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

[Chris A]

Personally, I think it would be fun to move into this new HD world, but I am turned off by the lack of breadth to the material, and the high cost of building a new music library (at $35 a pop!) for like the third time in life! I can't do it.

I certainly understand this, as I will likely be in the same boat in the future.  There's only so many times that one can sustain a compete technology replacement before the cost and declining need to change take precedence. 

 

For me, that's already happened with video games (I never really got into them because of the time that they take from other passions and pastimes), smart phones (I don't own one, but my wife does), tablet computer (ditto), 3-D television, expensive sports car(s), country club memberships, AAA memberships (but I do belong to AARP), etc.  My father always wanted me to get into HAM radio (audio has always held my attention) and woodworking (ditto--although I certainly know how to do it among other metalworking skills).  The list goes on and on.  Pick your poison.

 

For the guy just getting started (assuming there is even a movement of new young people into this world), HD is the obvious way to go, if they can tolerate the slow development of quality artists available on the new HD medium.

This may pick up if the general economy picks up for Gen-Xers and Millennials to get better paying jobs (don't get me started on this subject).  I think that there is a good chance that hi-fi audio will return in the short term, once people figure out that smart phones and ear buds aren't that cool anymore (like laptop computers have become).  Good audio reproduction has always been a choice among those with discerning tastes.  I'm encouraged by some of what I see in this marketplace. 

 

You'd think that more folks would chime in here on this subject.  Perhaps I'm chronically out of step with the latest fads in forum subject matter--maybe not.  More surround sound/HT enthusiasts seem to be gathering of late-since the slow close out of the Great Recession.

[Marvel]

You'd think that more folks would chime in here on this subject.

I would just be repeating what you are saying. Still, to reinforce your point, I know a lot of people who are getting tired of all the connectivity technology and portable audio. This would be all the smart phones, portable music/video players, netbook/tablet/phablet, wireless stuff that gives you no quality personal time.

 

I do have a smart phone, but often have it on silent when I am out. I can always check for messages, but when I do it's on my schedule.

 

Over the past few years, I managed to get our college to switch from small Bose speakers in our growing smart classrooms, to using Klipsch speakers. The man in charge does some things I wouldn't do, but there are still improvements being made.

 

My own audio library is far larger than what I will ever listen to again in this life. I don't need to replace everything I have.

 

Bruce

[Chris A]

Bruce, your last sentence brings up a good point:  there is a lot of either/or thinking going on with regard to so-called HiRez files, and that idea coupled with more than two channels in format.  The truth is that it isn't "either/or". 

 

I've built my rig up for two channel or 5.1, analog audio inputs/TT and the latest digital discs, and streaming audio/digital data files - all in one. 

 

The real bottleneck nowadays seems to be the availability of high quality "HiRez" music files.  When I find good music in HiRez, I can pick and choose based on genre, performers, recording/mastering engineers, and/or format (2-channel or greater, PCM, DSD).  Right now, my true HiRez collection is probably less than 50 discs, but it is very slowly expanding.

 

Chris

[Marvel]

I would imagine that there are millions of 14 year olds who think of a smart phone when the word "stereo" is mentioned. On the one hand, that's totally amazing. On the other hand, it's totally amazing!

I totally agree!

 

Unfortunately, it extends to adults too. About ten years ago, the woman who was chair of the music department at the small college where I work called and asked if I could help with setting up here tv and stereo. She lost everything during a huge storm... She had a really nice older house on Lookout Mountain, TN. Stereo and TV were in a smallish den, with the TV in a huge entertainment center, but the two speakers for her stereo were stacked on top of each other in the corner.

 

A lot of the music depart. faculty have all in one units or boom boxes in their offices/teaching studios...

 

What's up with that? At least, the current chair has a reasonable receiver and pair of JBLs. Not expensive ones, but it's better than they have been.

 

I got a set of Klipsch MWM bins, some larger horns to go with them (still need the drivers and crossovers, or electronics to go active), but they are afraid it will sound like a P.A. system. Until we can spend more money and I set it up, they really won't know how good it CAN sound.

 

As you say, "On the one hand, that's totally amazing. On the other hand, it's totally amazing!"

 

Bruce

[Chris A]

So you're focusing on bit depth when you talk about SNR, which is certainly one of the dimensions expanded by HiRez music files.  The other dimension is sample rate, which is typically 96 kHz for PCM (higher bit rates may actually be detrimental--another subject of discussion), and DSD64 for SACDs and downloads.

 

What I hear in HiRez files is spectacular inner detail of the musical decays - something that might not be obvious from the 50,000 view looking only at the technical details of the domain.  It sounds much more natural and has more detail in background.  String ensembles sound much smoother and more natural, guitar decays are more life-like, and at least for SACDs in native DSD format to your DAC, bass guitars and double basses sound much more realistic. 

