Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Dynamic Range doesn't really matter (Read 4919 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Dynamic Range doesn't really matter

The paper isn't freely available, but the discussion is...
https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/journal/?ID=350

Some apparent problems with the test, but still a surprising result.

Cheers,
David.
 

Dynamic Range doesn't really matter

Reply #1 –
That comment by Harry Dymond contains the main points I'd also have made.

The main problem, as I see it, with dynamic range compression is not that the waveform gets squashed, but that the difference in volume between different passages of a track get more and more lost. Everything will sound loud, which goes hand in hand with the fatigue comment.

And if it is overdone, it certainly can cause nasty clipping noises.


Given the short samples used, I'd also mainly expect a difference in perceived loudness.
"I hear it when I see it."

Dynamic Range doesn't really matter

Reply #2 –
This seems like a silly question...  Classical and opera fans are going to hate it if you take-out all of the dynamics.    Pop music fans are going to hate it if you take-away that constantly-intense sound.

Music producers produce whatever sells.      Compression is winning that battle.

I don't think it's just "artificial" compression.  I think many musicians and bands compose and play with very little dynamic expression.  There may be a quiet song here or there, or a song with a quiet part, but it's mostly constantly-loud.    That's the current style.



Dynamic Range doesn't really matter

Reply #3 –

I was interested to see the author report in answer to a comment:

Quote
2) The possible 'fatiguing' aspect of compression is indeed relevant and we are testing this currently in a different study. We find it quite likely that higher levels of compression may cause fatigue even if listeners are not aware this

Dynamic Range doesn't really matter

Reply #4 –
Quote
Surprisingly, the results failed to reveal any evidence of the effects of dynamic range compression on subjective preference or perceived depth cues. Perceptual data suggest that listeners are less sensitive than commonly believed to even high levels of compression.
How is that surprising at all? This is what can be observed in the music business for 20 years now. People bought and still buy horribly mastered CDs. Average listeners do not know how it is supposed to or can sound unless they're trained in some way, e.g. being musicians themselves, or being aware of the effects of DRC. So yes, DR doesn't matter w.r.t. to music sales, but it's still noticeable to people who know about it. Have they used a control group of trained listeners to test whether the supposedly "high levels of compression" are even noticeable at all?

EDIT: Ugh, since I cannot access the paper I read the comments, and
Quote
3.) Most concerning to me is the use of these commercial recordings. As the authors themselves note, whilst these "re-masters" involve dynamic range compression, this is usually accompanied by several other forms of processing, each of which could affect the sound quality perception of listeners. The experiment is therefore controlled in such a way that I fail to see how any conclusions relating to dynamic range compression can be drawn. The tracks being compared should have had one difference and one difference only - the degree of dynamic range compression.
So they compared remasters to some older releases? That's a pretty obvious and serious flaw in the test. The journal is supposedly peer-reviewed, so how did this possibly pass scrutiny? This study doesn't investigate DR, it might investigate whether people can tell remasters from the original recordings, and the answer is to that is "probably not". That probably tells you more about the average listener than the music.

Quote from:  link=msg=881486 date=0
I don't think it's just "artificial" compression.  I think many musicians and bands compose and play with very little dynamic expression.  There may be a quiet song here or there, or a song with a quiet part, but it's mostly constantly-loud.    That's the current style.
Yes, we already see the effects of young people growing up with music without any dynamics...
It's only audiophile if it's inconvenient.

Dynamic Range doesn't really matter

Reply #5 –
Quote from: Kohlrabi on
Quote from:  link=msg=881486 date=0
I don't think it's just "artificial" compression.  I think many musicians and bands compose and play with very little dynamic expression.  There may be a quiet song here or there, or a song with a quiet part, but it's mostly constantly-loud.    That's the current style.
Yes, we already see the effects of young people growing up with music without any dynamics...


I could provide the names of boatloads of releases from 50 years ago that are compressed just as much as a modern release. The digital "loudness war" is only about 20 years old, but compression in music has been going on for much longer.

Dynamic Range doesn't really matter

Reply #6 –
Quote from: xnor on
That comment by Harry Dymond contains the main points I'd also have made.

The main problem, as I see it, with dynamic range compression is not that the waveform gets squashed, but that the difference in volume between different passages of a track get more and more lost. Everything will sound loud, which goes hand in hand with the fatigue comment.

And if it is overdone, it certainly can cause nasty clipping noises.


Given the short samples used, I'd also mainly expect a difference in perceived loudness.



The samples they used were 15 seconds long, while the "Golden ear approved" samples used in the recent Meridian tests were the same length or a little longer as the samples I posted to the uploads forum show.

I strongly relate to this comment Author Response Jens Hjortkjær:

"1) With longer stimuli - e.g. entire tracks - equivalent segments in the two versions would be far apart in time and the comparison task would arguably become more difficult and also more reliant on memory. We evaluated that 15 seconds was long enough for listeners to get an impression of the mix and short enough to allow direct comparison. It would indeed be interesting to test this with additional groups with longer stimuli"

However I also agree with Meridian's listener training procedure when it allowed the listeners to  listen to full tracks for the purpose of familiarization before the formal testing began.

Dynamic Range doesn't really matter

Reply #7 –
Quote from: slks on
Quote from: Kohlrabi on
Quote from:  link=msg=881486 date=0
I don't think it's just "artificial" compression.  I think many musicians and bands compose and play with very little dynamic expression.  There may be a quiet song here or there, or a song with a quiet part, but it's mostly constantly-loud.    That's the current style.
Yes, we already see the effects of young people growing up with music without any dynamics...


I could provide the names of boatloads of releases from 50 years ago that are compressed just as much as a modern release. The digital "loudness war" is only about 20 years old, but compression in music has been going on for much longer.



Not only releases (many on LP) but a pre-digital style of broadcasting.

This document shows that the Orban Optimod was released in 1975:

http://www.orban.com/about/timeline/

And for those who don't know what an Optimod is:

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimod

"Optimod is the brand name of sound processors and digital signal processors of the US company Orban from Tempe (Arizona) .

The term is also used as a generic name for sound processors for the broadcast range used (similar to z. B. pace with handkerchiefs). Optimods include normally at least an adjustable compressor , EQ , enhancer , an AGC ( Automatic Gain Control ) and a limiter . The Optimod, the sound dynamics significantly change a piece of music: Quiet passages are louder and vice versa.

This is the reason why radio stations use an Optimod. In order to achieve a higher volume subjectively at least, the audio signal is compressed. The difference is noticeable especially near the border. In some countries neighboring Germany compliance with the (applicable everywhere) guidelines is obviously not too tightly controlled, so here overruns are partly on the agenda.
"