would look like if it had gotten the same typical vinyl preparations, but the main thing here is that we can't possibly know much at all about the DR numbers we see on that webpage when it comes to vinyl rips.

The typical vinyl preparation is to not use any loudness maximization processing which is where it gets the DR gains. If a HPF is applied, the DR will not change significantly when you add back the bass. See the Tool example above. We also saw this in the vinyl mega thread that a HPF is not always used in the vinyl preparation, that was the Foo Fighters example. I think it is impossible to know what was done to any file, but the measurements can tell us a lot about what did not happen.

Again, I can't possibly know the exact tools and settings they used when making the vinyl. All we know is that some preparation/processing was done to the vinyl master, which caused an increase to DR12 from the original master track that had a dynamic range of DR8. Different studio tools cause different amounts of phase shifts, and it's also possible that more was done and/or more extreme settings were used. But we do know it ended up at DR12 from the original DR8, and with the same tools used again with the same settings, we would end up at the same number as the vinyl rip. Especially if it was matched to the same bass level as the vinyl version instead of me matching it back to the CD, which has a little higher level of bass than the vinyl rip.

Again all based off a tool that we know is inaccurate and cannot detect where loudness maximization techniques were applied. Use a tool that can and then let’s have the conversation.

And the mastering engineer who did the mastering of the song we are talking about, says that the master sent to make the vinyl was the same DR8 one as the digital/CD release. Some mastering engineers will just use the same dynamically limited original master as the digital release, while others will not and go for a more dynamic master for the vinyl. We just don't know which is which without extended research, as we can't trust the numbers we see on a website like DR Loudness-War, something most users of that site will not do.

Right unless you have to the tools that can detect where DR was decreased for the sake of loudness. So for that Ian Sheppard video, if the CD with a DR8 was used for the vinyl master, then a HPF was used to prepare it for cutting, then the DR would drop back down to 8 once the bass is added back in and the dynamic trace should be very close to the CD. It is as simple as that to check this.

The example track I used is taken directly from his YouTube video. It has the same dynamic limitation as the original track found on Tidal, with the only difference that the waveform of the sound file taken from YouTube will look a little bit different because of the lossy format. But it doesn't matter how it looks, the dynamic range is still the same, and when applying the same high-pass filter, the mono bass, and the De-esser to the same segment of the same track from Tidal, it also goes from DR8 to DR11.

The De-esser and monoing of the bass will have zero impact on DR. You can try this yourself. Apply one at a time and measure DR. All the DR gains are from the HPF being applied. It will save you some typing .

The track from Tidal without any processing:

View attachment 454245

Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

And the same file from Tidal, but now with the same HP-filter, mono bass, and De-esser as the file I used from the YouTube video:

View attachment 454246

Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

Now do the same with a track that is brick-walled as per the Ian Sheppard video.

 

[Anton S]

Isn't the dynamic range of an auditory event simply the difference between the loudest and quietest parts of that event? What am I missing here?

 

[watchnerd]

Isn't the dynamic range of an auditory event simply the difference between the loudest and quietest parts of that event? What am I missing here?

I thought it was, too

From what I know, the dynamic range of good vinyl can easily be 60 db.

I’ve seen some claims in the 70s

 

[sergeauckland]

Isn't the dynamic range of an auditory event simply the difference between the loudest and quietest parts of that event? What am I missing here?

I thought it was, too

From what I know, the dynamic range of good vinyl can easily be 60 db.

I’ve seen some claims in the 70s

Indeed, it can, but the difficulty is measuring it, given the impulsive nature of the noise. Our hearing can hear past the noise to the quiet bits, even if they measure below the noise, and the loud bits can be up to some 20dB above cm/sec recorded velocity, although 10-15dB is more usual as a peak level.

S.

 

[goat76]

That is because you are using the wrong tool. You need a tool that reads PSR which will detect where a limiter is the cause of the DR decline. I showed this with the Tool example where the digital version and vinyl releases are different masters. Take the digital version, do exactly what you did to it and then re-add the bass back in and the DR will drop back to the original digital version because the digital version has loudness maximization processing while the vinyl does not. So the DR drop is due to the limiter and the vinyl DR is the true DR because it does not have the limiter applied. Like I mentioned your example was a file with little limiting, so it was very easy to spoof the DR number but try it with a brick-walled file and you will see that it gets increasingly more difficult to come even close as the use of loudness maximization increases.

The brick-walled limited audio file with a DR8 was used to make the vinyl version of this song; even the mastering engineer (Ian Shepherd) himself, who mastered this song, says so. And still you keep on claiming that the vinyl was done from another master? Don't you see how bizarre that claim of yours is?

The picture below is how the mastering file for the vinyl record looked before the typical vinyl-specific preparations were done, such as applying a high-pass filter, monoing the bass, and so on. In other words, the vinyl version was made from the exact same brick-walled limited audio file as the CD release.

The typical vinyl preparation is to not use any loudness maximization processing which is where it gets the DR gains. If a HPF is applied, the DR will not change significantly when you add back the bass. See the Tool example above. We also saw this in the vinyl mega thread that a HPF is not always used in the vinyl preparation, that was the Foo Fighters example. I think it is impossible to know what was done to any file, but the measurements can tell us a lot about what did not happen.

