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

[Schu]

great high end audio Video from AVS...

he goes over a lot of stuff and really sets the law down on digital and analog formats, even vinyl, and amplification in terms of tube etc

talking specially on the loudness wars.

Edited May 5, 2014 by Schu

[Chris A]

Once the SACD format was launched, the engineering teams realized that DSD as a native 1-bit system was incapable of being used like the DAW (Digital Audio Workstations) for any post-production work. You couldn’t mix, you couldn’t edit, and you couldn’t modify the timbre or dynamics of a 1-bit stream...

Very interesting.

Have a look at the link I've posted below. A DAW with up to 32 tracks of DSD.

http://www.superaudiocenter.com/Products.htm

Don't look at the pricing page. but look at the pdf (click on the graphic to download)

Bruce

That's too bad... I knew that it wouldn't last long.

[Chris A]

great high end audio Video from AVS...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKpiBRMpRM8

he goes over a lot of stuff and really sets the law down on digital and analog formats, even vinyl, and amplification in terms of tube etc

talking specially on the loudness wars.

 

Well, the first thing is that I want to thank you for posting that video. The ~hour spent was a good one. I've not experienced having an hour-long discussion on audio where I agreed with all of what the talking head was saying. If you want to know my views on audio, watch that video.

 

Secondly, I applaud Mark Waldrep on his stated goal of "accurate high definition audio tracks" being put on the same disc as other tracks, to allow the buyer/user to make his/her own decisions about which type of music "editing" to listen to. Note that Mark Waldrep's definition of HD audio is "no added reverb, no dynamic compression, and no other tricks to make it sound better--just the sound that went into the microphone, with as little distortion as possible". This is why I believe that SACD DSD tracks are liked by so many audiophiles...even though the DSD format itself isn't as good as 96/24 PCM at capturing the original sound going into the microphone accurately.

 

I highly recommend watching the above video. Mark mentioned two web sites - the first is his site and the second site is two other recording engineers with interest in Blu-Ray audio:

 

Real HD-Audio and Pure Audio Blu-Ray,

 

I plan to frequent both sites as soon as I finish writing this...

 

Chris

Edited December 21, 2014 by Chris A

[Marvel]

even though the DSD format itself isn't as good as 96/24 PCM at capturing the original sound going into the microphone accurately.

It that explained somewhere?

Bruce

[Chris A]

On 5/6/2014 at 11:31 AM, Marvel said:

 

On 5/6/2014 at 9:48 AM, Chris A said:

even though the DSD format itself isn't as good as 96/24 PCM at capturing the original sound going into the microphone accurately.

It that explained somewhere?

 

http://sound.whsites.net/cd-sacd-dvda.htm

 

I really believe that most SACD discs sound so much better in practice because there haven't been tools around to muck up DSD recordings like there have been for PCM. This especially includes dynamic range. Just getting an additional 10-25 dB of dynamic range is like the difference between the living and the dead (musical listening experience, that is... ).

 

YMMV.

 

Chris

[Chris A]

Recently, after I fixed by DSD-->PCM conversion issue so that I was getting DSD-->analog directly, I listened to a couple of very revealing SACDs vs. their PCM CD (44.1 KHz, 16 bit) tracks on the same discs. The biggest difference--other than dynamic range--was the bass lines. Just for this conversation (and only because it is relevant to the conversation), my main rig can produce EQed flat time-corrected horn-loaded bass down to 17 Hz.

 

On a Yellowjackets Time Squared SACD, I was listening to the bass line of Jimmy Haslip on the first DSD track and I have to say that it was a religious experience When that first track was done, I noticed that one of my XTi-1000s driving one of the TH subs had its fan going on high--and it stayed on high for better than 5 minutes after I stopped the disc. What I didn't tell you was the approximate peak SPL at my listening position was only ~90 dB on the "C" scale.

