recordings with wide dynamic range

[tkot]

after reading the thread about cd's sounding like crap i got to thinking about the dynamic range question.

i started with some newer rock... not vary impressive maybe

15/20 db

i then went to some of my older stuff and ended up with

the alan parsons project "i robot" (mfcd804)

on tracks 3 and 4 the dynamic range was much better

with the master volume set at -25db i had peaks of 113/115 db

and the softest parts were around 63/64 db.

has anyone else played this game?

if so what was the recording with the biggest range that you

found??

jay

[Parrot]

If you found 15-20dB range on newer rock, you did exceptionally well. It's not unusual to have these heavily maximized CDs with a 3dB range.

[artto]

So far, the recording with the most dynamic range is the one I made myself. Its a natural recording, made outdoors, in my backyard, during a July 4th weekend. It was simply an exercise to see what was possible and determine how much dynamic range is really required for live sounds.

I live near OHare airport, and there is also a smaller local airport in next door Schaumburg, IL. On July 4th many amateur pilots go flying around to see the fireworks. Schaumburg probably puts on the largest display in the immediate area. There is a RR several miles to the south. On this particular night I was also fortunate enough to have thunderstorms moving in from the west. It was a very warm and humid night, very still air. The baseline for the lowest level sound were the chirping crickets. The microphones were placed about 30 apart (similar to the distance my Khorns are). I monitored the signal on my main system. I recorded it simultaneously to a Sony A7 digital audio tape deck (basically the same PCM signal as CD) and a Nakamichi Dragon analog cassette deck.

The results were quite interesting. I was amazed at how much dynamic range was required to accurately record and reproduce live everyday (for the most part) sounds. I wish the results were better, but all I can honestly tell you is that both analog and 44.1KHz PCM digital, are NOT capable of capturing the dynamic range of the above, seemingly simple situation. I was amazed that the fireworks aerial bombs, that were 3-4 miles away, could easily drive the digital or analog systems into clipping. On the analog tape, the noise floor wasnt nearly as good so the sound of the chirping crickets was pretty much lost. At any rate, 90dB of dynamic range as is available on CD is certainly not enough. The newer hi-rez formats like SACD (DSD) and 192KHz PCM may be able to deal with it, I dont know, and its still cost prohibitive for most people (even many recording studios) at the present time.

As for commercially available recordings, my choices for wide dynamic range are:

Tchaikovskys 1812 Overture on Telarc

Burmester CD3, a demo CD, especially the Chinese drums track

Kodo, Sheffield Labs

Bill Elgart, A Life, Red Rose Records

Sheffield Track Record, Sheffield Labs (or the "THE SHEFFIELD DRUM AND TRACK DISC" as I believe its now called)

Harry James, Sheffield Labs

Time Warp, Telarc

The Digital Domain, A Demonstration, Elektra (out of print?)

[tkot]

artto,

thanks for the reply

(and interesting story)

i didnt know that there was 90db of range on a cd

thanks for the info

i also have the time warp disc, and will play with that a little later( my wife's home from the mall)

jay

[analogman]

Hello,

Crappy, Crappier, Crappiest

Although ALL CeeDees are crappy to some extent, some offend less than others (Crappy). A good example is EMI Classics' re-issue of Andre Previn conducting Shostakovich's Symphonies #s 4&5 combined with Britten's "Sinfonia da Requiem" Four Sea Interludes/Passacaglia(from Peter Grimes)7243 5 72659 2 8 EMI. This music and recording are SO BEAUTIFUL that even the hacks at Abby Road can't mutilate them beyond recognition with "digital remastering". It also helps that they were working from an obviously SUPERIOR ANALOG MASTER TAPE to begin with. Yes, even the worlds most sophisticated and advanced audio technologies can not ALWAYS succeed in suffocating the BEAUTY of that which is ANALOG and MUSICAL! Try as some might.

Using this release or a few others,("yes Virginia, there are a few),

as a baseline, we work our way up the ladder of progressivly expanding "states of crappiness" (CRAPPIER) until we reach the pinnacle "Spectacularlycraptacular", or as we say in Analogland "Crappiest". A good (should read accurate) example of this level of achievement is Bruckner's 5th on RCA's "Red Seal" catalog #09026-68503-2. Gunter Wand leads the gang on this one (Berliner Philharmoniker). The powerful and majestic piece was captured for this CeeDee DIGITALLY, so you digital devotees are in for a real treat with this one. With the RIGHT SYSTEM your ears can bleed copiously for 76 minutes and 51 seconds, give or take a "quiet" passage or two.