If you want to claim that "the typical vinyl preparation is not to use any loudness maximization processing", then you should be able to back that up with hard facts. Can you?

And that is the main problem. None of us can know, just by looking at the DR numbers, if the vinyl version of an album where truly done from a more dynamic master or not. A further analysis is needed for every single record, which most people will never do.

The song mastered by Ian Shepherd is a perfect example of a vinyl record, cut from the same brick wall-limited master as the digital/CD release, and the Foo Fighters song may be an example of a more dynamic master use. To figure out what the most common practice is, we probably need to analyze thousands of records.

Again all based off a tool that we know is inaccurate and cannot detect where loudness maximization techniques were applied. Use a tool that can and then let’s have the conversation.

You still don't get the point. It's worth nothing in the grand scheme of things if a few nerds use more accurate tools or not. The free option will still be the most commonly used tool, which will generate more measurements posted to that database. Most users of that database will not even notice what tool was used, they will just compare the numbers and treat them as facts.

Right unless you have to the tools that can detect where DR was decreased for the sake of loudness. So for that Ian Sheppard video, if the CD with a DR8 was used for the vinyl master, then a HPF was used to prepare it for cutting, then the DR would drop back down to 8 once the bass is added back in and the dynamic trace should be very close to the CD. It is as simple as that to check this.

When even the mastering engineer himself says that the same brick wall-limited audio file where sent to make the vinyl, I see no reason not to trust that information. Please name one single reason for Ian Shepherd not to be honest about a thing like this?

The De-esser and monoing of the bass will have zero impact on DR. You can try this yourself. Apply one at a time and measure DR. All the DR gains are from the HPF being applied. It will save you some typing .

I already know that the HPF does most of the job, and that the other processes will do less for the dynamic range, but when adding everything together, it can sometimes be those other things that push it over the edge to a higher DR#.

Now do the same with a track that is brick-walled as per the Ian Sheppard video.

In this particular case with this audio track, The De-essing doesn't do much, but monoing the bass raises the dynamic range from DR8 to DR9 on its own.

 

[Roy_D]

It varies from LP to LP, some are quieter than others. It can also be greatly attenuated once digitized. I can provide examples and measurement for most everything you want.

Here is an example, this one has the surface noise attenuated - so not what you are looking for, but will give you an idea of what can be measured. I also keep an archival copy that does not have any manipulation, so we can get true measurements. I can pull that out if you let me know what you are looking.

Pink Floyd Mother from The Wall (vinyl):



DR of the format is not a useful number imo. It just describes the capabilities that engineers need to work into. You need to look at the DR that the mastering provides as that is what you will end up listening to. Having a DR capability for 96dB is great, but when the music is smashed to a DR of 4, guess which one you listen to.

For a time I could buy good quality vintage records for a few € a piece and new for 15-25 and enjoyed the music that I took home a lot. The dynamic range albums were mixed to was a lot wider 'back then' then it was 'then' ( then already being like a while ago again lol ) Vinyl was fun , sounded good and compared to some friend's 'digitally remastered' albums which usually meant lots of dynamic range compression it did indeed sound better in that respect.

 

[MatrixS2000]

The brick-walled limited audio file with a DR8 was used to make the vinyl version of this song; even the mastering engineer (Ian Shepherd) himself, who mastered this song, says so. And still you keep on claiming that the vinyl was done from another master? Don't you see how bizarre that claim of yours is?

No because you aways use the same reference - that Ian Sheppard video. So unless you can come up with those particular files for us to measure with the right tools - please find another example - preferably where one of us owns the media. Speculating is a waste of time. I have shown you many, many different examples that dispute that video.

If you want to claim that "the typical vinyl preparation is not to use any loudness maximization processing", then you should be able to back that up with hard facts. Can you?

Yes, I already posted them.
You keep using that one Ian Sheppard video, I keep showing you 2 different mastering engineers stating that no loudness maximization is applied to vinyl masters and that they are more dynamic.

I have also shown you in the mega thread, several example of where there vinyl and digital versions of the same song from different masters and when you take the digital version and apply the HPF and then re-add the bass, the DR drops again while the vinyl does not.

And that is the main problem. None of us can know, just by looking at the DR numbers, if the vinyl version of an album where truly done from a more dynamic master or not. A further analysis is needed for every single record, which most people will never do.

You can’t because you cannot produce a dynamics trace. I can and I do for every single album I needle drop. Just because most people don’t do it does not support your argument.

Here is another example.

Tool - Chocolate Chip Trip Vinyl:

And the digital download version that is included with the vinyl purchase:

I chose this one because of the drumming. At about the 2m mark the drumming starts to kick in and there is difference in transients (just like we saw and heard with the Rush example in the mega thread - here is your post acknowledging that). The digital version has all the transients cut off due to a limiter being used, the vinyl does not - clearly shown in the dynamics trace.

You can hear the vinyl version for that section here.

The song mastered by Ian Shepherd is a perfect example of a vinyl record, cut from the same brick wall-limited master as the digital/CD release, and the Foo Fighters song may be an example of a more dynamic master use. To figure out what the most common practice is, we probably need to analyze thousands of records.

