• Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Vinyl Record Noise Floor - A Call For Measurements

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.
It's not a game, it's how DAWs work - I am surprised you don’t understand this.

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.

Nope I did not forget to render the changes. Like I said there is no other landing spot for this if you did it correctly and I know you didn’t because you provided all the evidence that you didn't.

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.
Obviously not and your short example proves me right. Your EQ did not recreate the dynamics of the vinyl, it created Z.

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.
This I agree with, but you can come extremely close which you did not. I will show it can be done.

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.
Well if you think I did it wrong and you did it right, please explain why your examples the dynamics traces of the vinyl and the modified digital files are not similar. It is obvious that you either did it wrong or the modified digital file was not what was used as the vinyl master.

But just to satisfy you:

Here is Psychlona’s Warped from their Palo Verde Album. I have both the vinyl and the included digital download.

Here is the dynamics trace for the vinyl with only de-clicking and de-noising, no EQ:
08 - Warped Vision - Raw Vinyl with Binvmod.jpg


Here is the dynamics trace for the digital download:
08 - Warped Vision - DD.jpg

Pretty clear there is a big difference in dynamics.

Now let’s apply Bmod to the digital download, Bmod is this:
Bmod.jpg

Render the file and the new dynamics trace is waveform Y, which looks like this:
Bmod - DR Trace.jpg

Clearly the file was rendered because the dynamic trace is different. And just as clear is that this waveform was not used as the vinyl master because the dynamics traces are wildly different.

Now I apply Binvmod to the new waveform derived from the digital download, Binvmod is:
Binvmod.jpg


Render that change and the dynamics trace now looks like:
Binvmod - DR Trace.jpg

Again, clearly rendering has taken place because now the dynamics trace is back to where the math dictates it should be.

If you want further proof that the vinyl master does not have as much loudness maximization processing as it digital download counterpart, apply Binvmod to the raw vinyl rip, the dynamics trace now looks like this:
08 - Warped Vision - Raw Vinyl with Binvmod.jpg

Clearly different from the digital download file with Bmod applied. I now know that the vinyl used a different more dynamic master.

And finally here are the DR measurements for all waveforms. Exactly how the math predicted they would be...
DR Measurements.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 08 Warped - Raw Vinyl.jpg
    08 Warped - Raw Vinyl.jpg
    687.4 KB · Views: 34
I wonder whether you use an automatic record cleaning machine, or a manual spin cleaner and what the difference in cleaning results is, which seems important to vinyl noise measurements.
Most of my LPs are bought used, and cleaned with a Moth vacuum RCM. Played with a line-contact stylus, very few have too much background noise to be playable. An RCM can't remove wear, but using a line contact stylus on clean records, it's surprisingly acceptable on 50+ year old LPs, As most LPs of that era would have been played using a conical stylus, that would create a wear line in the groove. A line contact stylus with a wider footprint should in theory bridge the wear line and play on unworn vinyl. That's my theory, anyway, for why I can play even 70 year old LPs reasonably silently. I would love to see some corroboration for this theory, as I've not seen any research done into wear patterns on LPs going back to the 1950s.

S.
 
I'm unfamiliar with the software being 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.
The software I am using is Adaptr Audio AB Metric, however there are many tools that are based on loudness metering that can do the same thing.
 
I wonder whether you use an automatic record cleaning machine, or a manual spin cleaner and what the difference in cleaning results is, which seems important to vinyl noise measurements.
I did an experiment on that a few years back on another site. What I took an old junk record and completely packed the grooves with jam and let it sit and harden for a few hours. I then marked of 2 areas:

Area 1 - would go into the ultrasonic cleaner, this area would be scrubbed, then back into the ultrasonic cleaner.
Area 2 - would get the same minus the scrub stage, so it would basically get into the ultrasonic cleaner for 2 sessions.

Here are the pictures - warning they are kind of gross! :p The silver circle is a sharpie and there is black tape with a sharpie digit to identify area 1 and 2.

Area 1 grooves pack full:

1 US Scrub.jpg


Area 1 zoomed in:
1 US Scrub Zoom.jpg


Area 2:
2 US Only.jpg


Area 2 zoomed in:
2 US Only Zoom.jpg


Let that sit for a couple of hours and took pics of the hardened state.