 

It also had the same experience with an Eric Clapton Slowhand SACD (taken from the old analog recordings, obviously). I could hear bass phrasing on the DSD track that had obviously been "EQed out" or otherwise made inaudible on the PCM track, and I have to say that it was like hearing a completely new recording. I had never heard the bass player's phrasing on those tracks before, even on vinyl (due to infrasonic filter issues on vinyl records).

 

All of this I attribute to the SACD DSD tracks not being mucked up by an audio engineer's "better taste". But in both cases, I could hear that the HF end of things wasn't as good as the PCM version. YMMV.

 

Note that my PCM DACs are Burr-Brown 192 KHz/24-bit devices in my preamp, not the cheap one-bit types referenced in the Elliot Sound Products article linked above.

 

Chris

Edited December 21, 2014 by Chris A

[Marvel]

Thanks, Chris! Very interesting. I would wonder (not taking sides here) if things have changed much in the last 12 years since this was written.

Bruce

[Chris A]

I'm not the expert obviously but DSD will always have a lot of noise above 40-50 KHz that has to be filtered out, and the referenced issue with delta-sigma one-bit DACs not being able to accurately reproduce impulse responses on their output likely hasn't gone away.

 

But I'm really enjoying my SACDs accumulated over time for the first time (I think), especially string and electric bass, and bass drum-prevalent genres. It really does put me back in that hotel ballroom with the Yellowjackets again.

 

I believe that not many have heard accurate horn-loaded low bass lines and venue subharmonics going very much below 32 Hz in their listening rooms. It's very involving and I believe that DSD can bring that to the typical listener like nothing else.

Edited December 21, 2014 by Chris A

[Chris A]

I found the following article from the Daily Audiophile page, specifically regarding the systemic exorcism of the middlemen in pop music over the past 15 years and the apparently improving health of musicians and their listening audiences have had since the "bottom falling out" of the music business in the Internet age (...a misnomer that actually ignores the end points of the music business in favor of those making money in between those end points...).

 

 

http://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/nov/17/steve-albinis-keynote-address-at-face-the-music-in-full (the text version which reads much faster)

 

Chris

Edited December 21, 2014 by Chris A

[DizRotus]

Chris-

 

Very interesting.  Thanks for posting this.

[Chris A]

Yea, I didn't want to start a new thread on the subject of "how record companies have messed up the music business", so I reused this one to show a little closure.

 

I've recently found that there has been a reversal trend in music compression practices--in this case, 2012 SACDs released by Analogue Productions: http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list/year?artist=Norah+Jones

[bobdog]

Yea, I didn't want to start a new thread on the subject of "how record companies have messed up the music business", so I reused this one to show a little closure.

 

I've recently found that there has been a reversal trend in music compression practices--in this case, 2012 SACDs released by Analogue Productions: http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list/year?artist=Norah+Jones

How are SACDs even analyzed for the database?  Are they converted to analog then back to digital or are they always ripped using PS3s.  Seems like the same questionable results that you see with vinyl may be at play with SACD.  Don't get me wrong, I love my hundreds of SACDs but caution and research (not just of the DR database) is always called for to avoid getting a compressed or poorly mastered one that may not be as good as the best redbook mastering of the same thing.  I know that Analog Productions does great mastering usually,  and my comment  is not directed at them.

[Chris A]

Are they converted to analog then back to digital or are they always ripped using PS3s.

These folks are using Linux running on an old PS3 to rip the DST files from SACDs. They are also ripping the PCM layers from the hybrid SACDs and reporting those separately.

 

Seems like the same questionable results that you see with vinyl may be at play with SACD.

 

These DST files aren't being converted to analog files first as the resulting database records show.  For instance:

 

Samplerate: 2822400 Hz / PCM Samplerate: 176400 Hz

Channels: 6

Bits per sample: 24

Bitrate: 16934 kbps

Codec: DST64

Edited December 21, 2014 by Chris A

[ClaudeJ1]

Secondly, I applaud Mark Waldrep on his stated goal of "accurate high definition audio tracks" being put on the same disc as other tracks, to allow the buyer/user to make his/her own decisions about which type of music "editing" to listen to. Note that Mark Waldrep's definition of HD audio is "no added reverb, no dynamic compression, and no other tricks to make it sound better--just the sound that went into the microphone, with as little distortion as possible".