Not what dynamics trace showed for the Foo Fighters exampe. Here is the original post. As for the Ian Sheppard example, get the files and measure them with the right tool.

Here are the measurements again:

You still don't get the point. It's worth nothing in the grand scheme of things if a few nerds use more accurate tools or not. The free option will still be the most commonly used tool, which will generate more measurements posted to that database. Most users of that database will not even notice what tool was used, they will just compare the numbers and treat them as facts.

I would say it is the other way around. You are the one pushing to keep using old tools, I keep asking you to use better tools - as does the loudness database site. You and I cannot force people to use better tools just like we can’t force them to believe that ethernet cables make no difference to sound quality.

When even the mastering engineer himself says that the same brick wall-limited audio file where sent to make the vinyl, I see no reason not to trust that information.

Yet you continually ignore the mastering engineers that say they don’t do that. He also said he did not understand what was happening in the comments section.

Please name one single reason for Ian Shepherd not to be honest about a thing like this?

Please name one single reason why those 2 mastering engineers I referred to are not honest about a thing like this.

I already know that the HPF does most of the job, and that the other processes will do less for the dynamic range, but when adding everything together, it can sometimes be those other things that push it over the edge to a higher DR#.



In this particular case with this audio track, The De-essing doesn't do much, but monoing the bass raises the dynamic range from DR8 to DR9 on its own.

View attachment 454342

Did you do this to the entire song or only that short portion? If we are going to be doing these comparisons you need to use entire song not a small portion.

 

[goat76]

No because you aways use the same reference - that Ian Sheppard video. So unless you can come up with those particular files for us to measure with the right tools - please find another example - preferably where one of us owns the media. Speculating is a waste of time. I have shown you many, many different examples that dispute that video.

I use that particular example because it comes directly from an actual mastering engineer who made the mastering himself, which was then used both for the CD version AND the vinyl record. That takes away a lot of speculations that would otherwise arise, but with this example, we can be fairly sure that the same master was used for both the vinyl and the CD version. So, instead of wasting our time with examples that are not confirmed using the same masters, we can just focus here on what it was in the process of making the vinyl that made the DR numbers go up.

And no, your examples don't dispute the example Ian Shepherd showed us, and I'm highly surprised if you still insist that you know better about this particular master than the actual mastering engineer who made it.

Yes, I already posted them.
You keep using that one Ian Sheppard video, I keep showing you 2 different mastering engineers stating that no loudness maximization is applied to vinyl masters and that they are more dynamic.

What I was asking you about was whether you can back up your claim that "the typical vinyl preparation is not to use any loudness maximization processing". How do you know that without thousands of examples, and not just a few cherry-picked ones? And even better, do you have a link you can share where many mastering engineers were asked the question whether they use any limiting for the vinyl mastering?

The only thing we do know is that some mastering engineers do use loudness processing for vinyl mastering, while some don't use it. That's all we know, and nothing indicates that one method is more common than the other.

I have also shown you in the mega thread, several example of where there vinyl and digital versions of the same song from different masters and when you take the digital version and apply the HPF and then re-add the bass, the DR drops again while the vinyl does not.

But where will that lead us if we allow ourselves to look at the bigger picture?

The thing is, your findings don't change the fact that most people will just look at the numbers on the website DR Loudness-War and then draw their conclusions based on that, and based on that, they will think that pretty much every release on vinyl is more dynamic than its CD counterpart. How many people do you think will go through the analysis process you are suggesting?

Convincing me of your method doesn't take us far. It's way easier to make people aware that the dynamic reading of vinyl rips is highly unreliable.

You can’t because you cannot produce a dynamics trace. I can and I do for every single album I needle drop. Just because most people don’t do it does not support your argument.

Here is another example.

Tool - Chocolate Chip Trip Vinyl:
View attachment 454492

And the digital download version that is included with the vinyl purchase:
View attachment 454496
I chose this one because of the drumming. At about the 2m mark the drumming starts to kick in and there is difference in transients (just like we saw and heard with the Rush example in the mega thread - here is your post acknowledging that). The digital version has all the transients cut off due to a limiter being used, the vinyl does not - clearly shown in the dynamics trace.

You can hear the vinyl version for that section here.



Not what dynamics trace showed for the Foo Fighters exampe. Here is the original post. As for the Ian Sheppard example, get the files and measure them with the right tool.

Here are the measurements again:
View attachment 454497

View attachment 454498

Why are you showing me these examples?

I already know that many vinyl records are made from more dynamic masters than were used for the digital/CD release. The problem I am talking about is that whenever the vinyl release is made from the same dynamically limited master as the CD release, it will still show a higher DR number, making many people believe those vinyl records are also made from more dynamic masters.

I would say it is the other way around. You are the one pushing to keep using old tools, I keep asking you to use better tools - as does the loudness database site. You and I cannot force people to use better tools just like we can’t force them to believe that ethernet cables make no difference to sound quality.

I'm not pushing anything.

