DR Dynamic Range

[Arconada]

When I discuss digital vs anolog reproduction with people, I notice that most of these discussions are about music that is not representative of high end musical reproduction. I have a CD from the early CD era and I can acknowledge something was wrong there. But a lot happened since than. Audio engineers got educated, recording methods changed, bit-rates and bit-depths improved, dithering got introduced. People who prefer a vinyl disc over a digital reproduction, often don't realize that the whole recording process started digital to begin with. If dynamic range is the problem, this is not a digitization problem at all. Brick-walling was invented long before any digit was recorded

 

[marcb]

I’ve rarely found DRs for vinyl to vary from digital versions of the same mastering by 2-5 points. It’s generally more like a 1 or 2 pt increase - if anything at all. I’ve never seen a digital master of, say, a DR12 with a decent vinyl needledrop counterpart of DR17.

Nevertheless, more to the implication of the OP, dynamic range (or lack thereof) is not a digital vs vinyl thing. You can and do have vinyl with little dynamic range and digital with great dynamic range. It’s all in the mastering choices, not the medium. And it tends to be an “era” thing. You find few super squashed masterings prior to the early-mid 90s.

 

[par4ken]

Brick-walling was invented long before any digit was recorded

That is incorrect. No analog processor that I've ever heard (or heard of) compresses that hard. The brick walling that we are now getting is very different. It can't even be undone as all life has been squeezed out, no level variation at all left to work with. DBX noise reduction worked by compressing the signal but there was still some level variation left. The process could be reversed.
I've never heard of anyone thinking that a DBX encoded record or tape sounded good without decoding! Sadly we can't properly or effectively decode a brick walled CD.

 

[HomerJAU]

You would think that adding silent channels would not effect the DR value, or would increase it (as average RMS level would be lower). Odd.

See my previous post here. It only happens with SACD conversions as the silent channels are not empty, there’s low level noise in those ‘silent’ channels which the DR meter sees as not silent so it includes them. You can fix by removing the converted silent channels with real silent channels, then measure DR.

EDIT: DR for each channel is basically the average difference between loudest and quietest. The noise in a SACD silent channel is extremely low but is almost 0 DR as loudest and quietest is almost same. No DR. That low channel score is then included in the MCH DR average which causes the MCH DR to be lower.

EDIT2: It’s quite possible the silent channel noise is an artefact of the DSD to PCM conversion process and exists in all channels. But it’s so low you would never hear it when music is playing or your amp is at normal levels. (But it can be measured).

 

[Soundfield]

People who prefer a vinyl disc over a digital reproduction, often don't realize that the whole recording process started digital to begin with.

Really? I've got disc recordings made in the 19th century, I've a funny feeling they weren't made in the digital domain.

 

[HomerJAU]

In theory the same master should sound better in lossless digital than vinyl but there are many LPs that sound better than digital versions due to different mastering, especially compression.

 

[marcb]

In theory the same master should sound better in lossless digital than vinyl but there are many LPs that sound better than digital versions due to different mastering, especially compression.

In theory.

But - even assuming the vinyl is cut from the exact same digital master - a digital version and a vinyl version will always “sound” different (and thus better or worse) depending upon the DAC or stylus/phono stage, etc utilzed for playback.

If the vinyl was cut from analog tape in the analog domain, then it’s no longer apples to apples.

 

[Arconada]

Brickwalling simply has to do with the dynamic range of the transmission medium or the listening area. FM radio allowed for no more than 30 dB dynamic range, AM radio even less. Nowadays brickwalling is applied to music played at dance events;. lots of noise, no room for details. A brickwalled piece of music is not meant to be played at home. You simply got the wrong version

I've got disc recordings made in the 19th century.

19th century?
I thought you were talking about high-end audio.

 

[marcb]

Brickwalling simply has to do with the dynamic range of the transmission medium or the listening area. FM radio allowed for no more than 30 dB dynamic range, AM radio even less. Nowadays brickwalling is applied to music played at dance events;. lots of noise, no room for details. A brickwalled peace of music is not meant to be played at home. You simply got the wrong version

19th century?
I thought you were talking about high-end audio.