Another poster mentioned the truth that recordings and discs of all stripe are inconsistent at best. Then there's the somewhat cynical view "better the performance, worse the recording" take on things.

The one thing I do know (besides CeeDees sound like crap) is that there is a "silver lining" behind every cloud.

So,in their DEFENSE, CeeDees are the most NON-DISCRIMINATORY medium to ever be devised by the minds of Man. They know no race, creed nor socio-economic status. They have no gender preference nor do they make distinction with regards to country of origin. They're oblivious to sexual orientation and political loyalties. They're unaffected by the system you "play" them on, whether it's a "boombox" or the most elegant that money can buy. NO technical or mechanical ability is required, at all, of the "end user". Everything that can be imagined has or will be put on them.

The "birth" of the CeeDee has to be ranked right up there with The American Revolution, as one of the most truely Democratic and Universally Unifying events in the history of Modern Man.

The Promise "Perfect Sound Forever" holds forth the guarrantee with NO compromise or condition,

"ALL CRAP FOR ALL PEOPLES ALL THE TIME"

With regards,

Analogman

[minn_male42]

the carmina burana recording of the atlanta symphony orchestra on telarc is simply outstanding.... i don't have the numbers but it does have a huge dynamic range

the work uses vocal soloists, children's chorus, full choir and full orchestra.... and it is recorded in multichannel SACD

http://www.telarc.com/gscripts/title.asp?gsku=0575&mscssid=N2G710XVW5H39M26XVQK9NGHK1WD0HM2

Release# CD-80575

Compact Disc Price: $15.99

DSD 2 Channel Recording 6 Channel Recording

Performers / Other Releases

Tracks / Other Formats / Reviews

One of his generations most distinguished conductors in both operatic and symphonic repertoire, Donald Runnicles is in his inaugural season as the Atlanta Symphony Orchestras new Principal Guest Conductor, forming a unique creative partnership with new Music Director Robert Spano.

For his Telarc debut recording with the ASO, Runnicles leads the Orchestra and Chorus in a dramatic new performance of Carl Orffs popular concert work, Carmina burana. Joining the ASO in this powerful new recording are Hei-Kyung Hong, soprano; Stanford Olsen, tenor; Earle Patriarco, baritone; and the Gwinnett Young Singers.

This is the second recording of this large-scale work for chorus and orchestra that Telarc has made with the ASO (the late Robert Shaw conducted the previous release). Telarc returned to this particular work with the ASO forces in order to continue building its multi-channel surround sound catalog in the new Super Audio Compact Disc (SACD) format. With the expanded dynamic range available in the new high-resolution recording technology, the theatrical elements of Orffs orchestrations and vocal settings are communicated with stunning immediacy and excitement.

Carmina burana is one of the twentieth centurys most widely performed works for chorus and orchestra. Premiered in 1937 in Frankfurt-am-Main, Germany, Carmina burana combines archaic poetry, simple, folk-like melodies, and motoric, primal rhythms to create images of the eternal springtime of the human soul. The poetry is taken from a collection of earthy thirteenth-century songs, written by students and vagrant clerics, and discovered in 1803 at the Benedictine monastery of Beuren in Bavaria. In 1847, J.A. Schmeller edited and published a number of the songs under the title Carmina burana ("Songs of Beuren"). From this collection, Orff selected the songs for his secular cantata, setting the poetry to his own original music.

The poems from Carmina burana are in two languages, described by one scholar as "distorted medieval Latin and Middle High German." For this recording, the choruses and soloists have endeavored to perform the lyrics as closely as possible to the way their thirteenth-century authors would have pronounced them. Diction coach Jeffrey W. Baxter was aided by the expert guidance of Professor John Austin of the Department of Modern and Classical Languages at Georgia State University in Atlanta.

In addition to his post with the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra, Donald Runnicles continues as Music Director of the San Francisco Opera, and he was recently appointed Principal Conductor of the Orchestra of St. Lukes in New York. During the 2001-2002 season with the ASO, he will conduct the Britten War Requiem with the ASO Chorus in March; Act III of Wagners Die Walkure with Christine Brewer and James Morris in April; and a program of Rachmaninoff and Tchaikovsky in May.