Area 1:
1 US Scrub hardened.jpg



Area 2:
2 US Only hardened.jpg


Then into the US cleaner. Immediately upon starting the US cleaner there was a stream of junk coming off record in those areas.
In US.jpeg


After the entire cleaning process was completed, here are the after pictures:

Area 1 - the record looks wet but it is not, it is just a lot shinier and if you look closely, some of the sharpie was removed.:
1 After.jpg


Very little sign of the junk that filled these grooves:
1 US Scrub After Zoom.jpg


Area 2 - Sharpie marks not nearly “cleaned off” as with the scrubbing stage :
2 After.jpg


Grooves not as clean as with the scrubbing stage:
2 US Only After Zoom.jpg


As you can see from the zoomed in pictures, the intermediary scrubbing step did get the record cleaner.

Here are the details of my test:

Process:
US clean step 1 - 15 min, heater off, water at room temp (22C)
Scrub stage on squeaky clean rotissiere, scrub with paint pad, straight from the tank to the squeaky clean then back to the tank (no rinse)
US clean step 2 - 10 min, heater off, water at room temp (22c)
Rinse with RO water
Dry by placing between 2 lint free cloths, then air dry for about 2 min.

Ultrasonic Cleaner:
Vevor 6L, 200W, 40Khz, 3 transducer Ultrasonic Cleaner (Link will take you to a 180W version, looks like the 200w is no longer available)
Speed controller - used to control rotation speed. Set to 9. (Link showing no longer available but any PWM speed controller should work.)

US bath (5L) consists of:
6.5ml Triton
50ml 10% stock Behentrimonium
150ml 99% Isopropyl alcohol
Fill tank with RO water to lid line (approx. 4800ml)
 
Well if you think I did it wrong and you did it right, please explain why your examples the dynamics traces of the vinyl and the modified digital files are not similar. It is obvious that you either did it wrong or the modified digital file was not what was used as the vinyl master.

I have figured out why you and I get different results. You use a linear-phase HPF, and I use minimum-/natural-phase HPF.

It's not always a good idea to use a linear-phase EQ. Especially when it comes to the lower frequency range, which is most prone to audible pre-ringing. Here is a short video explaining the ups and downs of linear-phase EQ. The video has a pretty good audio example of the pre-ringing problem using linear-phase EQ for the bass frequency range.




If you want further proof that the vinyl master does not have as much loudness maximization processing as it digital download counterpart, apply Binvmod to the raw vinyl rip, the dynamics trace now looks like this:

Clearly different from the digital download file with Bmod applied. I now know that the vinyl used a different more dynamic master.

And finally here are the DR measurements for all waveforms. Exactly how the math predicted they would be...

I'm sure you didn't need to go through all those steps to figure out that this particular vinyl release where made from a much more dynamic master. :)

It must have been the largest dynamic difference between a vinyl and its digital counterpart you could find in your whole record collection, with the vinyl track coming in at DR14 according to the DR Loudness-war webpage, while the digital track only has DR5.
I don't know why you use an extreme example like that, and not something that at least has the possibility of being made from the same master as the digital release. That way, we could at least have had a chance to figure out what filters were used to reach the dynamic measurements of the vinyl version.

Anyway, I took your example track and ran it through 8 different HPFs. As you can see, it is a fairly large difference in both "Min. PSR" numbers and "DR numbers" using a linear-phase HPF vs a minimum-phase filter. Most HPFs I've seen and used don't have the option of linear-phase, and I'm not sure that is even possible when it comes analog gear, which many mastering engineers still use.

1749243607570.png





And finally here are the DR measurements for all waveforms. Exactly how the math predicted they would be...
DR Measurements.jpg



Here below is the same thing done, but me using the "Natural Phase" HPF found in Fabfilter Pro-Q 3.

1. The original.
2. The same file as the original but with the HPF.
3. The same as file nr.2, using the same bass lift with the same settings as you did, but done using the "Natural Phase" EQ in Fabfilter Pro-Q 3.

Another difference (which you didn't) was that I left some headroom, as the original file is obviously clipping in it's original state.

1749245098019.png


None of us did anything wrong, we just use different digital tools in our DAWs. :)
 
Last edited:
I have figured out why you and I get different results. You use a linear-phase HPF, and I use minimum-/natural-phase HPF.
Doubtful, I need to see the dynamic trace.