 

I know that some of my explanations don't really convert easily to greater bit depth and higher sample rate, but that's what my ears are telling me.  Note that I'm basing most of my comments on the 5.1 or 5.0 tracks of these discs, but I also note the same general characteristics for stereo-only SACDs, for instance.

 

For an example jazz disc with really good electric bass and great decays, I'd recommend the Yellowjackets Time Squared or any of their other discs in SACD.  For string orchestra, I'd recommend virtually anything recorded in the last 15 years by Linn records (SACD) or Pentatone Classics (in SACD also, but watch that you're not buying older/repackaged Philips quadraphonic recordings made in the 1970s). 

 

DVD-Audio (DVD-A) discs in 24/96 are also fairly spectacular but somehow sound more like better CDs rather than different recordings altogether like the best SACDs (I've got no clue why that is).  My best DVD-As include Naxos classical discs including Vivaldi's L'Estro Armonico (two volumes/discs), Handel's Water Music and Music for the Royal Fireworks. Gordon Goodwin's two DVD-As of his Big Phat Band, are spectacular in 5.1. 

 

The EuroArts Blu-Ray disc of Beethoven's piano concertos, the first five concertos, by Daniel Barenboim and the Arthaus Blu-Ray of Barenboim playing the two Chopin piano concertos are superb, both with the Berlin Staatskapelle accompanying.  There are other discs that come to mind, particularly Naxos music-only Blu-Ray discs, but the noted ones here are the first titles that I reach for.

[Chris A]

No - I don't really know if the increased bit depth is audible.  My guess is that it isn't since almost all recordings use less than 30 dBFS of total dynamic range, and most less than 20 dBFS - all gleaned from the cursory analysis on DR Database records, which are crest factor measurements.  Remember that running out of bit depth sounds just like tape hiss.

 

I believe that the most audible differences have to lie in increased sampling rate of the recording and in the typical handling of the conversion of 1-bit delta-sigma to PCM, which apparently doesn't result in the same analog output after D/A conversion--since I'm hearing clear differences between native DSD vs. conversion to PCM at the DAC level.  I'm not sure what's going on there.

 

Chris

[ClaudeJ1]

Imagine though trying to rebuild the standard repertoire of music lovers. We can't go back and re-record "Kind of Blue" in HD. I ran across this text yesterday, and it seems to be the exact counterpoint to the HD music idea.

 

From Six Moons - http://sixmoons.com/audioreviews/mlroadtour1/roadtour_2.html

 

(The writer here, Jeff Day is referring to a $150,000 Shindo system that runs from Garrard TT to handmade speakers.)

 

"There was also absolutely zero grit, grain, glare, crispies, edgies or other nasties afflicting the sound. Over the course of the first evening, Matt and I spun a boatload of wax with all sorts of varying recording quality to see how well the Shindo rig did on the ultimate music lovers test: Can it play everything, every genre -- good recordings, even poor recordings -- and still deliver maximum musical pleasure?

We listened to everything you can imagine: selections from the Beatles' Let It Be; Jimi Hendrix's Blues; Louis Armstrong & Duke Ellington's Recording Together for the First Time; Janos Starker's Bach: Suites for Unaccompanied Cello; Bob Dylan & Johnny Cash's Nashville Skyline; Lightin' Hopkins' Lightin' in New York; Iron and Wine & Calexico's In The Reins; Nick Drake's Pink Moon; Death Cab for Cutie's Transatlanticism; Heifetz/Munch - Boston Symphony Orchestra, Beethoven Violin Concerto in D, Op. 61; Bill Evans Trio, Waltz for Debby; Miles Davis Quintet, Cookin'; Mahapurush Misra on Tabla, Indian Drums; Lightin' Hopkins & Sonny Terry, Last Night Blues; Aretha Franklin, Amazing Grace; Marvin Gaye, What's Going On; Sufjan Stevens, Come on feel the Illinoise; Donald Fagen, Morph the Cat; Duke Ellington, Joe Pass, Ray Brown and Louis Bellson, Duke's Big 4; and Bob Dylan & The Rolling Thunder Revue, Live 1975. To name a few.

Music lovers need not worry. Any music we played through the Shindo system sounded convincingly and compellingly like music regardless of the recording quality. Even poorly recorded music -- I asked Matt to play some as a test -- had an organic, life-like quality that maintained the full musical experience that I crave. The Shindo rig really serves the music well and I suspect that poor sonics will never distract a Shindo listener from the musical message. Well recorded performances are absolutely stunning, displaying all the usual attributes us audiophile dweebs go gaga over: imaging to die for, impressive soundstaging within a big billowing soundspace, lots of inner detail, vivid textures, dramatic and finely honed macro and micro-dynamics."