[Parrot]

Don't forget, you have to take into account the noise floor of your listening room, which may surprise you how loud it is without any music on at all. There is no one on earth who has a listening room quiet enough that one could use anywhere near a 90dB range for recorded music. An average residence's ambient noise level, according to the Radio Shack meter chart, is 45dB. You would not be able to hear a whisper soft recording if it were played back at a natural volume. It would be drowned by the room noise, refrigerator, furnace, street sounds, etc. You take all these background noises for granted until they are gone. Most of us who have been shut inside Klipsch's anechoic chamber know how quickly one becomes thoroughly weirded out by experiencing real quiet.

Some people here are okay with 110dB peaks. But others on this forum find that 80dB is as loud as they ever want to take it. Subtract the room's noise level, and that means they have about a 35dB range that is available to them. If they happen to have a truly exceptional recording with 45dB range from the quietest of the quietest passages to the highest peaks of the loudest parts, they're going to have to ride the volume control or not be able to hear any of the quietest passages.

[tkot]

btt

what is the db range of a regular record(vinal) v.s.

say a half speed master ?

after reading arrto's post i went outside with my meter

i live in a quiet area and have little traffic ect

i found about 50 db of birds chirping ect. there is no wind today

so if a cd(no matter how crappy they sound) has 90 db of range

and you use 40/50 db a your low referance. 90 db would seem enough to represent real life.

i cant think of a lot of 140db noises that happen

(without something blowing up close enough to hurt you!!)

how quiet is quiet?? artto have you ever measured your room

with all of your stuff off? i wonder what the db level of the ambient noise is in your room??

could this be refered to the noise floor of the room?

ive read guys who post about an acceptable level of hum and noise in their tube stuff and i have listened to ss systems that also have a substantial noise floor, so if you add the equipment

noise to the room noise, i can see that wide dynamic recordings

would indeed be way loud at reasonable levels

could this be the reason for the compression that everyone gripes

about on the newer recordings(trying to keep the loud parts quieter)

jay

[tkot]

parrot, my point exactly

(we must have been typing at the same time)

jinx

jay

[Parrot]

Jay,

You are understanding it precisely right. To truly enjoy wide dynamic range recordings, you have to have equipment that can handle 105dB peaks without clipping and compressing (in other words, forget about low-watt amps) and the desire to hear peaks at these levels (actual may be more, but the meter can't pick it up fast enough). That way the quietest passages will still be audible above normal room sounds.

If your recording has essentially a 20dB range, which is still quite decent, then you have a lot of options on where to set your volume.

Some people have commented how annoying listening to wide-range classical music is in the car, because if you have it loud enough to hear the quiet parts, the loudest parts will kill ya. But that's the breaks, you can't have it both ways. You either have a natural recording that will demand a good home stereo with great speakers and reasonably quiet surroundings, or accept crappy no-range maximized highly highly compressed CDs.

Of course no one wants to listen to airplanes at realistic levels in their living room. They don't belong in your living room. It's like a lawnmower isn't so bad outside, but try starting one up in your stereo room (preferably when your wife isn't home) and you'll see how important the context of the room is!

But I don't want to emphasize raw volume too much. Not all 105dB renditions sound equal. A low-watt amp hitting 105dB will sound strained and anemic, while a 20+ watt amp will render the music with body effortlessly.

[minn_male42]

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

On 1/29/2005 4:48:52 PM Parrot wrote:

Jay,

You are understanding it precisely right. To truly enjoy wide dynamic range recordings, you have to have equipment that can handle 105dB peaks without clipping and compressing (in other words, forget about low-watt amps) and the desire to hear peaks at these levels (actual may be more, but the meter can't pick it up fast enough). That way the quietest passages will still be audible above normal room sounds.

Of course no one wants to listen to airplanes at realistic levels in their living room. They don't belong in your living room. It's like a lawnmower isn't so bad outside, but try starting one up in your stereo room (preferably when your wife isn't home) and you'll see how important the context of the room is!

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

Paul,

I totally agree but many of the posters on this forum refuse to accept this fact!

With their low power tube ampliiers, they will have their systems clipping on ANY demanding music. (and i consider ANY amplifier under 100 watts per channel as LOW POWER)

[Parrot]

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

On 1/29/2005 4:57:35 PM minn_male42 wrote:

I totally agree but many of the posters on this forum refuse to accept this fact!