What you fail to understand is that I have, throughout all our discussions about this matter, kept a view of the bigger picture. It's not about ME or YOU, it's about all the other millions of music lovers around the world who look at that web-based DR database, and believe that pretty much every vinyl release is more dynamic than the CD release. If you (just for a minute) let yourself take a step back and take a view of the bigger picture, you will probably also realize that if about 90% of all measurement entries on that webpage are done with the old DR Meteering Tool, it should not be ignored as that is very much part of what you see when looking at that database.

For me, it's all about what information you can find and hopefully TRUST about a particular release BEFORE you purchase the record. Many people are using that webpage for that reason, failing to understand the possible inaccuracy of the DR measurements of vinyl rips.

Yet you continually ignore the mastering engineers that say they don’t do that. He also said he did not understand what was happening in the comments section.

Please name one single reason why those 2 mastering engineers I referred to are not honest about a thing like this.

I have no reason at all not to believe those two mastering engineers. What would they gain by not being honest about a thing like that?

It's the same with Ian Shepherd. He is fully aware of what he did when he made the master track for that song, and that the same master was used for both the CD release and the vinyl release.

Did you do this to the entire song or only that short portion? If we are going to be doing these comparisons you need to use entire song not a small portion.

Here you go! But I'm not sure you will like what you see, as it's only getting further away from what you claim should be happening.

The file with the HPF, mono bass, and the De-ess filter doesn't go back down to the DR8 of the original, as you claim it would when adding back the bass level. When measuring the DR level for the entire length of the track, it stays as high as DR11 when EQ-matched to the original track with DR8.

Original full-length track from Tidal (same as CD):

The full-length track from Tidal, with HPF, mono bass, and De-ess filter:

And the full-length track from Tidal, with HPF, mono bass, and De-ess filter, but now EQ-Matched to the Original track:

.

 

[DVinylfan]

A thread from another place. It may be interesting to compare the apples of vinyl replay with the oranges of digital/streaming on a continuum of how much engineering/construction we undertake to improve, from a purely subjective standpoint, the sound of our gear.

https://www.lencoheaven.net/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=2i6foibhqjmd3pltsvscdv2cg2&topic=6165.0

 

[MatrixS2000]

I use that particular example because it comes directly from an actual mastering engineer who made the mastering himself, which was then used both for the CD version AND the vinyl record.

Are you saying the mastering engineers I pointed to are not mastering engineers?

That takes away a lot of speculations that would otherwise arise, but with this example, we can be fairly sure that the same master was used for both the vinyl and the CD version. So, instead of wasting our time with examples that are not confirmed using the same masters, we can just focus here on what it was in the process of making the vinyl that made the DR numbers go up.

No we cannot focus here because neither of us has both audio clips to measure with the right tool. So all it is is speculation.

And no, your examples don't dispute the example Ian Shepherd showed us, and I'm highly surprised if you still insist that you know better about this particular master than the actual mastering engineer who made it.

Like I said, Ian told us he did not understand what was happening when he first made that video in the comments section. So no it is not me saying I know better, its Ian telling us he didn’t understand what was happening when he made that video (underline emphasis is mine):

Any measurement based on peak reading is flawed. This is why no one in the industry uses peak measurements to measure dynamics. PSR measurements are used. Like I keep telling you, use better tools! Ian knows this, that is why he created Dynameter.

What I was asking you about was whether you can back up your claim that "the typical vinyl preparation is not to use any loudness maximization processing".

How do you know it doesn’t?

How do you know that without thousands of examples, and not just a few cherry-picked ones?

Speaking of cherry picking - you use a single short clip, I prove that wrong and you go back to the same video. I have provided you many examples. Need more?

And even better, do you have a link you can share where many mastering engineers were asked the question whether they use any limiting for the vinyl mastering?

https://www.joecaithnessmastering.com/faq/ - He has since slightly updated the wording since I screen captured it, but the update doesn’t change anything.

https://www.audibleoddities.com/pricing/ - the second example I posted earlier.

The only thing we do know is that some mastering engineers do use loudness processing for vinyl mastering, while some don't use it.

Agreed! That is why I measure dynamics.

That's all we know, and nothing indicates that one method is more common than the other.

Again agreed and that is why I measure with the right tool.

But where will that lead us if we allow ourselves to look at the bigger picture?

The thing is, your findings don't change the fact that most people will just look at the numbers on the website DR Loudness-War and then draw their conclusions based on that, and based on that, they will think that pretty much every release on vinyl is more dynamic than its CD counterpart. How many people do you think will go through the analysis process you are suggesting?

Is this discussion about the loudness database or how to discover if one version of a song is more dynamic than another?

Convincing me of your method doesn't take us far. It's way easier to make people aware that the dynamic reading of vinyl rips is highly unreliable.

So you want to intentionally mislead people when you know that is not the case???? I am saddened to read this.

Why are you showing me these examples?

I already know that many vinyl records are made from more dynamic masters than were used for the digital/CD release. The problem I am talking about is that whenever the vinyl release is made from the same dynamically limited master as the CD release, it will still show a higher DR number, making many people believe those vinyl records are also made from more dynamic masters.

