Dynamic range of vinyl recordings

[Cas]

When it comes to listening to analogue or digital/CD this is the basics.

Analogue sound is delivered slowly therefore your ears pick up more of what is being delivered.

Digital sound is delivered faster therefore your ears miss some of the delivery.

Our hearing is built for analogue sound, that is why it sounds better, our ears pick up more.

Easy.

[curry49]

The thing is, I deliberately avoid all the music you attribute to loudness wars, rather I purchase music which exhibits faithful replay of dynamics.

One such recording that exhibits dynamics correctly and as natural as you can I think possibly get is as I provided in my earlier post
Anouar Brahem's "La pas du chat noir" ( translates as The black cats paw ). I listen to a lot of piano music, but many other artists as well
all carefully chosen for faithful replay.

But those are the Classics. Ha, ha! My Gosh man, you had me going there for a while. I distinctly said that the Classics are scarcely affected by the Loudness-War. No wonder you don’t see a problem. None of this applies to you or other fans of the Classics. Moreover, even Jazz fans who buy strictly from the premium labels should also have less of a problem too, as these labels do not engage in the ‘Wars.

Btw, LDR, a friend recently sent me a copy of an awesomely dynamic album (especially track 4). Absolutely no analogue reproduction source-component on this planet could ever be as dynamic as that.

Here he is making reference to it in the book in my signature I keep citing; “I have just listened to a recording of Jon Leifs Saga Symphony which has a really huge dynamic range, from so quiet it's almost too soft to hear to very big smacks of a big resonant box with a mallet that even my large speakers couldn't cope with. And I was running the volume very high so as to hear the soft bits. There is no way an LP could have that range on it, nor a tape, which is the first stage before cutting LP's.”

If you don’t have it perhaps you should get a copy – it’s a ‘must-have’ in any demonstration of the awesome capabilities of digital audio.

We have nothing like that in popular-music. But this is not to say that Pop isn’t dynamic. Anyone who suggests that should listen to a mostly unamplified garage-band in rehearsal (OK, with electric guits and synth but unamplified drumkit). Listen keenly to how the drums drown out everything else. Then listen to a digital Pop-music recording of a similar band and see if it’s anywhere as dynamic and exciting.

That’s the point.

And the sad thing is that anyone who hears the likes of that Jon Leifs recording will know that digital audio is absolutely capable of replicating every bit of the dynamics of that garage-band’s drum-set, and much more. Then ask yourself why it is that we’re listening to puny facsimilies of the drum-set and other instruments in Pop in a discipline which claims to be on a quest for the closest fidelity to the ‘live’ original sound.

The answer to that lies dead on the battlefield of the ‘Loudness-War.’

Of course, none of us would want all that intensity all the time, but it should absolutely be an option for those of us who want to replicate the real thing, from time to time.

That’s the point - again!

Cheers


PS
Nice system, BTW.

[Light Dependant Resistor]

When it comes to listening to analogue or digital/CD this is the basics.

Analogue sound is delivered slowly therefore your ears pick up more of what is being delivered.

Digital sound is delivered faster therefore your ears miss some of the delivery.

Our hearing is built for analogue sound, that is why it sounds better, our ears pick up more.

Easy.

With indifference, the sound recorded which is the end result and how it was recorded is what you need to concentrate on I think rather than the final
delivery speed of the medium. Each medium is capable of reasonably equal frequency response and dynamic range, so there is IMO nothing special one vs the other about a LP rotating
at 33 and 1/3 rpm ( with motor and pully and belt variance ) vs a CD rotating at 200- 500rpm. Rather each is a storage and replay system with a designed set purpose.

If we instead look at analogue recordings the majority ( and the good ones ) were done to reel to reel tape, few would argue they preferred 3 and 3/4 inch
to 30 inches per second, in order to pick up more of what was delivered at the performance.

The discussion here gives a balanced outlook comparing digital to analog, ftp://ftp.dbxpro.com/pub/pdfs/WhitePapers/Type%20IV.pdf
There are some advantages with analog recording techniques that digital needs to follow and these are addressed in the papers discussion
looking at additional headroom for digital.

[dave2010]

When it comes to listening to analogue or digital/CD this is the basics.

Analogue sound is delivered slowly therefore your ears pick up more of what is being delivered.