It's not always a good idea to use a linear-phase EQ. Especially when it comes to the lower frequency range, which is most prone to audible pre-ringing. Here is a short video explaining the ups and downs of linear-phase EQ. The video has a pretty good audio example of the pre-ringing problem using linear-phase EQ for the bass frequency range.

I will give this a review but you seem to forget that I am providing you with traces of the dynamics. Doesn’t matter which type of EQ I use if the traces are near identical. If the EQ type impacted the dynamics - it would be in the trace!

I'm sure you didn't need to go through all those steps to figure out that this particular vinyl release where made from a much more dynamic master. :)
That is right I don’t do all this work, I trust my tools. I know they are accurate. I only need to look at the dynamics traces and I know if there is a possibility that the master was the same as the digital. That would be the Foo Fighters example I keep reminding you of.

It must have been the largest dynamic difference between a vinyl and its digital counterpart you could find in your whole record collection, with the vinyl track coming in at DR14 according to the DR Loudness-war webpage, while the digital track only has DR5.
I don't know why you use an extreme example like that, and not something that at least has the possibility of being made from the same master as the digital release. That way, we could at least have had a chance to figure out what filters were used to reach the dynamic measurements of the vinyl version.
Nope. I don’t know why you continue with all these nonsensical accusations. First it was I didn’t render the changes and now, I cherry picked a song with the worst DR on the album. Clearly I did not:
Palo Verde_log.jpg


Again, without a dynamics trace, you are only spoofing DR numbers. I already proved this to you with your short audio segment example.
 
Doubtful, I need to see the dynamic trace.

Why do you need to see the dynamic trace?
Both of us already know that the music itself isn't getting more dynamic by applying an HPF. It's just a lot of phase shifts happening, causing the numbers to jump up, which in turn will unfortunately make many people believe that pretty much every vinyl rip is more dynamic than its digital counterpart.

In this particular case, with the digital version of the song by Psychlona, we would never be able to achieve the same dynamic range as the vinyl, as it's impossible to go from DR5 to DR14 using normal vinyl mastering processing. But IF the vinyl version was only at around DR10, I would say it would be a high probability that they were made from the same brick-walled digital master.

I will give this a review but you seem to forget that I am providing you with traces of the dynamics. Doesn’t matter which type of EQ I use if the traces are near identical. If the EQ type impacted the dynamics - it would be in the trace!

Well, for the numbers that I care for (as for the reasons I've already explained, which have to do with all those people believing in the DR#), it has A LOT to do with what EQ program was used. If it is a Minimum-phase EQ that is used and not a Linear-phase EQ for the high-pass filtering, it will make a big difference in the result that people will see when looking at the DR database.

And you are right, the phase-shifts caused by a "normal" non-linear EQ will not make any large differences to the dynamic trace, it will mostly just make the waveform "spiky". It's what's mostly happening "inside" the waveform that will bump up the DR numbers, but the music itself will not get any more dynamic.

This is a numbers game, and that is what most people will see (and believe in). :)



Here is what is happening using the same Linear-phase EQ for the HPF as you did. There's not much going on in the PSR numbers, and the DR number goes back to the original DR5 after the same bass boost and with the same settings you applied to the audio file.

1749252764490.png



And here is yet again the same process, but using a minimum-phase EQ for the HPF. But here we can see that there are more movements in the PSR numbers, and a big jump in the DR numbers from DR5 to DR10, which doesn't go back down to the original state but stays at DR9.

1749253171703.png





That is right I don’t do all this work, I trust my tools. I know they are accurate. I only need to look at the dynamics traces and I know if there is a possibility that the master was the same as the digital. That would be the Foo Fighters example I keep reminding you of.

Yes, every digital measurement tool is fully accurate; they just sometimes measure different things. The same goes for the old original DR Meteering tool, it just happens to be that the newer tools measure other parameters.

Nope. I don’t know why you continue with all these nonsensical accusations. First it was I didn’t render the changes and now, I cherry picked a song with the worst DR on the album. Clearly I did not:
View attachment 455989

That is the same album, so it's expected that the rest of the songs have a similar dynamic limitation. What I'm talking about is the extreme difference in DR between the vinyl rip and the digital release. I can't remember seeing other albums with such a large difference in dynamics, it must be one if not the worst in your whole record collection.


