"Loudness War" and the Dynamic Range (DR) Database - some observations

[garyrc]

Wearing headphones, I could hear the rumble of a truck now and then, or a door shutting. It was always a little unnerving, being 1 a.m., out in the middle of the country where I live.

Yes, and we hear the conductor tromping around on the podium in some recordings, or worse, singing to himself. I don't mind either of those too much, and slight tape hiss is tolerable to me -- any one of these is better than an artifical sounding recording or dynamic range compression..

The 2005 Starker SACD 3 channel re-issue collection from a 1962/1964 Mercury 35 mm is pretty good (Schumann, Lalo, Saint-Saens). Actually, the Saint-Saens wasn't on 35 mm. The ~~ 3 dB signal to noise ratio (i.e., dynamic range, if the noise floor is held constant) advantage of three track 35 mm may have been gained back with the 1/2" 3 track1964 Saint-Saens if the magnetic coating became higher tech during the 2 years between the recordings. So the only remaining advantage of 35mm may have been lower print through. I can't say I really hear any difference between the 35mm and the 1/2" on these recordings, other than the differences you would hear with different recording set-ups two years apart.

[Chris A]

I took one example of vinyl vs. CD (loudness war music) and plotted it for the same recordings of Madonna's Confessions on a Dance Floor (in hot pink vinyl vs. garden-variety shiny CD).

 

Moving back to the original topic of the thread, I've been posting a number of bebop (classic jazz) titles to the DR ratings database and have found something that may be significant if you collect old jazz recordings. This one deals with any Blue Note (i.e. Capitol Records) remastered CD jazz classics by "Rudy Van Gelder". Each of these recordings has significantly compressed recordings, by 7-10 dB on average. This includes any Japanese titles by Mr. Van Gelder. I have about 10 of these recordings, and I've found that all of these CDs suffer from dust collection. I don't recommend anything that is "remastered" by Rudy Van Gelder on CD, and I suspect that he also is compressing any remasters on vinyl (if any).

 

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=&album=RVG

 

However, if you are a connoisseur of old jazz recordings, you will recognize Mr. Van Gelder's name as the original recording engineer for a great many great jazz recordings of the late 1950s and early 1960s. It's a shame that he's lent his name to this sort of reduction in recording quality via dynamic range reduction.

 

Chris

Edited January 11, 2015 by Chris A

[Chris A]

Here is a plot of the total DR Database ratings counts by format (i.e., vinyl, digital). This one should really begin to raise eyebrows. Look at the bi-modal characteristics of the digital data, implying that there are two types of digital disks in terms of Dynamic Range:

I did one more cut on the data, this time I plotted the histograms for digital disks only, but split into two populations: one population below an album DR rating of 10, and the other population with DR ratings of 10 and higher (plot below). The idea is to see the relative count and value of these "two types of CDs". What I found is that for the data listed in the DR database at my snapshot, there are approximately equal numbers of "loud CDs" and "not loud CDs". Why did I pick a DR value of 10? Because the shape of the average curves for the two populations started to look like normal distributions instead of double hump/bi-modal curves.

The notion that "all CDs are loud" doesn't exactly hold water, since there seems to be a bit more CDs/digital disks with average album DR ratings of 10 or higher as there are below 10. DR ratings of 10 correspond roughly to average-to-max dB ratios on each track of -13 dB. This means that the average dB level on each track has to be -13 dBFS or lower in order to reproduce at a DR rating of 10. If you are looking for an average DR rating of, say, 20, you would have to have an average dBFS level on your disc of -25 dBFS or less. That's a dramatic difference from the loudest CDs, which might have average dBFS values of -8 dB or even louder, such as -6 dB. (Remember that Red Book CDs can have average dBFS levels of -35 dBFS or lower and still not audibly affect low levels, or "quantization effects" at the low end of the scale. This means that the dynamic range of CDs is barely being used, even for discs with average DR ratings of 20 or higher.

It's been mentioned that certain types of music just don't have a great dynamic range: I've found that effect occurring in instances such as a capella choirs or music that does not use acoustic instrumentation (...note that acoustic guitar DR ratings are typically very high...such as the well known Michael Hedges "Aerial Boundaries" disc). Here is an example of a men's a capella choir with no compression, showing that even in this instance, maximum DR ratings of 17 are typical.

