Post by Claude October 14, 2014 (71 of 109)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post by sylvian October 14, 2014 (72 of 109)
|
|
MichaelCPE said:
Please do some research into this before writing such nonsense.
From the figures both recordings have excellent dynamic range - both are Green which is good.
Neither is victim to the loudness wars.
And a track with DR of 22 is very likely to be mainly extremely quiet, almost background, music, with a short section of maximum volume. For example the track might be lots of subtle percussion or a drone, followed by a short burst of hard core drumming. Unusual, but this would explain it.
OK, I TAKE YOUR NOTION.
FYI, take a look on the latest METHENY release entitled KIN. I own this album in 96/24bit and the DR assessment http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/72069 is simply false although I know it has been ceated for a 44,1/16 compression. But even if the recording is downsampled from higher resolution (concerning the title track KIN), it is not possible to lose all the dynamics especially if taken into account what I have previously posted on recordings regarded ECM label.
|
|
|
Post by Claude October 14, 2014 (73 of 109)
|
|
Claude said:
I have this album, but I don't remember this track with DR22. I can check it out.
I have several albums in my collection with such extremely dynamic tracks. It's often a track with percussion only.
I checked the Madar CD. The DR22 value for this track is correct. It's a quiet track with tabla percussion and vocals, and a couple of loud bangs on the tabla. The other tracks have Jan Garbarek's saxophone in addition, which results in a more constant higher volume, i.e. less dynamics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
sylvian said:
OK, I TAKE YOUR NOTION.
FYI, take a look on the latest METHENY release entitled KIN. I own this album in 96/24bit and the DR assessment http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/72069 is simply false although I know it has been ceated for a 44,1/16 compression. But even if the recording is downsampled from higher resolution (concerning the title track KIN), it is not possible to lose all the dynamics especially if taken into account what I have previously posted on recordings regarded ECM label.
Once again, please do some research.
Downsampling does not change the dynamics. Even lossy MP3 compression doesn't change the dynamics. (Other things do change though.)
Why do you insist that these DR values are false?
And note that this album is not ECM but Nonesuch.
|
|
|
Post by sylvian October 14, 2014 (75 of 109)
|
|
Yes of course I know that KIN is not ECM but also recent ECM recordings were done at various studios and also Jan Erik Kongshaug is not the only Engineer for ECM. It is also strange that some of the Metheny group albums were remasterd and rereleased on Nonsuch.
KIN has awesome dynamics and I can recommend you to listen to MADAR. I cannot accept the assessment published on DR-site, since I cannot believe it.
And yes I will do some measurement on my home equip using Foobar. But I no longer pay attention to DR-site, because dynamics of 8 derived from amplitudes created from sources 44,1/16 bit are not saying anything to me. I believe my ears rather than to software.
|
|
|
Post by sylvian October 14, 2014 (76 of 109)
|
|
Claude said:
I checked the Madar CD. The DR22 value for this track is correct. It's a quiet track with tabla percussion and vocals, and a couple of loud bangs on the tabla. The other tracks have Jan Garbarek's saxophone in addition, which results in a more constant higher volume, i.e. less dynamics.
You nailed it Claude
Look at this album: http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/62812
I know this by heart since I listen to it the most frequently from all the Micus albums.
No wonder that numbers are 19 or 20 for the quietest tracks on that CD. But the DR value saying anything about the musical content which is very sparse with this particular release.
|
|
|
|
|
|
sylvian said:
KIN has awesome dynamics and I can recommend you to listen to MADAR. I cannot accept the assessment published on DR-site, since I cannot believe it.
The DR is not an assessment - it is a measurement.
Perhaps the better you understand exactly what is measured (which is actually fairly complex) the more you will come to believe the measurements.
|
|
|
Post by sylvian October 14, 2014 (78 of 109)
|
|
MichaelCPE said:
The DR is not an assessment - it is a measurement.
Perhaps the better you understand exactly what is measured (which is actually fairly complex) the more you will come to believe the measurements.
I Feel I can undersatnd well WHAT is measured. I have no problem with checking some values there, but most of the people are driven to behave alongside these measurements and that I consider dangerous.
Steven Wilson has already mentioned that if someone is keen to assess one's labour of love as a piece of shit (he mentioned a years work on an album of songs) it strips the energy put into that work.
The same I will consider for remixing and remastering of any labour of love from the past - e.g. Yes albums (Close to the Edge).
The measurement of this work Steve put into 96/24 restoration is measured and counted DR of 13 (which is the far end of transitional scale) and only 2 points above the Japanese 2001 release AMCY 6292. This I found most obvious proof of biased behaviour that has nothing to do with measurement.
I own both of these releses and there is far more differeces than just 2 points on a dynamics scale.
Believe it or not......
|
|
|
|
|
|
sylvian said:
The same I will consider for remixing and remastering of any labour of love from the past - e.g. Yes albums (Close to the Edge).
The measurement of this work Steve put into 96/24 restoration is measured and counted DR of 13 (which is the far end of transitional scale) and only 2 points above the Japanese 2001 release AMCY 6292. This I found most obvious proof of biased behaviour that has nothing to do with measurement.
I own both of these releses and there is far more differeces than just 2 points on a dynamics scale.
Believe it or not......
Comparing DR values of remasters tells you about the dynamics, but it doesn't tell you about other important issues such as source tape, EQ modifications, etc.
The Steve Wilson REMIX of Close to the Edge couldn't go higher than 13 for DR because of what Eddie had recorded onto the multi-tracks. But for that work DR13 is very good (and very different from the High Vibration SACDs with DR of only 7).
A Remix can have the same DR as the original yet off course sound very different. It's just that if the DR is the same then the dynamics will be about the same.
Your posts would make much more sense if you told us what you think. For example, what are the differences you hear between the AMCY and the Wilson?
|
|
|
Post by Claude October 14, 2014 (80 of 109)
|
|
The DR concept was invented to detect overly compressed CDs (DR8 and less), as a reaction to the loudness war. It was not meant to find the most dynamic CDs, as this largely depends on the nature of the music on the CDs.
When two different reissues of the same album have DR12 and DR13, it doesn't matter which one is higher. They are both on the safe side in terms of compression.
Other aspects of the sound are then more important. Different EQ could result in a higher DR value, but with the sound being worse due to excessive EQ manipulation.
|
|
