Comparing the Dynamic Range of SACDs, LPs and Digital Downloads

[bmoura]

I remember the dbx expanders. Yes, each was 2 channel - so Surround Sound would require 2 or more.
dbx also made the "CX" decoders for the Columbia LPs and for laserdiscs that were CX encoded.

 

[J. PUPSTER]

Seems to me I've got some sort of small dbx device that was made to attach to my Teac A-2340 R-R, but I never used it, guess I should dig around and check it out

 

[DennisMabry]

I remember the dbx expanders. Yes, each was 2 channel - so Surround Sound would require 2 or more.
dbx also made the "CX" decoders for the Columbia LPs and for laserdiscs that were CX encoded.

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

 

[Clint Eastwood]

This is an interesting thread which I seemed to have missed at its inception a year and a half ago. During the days of vinyl, I used this handy device along with its tethered remote to enhance the listening experience:

View attachment 40041


I found that I needed less expansion with most CD's compared to their vinyl counterparts...which seemed to indicate that CD's as a whole had more dynamic range. When I converted back to surround sound with a 7.1 Lexicon CP-1 processor, I abandoned the dbx expander because I was going to need four of them! Too bad as I would have really enjoyed watching 4 sets of light bars (but not the associated drained bank account.)

I don't want to be dragged into this topic again....but...that statement is a little out of context...what I said in other posts was in reference to the effects of modern mastering....yes in the perfect world digital(like CDs)"should" have more DR than vinyl.....and they did..."back in the day".......BUT......and this is the point I was trying to make....modern mastering has taken that advantage away...just look at the single digits of some of these "remasters" of the same title...

Here is an example....in 1986 the CD and the Vinyl had good numbers(the same overall number) but years later the effects of "modern" mastering changed all that....in 2018 the vinyl is about the same...but the most recent version of this title in 2015 on CD demonstrates my point

So hopefully this ends my involvement on this topic..Brian was correct in his assertion that digital has more DR...BUT...with this modern type of mastering the end product doesn't reflect that advantage...and even vinyl with it's limited DR is exceeding it in most cases now...and it's not just physical discs that are being affected...downloads are affected as well...here is the "deluxe" edition download and the vinyl edition

 

[J. PUPSTER]

I don't want to be dragged into this topic again....but...that statement is a little out of context...what I said in other posts was in reference to the effects of modern mastering....yes in the perfect world digital(like CDs)"should" have more DR than vinyl.....and they did..."back in the day".......BUT......and this is the point I was trying to make....modern mastering has taken that advantage away...just look at the single digits of some of these "remasters" of the same title...

Here is an example....in 1986 the CD and the Vinyl had good numbers(the same overall number) but years later the effects of "modern" mastering changed all that....in 2018 the vinyl is about the same...but the most recent version of this title in 2015 on CD demonstrates my point

So hopefully this ends my involvement on this topic..Brian was correct in his assertion that digital has more DR...BUT...with this modern type of mastering the end product doesn't reflect that advantage...and even vinyl with it's limited DR is exceeding it in most cases now...and it's not just physical discs that are being affected...downloads are affected as well...here is the "deluxe" edition download and the vinyl edition

Yikes - that's some scary looking shite right there - think I better check my version of Stinky Fingers

 

[bmoura]

Brian was correct in his assertion that digital has more DR...BUT...with this modern type of mastering the end product doesn't reflect that advantage.

It depends on the album in question.
In some cases, the released album has little or no processing at all.

When you listen to albums without compression, serious post-processing effects, etc. the differences between an LP (with its inherent limited dynamics and capabilities) and other media can be quite striking.
As the listeners to some of the audio show LP vs. Analog Tape and LP vs. SACD or DSD Download demos can attest.

 

[atrocity]

At various places in this recording I hear short drum bursts (maybe Floor Tom) that sound distorted, like they peaked out or a poorly tuned drum head that got bashed too hard. Turns out the drums are credited to Jim Gordon not Capaldi for what it's worth. So I recently picked up the MOFI gold disc and listened carefully. I do believe overall it sounds cleaner, but there is still some of that drum distortion present. Not a big deal for most folks, but it's always been a pet peeve of mine on this recording.