I showed them because this is an example of where we know that there are 2 different masters. Yet we can easily see that there are many similarities between the two. Then I posted the Foo Fighters example. This I know used the same master for both because the dynamic traces are even more similar. The dynamic traces of your example track are not similar - so I know there is a high probability that the track you used as the “vinyl master” was not used to produce the vinyl. If it was I would expect the traces to be more similar. This is why I keep saying all you achieved was to spoof the DR #.

I'm not pushing anything.

What you fail to understand is that I have, throughout all our discussions about this matter, kept a view of the bigger picture. It's not about ME or YOU, it's about all the other millions of music lovers around the world who look at that web-based DR database, and believe that pretty much every vinyl release is more dynamic than the CD release.

I don’t fail to understand that at all. YOU fail to understand that YOU won’t be able to do anything about it because even here in this thread YOU are pushing measurements based on tools that are known to be inaccurate - even when I pointed out to you that the loudness database warns people of that. YOU are not pushing the use of better tools, YOU are pushing to mislead the public because it is easier.

If you (just for a minute) let yourself take a step back and take a view of the bigger picture, you will probably also realize that if about 90% of all measurement entries on that webpage are done with the old DR Meteering Tool, it should not be ignored as that is very much part of what you see when looking at that database.

I am not ignoring it (and I also don’t believe your 90% suggestion but that doesn’t matter), but I also know I cannot force people to use better tools, just like I can’t force them to understand that ethernet cables don’t make a difference to audio quality.

For me, it's all about what information you can find and hopefully TRUST about a particular release BEFORE you purchase the record. Many people are using that webpage for that reason, failing to understand the possible inaccuracy of the DR measurements of vinyl rips.

Good luck with that endeavour. And if you have not noticed, people don’t care. Just look at this thread. The only ones discussing this are me and you. That should tell you everything you need to know. If this isn’t a hint to stop, I don’t know what is. So I suggest we stop now.

I have no reason at all not to believe those two mastering engineers. What would they gain by not being honest about a thing like that?

It's the same with Ian Shepherd. He is fully aware of what he did when he made the master track for that song, and that the same master was used for both the CD release and the vinyl release.

Already answered this earlier.

Here you go! But I'm not sure you will like what you see, as it's only getting further away from what you claim should be happening.

The file with the HPF, mono bass, and the De-ess filter doesn't go back down to the DR8 of the original, as you claim it would when adding back the bass level. When measuring the DR level for the entire length of the track, it stays as high as DR11 when EQ-matched to the original track with DR8.

Post the files so I can measure them properly.

 

[goat76]

Are you saying the mastering engineers I pointed to are not mastering engineers?

No, I don't say that they aren't mastering engineers.

What I mean is that Ian Shepherd’s video is a “one of it's kind”, as he is the actual mastering engineer of the track, and can confirm that the CD and the vinyl were made from the same master. Do you know of any other mastering engineer who have made a video comparing his own master for CD and vinyl, if so, please share it.

No we cannot focus here because neither of us has both audio clips to measure with the right tool. So all it is is speculation.

I don't need the full vinyl rip, it worked great analyzing and comparing the short segment taken from the video. And I fully trust Ian Shepherd that the files are genuine, as he mastered it himself.

Like I said, Ian told us he did not understand what was happening when he first made that video in the comments section. So no it is not me saying I know better, its Ian telling us he didn’t understand what was happening when he made that video (underline emphasis is mine):

View attachment 454716

The thing he said at the time was that he didn't understand what could possibly be the technical reason for the jump in dynamic range for the vinyl rip. But he sure does know that the same master where used, as he was the mastering engineer for this record.

If you, for any reason at all, don’t think it's the usual preparation steps taken to avoid problems producing and reproducing the vinyl record that caused the rise of dynamic range. And please don't say you think another master was used, when even the mastering engineer himself knows the same master was used for the CD and the vinyl.

Any measurement based on peak reading is flawed. This is why no one in the industry uses peak measurements to measure dynamics. PSR measurements are used. Like I keep telling you, use better tools! Ian knows this, that is why he created Dynameter.

Well, say that to all the hundred thousand of people using such tool, posting those result to the database.

How do you know it doesn’t?

I never did claim anything, as I have no idea what the most common practice is. I just see that different practices is obviously used by different mastering studios and mastering engineers.

It's you who claim you know that "the typical vinyl preparation is not to use any loudness maximization processing", that’s why I ask you for evidence of that.

Speaking of cherry picking - you use a single short clip, I prove that wrong and you go back to the same video. I have provided you many examples. Need more?

Again, I have not claimed anything about what is or what isn't “the typical” vinyl preparation practices when it come to loudness”. It's you who claim you know that "the typical vinyl preparation is not to use any loudness maximization processing", and therefore I’m asking you for evidence for “the typical” and not just for a few examples of mastering engineers practices. Only two guys is simply not enough for your claim, so you should at least provide a link to a research on the matter.

Is this discussion about the loudness database or how to discover if one version of a song is more dynamic than another?

The discussion is about the general misconception that vinyl records are always more dynamic than their digital/CD counterpart. Most people believe in the DR numbers for vinyl rips, and think they are making an apple-to-apple comparison with the digital release. Many times, the vinyl rip will show a 4-unit higher number of DR than what is actually there in the music, and can therefore never make a true informal decision before choosing what format to buy for their next music purchase.

