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

[Chris A]

Here is a pretty good article on the subject of loudness war CD practice vs. time.

Chris

[babadono]

Chris,

Kudos to you for invesigating this to the extent you have. I remember back in the day(late '70s early '80s) waiting with baited breath for the CD to become reality. I told anyone who would listen that not only would there be no more clicks and pops on their "records" (vinyl quality sucked in th late '70s)but that the record producers and recording engineers would be freed from over compressing and we would get recordings that had geater DR. This usually got a response like "what do you mean?" And when I explained it as best I could the people who understood said something like "Oh, it'll sound more like a live performance". Sadly as you have painstaking discovered the promise of greater DR has not always(rarely) come to fruition. And as you have found it is getting worse not better. It is a shame. Thankfully we have this DR Database website we can use to pretest a recording we are thinking of acquiring.

Thanks for your hard work.

Eric

[Chris A]

Hey, thanks Eric... Now that I'm properly encouraged, I did another slice on the data to find the differences in DR ratings between vinyl and digital copies of the same album/CD, etc., all released on 1992 or later, which by inspection is about the starting year of serious Loudness War compression for many pop and rock artists.

 

In this plot, I found only those instances where both vinyl and digital DR ratings were found for the same album or release:  I found that 86% of the time, the vinyl record had a higher DR rating. Since the standard deviation of the differences in DR ratings between vinyl and the best digital values for this example was fairly large, I did a plot of the DR rating differences vinyl-digital and found the following:

Edited December 21, 2014 by Chris A

[Chris A]

The bottom line on the above plot is:

 

If you have a choice between vinyl and digital for a new release album, 86% of the time, the vinyl record will have a significantly higher DR rating. How much higher? By the plot, this translates into 2-3 dB extra dynamic range on average - which is actually a large difference if the music is compressed to the hilt as on digital releases.

 

Now here comes the darker parts of the story: why would these typically giant record companies consistently place better, more dynamic recordings on vinyl--which is more expensive to produce at high quality, but also having a significantly lower inherent performance of the format itself relative to digital?

 

Each dB of extra dynamic range really adds to the sense of realism and involvement with the produced recording, IMHE.

 

One answer is that it is a "boutique" way of charging customers more for their music, but another more sinister aspect arises: the digitally recorded source material is first converted into an analog signal, then impressed onto the vinyl, then this copy is sold to the consumer, which typically does not then rip the vinyl analog music back to digital. Why? Well, inject a little "anti-digital lie" into the memeplex and aura of "vinyl" and the consumers will believe that their "analog recordings" (which is, of course, a misnomer) are superior, and will not convert their vinyl music into digital and share with their friends.

 

Another way of looking at this: since the record giants and by imitation, the smaller boutique record labels, almost do not use dynamic range at all, vinyl is "good enough" to reproduce music at a few dBFS of dynamic range, even though its signal-noise (SNR) performance is at least 45 dB lower than Compact Disk (CD) "red book" format. That means that the music must be loud and stay loud throughout the song: no quiet parts are allowable. Apparently, for many folks, this is okay. (However, it's not okay for me.)

 

I remember one notable vinyl record from 1974: Billy Cobham's Crosswinds (Atlantic Records). The penultimate track on the record is named "Heather", which is a slow number that features George Duke on Fender Rhodes piano with a quiet Billy Cobham brush accompaniment and a memorable Michael Brecker sax solo that enters and finishes in the middle. The vinyl noise on every analog disk of this recording that I ever heard was so high that parts of the music itself are obliterated. I had to wait until after 2000 (27 years) to get the CD version of the recording and finally hear the piece with only tape hiss, which is probably at 20-30 dB below the vinyl record's background noise level.

