Comparing the Dynamic Range of SACDs, LPs and Digital Downloads

[J. PUPSTER]

Because it's been my favorite album for almost 44 years, I wound up playing the whole thing with headphones. I'm curious what you hear in the second half of SOYCD beginning around 11:25 on the Immersion version. I hear some pretty blatant noise or distortion, particularly in the left channel. it doesn't sound artistically motivated to me, just like overmodulation or something. Yes, I'm making a completely different allegation from the one I started with.

Just listened to the time marks you noted with my SACD version in both stereo and surround going direct through my Oppo 205 and both my B&W headphones and Martin Logan speakers and didn't hear anything unusual, except maybe on the second SOYCD at the 11:25 mark a synthesizer keyboard starts in. But sounded fine to me also. If your hearing this in the left channel (stereo or surround?) could it be a problem with a particular speaker, and have you heard this same thing with other systems also?

Now, if you have The Low Spark of High Heeled Boys, maybe check for that drum distortion for me, so I can tell if I've also been crazy all these years. I'll write down the exact time marks for those spots soon; because I would appreciate another opinion on this.

 

[Wunlow]

It's kind of true, but it has less to do with the media than the mastering. You can compress a digital file in ways that are pretty much impossible to cut onto vinyl. Here is a great little video.

I'll give a major +1 on this.

While I haven't worked much in music mixing, in cinema mixing, in this case specifically for home video, there's been a nasty trend of compressing the dynamic range. Certain Atmos tracks that sounded amazing in cinemas can sound crushed in their home cinema counterparts. Likewise for 7.1, and 5.1 soundtracks. Heck.. even mono tracks. I've had access to mono & multi channel printmasters or previous transfers and could compare, but what's sad is one may never be the wiser unless they've heard the superior version and can compare. There are numerous digital tricks to aurally compress a given mix, five ways and sideways.

There was one title we worked on where the original mix was three channel (L/C/R) and back in the day had been in the rare interlock mag 35mm format, resulting in far wider track widths compared to the combined "sound on picture" mag tracks that later accompanied roadshow event 35mm and 70mm prints. Very clean, and first and foremost, very dynamic. We had a 24 bit capture of the mag tracks that fully retained the original dynamic range. The QC folks were not happy and wanted a compromised version. We held firm, the deadline was already tight and in that particular case the mix stayed true. But, it fits the current trend that too many follow: Mix for soundbars, mix for flatscreens, mix for cube speakers.

Again, not all follow this practice, but a lot of mixes do sadly fall into this category.

I soooo wish Dolby Digital and DTS had originally started with all their decoders set to full compression. The Joe six packs and others who don't care or want to understand these settings (but still complain loudly) would have been taken care from the start. But... the audiophile would have known (and word would have spread fast) to disable these settings. Change your setting once during the first setup, and then be good to go. Ahh well.....

 

[jimfisheye]

So many variables...

More often you end up comparing mastering work more than attributes or shortcomings of any format. Even with analog vs. digital formats.
You often find examples of a vinyl copy that sounds truer to the original master tape than a CD and it has nothing to do with limits of either format. CD versions just SOP get a hyped treatment in mastering that often exceeds any compression for dynamics control needed for the vinyl mastering. On the flip side, there are many examples of so so vinyl pressings that were bettered in every way by the lowly CD edition. Sometimes that's because it's the rare more properly mastered CD, sometimes it's the same volume war CD but the vinyl edition was THAT bad.

Dynamic range numbers as noted for analog gear vs digital gear are apples and oranges too.
Digital is a funny beast in that the resolution goes down with the volume.
1 or 2 bit recordings don't make much sense anymore. It's just distortion.
You need to call the lower bit depth your "noise floor".

24 bit makes this easy.
leave the first 8 bits for the "noise floor" and put the recording "on top" of that. That gives you a full 96db dynamic range top to bottom.
If you wanted to call the first 8 bits the noise floor in a 16 bit container, that leaves you with 8 bits for program with a dynamic range of 48db. Which can be exceeded by a high end turntable setup.

I'm using easy math to illustrate that. 16 bits used carefully can deliver full audiophile quality. 24 bit just makes it easy and cleans up the outliers.


Some of those vinyl copies with the higher dynamic range numbers than the CD version are actually literally copies of the CD master. Add in ever so slight distortion form the vinyl cutting generation and the dynamic range widens as an artifact. Or throw a few ticks and clicks in there and really push the dynamic range reading up! So there you have a bigger number but it's an analog generational copy.

 

[atrocity]

Just listened to the time marks you noted with my SACD version in both stereo and surround going direct through my Oppo 205 and both my B&W headphones and Martin Logan speakers and didn't hear anything unusual, except maybe on the second SOYCD at the 11:25 mark a synthesizer keyboard starts in. But sounded fine to me also. If your hearing this in the left channel (stereo or surround?) could it be a problem with a particular speaker, and have you heard this same thing with other systems also?

Now, if you have The Low Spark of High Heeled Boys, maybe check for that drum distortion for me, so I can tell if I've also been crazy all these years. I'll write down the exact time marks for those spots soon; because I would appreciate another opinion on this.