 

END QUOTE

 

So there's the flip-side (notice the use of the term "music lover" at the introduction.). You only need certain special gear to take any of the old recordings and make them glorious. This, I believe is the idea that is most commonly followed in the small population where music lover intersects with both audiophile and extreme wealth. And of course, there is a larger set where you can eliminate the extreme wealth and people will get these effects on budget minded gear too.

 

These two belief systems are at complete odds in every possible way. What a hobby!

Articles like that are mostly prose. Waxing poetic about this. Most of the "magic" was the speaker, the room, and how clean the vinyl was (good cleaning machines are about $700). There are so many other systems that sound just as wonderful when done right, without all that super expensive like power conditioners. If a device has a good power supply design, all the stuff will not affect the sound. Other than the Sadurni Horns, pretty much all of the speakers I heard at Axpona sounded similarly just OK, since NONE of them, that I know of used any kind of ROOM correction. ONe quick sine sweep at a listener location will yield a "dirty curve" that is anything but flat. Pick your favorite distortion, I say.

 

One possible exception was a Twin 15" Open Baffle driver setup where one of the drivers had a co-axial horn, and they were only $2,000 per pair. For most of this overpriced gear, it's all about the VENEER and the "handmade" aspect, which is why the price is to high. No one wants to solder wire for a buck a day like in foreign lands.

Edited December 24, 2014 by ClaudeJ1

[ClaudeJ1]

 

Right now, my true HiRez collection is probably less than 50 discs, but it is very slowly expanding.

Glad you mentioned that, Chris. It provides a reference point. I found myself wondering if you had tens, hundreds or thousands of these recordings!

 

So, this is very much a bleeding edge pursuit, it would seem.Not many people have deep libraries. 

 

At the moment, my concerns are rather practical. Such as, how to get an amplifier that meets the HD requirements? - e.g. S/N of >16-bits! I will probably begin with headphones for the reason that a headphone amp with those specs is somewhat common. I would need about 10W at least for driving my JBLs in room. Maybe one of those Class T amps could be called upon. I have just begun to think about it. Tube amps are out.

 

You will be amazed and surprised at how good class T can be. On the other hand, you will be amazed and surprised!

[ClaudeJ1]

No - I don't really know if the increased bit depth is audible.  My guess is that it isn't since almost all recordings use less than 30 dBFS of total dynamic range, and most less than 20 dBFS - all gleaned from the cursory analysis on DR Database records, which are crest factor measurements.  Remember that running out of bit depth sounds just like tape hiss.

 

I believe that the most audible differences have to lie in increased sampling rate of the recording and in the typical handling of the conversion of 1-bit delta-sigma to PCM, which apparently doesn't result in the same analog output after D/A conversion--since I'm hearing clear differences between native DSD vs. conversion to PCM at the DAC level.  I'm not sure what's going on there.

 

Chris

Overkill resolution and dynamic range of 24/96 can reveal noise in the microphones. What more do we need, other than more Mark Waldreps in the world?

[Chris A]

Have you compared the files located at the Ayre site? http://www.ayre.com/...ts_dsdvspcm.htm

I'd recommend recordings made within the last 15 years using delta-sigma converters running at fairly high oversampling rates.  That rules out anything made originally on an analog recorder.  I have not heard a recording made on an analog recorder that has the detail that I mentioned above for HiRez files, unfortunately.  I know that sounds a bit exclusive, but, trust me, there is something that can be heard in these newer recordings that wasn't recorded in older recordings.

 

Just for my clear understanding, what was meant by "native DSD?"

I mean that nothing is converting to PCM along the way that you may not be aware of.  I listened to SACDs for years without knowing that my player was converting to PCM first.  Once I got my Oppo set up to stream DSD to my DACs in my preamp/processor, the results were startling: there was a quantum leap in the fidelity of reproduction that wasn't difficult to hear.  That Time Squared SACD mentioned above was the first disc that I heard--and it grabbed my attention for the entire disc performance when I heard it for the first time.

 

I'm currently reviewing ADC and DAC information sheets (e.g., the TI PCM1796 DACs in my preamp) and the information is leading me to look very closely at effective step resolution of DACs/delta-sigma comparators rather than looking at only full-scale signal/noise figure.  I find everyone seems to be thinking in terms of SNR scale range in dB rather than the size of the quantum steps recorded and played back. 

 

If I find something, I'll report back.

[Chris A]

As to the pure DSD, I am concerned about reading that there are no edit tools for DSD, they must all go DSD-->PCM editing--->DSD. Is that current or old information?

Actually, Bruce (Marvel) pointed out an entire edit suite for DSD files.  But the price is a bit high...meaning that the low-cost guys are cut out of the action until the price drops.  My response was, basically, "that's too bad" since I believe that the reason why SACDs sound so good is that there has been almost no editing available for these tracks without cheating--by converting to PCM, editing, and converting back to DSD.