In all instances, I've found that no recording of music should have a DR rating below 10 or 11 unless dynamic compression has been used on the tracks, and a average disc DR rating of 12 should be used as the clear dividing line between loud and non-compressed CDs.

Another observation is that the loud CD maximum values (i.e., the max DR rating for the best track on the disk) shows a low and flat curve, indicating that all tracks on these loud discs are being uniformly squashed in their dynamic range, with few or no tracks above the disc average value, while the high DR population of discs shows a very healthy max DR curve, indicating that few if any tracks are being artificially reduced in dynamic range.

Chris

Edited August 18, 2014 by Chris A

[bracurrie]

Chris,

Thanks for the study! Time is always tight so I get frustrated looking for dynamic recordings. Where is the best place to go to get information on great recordings other than cruising the DR database?

[Chris A]

Where is the best place to go to get information on great recordings other than cruising the DR database?

Well, I believe the answer lies in the type of music that you like. If it's classical, I use a couple of audiophile sites, but here is a good one in particular: http://www.audiophilia.com/wp/?page_id=49.

The DR Database has quite a number of recordings catalogued already (...about 38K of them, to be a bit more precise). And this site doesn't use someone's opinion to give you the answers.

I also look at Amazon markeplace at the reviews since these can sometimes identify issues with certain recordings that you might not think to ask. If your taste in music is somewhat common to others' tastes, then all these sources work well.

However, if your taste is fairly esoteric, all I can say is: find the lowest price, and buy discs one at a time at the lowest price that you can find them. That's also what I do on Amazon markeplace - prices are always much lower than virtually anywhere else. The only exception may be used vinyl. But, as I've indicated, I really don't invest much in this format used because the quality of the product varies so dramatically - I usually spend a bit more to get new disks or at least some sort of money-back guarantee.

I've found that the DR database tells me if I'm going to be able to listen to the recording over and over on my home setup and look forward to each time that I listen to it, or if I'm actually buying music for MP3 use on my iPod in the car and on headphones at work.

I expect the DR Database has already saved me at least $100 in avoiding loud CDs, and to look for the discs that have good dynamics - which are now usually the oldest CDs I can find. You can go to the top of the DR Database site and click on the "DR album" heading twice, which then sorts all the albums in the database in decreasing DR rating order. I've found some surprises there: for instance, Fleetwood Mac's Rumours and Tusk, and The Cars' Greatest Hits CDs (the old versions from the 80s and early 90s) are absolutely outstanding in terms of dynamic range and freedom from clipping. Other interesting titles come into view as you scroll down that listing from page to page.

If your taste in music is loud R&R, Metal, etc., then I would think that you have other sources to look--but DR ratings are a very good place to check. I typically don't listen much to these genres, especially new tracks done in the last 30-40 years, when I stopped even trying to listen to them since this type of music doesn't appeal to me.

Chris

[Chris A]

Will the loudness wars result in quieter CDs?

"One [mastering engineer] once turned to me after I made a request for more dynamics and said, 'I have a reputation to uphold, I can't make it that quiet.'"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jan/10/digitalmusic

A good fraction of what I've been talking here deals with the culture of some mastering engineers. The reason for posting the quote is to highlight this: culture--not the recording medium/format.

In order for culture to change, I believe that the "Dynamic Range Database" sites are going to be mandatory weapons for the Hi-Fi community that desires a change away from Loudness Wars, by posting this information and showing the buying public that this practice is "bad"--even to the point of further curtailing of CD sales.

I do note that a few pop/rock artists recordings of late (within the last 2-3 years) have actually been improving their album DR. But I've seen little tendency by the record labels to put out albums/CDs with no compression at all - even on vinyl.

It might begin to get the attention of some in the industry if enough folks change their buying habits.

Chris

[garyrc]

Chris,

When an older classical or jazz recording is put on CD or SACD with more restricted dynamics than it had on vinyl, do you think

a) It was put through a line with a limiter or compressor built in, a line meant for pop music

An engineer deliberately reduced dynamic range for that music specifically, because someone (producer, marketing dept.,etc.) thinks reducing dynamics for classical or jazz is actually a good idea.

c) It happens for some other reason.