Given that nothing else on the album jumped out at me, I don't think it's my equipment. I was using some well-reviewed Audio-Technica headphones at the time. It sounded to me like there was just something off and that particular synthesizer bit. Given that I have approximately 10 million different versions of that album, I should probably check other copies!

Yes, I have the Traffic album on CD. It's Island A2-90026 and goes back enough decades that I assume it's the original US CD release. Fine print on the back cover says "Manufactured by Columbia House under license" but the actual CD just says "MADE IN U. S. A. BY WEA MANUFACTURING INC".

 

[J. PUPSTER]

One of my favorite Zappa albums is Joe's Garage- Acts I, II, & III. I have an early LP of this but also wanted a CD since I didn't know what shape my album was in. So I initially got a 2012 CD on the Zappa label here:
Joe's Garage 1-3 Zappa 2012

Then I had researched the DRs of this album and bought this one (it had better DR)
Joe's Garage 1-3 Ryko 1987

Here are the DR sheets and wave forms (Crew Slut) of each.
Considering I'm new to this kind of data; could someone that is knowledgeable in these areas please help me out understanding the differences in these two CDs?

Zappa 2012 CD

Ryko 1987

 

[J. PUPSTER]

BUMPIDY BUMP BUMP- HELP

One of my favorite Zappa albums is Joe's Garage- Acts I, II, & III. I have an early LP of this but also wanted a CD since I didn't know what shape my album was in. So I initially got a 2012 CD on the Zappa label here:
Joe's Garage 1-3 Zappa 2012

Then I had researched the DRs of this album and bought this one (it had better DR)
Joe's Garage 1-3 Ryko 1987

Here are the DR sheets and wave forms (Crew Slut) of each.
Considering I'm new to this kind of data; could someone that is knowledgeable in these areas please help me out understanding the differences in these two CDs?

Zappa 2012 CD
View attachment 40695View attachment 40696

Ryko 1987
View attachment 40697View attachment 40698

 

[sjcorne]

Considering I'm new to this kind of data; could someone that is knowledgeable in these areas please help me out understanding the differences in these two CDs?

The older CD is mastered quieter - you can see the peaks in the waveform are shorter. The sheet shows the dynamic range value of each song, then averages them to create a value for the entire album. I think once you get an album that averages below DR10 it means you're getting into compressed or "loudness war" territory. The difference in this case isn't extreme (DR12 vs. 14), but the old CD is more dynamic.

 

[J. PUPSTER]

The older CD is mastered quieter - you can see the peaks in the waveform are shorter. The sheet shows the dynamic range value of each song, then averages them to create a value for the entire album. I think once you get an album that averages below DR10 it means you're getting into compressed or "loudness war" territory. The difference in this case isn't extreme (DR12 vs. 14), but the old CD is more dynamic.

Thanks for the help Jonathan; I'll be running that older one through the new SMv2 and possibly other up-mixes for kicks and giggles. I always thought it might decode nicely with faux surround. BTW, Involve emailed me and said they'd be shipping my unit today (with leather?)!!!

 

[J. PUPSTER]

OK, here's an interesting one (for me at least). One of my favorite albums is The Pretenders - Get Close.
Come to find out the HDtracks version 96/24 flac might not be as bad as I thought. It looks to me (if I'm interpreting this correctly, that the HDtracks version is a little quieter overall than the CD.) The 96/24 does sound brighter to me on my system which I suppose would be measured with some other metric?
***Wave forms are for the song: When I Change My Life***

CD VERSION:
https://www.discogs.com/The-Pretenders-Get-Close/release/846294

CD version:

HDtracks 96/24 version:

Additionally, here is a youtube video I found with some explanation of Peak, RMS & LUFS.

 

[Mesozoic Mike]

These were highly regarded back in the day, especially with a reel to reel!
View attachment 40042

They were well respected, but I remember being able to hear "pumping" which would always ruin the experience for me.

 

[J. PUPSTER]

Remember this one Clint... the DR is much better than I thought it would be!

 

[J. PUPSTER]

BUMP - REQUIRED READING

https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/fo...-and-how-to-interpret-them.23281/#post-330485

 

[J. PUPSTER]

With the forthcoming Goats Head Soup release, I decided to do a little experiment with a Stones song Beast of Burden. IMO the low end tends to have a huge effect on your DR; so when it's all crammed into a stereo mix, that low (modern pushed) bass tends to have more influence than if you dedicate most of that low end to a LFE channel with more of the mid-highs in the other channels of say a 5.1 or 7.1 (depends on the mix/mastering especially.)

So here is the stereo version from the BR Grrr, which is a near compressed tragedy with a DR of 8

Now the Grrr with a high pass filter at 120hz @48dbs it goes up to DR 9.

Grrr going up to a high pass filter at 1Khz @48dbs it goes up to a DR14 (more mids gone & sounds like a cheap tin can version.)

Now here is an old CD version untouched with a nice DR of 14, but still sounds full and crankable to me.

So that first 1khz of audio is really critical in how dynamically it's going to sound IMO.
Some of the audio engineer studious gents here can hopefully comment of this as to how and why that low end gets compressed and totally destroys the dynamic range.