With their low power tube ampliiers, they will have their systems clipping on ANY demanding music. (and i consider ANY amplifier under 100 watts per channel as LOW POWER)

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

I recall on the Indy trip, a Klipsch engineer (I don't know his name) during the tour, giving us a demonstration, and he said "The more power the better." Dean said, "Can we quote you on that?" and the engineer said, "You bet."

[artto]

Analogman, Im going to go out on a limb and intentionally say something that hopefully will piss you off in a productive, constructive way.

Its MY opinion, that once one gets off their favorite format high-horse, AND, get the most important things right (such as using low distortion, neutral sounding components, including the room itself), you will find very little difference between well mastered, quality manufactured recordings of different formats. If you do, either the mastering/production process for that particular release is poor, and/or the manufacturing quality, for whatever reason(s), was poor.

One of the problems here is that most audiophiles, regardless of their format bias, have never even heard a recording of an original master of any kind. And most have never had the opportunity to compare an original master to its commercial reproduction.

As for your comments regarding even the hacks at Abby Road can't mutilate them beyond recognition with "digital remastering", you should be rightly embarrassed to know that these hacks are equipped with some of the finest analog and digital components in the world, much of still vacuum tube (and analog), and specially modified (or built) by world renown electronics designer Tim Di Paravicini.

The notion that analog LP is somehow better is a very personal one. If its so much better, try comparing an analog LP pressing to the original master. Does it sound better? IF everything is done right, sure it just might sound better. That may be your objective, but thats not the objective of high fidelity which in this context means true to the original. If analog LP is so great and accurate, it should sound exactly like the master, not better or worse. There was a time when no self-respecting audiophile would even consider LP the best playback source. It was the poor mans analog, as analog tape reigned supreme.

If one wants to proclaim that its your own subjectivity thats important, without reference to the original performance, thats your prerogative. But youre sadly mistaken if you seriously think that one format is inherently superior to the other. There are too many other factors involved in the equation that are of far greater importance and influence on the final product, which none of us have any control over.

[minn_male42]

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

On 1/29/2005 5:04:38 PM Parrot wrote:

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

On 1/29/2005 4:57:35 PM minn_male42 wrote:

I totally agree but many of the posters on this forum refuse to accept this fact!

With their low power tube ampliiers, they will have their systems clipping on ANY demanding music. (and i consider ANY amplifier under 100 watts per channel as LOW POWER)

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

I recall on the Indy trip, a Klipsch engineer (I don't know his name) during the tour, giving us a demonstration, and he said "The more power the better." Dean said, "Can we quote you on that?" and the engineer said, "You bet."

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

and I'm sure that Dean has totally forgotten that comment!

[minn_male42]

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

On 1/29/2005 5:05:55 PM artto wrote:

Analogman, Im going to go out on a limb and intentionally say something that hopefully will piss you off in a productive, constructive way.

Its MY opinion, that once one gets off their favorite format high-horse, AND, get the most important things right (such as using low distortion, neutral sounding components, including the room itself), you will find very little difference between well mastered, quality manufactured recordings of different formats. If you do, either the mastering/production process for that particular release is poor, and/or the manufacturing quality, for whatever reason(s), was poor.

One of the problems here is that most audiophiles, regardless of their format bias, have never even heard a recording of an original master of any kind. And most have never had the opportunity to compare an original master to its commercial reproduction.

As for your comments regarding even the hacks at Abby Road can't mutilate them beyond recognition with "digital remastering", you should be rightly embarrassed to know that these hacks are equipped with some of the finest analog and digital components in the world, much of still vacuum tube (and analog), and specially modified (or built) by world renown electronics designer Tim Di Paravicini.

The notion that analog LP is somehow better is a very personal one. If its so much better, try comparing an analog LP pressing to the original master. Does it sound better? IF everything is done right, sure it just might sound better. That may be your objective, but thats not the objective of high fidelity which in this context means true to the original. If analog LP is so great and accurate, it should sound exactly like the master, not better or worse. There was a time when no self-respecting audiophile would even consider LP the best playback source. It was the poor mans analog, as analog tape reigned supreme.

If one wants to proclaim that its your own subjectivity thats important, without reference to the original performance, thats your prerogative. But youre sadly mistaken if you seriously think that one format is inherently superior to the other. There are too many other factors involved in the equation that are of far greater importance and influence on the final product, which none of us have any control over.