Brickwalling is extreme (almost entirely digital) hard limiting and/or compression of the signal - it is independent of the medium or listening area.

Brickwalled music - for better or worse - is absolutely intended to be played at home. And the average consumer unwittingly actually likes it for a variety of reasons.

 

[Arconada]

DBX noise reduction worked by compressing the signal but there was still some level variation left. The process could be reversed.

Not really. DBX was used to make you feel that a dynamic range larger than the actual dynamic range was possible. But on a ´´bit-level" signal was lost. You simply can't transmit a 100dB range through a 50 dB channel without loosing detail. A DBX companded signal compares to MP3 in that way.

 

[Arconada]

Brickwalling is extreme (almost entirely digital) hard limiting and/or compression of the signal

Methods differ, the purpose is the same. AM-radio required an extreme form of compression. Even vinyl recordings don't allow for a dynamic range larger than 50 dB

 

[HomerJAU]

In theory the same master should sound better in lossless digital than vinyl

There‘s a school of thought a little distortion/noise in the analog chain is perceived by many listeners as warmth which is often liked over a clean ‘digital sound‘. Lots of permutations and no simple answers. DR is just one objective measurement that is useful as a guide. But a great DR master might not have a great mix etc.

 

[furui_suterioo]

Cheap equipment has always out-sold legitimate hi-fi systems, this fact alone makes it less profitable to cater to high-end audio consumers, compression saves memory and makes cheap speakers sound "louder", kinda reminds me of Dyngroove.

 

[marcb]

Methods differ, the purpose is the same. AM-radio required an extreme form of compression. Even vinyl recordings don't allow for a dynamic range larger than 50 dB

They’re not really the same thing at all. You’re conflating the intentional digital hard-limiting of music, i.e. brick-walling through the use of high ratio, fast-attack limiting, with the milder compression applied to stay within the constraints of mediums capable of less than full dynamic range due to inherent noise and/or bandwidth limitations.

 

[marcb]

Cheap equipment has always out-sold legitimate hi-fi systems, this fact alone makes it less profitable to cater to high-end audio consumers, compression saves memory and makes cheap speakers sound "louder", kinda reminds me of Dyngroove.

You’re conflating digital compression with dynamic range compression. Digital compression saves memory. Dynamic range compression makes cheap speakers “louder” (which actually isn’t correct, but I understand what you’re getting at).

 

[Arconada]

Nowadays, compression has two meanings, there is the compression like FLAC and MP3 (lossless and lossy) in the digital domain. And there is compression like DBX or Dolby in the analog domain. Dolby and DBX compare to MP3, meaning they are both lossy.

 

[marcb]

Nowadays, compression has two meanings, there is the compression like FLAC and MP3 (lossless or lossy) in the digital domain. And there is compression like DBX or Dolby in the analog domain. Dolby and DBX compare to MP3, meaning they are both lossy.

Neither DBX nor Dolby were “lossy” nor like Mp3. In simple terms, DBX and Dolby were noise reduction schemes which expanded signal-to-noise ratio through companding - it was essentially trying to get around the inherent dynamic range limitations of analog tape. Mp3 is an algorithm designed to save digital storage space - it has nothing to do with noise reduction. DBX/Dolby utilize dynamic range compression; Mp3 utilizes lossy digital compression. The domain has nothing to do with it - other than the inherent dynamic range of digital rendering noise reduction schemes moot.

While both alter the sound, they do it in entirely different ways for entirely different reasons.

 

[furui_suterioo]

Whether the compression is digital or dynamic(or both), lack of high-end audio market allows bad mastering to go mostly unnoticed, or so they thought.

 

[Arconada]

Neither DBX nor Dolby were “lossy”

Oh, but you are wrong! DBX and Dolby are lossy.

 

[marcb]

Whether the compression is digital or dynamic(or both), lack of high-end audio market allows bad mastering to go mostly unnoticed, or so they thought.

Digital compression has nothing to do with mastering quality. Dynamic range compression/limiting is a significant factor in mastering quality.

Digital compression (reduction of digital bits) and dynamic range compression (which can be done with analog or digital eqpt) are two entirely different things.