 

Many other examples of this type of noisy vinyl exist. However, I've not had even one CD have noise problems: it either plays or it doesn't, and whatever the mastering engineer put on the disk, that's what you hear with no additional noise or signal degradation artifacts introduced from the manufacturing or playback process. Additionally, CD players (digital out) are really inexpensive: good turntables and cartridges really aren't, they wear out, and are susceptible to house dust and vibrations/floor movement. CD players go on spitting out perfect 1s and 0s into their HDMI buses without incident. All you need is a garden-variety DAC nowadays, and even those are now internally clocked to eliminate problems, and at reasonable prices. The only thing that you need is a good preamp: one analog preamp. Not two, i.e., you don't need an additional one for applying the inverse-RIAA curve of a vinyl record.

 

If the average loudness level of your chosen music never dips more than 6 dB...you know what type of music that is...then you probably don't have many complaints with vinyl--once you invest.

 

Chris

Edited December 21, 2014 by Chris A

[Chris A]

One more point: of the 786 instances of vinyl vs. digital recordings referenced above, I personally own only 17 recordings--mostly in digital format--on that list. In those 17 instances, more than 2/3s of the digital versions of each that I own were at least as good or better as the vinyl version in terms of DR rating.

Many of these vinyl recordings in the last 20 years are from artists that I haven't even heard of before.

Chris

Edited December 30, 2013 by Cask05

[Chris A]

I've enclosed a pdf file listing of this data for those of you that would like to see it.

Vinyl-Digital DR Rating Data.pdf

Edited December 30, 2013 by Cask05

[Chris A]

I've found the following minimum DR rating rules of thumb work for me:

1. If the music is typically acoustic in nature (i.e., not amplified guitars, voices, and drums), then a minimum rule of thumb of 10-11 is what I've found to be the borderline between listenable and "let it gather dust on the shelf"
2. If the music is amplified or synthesized, the DR rating rule of thumb can be as low as 8 and still be listenable, but higher DR ratings correspond to higher rates of listening to the music

On the other end of the spectrum, I've found that the most dynamic music requires that I be able to turn up the gain to approximate concert levels, and requires that no one is trying to talk in the area, or is trying to read or do tasks requiring thinking:

1. A maximum DR rule of thumb rating of 16 for acoustic music, including most music with percussion effects
2. A maximum DR rating rule of thumb of about 14 or 15 for background music when played at much below concert levels, without periodically losing the ability to hear the music due to household noise
3. A maximum DR rating rule of thumb of about 12-14 for listening in an automobile without driving out conversations or not being able to hear traffic or noise in or around the automobile, with even lower DR ratings being preferred for background music levels while traveling in an automobile.

These are only initial estimates based on my now-limited experience with the DR rating scale. I've found good to excellent correlation with the above rules of thumb and actual experience thus far, much higher correlation than I initially would have expected.

Chris

Edited December 30, 2013 by Cask05

[Chris A]

I've also found that certain CDs recommended by some folks here that I trust and respect their judgments, these CDs uniformly score at the top of the DR rating scale, for instance:

 

1) James Newton Howard and Friends (Sheffield Lab)

2) John Renbourn (Sir John Alot of Merrie Englandes Musyk Thyng & ye Grene Knygte)

3) Flim & the BB's (all discs)

4) Michael Hedges (Aerial Boundaries)

5) Dire Straits (Brothers in Arms)

 

Et cetera. This is a significant finding, IMHO.

 

Chris

Edited December 21, 2014 by Chris A

[babadono]

Chris,

From your research and analysis you have found, if I understand correctly, that almost always the vinyl record of the same recording has better DR than the CD(or other digital format). I can't help but wonder if this is why some adamantly insist their records sound better than CDs?

Eric

[Chris A]

Exactly, yes. The bottom line is that the two formats are in fact reversed interms of capabilities, but the better recordings are typically found on vinyl where it is more difficult to effectively rip to digital again.

This is actually a pretty strange story. Amazing but true.

Chris

[rigma]

Exactly, yes. The bottom line is that the two formats are in fact reversed interms of capabilities, but the better recordings are typically found on vinyl where it is more difficult to effectively rip to digital again.

This is actually a pretty strange story. Amazing but true.