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

well said artto!

[richinlr]

The Time Warp CD will give your woofers something to think about!

[richinlr]

The Time Warp CD will give your woofers something to think about!

[artto]

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

On 1/29/2005 4:42:33 PM tkot wrote:

btt

what is the db range of a regular record(vinal) v.s.

say a half speed master ?

after reading arrto's post i went outside with my meter

i live in a quiet area and have little traffic ect

i found about 50 db of birds chirping ect. there is no wind today

so if a cd(no matter how crappy they sound) has 90 db of range

and you use 40/50 db a your low referance. 90 db would seem enough to represent real life.

i cant think of a lot of 140db noises that happen

(without something blowing up close enough to hurt you!!)

how quiet is quiet?? artto have you ever measured your room

with all of your stuff off? i wonder what the db level of the ambient noise is in your room??

could this be refered to the noise floor of the room?

ive read guys who post about an acceptable level of hum and noise in their tube stuff and i have listened to ss systems that also have a substantial noise floor, so if you add the equipment

noise to the room noise, i can see that wide dynamic recordings

would indeed be way loud at reasonable levels

could this be the reason for the compression that everyone gripes

about on the newer recordings(trying to keep the loud parts quieter)

jay

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

How quiet is quiet? Yes Ive tried to measure the ambient noise level in my room, but its below the sensitivity level of the SPL meter. As a point of reference, I once had the men in blue over for a visit after a dispute with one of my neighbors. They looked around my room, seemed kind of amazed. I wanted to show them how well isolated the room was and that I have taken more than enough precautions to limit any disturbances. I put on some hard rock and cranked it. The SPL was in the 100-110db range. We went outside along the wall facing my neighbor. One cop says to the other Do you hear anything? No, no I dont..wait, yeah there, I think I can hear it a little. A car going by was enough to drown it out. Needless to say they informed my neighbor that I had taken more than enough responsibility for my actions, the rest was up to him.

The noise floor in a room is somewhat dependent on the frequency were talking about, obviously, with low frequencies being much more difficult to control and isolate.

Yes, you are correct that one of the reasons (among others) for applying compression in recordings is to keep the dynamic range tolerable for most people under most conditions. Some recording companies such as Telarc and Sheffield Labs claim they use no compression, but the fact of the matter is, no recording medium or microphones, or whatever, are perfectly linear in their dynamic crescendo. In other words, some amount of compression occurs, even as the sound is on its way to the microphones, and certainly when its retrieved by them. Even speakers themselves begin to compress the sound as they are played louder and louder.

[analogman]

artto wrote:

Analogman, Im going to go out on a limb and intentionally say something that hopefully will piss you off in a productive, constructive way.

Well, you did not succeed, but I will still try and return the favor, and do the same for you.

My post, and many others, are an attempt to illuminate a facet of this "hobby" which I find terribly amusing and frustrating at times, self-absorption. The point of this particular post in question, of which seems to have been lost on you, is a contiuum on that theme. This condition permeates every fibre of this forum's being.

If am wrong on this, then why is it that people so quicken to proclaim their righteous indignation at a simple post on a website, usually taken out of context, with little or no consideration given to the author's personality, or intent?

I KNOW from reading your posts that you are certainly NOT a stupid man.

I also know that you and too many others are literal minded "stuffed shirts", who can't or won't acknowledge PARODY and SATIRE when it's staring them in the face.

Is there some approved, universally accepted brand of humour here at the Klipsch Forums of which I am unaware?

Is it a requisite that I adopt it, foregoing my own?

Or is the injection of levity forbidden when we are engaged in such SERIOUS rhetoric?

I am well aware of Tim deParavicini's contributions and talents with regards to audio, I think I indicated that in another SATIRICAL post in the thread "2/3 of my CDs sound like crap"

With all the CRAP in this world today, it's hard for me to take ANYTHING too seriously anymore, the exception being the welfare and happiness of those close to me. (Bet I opened the door with that one!)

I am diappointed that my "take" on life offends.

It was intended, A JOKE. Sorry it was lost on you.

With regards,

Analogman

[tkot]

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

On 1/29/2005 4:48:52 PM Parrot wrote:

Of course no one wants to listen to airplanes at realistic levels in their living room. They don't belong in your living room.

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

dont worry parrot, i wont forword this to the ht forum!!

they would have a fit!!!(lol)

jay