The fear (mentioned in the article) that the "average" consumer won't know to turn up music mastered at a lower level had some slight foundation in reality (curable by education) that can be seen in how people adjust the volume for DVDs and BDs. A self defeating practice of the movies-on-disk people is to master
the previews at a high, sometimes compressed volume. Several years ago Dolby
sent them a memo explaining that this amounted to shooting themselves
in the foot, because if the consumer does not turn up the volume when the main uncompressed DR movie starts, they will be listening at too low a level. This is short-circuiting the intentions of the filmmakers, composer, etc. For a few years, the previews seemed to be at about the same level as the movie, but the loud previews are baaaaaack! At our house, we always carefully set the volume for music or movies, usually turning it up after the previews in the case of movies, but many of our friends seem clueless in this regard. Education Now!

[Chris A]

An engineer deliberately reduced dynamic range for that music specifically, because someone (producer, marketing dept.,etc.) thinks reducing dynamics for classical or jazz is actually a good idea.

This one mostly...but I can't say that this is the case for all instances, so...

a) It was put through a line with a limiter or compressor built in, a line meant for pop music

c) It happens for some other reason.

These two are also possible, meaning that these reasons are the cause of some compressed dynamics (loud) discs.

The fear (mentioned in the article) that the "average" consumer won't know to turn up music mastered at a lower level had some slight foundation in reality (curable by education) that can be seen in how people adjust the volume for DVDs and BDs. A self defeating practice of the movies-on-disk people is to master

the previews at a high, sometimes compressed volume.

Note that I've made reference, above, to the average loudness levels on CDs: any average level above about -20 dBFS compresses the music or results in clipping for almost all source music, whatever the instrumentation or genre.

The bottom line is that this is just insanity: to assume that consumers don't know how to turn up the volume is insane. To further assume that most consumers don't have enough preamp gain to turn it up is also insane, since almost all preamps have loads of gain - just see the comments by Nelson Pass on this subject of THX certification and the effect that it's had on commercial preamp gain capablities.

All this started when the record-producing community failed to standardize recording levels for CDs in 1982-1984, but Tomlinson Holman (the THX QA guru) managed to get this one detail into the THX specification.

This Loudness War stuff has really has destroyed my respect for the entire music recording industry's practices: I can never trust them again...assuming that I had any trust to start with, which I probably didn't.

Chris

[Quiet_Hollow]

This Loudness War stuff has really has destroyed my respect for the entire music recording industry's practices: I can never trust them again...assuming that I had any trust to start with, which I probably didn't.

For entertainment, I recommend watching some of the "tutorials" for mixing vocals in DAW posted on YouTube. [8-)] Most of them are clearly not on the same page as us "listeners".

[garyrc]

... any average level above about -20 dBFS compresses the music or results in clipping for almost all source music, whatever the instrumentation or genre.

• So, with CDs, we're hearing clipping a great deal of the time, right? That may explain a lot.
• I assume that -20 dBFS is 20 dB below the absolute top ... unlike with the reel to reel 15 ips tape I used to use that had a nominal "0" and 20 dB of VU scale below it and could get up to about +11 dB with 3% distortion on Scotch 206/207. This would produce a little mush, but no (or very little) hard, super harsh, knife-in-the-ear clipping. If ugly clipping is there that often, no wonder some people like speakers that lower a friendly veil over the sound. The +11 I mentioned would never be seen on the VU meter, but would consist of unread peaks, unseen due to needle lag, but present when the needle was somewhere between + 1 and +3, or an unmarked +4. I take it that Red Book digital has no such margin for error, but the studios tend to record at a high level anyway?
• Or, if the peaks are brief enough, but above 0, can clipping be avoided, as in certain amplifiers that only have "3 dB dynamic headroom" that will pass 10 dB above a fair rating ( RMS?) (re PWK/John Keele)?
• I assume that buying a modern, Hi Tech, dynamic range expander (if they exist) would do no good, because the ugly clipping is already there on the disk.

[Chris A]

So, with CDs, we're hearing clipping a great deal of the time, right?

Actually, most of the time it's the use of compression that we're hearing on digital recordings. This is easy to do on a digital stream, but it robs the music of its liveness. I've actually found only a few CDs that have detected digital clipping. This situation is actually very easy to avoid by recording engineers - they simply record at a lower level when using a digital recorder. CDs have 96 dBFS of dynamic range, of which 90 dB is usually available. The best vinyl has about 70 dB of dynamic range available, and most have only about 50 dB. When you look at the practice of using CDs, however, only about 6-10 dB is actually used, and the rest of that capability isn't used at all. It's actually a tragedy.