Personally, I don’t care much at all about DR measurements, I’m mostly interested in the described “bigger picture”.

So you want to intentionally mislead people when you know that is not the case???? I am saddened to read this.

No, I already explained why I use the same tool as most other will do posting the measurings to the database. It's those results everyone visiting that webpage will see, and when I use the same tool here, it will be an apple-to-apple comparison to the measurements found in the database.

I showed them because this is an example of where we know that there are 2 different masters. Yet we can easily see that there are many similarities between the two. Then I posted the Foo Fighters example. This I know used the same master for both because the dynamic traces are even more similar. The dynamic traces of your example track are not similar - so I know there is a high probability that the track you used as the “vinyl master” was not used to produce the vinyl. If it was I would expect the traces to be more similar. This is why I keep saying all you achieved was to spoof the DR #.

If you have a trust issue with Ian Shepherd, you should take thus discussion with him instead.

I trust him when he says that the same master was used to produce both the CD and the vinyl, he was after all the mastering engineer for the record.

Post the files so I can measure them properly.

I can’t share a full song here as that would be illegal. As there’s only one version of this album mastered by Ian Shepherd, you can be sure that wherever you find it, it will be the same version as the one I analyzed. I’m sure you find a download for it, like Bandcamp: https://artemis.bandcamp.com/track/love-of-the-game

And if you are still uncertain if Ian Shepherd is the mastering engineer for the vinyl version of this album, he is the name listed for the LP on Discogs: https://www.discogs.com/release/5010111-Artemis-Sephyra

 

[MatrixS2000]

No, I don't say that they aren't mastering engineers.

What I mean is that Ian Shepherd’s video is a “one of it's kind”, as he is the actual mastering engineer of the track, and can confirm that the CD and the vinyl were made from the same master. Do you know of any other mastering engineer who have made a video comparing his own master for CD and vinyl, if so, please share it.

Sure...

Here is the video. Right up front (0:15s into the video) he says plainly that the track needs to be mastered for it’s destination format, whether that be streaming, CD, or vinyl. So 3 different workflows.

Here is a screen capture with cc on to capture the words for illustration:

Also note that video I am pointing to is dated 2025, not a relic from 11 years ago. Please let that video die the death it deserves, listen to Ian and stop using TTmeter.

I don't need the full vinyl rip, it worked great analyzing and comparing the short segment taken from the video. And I fully trust Ian Shepherd that the files are genuine, as he mastered it himself.

Then you dont know whether the parts of the music that impacted DR are being considered.

As you can clearly see in your earlier short example, the short portion you used never dips below 9, so you completely missed the portion that caused the DR to drop to 8.

thing he said at the time was that he didn't understand what could possibly be the technical reason for the jump in dynamic range for the vinyl rip. But he sure does know that the same master where used, as he was the mastering engineer for this record.

If you, for any reason at all, don’t think it's the usual preparation steps taken to avoid problems producing and reproducing the vinyl record that caused the rise of dynamic range. And please don't say you think another master was used, when even the mastering engineer himself knows the same master was used for the CD and the vinyl.

Not disputing that, but I am disputing that the CD was put through a HPF and out came the vinyl waveform. He just spoofed the DR like you did and I showed that that process does not output what was on the vinyl.

Well, say that to all the hundred thousand of people using such tool, posting those result to the database.

Why do you think they will listen? The database itself tells people that TTmeter is less accurate…people don’t care.

I have no idea what the most common practice is. I just see that different practices is obviously used by different mastering studios and mastering engineers.

We agree!

It's you who claim you know that "the typical vinyl preparation is not to use any loudness maximization processing", that’s why I ask you for evidence of that.

You are forgetting about the foo fighters example - same dynamics in both CD and vinyl - no 3 dB of placebo DR gain.

Again, I have not claimed anything about what is or what isn't “the typical” vinyl preparation practices when it come to loudness”. It's you who claim you know that "the typical vinyl preparation is not to use any loudness maximization processing", and therefore I’m asking you for evidence for “the typical” and not just for a few examples of mastering engineers practices. Only two guys is simply not enough for your claim, so you should at least provide a link to a research on the matter.

yes you have, you say that

The discussion is about the general misconception that vinyl records are always more dynamic than their digital/CD counterpart.

That is what you want the discussion to be, not what I want it to be. This discussion about the noise floor in vinyl. I didn’t want to rehash all the same things we discussed in the mega vinyl thread, but here we are...

What I’m looking to get out of this side conversation showing how standard industry tools can measure when changes in dynamics (gains or losses) are caused by harmful practices that prioritize loudness over quality.

Personally, I don’t care much at all about DR measurements, I’m mostly interested in the described “bigger picture”.

Then why did you want to rehash this conversation? If what you mean by the bigger picture is the loudness database - then you must care about DR so your argument is not making much sense.

If you have a trust issue with Ian Shepherd, you should take thus discussion with him instead.

Nice try. Like I said earlier, he is telling you to stop using TTmeter, just like the loudness database is telling the public that TTmeter is less accurate. I already listened to him years ago and I don’t use TTmeter. So who has more trust in Ian - the guy that stopped using the tool that Ian says is inaccurate or the guy still using that tool?