My similar pet peeve for years was the distortion on the guitar during some of the first half of "Shine on You Crazy Diamond". I cursed multiple vinyl copies for nearly a decade until I got a CD in early 1985 and realized it's baked in. Now that I know that, I never notice it any more!

 

[bmoura]

My similar pet peeve for years was the distortion on the guitar during some of the first half of "Shine on You Crazy Diamond".

In some cases, the distortion on a guitar is part of the band's "sound".
I remember talking with a recording engineer who offered to replace the noisy tubes on a singer's guitar amp (saying it sounded "ratty") only to be told that is how the singer liked it. It was part of his "sound".

 

[atrocity]

In some cases, the distortion on a guitar is part of the band's "sound".
I remember talking with a recording engineer who offered to replace the noisy tubes on a singer's guitar amp (saying it sounded "ratty") only to be told that is how the singer liked it. It was part of his "sound".

And since we're talking about Pink Floyd's follow-up to a major hit, you've probably hit the nail on the head! I was just predisposed at the time to thinking anything I heard like that was a vinyl issue, even when it turned up on the half-speed mastered version Columbia put out in....uhh...whenever they put it out!

 

[ar surround]

I don't want to be dragged into this topic again....

 

[J. PUPSTER]

In some cases, the distortion on a guitar is part of the band's "sound".
I remember talking with a recording engineer who offered to replace the noisy tubes on a singer's guitar amp (saying it sounded "ratty") only to be told that is how the singer liked it. It was part of his "sound".

Oh man, there's so many little guitar distortion, phase, reverb- "you name it" pedals out there it boggles the mind. Also what they can now do on programs like ProTools, it's basically limitless. I like the tune "Are You Going With Me" on the live album "Travels" by Pat Metheny; I believe he's running it through some sort of synth. and it doesn't even sound like a guitar. Allen Holdsworth did a lot of work with Synth. guitars, as well as others.

 

[J. PUPSTER]

My similar pet peeve for years was the distortion on the guitar during some of the first half of "Shine on You Crazy Diamond". I cursed multiple vinyl copies for nearly a decade until I got a CD in early 1985 and realized it's baked in. Now that I know that, I never notice it any more!

Don't know if you have one of these (or even care about that anymore); but I'll be checking it out on my SACD when I get a chance, I'm just curious what you're hearing.

https://www.discogs.com/Pink-Floyd-Wish-You-Were-Here/release/3217934
https://www.discogs.com/Pink-Floyd-Wish-You-Were-Here-Immersion-Box-Set/release/3277193

 

[markshan]

Actually that's not true at all.

Digital formats, including DSD, have 30db more dynamic range than a Vinyl LP.
That's particularly noticeable as you get closer to the label of an LP where the dynamics are compromised further.

It also explains the recent interest in 15 inch per second (15ips) Analog Tape copies of classic remastered albums.
An Analog Tape like that also sounds quite a bit better than an LP.

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.

 

[markshan]

I found that I needed less expansion with most CD's compared to their vinyl counterparts...which seemed to indicate that CD's as a whole had more dynamic range.

I suspect given the chronology of your story that this was the early days of the CD, before the loudness wars.

 

[Marcsten]

Hi AR -
I am interested in your post vis the DBX 3 et al systems. When I was in college back int he 1970s, I had a friend who was very committed to the concept of dynamic range enhancement or expansion. We experimented with several DBX systems, and a couple of others if memory serves. All of them had a marked impact on the dynamic range to be sure, but they also seemed to have a sort of pumping effect, not unlike a fill logic SQ decoder. I found it rather disconcerting and so abandoned the idea. Was it just not set up correctly, perhaps set for too much expansion? I am interested in your opinion as someone who has more experience with the system!

This is an interesting thread which I seemed to have missed at its inception a year and a half ago. During the days of vinyl, I used this handy device along with its tethered remote to enhance the listening experience:

View attachment 40041


I found that I needed less expansion with most CD's compared to their vinyl counterparts...which seemed to indicate that CD's as a whole had more dynamic range. When I converted back to surround sound with a 7.1 Lexicon CP-1 processor, I abandoned the dbx expander because I was going to need four of them! Too bad as I would have really enjoyed watching 4 sets of light bars (but not the associated drained bank account.)

