Thread: A newbie asks: dr.loudness-war, whats it all about?

Posts: 109
Page: prev 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 next

Post by MichaelCPE October 14, 2014 (81 of 109)
Claude said:

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.

I totally agree with you - comparing a DR12 and a DR13 recording most audiophiles may agree that the DR12 is by far the best because other things affect the sound.

Unfortunately this has been taken by many to mean that DR is irrelevant and we should always let our ears be the judge. So how dare someone say that the Yes High Vibration set (DR7) sounds bad without hearing it!

On the Hoffman forums I posted that the latest Leonard Cohen album isn't as dynamic as I would like (it's DR9), especially when compared to his previous release (DR11) and the first releases of his early work (DR13 & 14). Yet many tell me that I can't say anything until I hear the recording.

So knowing when a DR value is useful is very important.

Post by sylvian October 14, 2014 (82 of 109)
OK we can agree that downsample cannot affect the DR, right? And if that is true what you could say about these two formats of the same label same recording and the same release?

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/63448

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/4883

the latter is RBCD presentation of the former higher resolution codec.

Post by MichaelCPE October 14, 2014 (83 of 109)
These are clearly different masterings (note the different years).

Hence this is an example of one mastering retaining dynamics, and the other mastering engineer deciding (or being told) to reduce the dynamics to ensure a more 'modern' sound.

Post by sylvian October 14, 2014 (84 of 109)
MichaelCPE said:

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?

First of All the SW remix is more detailed while AMCY sounds as bad/good as AF 147. The reason I had described earlier: all the mastering had been done from production tapes and not from the source tape Mr. Wilson has had at his disposal.

And this is why I have put trust in SW hands: he dug out evry little bit, that has been stored on multirack master tapes.

And if you are able to restore the tape, also DR is expanded since the quietest moment you are able to save in its original values and also the loudest moments can be saved withou compression or any manipulation.

AFAIK thse manipulations has been done for the sake of vinyl which is limited DR-wise or at least it needed to be done in order to keep stylus in the track.

With digital you no-longer need to manipulate the original recording which is the main reason for my departure from vinyl although I know that current heavy vinyl re-releases do not use the treatments of the past and you can obtain very concurrent sound to hi-rez digital.

Post by sylvian October 14, 2014 (85 of 109)
MichaelCPE said:

These are clearly different masterings (note the different years).

Hence this is an example of one mastering retaining dynamics, and the other mastering engineer deciding (or being told) to reduce the dynamics to ensure a more 'modern' sound.

I doubt it - both being Concord.

The high-rez might be drawn from SA-CD rip while the other is simple CD layer of the same disc. I doubt that LIKE MINDS has been done twice within only three years.

Post by MichaelCPE October 14, 2014 (86 of 109)
sylvian said:

I doubt it - both being Concord.

The high-rez might be drawn from SA-CD rip while the other is simple CD layer of the same disc. I doubt that LIKE MINDS has been done twice within only three years.

By definition when you measure a difference between two recordings that proves that there is a difference - ie the mastering is different.

The earlier CD is compressed. For the Hi-Res they must have gone back to the original source and thus have an uncompressed version.

This sort of thing happens all the time.

Post by sylvian October 14, 2014 (87 of 109)
MichaelCPE said:

By definition when you measure a difference between two recordings that proves that there is a difference - ie the mastering is different.

The earlier CD is compressed. For the Hi-Res they must have gone back to the original source and thus have an uncompressed version.

This sort of thing happens all the time.

It is OK with me.....I only suspect the USE of the database......I cannot argue with what has been measured and what not has been measured. But since the Loudness War had started I doubt that engineers all around the world has not been aware of that problem after some time (Bob Ludwig easily sprang to mind)....and the more the recording artists are interested in their work being remastered or remixed the more I doubt that most of them will simply agree with anything that might ruined the original recording although I know that music industry still want to make money first hand, not to mention that copyrights lies with producer and not with the artists in many cases. But still in those cases some kind of approval is needed.

If you have followed the dispute tween Mr. Fripp and those two (Fenwick & Alder) bastards that almost stole not only royalties but also copyright for most of the E.G catalogue by selling E.G to the hands of Virgin which over period of 18 months sold itslf to the hands of EMI and so on......this remarkable story should not be forgotten. Without succesful conclusion we will not be able to see so many DGM releases or newly published hi-rez releases. Therefore I remain a bit doubtful of the DR database especially with that case: http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/37309 (mind please, that I still own the definitive version from 1989: http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/51220 and SW had done marvellous job with every KC album so far)

No matter how these figures has been obtained 96/24 bit transfer of the original studio tape simply cannot be ruined into DR8 cause Mr. Wilson is aware of that problem since it started.....so again I do not believe what DR database contain.

Post by MichaelCPE October 14, 2014 (88 of 109)
In the early days of the King Crimson DVD-A releases I got banned from the quadraphonicquad.com forums for complaining that the new releases sounded, to me, slightly compressed compared to the first CD releases.

At that time loudness-war.com didn't exist or I didn't know about it, so I didn't have any measured proof.

The loudness war is so dominating that at that time even King Crimson was being slightly compressed (note that Wilson did the 5.1 mix, he did not do the mastering which is probably where the compression was done).

So rather than proving the database wrong, what you have shown is why the DR database is useful - the loudness war appears even where you would least expect it.

Post by sylvian October 15, 2014 (89 of 109)
I simply do not agree, since so called defintive editions from 1989 sounds muddy, awfully flat and thinny at places (TRIO is better on the Night Watch double CD from DGM, than on any disc from EG/Virgin) and louder tracks has the better sound DVD-A than on any previous release - check Lament again, Pls.

Post by sylvian October 15, 2014 (90 of 109)
It was only yesterday I manged to purchase mint condition of Japanese ECM release BILL FRISELL - LOOKOUT FOR HOPE (Polydor KK) and only slight differences can be heard after brief comparison......the japanese advantage lies mainly in better production control, but they use the same masters or production copies as anywhere else in the world.

Page: prev 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 next

Closed