 

[goat76]

Sure...

Here is the video. Right up front (0:15s into the video) he says plainly that the track needs to be mastered for it’s destination format, whether that be streaming, CD, or vinyl. So 3 different workflows.

Here is a screen capture with cc on to capture the words for illustration:
View attachment 454878


Also note that video I am pointing to is dated 2025, not a relic from 11 years ago. Please let that video die the death it deserves, listen to Ian and stop using TTmeter.

View attachment 454877

Are you still thinking that our little discussion here is about me "denying" that the vinyl version of an album is sometimes mastered with more dynamics, even though I have repeatedly said that that is often true?

What's unique about Ian Shepherd's video is that he shows us an example where the mastering is the same for both the CD and the Vinyl, yet still demonstrates a higher dynamic range for the vinyl when finally measured. So, at what time frame in that 36-minute video you posted can we see a similar example? Does he use the same master for the respective formats, and does he show what the CD and vinyl look like after the process is complete? If that's not the case with this video, it's still not comparable to Ian Shepherd's video, as the important thing here is what will happen when the master used for the CD and the vinyl is the same.

Then you dont know whether the parts of the music that impacted DR are being considered.

As you can clearly see in your earlier short example, the short portion you used never dips below 9, so you completely missed the portion that caused the DR to drop to 8.

I have already shown you that that very segment of that song from the CD version was at DR8 originally. That same segment did go up to DR11 after using HPF, mono bass, and De-esser. You then said it would go down again to DR8 if the bass level was raised again to match the original file, but that wasn't true, as it ended up at DR9. Then you tried to "raise the bar" as that result didn't suit your plot, so you wanted me to do the same for the full song, and I did, and the result was even further away from your claim that it would return to the original DR8, it just droped to DR11 from the prepared full song file of DR12.

Sorry, but every single time I measure what you ask me to measure, and the result doesn't point in your claimed way, you try to find a new hole in the needle.

Not disputing that, but I am disputing that the CD was put through a HPF and out came the vinyl waveform. He just spoofed the DR like you did and I showed that that process does not output what was on the vinyl.

The original master is the same and looks the same as the CD version, as there are no other preparations that need to be done for that format as there are no technical limitations for that format to be avoided, as there are with the vinyl. The only difference is that the original master file is usually a 24-bit file, and enough headroom is left for the specific preparations the vinyl often needs, as HPF, mono bass, and De-ess, and so on, not to introduce possible problems in both making the vinyl and playing the vinyl.

Ian never "spoofed" the DR numbers; the usual steps in the preparation of a vinyl "spoofed" the numbers, which then come up in the measurements using a commonly used DR Meteering program.

If we had a chance to look at the master file after the typical vinyl preparations, it would most likely look very similar to the digital file I prepared with the same treatment. The same would be true for the CD if the same preparations were needed, but as no such preparations are needed for digital formats, the resulting measurements of such a file will look the same as the original master.

Why do you think they will listen? The database itself tells people that TTmeter is less accurate…people don’t care.

Maybe not, or most of them don't just read the FAQ. But at least I'm trying my best to show people what many times will happen when using the same measurement tools, and why these results should never be used for comparing vinyl rips to the digital release.

You are forgetting about the foo fighters example - same dynamics in both CD and vinyl - no 3 dB of placebo DR gain.

The problem seen in the measurements only occurs when the original masters used for the song were dynamically limited. There is not that much happening to the waveform of the song file when there are no hard-clipped peaks to begin with.

Then why did you want to rehash this conversation? If what you mean by the bigger picture is the loudness database - then you must care about DR so your argument is not making much sense.

Believe me, I don’t want to discuss this with you. I just saw that @DSJR mentioned my findings and that your first response to that was your own twist on it. I just wanted to make clear what my main reason was for making the tests in the first place, and that is to be able to inform all the people who constantly use that database, that they aren’t making an apples-to-apples comparison between digital releases and vinyl rips, when looking att the DR numbers posted on that website.

Nice try. Like I said earlier, he is telling you to stop using TTmeter, just like the loudness database is telling the public that TTmeter is less accurate. I already listened to him years ago and I don’t use TTmeter. So who has more trust in Ian - the guy that stopped using the tool that Ian says is inaccurate or the guy still using that tool?

I have already explained why I use the same tool as was used for many of the DR numbers found in the database, how would I otherwise be able to show what is happening and why those numbers are often wrong if I used a tool where those untrue numbers don’t show up. You must understand my explanation on this by now, at least I hope you do.

End of this discussion.

 

[MatrixS2000]

Are you still thinking that our little discussion here is about me "denying" that the vinyl version of an album is sometimes mastered with more dynamics, even though I have repeatedly said that that is often true?

No and I never have.

What's unique about Ian Shepherd's video is that he shows us an example where the mastering is the same for both the CD and the Vinyl, yet still demonstrates a higher dynamic range for the vinyl when finally measured. So, at what time frame in that 36-minute video you posted can we see a similar example? Does he use the same master for the respective formats, and does he show what the CD and vinyl look like after the process is complete? If that's not the case with this video, it's still not comparable to Ian Shepherd's video, as the important thing here is what will happen when the master used for the CD and the vinyl is the same.