Chris

UM I hate to say I have been saying this for years.[]

[garyrc]

Additionally, I've found that most other CDs of that time period that were recorded using the exact same techniques used for producing vinyl disks, i.e., already reduced dynamic range due to signal compression being used during the recording process. In other words: the record giants systematically NEVER USED THE ADVANTAGES OF THE CD FORMAT.

Were the execs really that stupid, and did they take so little pride in their work? I'd like to think those days are over, but now that several people have mentioned it, the distortion and colorless sound I too often hear may be due to clipping or some kind of pre-constriction.

IMO, they should issue a regular version and an audiophile version of each album. The regular (low dynamic range) version could be used on radio, and could be purchased by people who have systems that can't take much DR. The audiophile version could have unrestricted DR, sometimes using the full DR CDs or SACDs are capable of, and sometimes -- if the artists want less extreme dynamic contrasts -- less. One way to package this would be with CD/SACD hybrids. I would be willing to pay a dollar or two more to get an audiophile version.

[Chris A]

Quote

UM I hate to say I have been saying this for years.

 

Realizing, of course, that the statements that I've made are limited to certain types of music, notably those that I typically don't listen to: pop, rock and other "mass market" recordings made and produced since 1992 which I used as a deliberate cut in the data in order to get a 1:1 comparison vinyl vs. digital versions of the same recordings, since data before 1992 typically doesn't show Loudness War compression. The data used for the vinyl vs. digital disc observations are not limited by the recording technology of 40+ years ago that shows up in terms of lower SNR, audible tape hiss, and very audible limitations of response to intense transients such as cymbals and other high intensity relatively high-frequency musical instruments.

 

To make any more assumptions that "vinyl is better" would of course be without supporting evidence. In fact, the evidence is that most of the mass-market record companies didn't change their handling of CDs over their vinyl counterparts until about 1992, as seen in the plots above, at least in terms of measurable DR ratings.

 

This is especially true of music genres that never experienced Loudness War dynamic compression, notably classical music and certain other genres such as the boutique (audiophile) labels such as Chesky, Sheffield, DMP, and others. In these cases there is no comparison, especially with some of the more recent multichannel recordings--which are spectacular.

 

It turns out that this isn't true (26 March 2015) - It's only a matter of degree in abuse using compressors and "spectral shaping", i.e., creative and strange EQ folding of the audible spectrum, and straight rolling-off of low frequencies below 200-400 Hz.  It is clear that because vinyl has much less latitude in terms of compression (Loudness War), frequency response linearity, SNR degradation due to successive analog-domain edits, it cannot sustain the degree of abuse suffered by CDs since 1983 - the year CDs first hit the market.

 

This is what I've been saying for years.

 

Chris

[Chris A]

Were the execs really that stupid, and did they take so little pride in their work? I'd like to think those days are over, but now that several people have mentioned it, the distortion and colorless sound I too often hear may be due to clipping or some kind of pre-constriction.

 

All the books and articles that I have now point to this as the source of the issues: the perception from giant recording label executives and staff that the public is stupid and only buys recordings that are loud, i.e., with compressed dynamics. It's interesting to me that the movie industry typically doesn't make that same mistake.

 

IMO, they should issue a regular version and an audiophile version of each album.

 

But then the record labels would feel that they are "feeding the beast" - all those consumers that steal their music and not pay for it--rather they would have them, again and again, pay for the same music each time they move their music files from a disc to hard drive, or hard drive to hard drive. This attitude and fear is apparently driving the entire recorded music marketplace of pop, rock, and other mass media types of music.

 

Typically, if you look at classical music (as I know you do), you won't find these issues, especially of music recorded and produced within the last 20 years or so.

 

Chris

Edited December 21, 2014 by Chris A

[Quiet_Hollow]

Were the execs really that stupid, and did they take so little pride in their work?

Market tactics are at play. There's business and politics in there too. The medium certainly isn't the limiting factor in most cases. An excellent example of which was SuperBit DVD where they cut out all the fluff and focused strictly on exploiting the technical aspects of the medium. On a good up-scaling player and at average viewing distances, you'd be very hard-pressed to tell the difference between a Superbit title and its Blu-Ray release.