Again, without a dynamics trace, you are only spoofing DR numbers. I already proved this to you with your short audio segment example.

Yes, and right from the beginning of this conversation, I have said that it's the tools used in the preparation (which are done to avoid the shortcomings of vinyl as a format) that many times make the increase in the measured dynamics. Both of us already know this, that's why I wonder what it is you are trying to prove. We can call it "spoofing the DR numbers" if you like that description. :)
 
Last edited:
Why do you need to see the dynamic trace?
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.

Both of us already know that the music itself isn't getting more dynamic by applying an HPF. It's just a lot of phase shifts happening, causing the numbers to jump up, which in turn will unfortunately make many people believe that pretty much every vinyl rip is more dynamic than its digital counterpart.
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?

In this particular case, with the digital version of the song by Psychlona, we would never be able to achieve the same dynamic range as the vinyl, as it's impossible to go from DR5 to DR14 using normal vinyl mastering processing. But IF the vinyl version was only at around DR10, I would say it would be a high probability that they were made from the same brick-walled digital master.
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:

Pasted Graphic.tiff



Pasted Graphic 2.tiff


Pasted Graphic 4.tiff


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.

Well, for the numbers that I care for (as for the reasons I've already explained, which have to do with all those people believing in the DR#)
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.

If it is a Minimum-phase EQ that is used and not a Linear-phase EQ for the high-pass filtering, it will make a big difference in the result that people will see when looking at the DR database.
Nope - you created yet another waveform:

Raw vinyl dynamics trace:

08 Warped - Raw Vinyl.jpg

The dynamics trace of the digital download file when minimum phase filter is used for Bmod:

Bmod - DR Trace - Min Phase.jpg


it will mostly just make the waveform "spiky". It's what's mostly happening "inside" the waveform that will bump up the DR numbers, but the music itself will not get any more dynamic.
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.

Here is what is happening using the same Linear-phase EQ for the HPF as you did. There's not much going on in the PSR numbers, and the DR number goes back to the original DR5 after the same bass boost and with the same settings you applied to the audio file.

View attachment 456015


And here is yet again the same process, but using a minimum-phase EQ for the HPF. But here we can see that there are more movements in the PSR numbers, and a big jump in the DR numbers from DR5 to DR10, which doesn't go back down to the original state but stays at DR9.

View attachment 456016
Meaningless because you are simply creating a 3rd waveform.


Yes, every digital measurement tool is fully accurate; they just sometimes measure different things. The same goes for the old original DR Meteering tool, it just happens to be that the newer tools measure other parameters.
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 is the same album, so it's expected that the rest of the songs have a similar dynamic limitation. What I'm talking about is the extreme difference in DR between the vinyl rip and the digital release. I can't remember seeing other albums with such a large difference in dynamics, it must be one if not the worst in your whole record collection.
Again false…here are the DR measurements for all the vinyl tracks:

Vinyl Palo Verde_log.txt.jpg


Yes, and right from the beginning of this conversation, I have said that it's the tools used in the preparation (which are done to avoid the shortcomings of vinyl as a format)
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.

We can call it "spoofing the DR numbers" if you like that description. :)
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.
 

Attachments

  • 08 Warped - Binvmod Min Phase.jpg
    08 Warped - Binvmod Min Phase.jpg
    668.4 KB · Views: 24
  • Vinyl  Psychlona - Palo Verde - DR Log.txt 2025-06-07 08-08-23.jpg
    Vinyl Psychlona - Palo Verde - DR Log.txt 2025-06-07 08-08-23.jpg
    152.8 KB · Views: 17
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.
 
What is it you think you need to prove?
Let me remind you that it was you who insisted on rehashing this conversation.

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.
How can you know this? You don’t have the tools to produce those traces. And every one of your attempts to show that has resulted in 3rd waveforms.

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?
Because I do understand that, you just don’t understand that I don’t care about the loudness database. I have already told you this once so I will say it again. You and I will cannot force people to use a better tool. This thread is not about the loudness database.

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.
We don’t disagree on this but the issue is you cannot prove when the same master is used or isn’t. You try to show this by using HPF, de-essing and bass monoing to prove that the dynamics are actually the same between that modified version and the vinyl. The problem you have is that every one of your attempts to show that you can use that to prove the dynamics are the same has resulted in proving that they are not. Your examples are the very evidence that proves your assertion to be false.