 

[ar surround]

Hi AR -
I am interested in your post vis the DBX 3 et al systems. When I was in college back int he 1970s, I had a friend who was very committed to the concept of dynamic range enhancement or expansion. We experimented with several DBX systems, and a couple of others if memory serves. All of them had a marked impact on the dynamic range to be sure, but they also seemed to have a sort of pumping effect, not unlike a fill logic SQ decoder. I found it rather disconcerting and so abandoned the idea. Was it just not set up correctly, perhaps set for too much expansion? I am interested in your opinion as someone who has more experience with the system!

Marcsten, what I found was the 3bx remained stable (without "pumping" artifacts) up to 30% expansion. The amount of "pumping" at 40% expansion and beyond was very much program dependent. The remote control also allowed adjustment of the Release Time. Generally, Release Time would be set higher for rock / pop and lower for classical / orchestral music.

Also, I tried routing the 2-channel signal through the 3bx and then into the Lexicon CP-1 7.1 processor. Unfortunately that setup adversely affected the performance of the CP-1. Specifically, the CP-1 was not as effective with DSP or ambience extraction when fed with a signal expanded by the 3bx.

 

[atrocity]

Don't know if you have one of these (or even care about that anymore); but I'll be checking it out on my SACD when I get a chance, I'm just curious what you're hearing.

https://www.discogs.com/Pink-Floyd-Wish-You-Were-Here/release/3217934
https://www.discogs.com/Pink-Floyd-Wish-You-Were-Here-Immersion-Box-Set/release/3277193

I finally put on the headphones and cranked up the 24/96 Immersion remaster...and it's made a filthy liar out of me. Or age has made me unable to hear what I used to think I was hearing. Or I've always been insane. I hear a bit of crackly distortion around 5:30 and 7:40, but it's minor, probably deliberate and nowhere near what I think I used to hear. I'm truly stumped.

Now I'm checking out https://www.discogs.com/Pink-Floyd-Wish-You-Were-Here/release/2251086, which was the first CD version I ever owned and in fact one of the first 5 or so CDs I ever bought. I'm sure I used to hear it on there beginning as soon as the guitar comes in around 2:10, but I don't hear it now. The most likely explanation is probably that I'm a moron, though I suppose it's not impossible--however unlikely--that something about it challenged older equipment that I'm no longer using. There's some fuzz on the guitar on the Japanese version around 4:00 that I think is more prominent than on the Immersion version, but it's far from bad and probably intentional.

Maybe that's why I said "I never notice it any more"...because it's not actually there!

 

[J. PUPSTER]

I finally put on the headphones and cranked up the 24/96 Immersion remaster...and it's made a filthy liar out of me. Or age has made me unable to hear what I used to think I was hearing. Or I've always been insane. I hear a bit of crackly distortion around 5:30 and 7:40, but it's minor, probably deliberate and nowhere near what I think I used to hear. I'm truly stumped.

Now I'm checking out https://www.discogs.com/Pink-Floyd-Wish-You-Were-Here/release/2251086, which was the first CD version I ever owned and in fact one of the first 5 or so CDs I ever bought. I'm sure I used to hear it on there beginning as soon as the guitar comes in around 2:10, but I don't hear it now. The most likely explanation is probably that I'm a moron, though I suppose it's not impossible--however unlikely--that something about it challenged older equipment that I'm no longer using. There's some fuzz on the guitar on the Japanese version around 4:00 that I think is more prominent than on the Immersion version, but it's far from bad and probably intentional.

Maybe that's why I said "I never notice it any more"...because it's not actually there!

I don't believe you're a liar, moron or too old to hear things atrocity. I would bet on a combination of higher fidelity and better equipment, and perhaps much more experienced in what's being represented in the music. I will make an effort today to put that on with headphones and listen for the time marks you quoted, just for a second opinion. OK with me if curiosity killed the cat 'cus I'm a

 

[atrocity]

I don't believe you're a liar, moron or too old to hear things atrocity. I would bet on a combination of higher fidelity and better equipment, and perhaps much more experienced in what's being represented in the music. I will make an effort today to put that on with headphones and listen for the time marks you quoted, just for a second opinion. OK with me if curiosity killed the cat 'cus I'm a

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.

 

[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.

I have the SACD but not the Immersion version, just missed it and I'm satisfied with the SACD, so didn't bother with Immersion. But I'll listen to those time marks you mentioned carefully and report back!