I assume that -20 dBFS is 20 dB below the absolute top ... unlike with the reel to reel 15 ips tape I used to use that had a nominal "0" and 20 dB of VU scale below it and could get up to about +11 dB with 3% distortion on Scotch 206/207

You've identified the problem - all analog recording engineers used the absolute top of the scale in order to avoid tape hiss problems, but on CDs, there is no tape hiss, there is no other noise if you decide to decrease the recording level by an additional 20 dB.

This is the proverbial problem of the doe that first made a trail through a forest, later to become a superhighway. Digital has plenty of DR, but no one actually uses that capability.

Or, if the peaks are brief enough, but above 0, can clipping be avoided, as in certain amplifiers that only have "3 dB dynamic headroom" that will pass 10 dB above a fair rating ( RMS?) (re PWK/John Keele)?

As stated above, 0 dB digital is the top of the scale - it isn't analog, whereby the top of the scale is actually 10-15 dB above "0 dB VU".

I assume that buying a modern, Hi Tech, dynamic range expander (if they exist) would do no good, because the ugly clipping is already there on the disk

As stated above, dynamic range expanders would actually work very well since there is no clipping present on most CDs, unlike the non-linear distortion present on analog recordings above 0 dB, where most analog recording engineers are taught to record at. You simply don't ever do that on digital formats - subtract 25-30 dB of overall gain (or more) from the recording stream and you're fine: you'll never see the top of the scale, even on transients. I've never actually heard quantization effects a the bottom of the scale on a CD since essentially all CDs used compressed dynamics recording practices--that are completely unnecessary in practice. You give up essentially nothing when you turn the recording gain down when using digital recorders.

I believe the practice of using digital recording is to use more than 16 bits of data per word (i.e. 24 bits is common), then reduce the digital words to 16 bits for each track, making the 0 dB level the maximum level recorded on the 24 bit track. In effect they're rubber-banding the tracks to 0 dB from recording through to mastered CD (resulting in many instances whereby the maximum level for each track is 0 dB or slightly below that, but no clipping is present). The problem is, they don't stop there, they keep compressing the digital words in order to make it sound "louder" on disc without autogain controls being used. Now that auto-level gain controls are becoming standard, there is no advantage to digital compression at all.

Chris

Edited December 30, 2013 by Cask05

[bracurrie]

".

I assume that buying a modern, Hi Tech, dynamic range expander (if they exist) would do no good, because the ugly clipping is already there on the disk

As stated above, dynamic range expanders would actually work very well since there is no clipping present on most CDs,

Ok, then wow. Another piece of gear to research hunt for and bag. Uh, where do you start with dynamic range expanders?[*-)]

[garyrc]

".

I assume that buying a modern, Hi Tech, dynamic range expander (if they exist) would do no good, because the ugly clipping is already there on the disk

As stated above, dynamic range expanders would actually work very well since there is no clipping present on most CDs,

Ok, then wow. Another piece of gear to research hunt for and bag. Uh, where do you start with dynamic range expanders?

Here is another discussion of expanders:

http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?t=424757

The "impact restoration" on the dBx is an interesting idea.

We have our work cut out for us, right?

In about 1973-4 I was making a tape with extreme dynamic range. I had a pair (for 4 channels; "quadrasonic sound") of dBx 157s. They were not perfect, but they were overwhelmingly better than any Dolby I could find. I hope the company still exists, i.e., I hope the guys on Audiokarma are not talking about old, restored equipment.

[Chris A]

Ok, then wow. Another piece of gear to research hunt for and bag. Uh, where do you start with dynamic range expanders?

Here is an interesting thread that was commented on by some mastering folks: http://www.gearslutz.com/board/mastering-forum/348171-dynamic-range-expander-smashed-mixes.html

My initial reaction is to use digital tools, like those that can be downloaded and used on PCs.