 

 

 

My primary concern regarding SN ratio is that it would not be a good test to use say, a tube amplifier with an SN of 90dB.

Clearly I understand that point - but you may find that tubes work quite well in playing back DSD once you hear the difference, since SNR may not be the final story, but rather lower quantization error of oversampling delta-sigma ADCs and DACs that we're hearing.  I certainly can't back that statement up right now, but I'd bet $5 on it.

 

In the interests of full disclosure: some of the difference that I heard between the conversion-to-PCM vs. DSD-only comparison over six months ago MIGHT have been clouded by how my preamp/processor was setup to handle LFE content from discs - with the PCM format possibly mixing the LFE channel back at 5 dB less amplitude.  But the difference that I heard exceeded just the greater authority in Jimmy Haslip's (the bass player's) track.  I was really dazzled by the naturalness of the entire presentation along with any possible low frequency bass difference.  It was like hearing the microphone feeds directly from the performance in a control room--and the closest thing that to what I'd call "the real thing"...very spooky.

 

Chris

Edited December 24, 2014 by Chris A

[Chris A]

Have you compared the files located at the Ayre site? http://www.ayre.com/...ts_dsdvspcm.htm

Try this: http://www.linn.co.uk/christmas

[ClaudeJ1]

 

Overkill resolution and dynamic range of 24/96 can reveal noise in the microphones. What more do we need, other than more Mark Waldreps in the world?

Would you elaborate?

 

Sure, he has great multi miking technique for performers actually facing each other in a room. "Live in the studio" like Kind of Blue, Sheffiled Labs, etc. are the key to great performances. Before seeing his program, I told him I, like Thomlinson Homan, believed 192 Khz. PCM was only good for bats and that 96 Khz/24 bit was good for anything we can possibly do in audio, and he agreed, looking me in the eye.

 

The only issue I have had is, on my copies the video as backwards  (purchased at Axpona), where I see a drummer on the left and he comes out of the right. Also he assumes that all 5 channels are identical speakers, which they seldom are in the real world. If he could sign all of the major recording artists to his way of recording, we would have great music from known names AND fanstastic, dynamic fidelity to our heart's content.

 

I strongly believe that I should have a full dynamic, flat master, then I'm able to make my own MP3's for the car with my own dynamic and data compression as required.

[Chris A]

Please see the new "the missing octave(s)" thread for a discussion on yet another mastering technique used to compress music tracks.

[Chris A]

"Why I Don't Buy Remastered CDs"

 

Edited April 11, 2015 by Chris A

[Chris A]

Another perspective on the problem from a professed audiophile with a somewhat unusual taste in "hi-fi" music: http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2015/12/garbage-in-garbage-out/

 

 

Chris

[Pete H]

I thought that article was pretty good and I assumed for a long time that "remastered" meant that I was going to buy something that had originally been mixed poorly in the studio and that they cleaning up the original tracks and mixed everything into a better recording, but that bit me in the arse more times than not.

[mike stehr]

Now I don't think he claims listening to different genre's of metal as "Hi-Fi". He mentioned it's just another form of popular music.

 

I listen to quite a bit of metal, but I don't think any of it as High Fidelity. Some metal sounds really good recording-wise, quite a bit doesn't. Metal isn't supposed to sound nice, but that also depends on the genre.

I agree with what the guy has to say, it's all about production.

 

And the metal CDs from the late eighties and early nineties tend to sound better, (like he mentioned) before the crush and compress war started.

But then at the end of the article he points out how compressed the recent Adele release. If you can convince the customer to want quality over loudness, (regardless of genre) then things (may?) change.

[Chris A]

You may find the following to be a bit odd, but...

 

I find that there can be better "fidelity" in loud rock and metal recordings that I've unmastered than most other genres, on average, probably due to the fact that if you start monkeying around with the EQ (especially decreasing the bass) and increasing the HFs above 1 kHz to about 10 kHz, it simply becomes unlistenable to anyone with ears--even my dogs.  These discs that have relatively good EQ and less compression/noise tend to be blockbuster hits,

 

Humm.

 

The harder rock discs that have been screwed up: nobody wants them, there are only one or two releases (i.e., one year of release), and they can all be had used on Amazon Marketplace for $0.01 (plus $3.99 shipping), and sometimes even less from Prime suppliers.  I've been fixing a lot of these through unmastering EQ, etc. and have found more than a few jewels in that pile.

 

There must be a principle embedded in that somewhere.

 

YMMV.

 

Chris

Edited December 19, 2015 by Chris A

[mike stehr]

I think most hard rock and metal has the guitars emphasized somewhere in that HF range you are referring to, to give the impression the guitars are ripping your face off. Decreasing the bass would seem to accentuate the HF of already hot top end?