DR (Dynamic Range) Analysis

Elite-ist

Administrator, (and straight-up pimp stick!)
Staff member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
9,778
#2
Thanks, Tony. I viewed the video and it's surprising what the analytic results by the computer measuring DR between analog and digital sources of the same master isn't quite in step with what is heard between the two mediums of the same music masters.

Nando.
 

BlazeES

Veteran and General Yakker
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
6,802
Tagline
---
#3
Thanks, Tony. I viewed the video and it's surprising what the analytic results by the computer measuring DR between analog and digital sources of the same master isn't quite in step with what is heard between the two mediums of the same music masters.

Nando.
Yes Nando, it found it equally informative. Plus that engineer is so level headed & evenly paced going through his explanations it is easy to come away with a better understanding of the concept of DR. Glad you enjoyed it my friend!
 
Last edited:

BlazeES

Veteran and General Yakker
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
6,802
Tagline
---
#6
While on the topic of DR...

Here's a pic of a Sony Metal Master with some Ronnie Montrose laid down on it.
Record over 20 years ago. Sourced from CD direct, with Dolby C with HX Pro engaged;
TC-K870ES

MM + 870ES DR Example.jpg

Shows just how good a quality metal tape, married with a capable deck and obvious wide dynamic material will preserve dynamics - not squash them.
The difference between the sustainable peaks and the running average, RMS level represents the dynamic range of the overall signal level.
Had this been a Type II or better yet, a Type I, the difference would be reduced significantly. On a deck with highly resolute metering, a cool
experiment is to record in steps: keep peaks at 0 VU for the first swag, then incrementally step up the recording level. As you bang up against
what the tape can handle for record levels, the DR *difference* will shrink. Just remember, meters are not linear; the lower end of the scale covers
a wider swath of dB range per segment. The optimum level to record at will be that compromise level between
maximum achievable DR, again the difference gap, with the least amount of perceivable distortion. The moral of the story? The better resolution (segment scale)
of the meters and wider the range (total number of segments), coupled with fast attack (visual response & reporting time) of any given deck,
the better job you can do to produce quality, well-controlled recordings.

Incidentally, I don't record at levels like this anymore on metal tape. No matter what a mfg specs as the max recording capability of a tape,
I strive to limit my peaking to no more than 4 dB now, quite often lower depending on the complexity of the source material while at the same time,
keeping the average - more constant level - in & around the 0 VU and Dolby markers. IMHO, this produces the most accurate reproduction. And don't forgot,
there's a reason that mfg's put those -20 dB response curves on the wrappers - because that is where you will get the flattest response out to 20 kHz!
 
Last edited:

Zach C.

Journeyman
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
384
Location
Southwest Indiana
Tagline
---
#7
I found this interesting; hope you do too! :rabbit:
Interesting, yes...but his logic is seriously flawed.

It's fine to say that the measured increases in dynamic range are not due to a difference in the master, since it's the same, but that's about it.

He is self contradictory, and makes poor conclusions.

1) The TT meter is wrong. We can zoom in and see that the peak to average level on the vinyl is higher.
Um...what?

2) The TT meter is wrong. I don't know why.
You can't tell me authoritatively what isn't without telling me what is. (This is dangerously close to a religious statement.)

3) The TT meter is wrong/ Maybe the extra dynamics the software is measuring (but aren't really there) come from something else in the recording or playback chain.
If this is consistently measured across different software and hardware, it's real. The question is why is it real?

4) The dynamic range sounds about the same. Just listen to this YouTube video...see?
Really?

Why the TT meter doesn't work on vinyl. I have no idea, it just doesn't. He never even answers the original question.

I don't much care whether digital, vinyl from digital, or pure analog is theoretically better. Some releases sound better than others.

If something in the vinyl cutting/ playback chain is producing artificial "liveliness" I'm OK with that, but to say it's not there even though you, yourself measure it just because you don't think it should be there, that's the tail wagging the dog. And yes, I do believe that the human ear may be sensitive enough to pick up unmeasured differences. The other way around...no. If it's measurable, either it's there or your tools/ methodology are flawed. I seriously doubt it's his tools in this case.

I listen to and very much enjoy both.
 
Last edited:

Gepetto

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
May 15, 2011
Messages
13,473
Location
Sterling, MA
Tagline
Old 'Arn Enthusiast
#9
Interesting, yes...but his logic is seriously flawed.

It's fine to say that the measured increases in dynamic range are not due to a difference in the master, since it's the same, but that's about it.

He is self contradictory, and makes poor conclusions.

1) The TT meter is wrong. We can zoom in and see that the peak to average level on the vinyl is higher.
Um...what?

2) The TT meter is wrong. I don't know why.
You can't tell me authoritatively what isn't without telling me what is. (This is dangerously close to a religious statement.)

3) The TT meter is wrong/ Maybe the extra dynamics the software is measuring (but aren't really there) come from something else in the recording or playback chain.
If this is consistently measured across different software and hardware, it's real. The question is why is it real?

4) The dynamic range sounds about the same. Just listen to this YouTube video...see?
Really?

Why the TT meter doesn't work on vinyl. I have no idea, it just doesn't. He never even answers the original question.

I don't much care whether digital, vinyl from digital, or pure analog is theoretically better. Some releases sound better than others.

If something in the vinyl cutting/ playback chain is producing artificial "liveliness" I'm OK with that, but to say it's not there even though you, yourself measure it just because you don't think it should be there, that's the tail wagging the dog. And yes, I do believe that the human ear may be sensitive enough to pick up unmeasured differences. The other way around...no. If it's measurable, either it's there or your tools/ methodology are flawed. I seriously doubt it's his tools in this case.

I listen to and very much enjoy both.
Agree that this was a You Tube presentation that was meant to seem scientific and analytical so that you would say "I have to believe that."

It was analytical to an extent but he probably should have focused on what happens when you take a flat topped digitally compressed master signal and try to record that same flat topped master via an electromechanical cutting lathe that does not want to stop on a dime no matter how hard you try to tell it to.

And likewise the playback cartridge.

Elements like the huge moving mass difference between electrons in the purely digital world and the significantly larger mass of the cutting lathe stylus and the playback stylus were ignored in this presentation.
 

NavLinear

Veteran and General Yakker
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
6,022
Location
SoCal
#12
That is where his credibility falls apart. He does not seek to understand the differences the tool tells him. Dismisses it as "wrong"
Another missing piece of information is the sampling rate of the CD format - as you've touched upon more than once. A bit low based on what Needs to be reproduced.
 

BlazeES

Veteran and General Yakker
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
6,802
Tagline
---
#13
Ian summarized that the TT meter is a "blunt instrument" for this type of analysis; on files originally engineered in a digital domain compared to another generation source looped through "various" analog treatments and ultimately back to the digital domain. They key take away should have been that the numbers and the "tool" visuals don't necessarily jive with the perception, especially when "handled" through stages.

But reading the reactions is cool! Especially the religion angle ... :glasses8:
Read through the posted comments below the video (on youtube)
Good stuff in there..
 
Last edited:

orange

Veteran and General Yakker
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
17,704
Tagline
Broken beyond repair but highly affable
#14
A compact disc isn't religious, even if you scream Jesus every time it messes up.
 
Top