Suffice to say, Superbit was eventually cannibalized for encroachment.

It's interesting to me that the movie industry typically doesn't make that same mistake.

Typically yes.....but you'd be impressed at the amount of junk DTS-HD material making it's way out there as of late. [:S] I could digress, but that'd be a good topic for the home theater section.

[Chris A]

...There's business and politics in there too. The medium certainly isn't the limiting factor in most cases. An excellent example of which was SuperBit DVD where they cut out all the fluff and focused strictly on exploiting the technical aspects of the medium. On a good up-scaling player and at average viewing distances, you'd be very hard-pressed to tell the difference between a Superbit title and its Blu-Ray release...

I just read a summary of SACD vs. CD, and SACD vs. DVD-A on listeners' ability to distinguish qualitative differences: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD#Comparison_with_CD. The results don't surprise me.

I find that Red Book CD as a medium has basically been trashed by the record giants as evidenced by the discussions in this thread and the DR average and max graphs presented of recordings released by 5-year time periods. A well recorded and produced CD layer is impossible for me to distinguish from the same disc's SACD layer. And DVD-A, while having even better performance as a medium, is also audibly indistinguishable for me since the techniques and practices of apparently all recording engineers nullify the advantages of the format.

To take full advantage of 44.1 KHz Red Book CD format, one would think that the recording microphones would need to be in near field of the performers, signal compression completely turned off, and the average recording levels pushed down to -27 to -30 dBFS or perhaps even lower to suit the type of music and instrumentation used.

But, you typically don't see that being done at any time on commercial mass-market CDs except in certain instances where someone weighs in, like on this one: http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/details.php?id=36630, or this one: http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/details.php?id=37810.

...but you'd be impressed at the amount of junk DTS-HD material making it's way out there as of late.

Feel free to elaborate.

[Quiet_Hollow]

Feel free to elaborate.

I've started a thread over in the HT section for this topic.

[DizRotus]

Mark-

I agree completely.

My 24 y.o. son NEVER listens to music through speakers, except in a car. The rest of the time it's headphones (albeit Klipsch S4s) for music, videos and gaming (vintage Koss over ear).

OTH, my 31 y.o. son has started to listen to music using the totally refurbished H/K 430 - Heresy system I gave him as a graduation present. He's just now realizing the compromises presented by compressed music when payed through a good system. He recognizes the superiority of good recordings, but I have to remind him that a good stereo system won't make bad recordings sound better; it just magnifies their deficiencies.

[Chris A]

You might do better "hobby wise" to find small craft producers who are recording non-commerical artists and support them by buying their tapes and local pressed LPs and digital releases.

 

Thanks, Mark. I do, among the other more obvious "audiophile" discs, etc. that are also very high quality.

 

Apparently, to state that you don't listen to most mass-market music isn't a popular thing to say in this forum (i.e., I was personally chastised in a related thread for doing so). However, since my taste in music is fairly wide, I do find that I have to make compromises when buying new music. I've found that the DR Database referenced at the top of this thread helps to guide me away from otherwise poor purchases in terms of Loudness War CDs and other music tracks.

 

My observations on the use of this database of music DR ratings here are offered freely with the notion that perhaps they may help others with similar "obtuse preferences" without having to admit it openly.

 

BTW Mark: I thought that you didn't mix with us audio types nowadays.

 

Chris

Edited December 21, 2014 by Chris A

[Don Richard]

There may be a technical reason for the downhill slide in dynamic range since digital recording and playback came into being. In the analog days there was a limit on how much compression and limiting could be used before audibly objectionable consequences would result. Too much compression and/or limiting would allow the bass notes to affect the high notes resulting in an effect known a "pumping" or "breathing". Then someone invented digital multband compressors. These units separate the audio signal into 3 or more frequency ranges so that those audibly objectionable results would not occur even if brick wall limiting was used. So the recording and mastering engineers began to produce recordings with limited dynamic range that would sound "better" on Ipods and car stereos that are used in areas with more ambient noise than a quiet listening room.