 

I attended the show Mark speaks of. I heard his presentation, bought some of his recordings (fantastic), and I agree with what he says. He is a true expert and tells it like it is, but he is frustrated by the industry in so many ways. Even before I heard his program, I told him I didn't believe in anything above 96Khz/24 bit and he agreed it was way overkill. Same goes with Tomlinson Holman. We are better off working on more channels than 5.1 with the extra data space if you ask me. 

[Chris A]

If you're asking me, I'd say that Waldrep's definition of HiRez really extends only to those recordings originally recorded in 24/96 (apparently a typical recording studio format) or DSD64/128.  That wipes out all but a couple of those recordings listed--Keb' Mo' and Norah Jones.

 

In fact, I'd be extremely surprised if those two recordings weren't altered in some way that loses the sense of acoustic space and immediacy of the original miked recordings found in the signal chain before any mixing console.  For instance, using multiple track recording booths in a recording studio qualifies as "losing the original acoustic space", since the musicians can't hear each other in a reverberant recording room that allows them all to fine tune their performances - only through headphones playing other musicians devoid of in-room sound reflections. 

 

Chris

Edited December 22, 2014 by Chris A

[Chris A]

I believe that we could be in a resurgence of a new recording boom in order to replace earlier recordings with higher quality ones of the same material (I'm thinking now of the standard repertoire such as classical and jazz standards, etc.)  The highest quality recordings today just seem to blow away recordings made prior to higher resolution PCM and DSD recordings.  At least that's been my experience. 

 

I find it easy to imagine a future that's better than the present.  Kinky Friedman recently toasted at a local Mensa Society national gathering: "May the best of the past be the worst of the future."  Those words could easily apply to audio, IMHO, and not this intense looking toward the past that's been prevalent since ~1990--in terms of audio.  There's a new level of technical performance now generally available and the music community--notably the classical and jazz communities--have apparent yet to catch the full benefit of those new capabilities it seems.

 

Chris

Edited December 22, 2014 by Chris A

[twk123]

Great discussion. Here is a TED talk from Tony Andrews (Owner of Funkion One Speakers) that talks about loudness and compression and how it ruins the listening experience. It is interesting how he describes how compressed music elicits an adrenaline response while good music elicits a dopamine response. I believe this is one of the reasons you can listen to a good record for hours but bad digital you want to turn off after 20 min:

 

 

 

Also, why Deadmau5 hates Dubstep:

 

 

 

Putting these together, it appears that modern EDM music such as Dubstep is less about actual musical representation but rather a cacophony of noise meant to elicit an adrenaline response for the crowd. You are not enjoying the sound in itself but rather just the adrenaline rush from the noise.

Edited December 22, 2014 by twk123

[CECAA850]

Have you been off line a while Mark?  I've missed seeing your posts and reading your perspective.

[Chris A]

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.

One interesting article written by Lynn Olson mentioned that hi-fi came along in the late 40s, continuing and expanding in the 50s-70s as a response to the big luscious sound of the "mass-market radio-phonograph consoles" of that age, also known as "jukebox sound".  There was a backlash among true music lovers to drive the sound back toward realistic, accurate reproduction. 

 

I thought that this was hilarious since today the defenders of the old 1950s era technologies say that this old audio technology sounds "better than" the real thing. 

 

Chris

Edited December 22, 2014 by Chris A

[CECAA850]

 

Have you been off line a while Mark?  I've missed seeing your posts and reading your perspective.

Carl,

My audio interest was flat for the past year or two and I was mostly just spending my time reading in the "quiet space." I got back in the mood the other day to hear some tunes, and was scanning the K-forums here for a kind of "what's new?" perspective. Thanks!

 

 

Don't be a stranger.

 

Back to the discussion at hand.