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.
I agree regarding the "just looking at the numbers" part. That is exactly what I have been showing you and telling you that all you are doing is spoofing DR#s. I know you know that some vinyl is more dynamic. What you can’t do is show me when it is more dynamic or when it isn't because you do not have the right tools. Which is why I keep telling you to start using the tools I am using because I can make that determination, you cannot. You need a tool like AB Metric to do that. You can’t compare DR#s and draw a conclusion because as I have shown you repeatedly is that you can have two completely different waveforms with different dynamics but share a common DR#. That does not mean that the vinyl has the same dynamics as a modified digital file. You can’t know that until you see the dynamics trace.

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.
I don’t need you to tell me whether they are from the same master or not. You don’t have the tools to do that analysis. I already know it was from the same master because the dynamic traces for both the digital and vinyl versions match. That is why I keep pointing you to that example!


Yes, in some cases, they are made without loudness maximization, but in other cases, they are not.
Agreed - in the cases where they are not, that is the Foo Fighters example. The dynamic traces match proving that they are from the same master. See simple as that, and it takes about 15 seconds to generate. No guess work, no possibility of spoofed DR#s, no 3rd waveforms. Better tools = better results.

None of the examples you have posted using HPF, de-essing and bass mononing modifications resulted in matches between the counterparts like the above. So none are from the same master and the DR gains are due to the limiting added to the digital versions. That is what the tools are looking for - destructive loudness maximization.


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.
How many times do I need to tell you I don’t care and that this thread is not about the loudness database? If you want to talk about the loudness database, create your own thread and I will not participate.

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.
Again - this is exactly the Foo Fighters example I keep pointing you too.

It's obviously NOT the same master in this case.
Correct, if you are looking for one that is from the same master - that is the Foo Fighters example!

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?
Then what was your goal with any of your examples in this thread? If you already knew you couldn’t get there why bother with your examples? And the first short example was not brick-walled, yet you still couldn’t get there.

No, it's not a 3rd waveform.
Yes it is a 3rd waveform because it is not the digital (obviously) and it is not what is on the vinyl. So the only thing it can be is a 3rd waveform.

The first picture shows the same thing you did when creating the HPF using the Linear-phase EQ, and
No the first picture is the vinyl dynamics.

the second picture shows what will happen if a Minimum-phase EQ is used for the HPF.
Right and it does not match the dynamics coming off the vinyl, so all you did was create a third waveform.

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.
They are specifically made to detect loudness maximization processing. TTmeter can’t do that as it is peak based. Useless for detecting whether the transients are intact or not.

Not false when looking at the numbers found on the DR database, where the song "Warped" has a DR14.
You mean the database that YOU continually say cannot be trusted????? That is your reference?????? :facepalm:

Have you made some processing to your files, or is it yet another proof that the DR# of vinyl rips can't be trusted?
Was the same tool used to make the measurements? Do you think a tool that the loudness database tells you will be less accurate will provide the same measurement as the tool the loudness database says is preferred and is more accurate?

To answer your question:
Here is the dynamics trace for the vinyl with only de-clicking and de-noising, no EQ:


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.
You should have bought AB Metric, it is way better. With that tool you will never know if you are duplicating the dynamics. All you can say is that two waveforms share the same DR number.

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.
Which is why I don’t care about that database! It is impossible to police whether anyone with a DAW makes changes to any media - whether it is CD, digital download or vinyl.

A final word: Measuring the dynamics of a vinyl record, or any other analog format, using a digital measuring tool is not recommended,
Says who? You? How would a digital tool distinguish between a digital download and a digitized vinyl file?

at least not for comparisons to a digital format, which are, in most cases, a straight digital-to-digital conversion.
Nope - Several mastering engineers are telling you that CD and streaming formats get loudness processing that the vinyl does not - meaning that it is not straight through (although I know there are examples of this and I hope that this practice would get widely adopted but the evidence is leaning the other way where it is less adopted). Let me show it to you the latest one again:

If it was straight through, you would not need a CD and a streaming version - they would be the same, yet all mastering engineers I have pointed you to clearly state 3 workflows. So in most cases it is not straight through. Straight through is the exception.
 
Back
Top Bottom