[theaudiologist]

Hi. I have Dark Side Of The Moon in 24/96 with a dynamic range of 11 (DR11). Some of my trance vinyls have more dynamics than that. Rank 1's Airwave has a dynamic range of 13 (DR13) while the KLF's What Time Is Love has dynamic range of 14 (DR14).
 
I know that Dynamic Range is very important...but is it the ONLY important thing necessary for measuring sound quality? Does this mean that my trance singles automatically have better sound quality than Dark Side Of The Moon?

 

[RRod]

  Hi. I have Dark Side Of The Moon in 24/96 with a dynamic range of 11 (DR11). Some of my trance vinyls have more dynamics than that. Rank 1's Airwave has a dynamic range of 13 (DR13) while the KLF's What Time Is Love has dynamic range of 14 (DR14).
 
I know that Dynamic Range is very important...but is it the ONLY important thing necessary for measuring sound quality? Does this mean that my trance singles automatically have better sound quality than Dark Side Of The Moon?

 
Not really, especially comparing to vinyl. There was a bit of discussion over on the Steve Hoffman forum about how vinyl can have inflated DR values. So be careful in direct comparison of vinyl to digital DR ratings. As far as digital-to-digital, a master (or especially a re-mix) with only a slightly smaller DR (1-3 or so) can still sound better due to other improvements like EQ.

 

[theaudiologist]

all my songs are ripped from vinyl...so i'm comparing them from the same source

 

[RRod]

  all my songs are ripped from vinyl...so i'm comparing them from the same source

 
You said you were comparing to 24/96 DSotM. Was that also a vinyl rip or a mastering from a tape? If the latter, then the caveat for vinyl DR applies.

 

[theaudiologist]

yeah...my dsotm and all my trance songs are vinyl rips.

 

[RRod]

  yeah...my dsotm and all my trance songs are vinyl rips.

 
Then I would say as long as they are in the same rough range then it would be hard to say one just has to be better, especially since most vinyl cuts avoid loudness-war problems. Also, the problems given in the video linked in that thread probably still hold even when comparing songs across vinyl.

 

[nick_charles]

Classical music is a better bet if raw DR ratings are what you are after. DR rating of 18 - 21 are not uncommon.

 

[theaudiologist]

What I was saying was that is Dynamic Range all that maters when determining sound quality? or is there more to it?
 
and btw I thought classic music was ~60dB 

 

[watchnerd]

  What I was saying was that is Dynamic Range all that maters when determining sound quality? or is there more to it?
 
and btw I thought classic music was ~60dB 

 
http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/74151
 
http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/100377
 
http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/77439

 

[gregorio]

  What I was saying was that is Dynamic Range all that maters when determining sound quality? or is there more to it?

 
No, there's far more to it. Dynamic range can be defined as the range between the noise floor of the recording and the peak level. Commercial classical (or any other genre) releases rarely exceed ~60dB. Dynamic range only attempts to describe how big the gap is between the quietest parts of music and the loudest, it does not attempt to quantify how good the music is or how well it was performed, recorded, mixed or mastered. In other words, one could easily make an extremely poor quality recording with a high dynamic range. A low dynamic range is just an indicator that the sound quality of a recording could be poor (due to over compression) but the opposite, a high dynamic range is not an indicator that the sound quality is high, it only indicates that it has not been over compressed.
 
BTW, the figures being quoted for dynamic range are from the Dynamic Range Database, which paradoxically doesn't actually measure dynamic range! The DRD measures the crest factor, which is the difference between peak and average (RMS) levels, rather than the dynamic range. They do this because crest factor is easier to measure and is arguably a better indicator of the amount of compression which has been applied.
 
G

 

[RRod]

The DR meter compares the 2nd highest peak value against the top 20% of binned 3s RMS values. So if you have a track that has long sections of loud material the DR rating will under-shoot the actual dynamism of the track. Among my collection, the highest DR values tend to come from tracks that look like this (this one is DR27):

 
As you can see there aren't many long and loud sections, and there are at least two peaks at 0dbFS, hence the high score. But I have many other tracks that have material this quiet, but they don't get as high a DR score because they also have longer, loud sections, and so their top 20% values are higher. As gregorio pointed out, the main point of the DR rating is to detect compression differences, not to measure overall dynamic range.

 

[theaudiologist]

how about some of my trance CD's which have a dynamic range of 7-9? I read somewhere where for electronic music DR1-5 was bad, DR6-7 was turning point, and DR8+ is good. but as you said it has nothing to do with the quality. Is it safe to say they have good quality?
 
and by 60dB i meant DR60, which i don't know if possible or not, i read about classical music having ~DR60 on the article "16-bit vs 24-bit, the myth exploded".

 

[RRod]

  how about some of my trance CD's which have a dynamic range of 7-9? I read somewhere where for electronic music DR1-5 was bad, DR6-7 was turning point, and DR8+ is good. but as you said it has nothing to do with the quality. Is it safe to say they have good quality?
 
and by 60dB i meant DR60, which i don't know if possible or not, i read about classical music having ~DR60 on the article "16-bit vs 24-bit, the myth exploded".

 
DR8+ for something like trance/edm is probably a good indication that compression isn't a huge contributing factor to a "bad" sound. Though I would still say that the best use of the DR rating is for detecting compression across various versions *of the same track on the same medium.*
 
DR60 is theoretically possible but not really something you'd find in music. You can get such ranges by padding zeros around unit impulses, but I doubt you'd pay much for such a track ^_^
 
**Edit: For fun, here's a track that is DR63.

 

[gregorio]

  but as you said it has nothing to do with the quality. Is it safe to say they have good quality?

 
If you accept that the DRD rating has nothing or little to do with quality, then obviously it's not safe to say "they have good quality". Let me give you an analogy: A good sports car will produce quite a high horse power but a sports car with just a high horse power cannot automatically be considered good. For a sports car to be "good", how efficiently and reliably that HP is produced, how it relates to the weight and aerodynamics of the car, as well as other factors, such as handling for example, all have to be considered before a sports car can be considered "good". It's entirely possible that a sports car with a lower HP can be better than one with a higher HP.
 

  ... and by 60dB i meant DR60, which i don't know if possible or not, i read about classical music having ~DR60 on the article "16-bit vs 24-bit, the myth exploded".

 
No, in that article it was mentioned that the overall dynamic range of classical music recordings rarely exceeds 60dB, not that classical recordings have a DRD rating of 60 (DR60).
 
G

 

[theaudiologist]

and is this picture relevant? i know some albums in the upper yellow zone that sound good (sorry for stupid questions)