Chris

[babadono]

Hi Chris et al,

Yes a dynamic range expander is a nice tool to have(or would be).Turn up the quiet! I am thinking that with what you uncovered they are needed now more than ever. One would think a company could make a profitable niche for themselves manufacturing these. With the digital technology available today couldn't a very versatile unit be designed that would not suffer the pumping and breathing of the old analog types(dbx 1bx,3bx etc)? As far as I know a standalone unit for home reproduction systems is not currently available (please correct me if I'm mistaken). I currently use a 30 yr old dbx 3bx but very judiciously.

Eric

[babadono]

With the digital technology available today couldn't a very versatile unit be designed that would not suffer the pumping and breathing of the old analog types(dbx 1bx,3bx etc)?

something like this, but a stand alone box not a plug in:

http://mhsecure.com/metric_halo/products/software/multiband-exp.html

Eric

[babadono]

[:$]

oops... looks like this unit is only a downward expander. We need a gizmo that increases the gain of signals above the threshold and decreases the gain of those below.

but babadono

[Chris A]

An engineer deliberately reduced dynamic range for that music specifically, because someone (producer, marketing dept.,etc.) thinks reducing dynamics for classical or jazz is actually a good idea.

I was pawing through the DRDatabase, then stumbled across this entry: http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/details.php?id=28050

If you look at the "Comments" field, you will actually see two listings for CDs with their respective Dynamic Range scale values - the first CD with it's unique ECM number "ECM 2102 190 8630" and a second CD by the same name, but with a slightly different ECM number -- "ECM 2102 179 8630". Here are the two DR Database values for the two CDs:

ECM 2102 190 8630:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DR Peak RMS Filename

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DR19 -4.35 dB -32.26 dB 01-Sad Song

DR23 -0.81 dB -31.05 dB 02-Line-Up

DR19 over -32.17 dB 03-Wait till You See Her

DR21 -0.10 dB -28.14 dB 04-Trio

DR23 -0.18 dB -31.61 dB 05-I've Overlooked Before

DR21 -0.21 dB -28.97 dB 06-Anniversary Waltz

DR20 -0.00 dB -27.49 dB 07-Out of Towner

DR19 -0.31 dB -27.69 dB 08-Chic of Araby

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Number of files: 8

Official DR value: DR21

and the second CD:

ECM 2102 179 8630 with barcode 602517986305:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DR Peak RMS Filename

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DR13 -4.38 dB -22.28 dB 1 - Sad Song.wav

DR16 -0.83 dB -21.08 dB 2 - Line-Up.wav

DR11 -4.46 dB -22.24 dB 3 - Wait Till You See Her.wav

DR16 -0.12 dB -18.21 dB 4 - Trio.wav

DR16 -0.12 dB -21.66 dB 5 - I've Overlooked Before.wav

DR16 -0.11 dB -19.01 dB 6 - Anniversary Waltz.wav

DR16 -0.12 dB -17.54 dB 7 - Out of Towner.wav

DR14 -0.28 dB -17.71 dB 8 - Chic of Araby.wav

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Number of files: 8

Official DR value: DR15

You might notice that the second CD has its dynamic range squashed by almost exactly 10 dB. The first CD even has one track that clips even though the average dBFS reading is less than -32dB. This is very interesting.

I rest my case--that almost all CDs have compressed dynamics. Jazz CDs with dynamic percussion accompaniment apparently have at least 10 dB or more of compression---based off this "smoking gun" example.

There are a few uncompressed CDs out there, but most seem to be classical CDs recorded with far-field microphone arrays.

Chris

Edited December 30, 2013 by Cask05

[garyrc]

You might notice that the second CD has its dynamic range squashed by almost exactly 10 dB. The first CD even has one track that clips even though the average dBFS reading is less than -32dB. This is very interesting.

I rest my case--that almost all CDs have compressed dynamics. Jazz CDs with dynamic percussion accompaniment apparently have at least 10 dB or more of compression---based off this "smoking gun" example.

10 dB is Huge! I can only think that somebody in charge of such things is unfamiliar with live music, or doesn't like it.

[Chris A]

10 dB is Huge! I can only think that somebody in charge of such things is unfamiliar with live music, or doesn't like it.

+1

The whole point that I see is that this compression is completely unnecessary due to the available dynamic range of red book CDs (over 90 dBFS) that isn't being used. No CD that I've heard has ever come within 30 dB of being used to its DR capability. Quantization noise sounds just like tape hiss.

Chris