Digital sound is delivered faster therefore your ears miss some of the delivery.

Our hearing is built for analogue sound, that is why it sounds better, our ears pick up more.

Easy.

You're joking, surely!

Unfortunately the rather longer reply I was in the process of writing has disappeared, as I think my log in timed out. Maybe I'll come back to this. The general discussion upto this point has been interesting, and there are real concerns.

Turns out that companies have been "tweaking" sound for many years, often based on profit motives, and feedback from sales figures, rather than for "fidelity" and "realistic" sound. Realistic sound levels and dynamics can be unpleasant in a domestic environment - and anti-social. Many recordings raise the quiet levels to make them audible, and that means that the loudest parts have to be reduced. Crescendos can be squashed completely. Also, as noted, some companies optimise for car listening - which seems silly as some cars have players which can adjust the dynamic range. It would make more sense for digital recordings to use steering tracks, if control over dynamics in cars is desirable, or for the full dynamics to be used, and for players in cars to be made to handle those more "intelligently".

Other factors which affect perception are ambience and spatial factors. These can (but don't always) play a big part. In pop music ambience and spatial aspects are often "fake" - artificial reverberation and pan-potted instruments. In classical music ambience might be recorded, though it may also be spoiled by using too many microphones, which is what many recording engineers use nowadays. To be fair, there are compromises in recordings, and sometimes having a lot of microphones might help - but other times it may not. One can hear the nonsense of instrumental soloists being boosted as the engineers note "important" solos - but then the balance reverts later.

OK - lets' see if this post does better than my previous one.

[Haselsh1]

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/li...de+of+the+moon

Unless you count the blu ray quad mix average DR is between 9 and 11. Ignore the vinyl ones as they're pretty much meaningless. Best standard version is the original cd release with an 11 (no surprise). I have the 2003 remaster which scores a 9. Still better than the cassette version it replaced though.


So looks like there are no versions with a high dynamic range.

Nice one Martin. I gave up on this recording a very long time ago as I think it is just a bad recording. Musically of course it is a staggering piece of ambient prog rock.

[Haselsh1]

Don't really think there is a major problem personally. Modern pressings on vinyl or CD seem fine by and large.

Couldn't agree more.

[Jimbo]

You're joking, surely!

Unfortunately the rather longer reply I was in the process of writing has disappeared, as I think my log in timed out. Maybe I'll come back to this. The general discussion upto this point has been interesting, and there are real concerns.

Turns out that companies have been "tweaking" sound for many years, often based on profit motives, and feedback from sales figures, rather than for "fidelity" and "realistic" sound. Realistic sound levels and dynamics can be unpleasant in a domestic environment - and anti-social. Many recordings raise the quiet levels to make them audible, and that means that the loudest parts have to be reduced. Crescendos can be squashed completely. Also, as noted, some companies optimise for car listening - which seems silly as some cars have players which can adjust the dynamic range. It would make more sense for digital recordings to use steering tracks, if control over dynamics in cars is desirable, or for the full dynamics to be used, and for players in cars to be made to handle those more "intelligently".

Other factors which affect perception are ambience and spatial factors. These can (but don't always) play a big part. In pop music ambience and spatial aspects are often "fake" - artificial reverberation and pan-potted instruments. In classical music ambience might be recorded, though it may also be spoiled by using too many microphones, which is what many recording engineers use nowadays. To be fair, there are compromises in recordings, and sometimes having a lot of microphones might help - but other times it may not. One can hear the nonsense of instrumental soloists being boosted as the engineers note "important" solos - but then the balance reverts later.

OK - lets' see if this post does better than my previous one.

The timing delivery of analogue and digital sound is different.

[jandl100]

When it comes to listening to analogue or digital/CD this is the basics.

Analogue sound is delivered slowly therefore your ears pick up more of what is being delivered.

Digital sound is delivered faster therefore your ears miss some of the delivery.

Our hearing is built for analogue sound, that is why it sounds better, our ears pick up more.

Easy.

Thanks for that, Chris. Always good to start the day with a chuckle.

[Haselsh1]

Thanks for that, Chris. Always good to start the day with a chuckle.

[Light Dependant Resistor]

The timing delivery of analogue and digital sound is different.

Quite a statement there. Digital prior to and following conversion to analog provides far greater accuracy
than mechanical speed variations inherent in analog systems.