You get the Foo Fighter example.

I have already shown you that that very segment of that song from the CD version was at DR8 originally. That same segment did go up to DR11 after using HPF, mono bass, and De-esser. You then said it would go down again to DR8 if the bass level was raised again to match the original file, but that wasn't true, as it ended up at DR9. Then you tried to "raise the bar" as that result didn't suit your plot, so you wanted me to do the same for the full song, and I did, and the result was even further away from your claim that it would return to the original DR8, it just droped to DR11 from the prepared full song file of DR12.

Then you did it wrong. I know that you know that all processing in a DAW are simple mathematical operations. So here is how I know that the above is false.

Xcd = waveform on the CD with DR8
B = Musical content of Xcd to be impacted by your modifications
Bmod = your modifications (HPF, De-ess, mono bass)
Binvmod = inverse of your modifications
A = Balance of the musical content in Xcd.
C = Any modification that is not Bmod
Y = new waveform = DR12
Z = 2nd new waveform = Some other DR


So,
Xcd = A+B = DR8

Then you apply your modifications resulting in the creation of waveform Y:
Xcd = A+B-Bmod = Y = DR12. This should match the vinyl if the CD was used as the master. So how can we check that?

Simple - re-insert your modifications.
Xcd = Y+Binvmod = DR8.

There is no other landing spot possible if you did it correctly - this simple math proves that. So I know that you did not re-insert B, you inserted C. Not accusing you of doing it intentionally, just that this is what happened and explains why the DR did not return to where expected. Since you did not correctly re-add the content you modified, you created waveform Z with the unexpected DR. This math supports why I know you did not recreate the CD waveform when you re-inserted the modifications. Had you done it properly the DR must go back to 8. Both your examples in this thread are showing exactly what the above math is dictating will happen.

EDIT: added some additional detail to illustrate step by step math a little clearer.

 

[Anton S]

A thought-provoking presentation on vinyl-vs-digital for consideration:

Vinyl vs. CDs: What sounds better?

 

[MatrixS2000]

A thought-provoking presentation on vinyl-vs-digital for consideration:

Vinyl vs. CDs: What sounds better?

There is no doubt that the digital format has a greater DR capability than vinyl.

 

[Anton S]

There is no doubt that the digital format has a greater DR capability than vinyl.

I'm unfamiliar with the software being used to measure the dynamic range in the sidebar you are having with goat76, but if my music were recorded with only 8, 10, or 12 dB of dynamic range, I wouldn't even bother owning decent gear. That's pathetic. Even a table radio can easily manage it.

Music that doesn't provide at least 30 dB of dynamic range by my measurements sounds too canned for my liking, like AM radio. Here's what I'm typically seeing in both dBA and dBZ, same volume, same position, and same passage from the middle of a selection:

These measurements were obtained using the Bosch INVH program. Subtracting Lmin from Lmax yields a dynamic range of 38.9 or 53.5 respectively.

 

[goat76]

Then you did it wrong. I know that you know that all processing in a DAW are simple mathematical operations.

I know I declared that I wild end this conversation with you, but when you pull out weird ideas like your little mathematical game, I have to respond.

…Then you apply your modifications resulting in the creation of waveform Y:
Xcd = A+B-Bmod = Y = DR12. This should match the vinyl if the CD was used as the master. So how can we check that?

Simple - re-insert your modifications.
Xcd = Y+Binvmod = DR8.

There is no other landing spot possible if you did it correctly - this simple math proves that. So I know that you did not re-insert B, you inserted C. Not accusing you of doing it intentionally, just that this is what happened and explains why the DR did not return to where expected. Since you did not correctly re-add the content you modified, you created waveform Z with the unexpected DR. This math supports why I know you did not recreate the CD waveform when you re-inserted the modifications. Had you done it properly the DR must go back to 8. Both your examples in this thread are showing exactly what the above math is dictating will happen.

There is no chance in hell to undo and restore the waveform to the former state. When the sound file after the modifications (HPF, mono bass, and De-ess) is rendered as a new file, the waveform will look very different from how it looked before, and just by EQ-match the file to regain the loss in bass energy will never ever fully restore it to the original state.

Please don't tell me you forget to render the modified track to a new file before you try to undo the changes.

What can be done to regain the bass level is to EQ match the new file to the original file, either by using an EQ-match program or by trying to make an EQ curve that “mirrors” the HPF, and the same goes for the De-ess that can be equalized back to the original state. But when it comes to the mono bass, nothing can be done to undo that process.

As an exact undo of the processing can’t be done, the same goes for the DR# that will still be affected by the changed waveform of the new file, even after you EQ back the bass level.

Jesus, I can’t understand why I need to explain the above basic things to you. I mean, just make the changes to the original audio file (which you can download from Bandcamp), apply the processing to mirror the DR12 of the vinyl rip, and don't forget to render the new file you just created. Now import that new file into your DAW, and then EQ-match the bass level to the original file, and you will see that the DR# most likely will NOT go back down to the original DR8.