Because as I proven to you multiple times now, that without a dynamics trace all you are doing is spoofing DR #s because your dynamics do not match the dynamics coming off the vinyl. Your short example is proof of this fact, you replicated the DR # of the vinyl but not the dynamics, which means your measurement is meaningless. And you did it again with this Psychlona example.
What is it you think you need to prove? I already know that the true musical dynamics will not match the vinyl whenever the vinyl is made from a truly more dynamic master. But whenever it is made from the same master, the digital release will also match the dynamic trace of the vinyl, as is the case with the track mastered by Ian Shepherd, where the dynamic trace will look very similar to the dynamic trace of the vinyl rip.
So, from the point I'm talking about this, most people will never look at the dynamic trace, so even in all the cases when the dynamic trace would have revealed that the same brick-walled master was used for the vinyl, people will still think that the vinyl is a more dynamic version of the album.
I have already acknowledged everything you said, as I have never even disputed those things. But why on earth can't you understand the bigger picture I'm talking about, where most people will only look at the numbers represented in the DR database, and believe them all? That's the problem I am showing, and believe me, I already fully well know that the numbers are "spoofed", as the same goes for the numbers we see for the vinyl rips whenever the master was the same to begin with. This is NOT me saying there are no vinyl releases that aren't more dynamic than their digital counterpart, because there are, of course, many of those. The problem is just that it, in many cases, can't be determined by just looking at the numbers, which most people will do who have an interest in comparing vinyl records to the digital releases.
Nope - the tools I used are loudness based, so they measure if the transients are intact or not. Like I said to you so many times now - if what you say above is true, where is the gain on the Foo Fighter example?
What is it with you? I have not even questioned whether the album you are talking about with the Foo Fighters is the same master or not. I don't even remember what exact release you are talking about, but point me to it, and I can easily analyze it and say whether it was made from the same master as the digital release, or not.
But it’s not, so what exactly is your point? Because I can keep piling on the evidence that the reason the digital versions have a lower DR is because they are from a different master that have more loudness maximization processing applied to them, not because of phase shifting. Here is more proof, straight from the person you pointed me to:
Again, I already fully well know there are many vinyl releases made from truly more dynamic masters. Who are you talking to? It can't possibly be me, as I have acknowledged that fact throughout the whole conversation with you. This horse must have been beaten to death by now.
View attachment 456108
View attachment 456109
View attachment 456110
This is the reason why the digital versions have a lower DR# is because they have more loudness maximization processing applied to them as compared to the vinyl counterpart, not because of phase shifts.
Yes, in some cases, they are made without loudness maximization, but in other cases, they are not. But whenever the vinyl where made from the same loudness maximized master, it still shows up as more dynamic by just looking at the DR database, and that is the case where the vinyl preparation process has "spoofed" the numbers.
I understand this, but you are not comparing apples to apples, every time you run your experiment, you create waveform Z which is not the waveform coming off the vinyl. So your “proof” is flawed and your measurements are meaningless because of this. Match the dynamics and we are now speaking the same language. The proof is yet again below.
How many times do I need to tell you the reason for that?
The reason for that is simply to show other people (the ones who blindly believe in all numbers seen in the DR database) that the numbers can have been "spoofed" in the process of making the vinyl.
Sometimes it is comparing apples to apples, as there are vinyl records made from volume-maximized masters, as the example with the master by Ian Shepherd, and the digital release of those will, of course, look the same/similar to the vinyl rip as long as the same processing is done.
Nope - you created yet another waveform:
Raw vinyl dynamics trace:
Why would it look the same? It's obviously NOT the same master in this case. The only thing I used it for was to show you that the PSR and the DR numbers will not return to their initial state whenever a non-linear HPF is used.
View attachment 456113
The dynamics trace of the digital download file when minimum phase filter is used for Bmod:
View attachment 456117
Nope - You created a different waveform, you didn’t match what is coming off the vinyl, proof is right above. The digital version has loudness maximization applied where the vinyl has less resulting in the improved DR# for the vinyl version.
Seriously, do you really think I was trying to reach the numbers or make the brick-walled digital version identical to the undoubtedly more dynamic master used for the vinyl of this record? Please don't tell me you thought that was the goal?
Meaningless because you are simply creating a 3rd waveform.
No, it's not a 3rd waveform.
The first picture shows the same thing you did when creating the HPF using the Linear-phase EQ, and the second picture shows what will happen if a Minimum-phase EQ is used for the HPF.
What you see is that the numbers go back close to their initial state when using a Linear-phase EQ filter as you did, but whenever a more commonly used Minimum-phase filter is used, the numbers don't go down to their initial state by raising the bass level. I used the same EQ program as you did, with the same settings for the HPF and the bass shelf.
No, the new tools are loudness based not peak based. Why do think they created new tools if the old tools didn’t have known problems???
That doesn't make the old tools less accurate for what they were made for, and what they were supposed to measure. The difference is that the new tools are made to measure other parameters, which are supposed to better mirror human perceptions. There will be even better tools for that task in the future, but that will not make the current new tools less accurate for what they are made to measure.
Again false…here are the DR measurements for all the vinyl tracks:
View attachment 456129
Not false when looking at the numbers found on the DR database, where the song "Warped" has a DR14. Have you made some processing to your files, or is it yet another proof that the DR# of vinyl rips can't be trusted?
And one of those tools is to use a different master with no or less limitation than it’s digital counterparts. Time to accept this obvious answer to why there are DR differences between the various formats particularly when the tools designed to measure loudness tells you exactly that.
I have the more "accurate" tool now, as I bought the MAAT DROffline MkII. But that doesn't make a difference to the DR numbers posted on the database, as those still use the same old singular DR number as the old tool when posting the result to that website.
I do like that description because that is exactly what you are doing. You are simply matching a DR# without any regard for whether the waveform is accurately representing what is coming off the vinyl or not.
Everyone who is posting their DR results to the database risks applying "spoofed" numbers, as most of them surely don't use any other tools to further analyze the data. People in general will definitely not compare differences in dynamic traces like you do.
A final word: Measuring the dynamics of a vinyl record, or any other analog format, using a digital measuring tool is not recommended, at least not for comparisons to a digital format, which are, in most cases, a straight digital-to-digital conversion. A vinyl rip can be compared to another vinyl rip, but it's still possible to have an inaccurate result if the rip wasn't made with the same analog gear. A digital release is more of an apples-to-apples comparison, as that is most likely a straight digital conversion.