Skip to main content

Notice

Please be aware that much of the software linked to or mentioned on this forum is niche and therefore infrequently downloaded. Lots of anti-virus scanners and so-called malware detectors like to flag infrequently downloaded software as bad until it is either downloaded enough times, or its developer actually bothers with getting each individual release allow listed by every single AV vendor. You can do many people a great favor when encountering such a "problem" example by submitting them to your AV vendor for examination. For almost everything on this forum, it is a false positive.
Topic: TT Dynamic Range meter "lies" about vinyl's dynamic rang (Read 61532 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

TT Dynamic Range meter "lies" about vinyl's dynamic rang

Reply #75
I don't believe DR inflation is caused by high frequencies. All the tweaking I have done in an attempt to emulate the phenomenon has been focused on altering the phase characteristics and/or frequency response at the subsonic end.

Tweaking the high-end was only window dressing by comparison:
http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php...st&p=846950

TT Dynamic Range meter "lies" about vinyl's dynamic rang

Reply #76
This one was particularly entertaining (for me at least):
http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php...st&p=875605
http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php...st&p=875637

Thanks! I remember lightly reading some of these things. Really very interesting how the phase change confuse the DR meter.
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

TT Dynamic Range meter "lies" about vinyl's dynamic rang

Reply #77
I don't believe DR inflation is caused by high frequencies. All the tweaking I have done in an attempt to emulate the phenomenon has been focused on altering the phase characteristics and/or frequency response at the subsonic end.

Tweaking the high-end was only window dressing by comparison:
http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php...st&p=846950


oh I also don't believe it's the reason, but that's the only actual possibility I could come up with for real possible change in DR that could come from the CD conversion itself(to go along with greyghost uber open minded theory that CD could be guilty). I was saying that it wouldn't amount to much in real life music, and thus that CD conversion had most certainly nothing to do with the problem at hand.

my personal hypothesis would push toward the amplitude accuracy of vinyls(or the lack of it). but I'm really a noob when it comes to vinyls.

PS:I heard the one saying I was a noob whatever the subject! it's true but not nice.

TT Dynamic Range meter "lies" about vinyl's dynamic rang

Reply #78
Now we all know that the CD waveform is futsed with

We suspect the CD master was derived from a higher-resolution master which would have entailed a reduction in bit-depth and sample rate.  This would not have altered the DR value.

To suggest there was some other mechanism that reduced the value of the DR measurement of the CD is to say that Ian Shepherd is either incompetent (supposing the mechanism was unintentionally put into play) or dishonest (supposing the mechanism was intentionally put into play).


No it is not. It's merely pointing out that scientific process has not been followed rigorously in evidencing the proof. There is an assumption gap. Its not a personal attack.

TT Dynamic Range meter "lies" about vinyl's dynamic rang

Reply #79
I think xnor already alluded to the actual assumption gap which is at play here. 

I would hope this is about knowing the truth rather than just criticizing a presentation made by an industry professional in his free time in order to help people.  While it appears he hasn't proven it to your satisfaction, Ian Shepherd is still right.  Shooting down his video for not being tedious enough won't change the landscape.  You'll also have to have a go at the all the other evidence compiled on the subject if that is what you wish to do.

TT Dynamic Range meter "lies" about vinyl's dynamic rang

Reply #80
No it is not. It's merely pointing out that scientific process has not been followed rigorously in evidencing the proof. There is an assumption gap. Its not a personal attack.

So I suggest you take a couple of 96/24 tracks, convert them to 44.1/16 and check with the dreaded TT DR meter yourself, like I (and possibly others) did before. You may find .1 or .2 lower or even higher "dynamic range", but the DR rating should be identical.

"I hear it when I see it."

TT Dynamic Range meter "lies" about vinyl's dynamic rang

Reply #81
With all due respect, the argument is illogical. What is missing is consideration of the DR of the original master file. The author of the YouTube post has missed the possibility that the vinyl cutting process may have faithfully preserved more of the DR of the master than the CD burning process did.

The superior DR demonstrated in the vinyl may not be distortion, it may be that the CD DR is lower than the master. He doesn't demonstrate this at all.

That is illogical in itself.

How would the CD lower such dynamic ranges? Only vinyl, the format itself, the mechanic playback system, the creation process of vinyls can introduce such levels of distortion.

This should be clear even if you compare a dirt cheap CD player to a high end vinyl system.
Vinyl cannot directly store any digital signal. The added distortion by this required pre-processing alone... Add to that the rumble, speed inaccuracies, wow, flutter, the distortions added by the tonearm, low output level requires a pre that further changes the sound (add additional noise, distortion, crosstalk, frequency response deviations) ...


The process of determining discrepancy must be scientific, not based on dogma and assumption. We need to see the DR of the master. The CD creation process is algorithmic and digital,mans assumptions about its purity may be misguided.

Talk of the "pure signal" and the assumption that the CD press is a viable proxy may be erroneous,


so when comparing a format full of heavy fidelity weaknesses, and a digital conversion, your incentive is to blame the digital file. funny to see you talking about assumption^_^.

it's really not hard for you to demonstrate your strange theory. take a high res file, and convert it to CD resolution with whatever resampler and dither you like. then see how much the operation changed the values of the DR meter. and good luck getting something like 4db less on the 16bit file. even with all the already mentioned reliability problems from that DR meter I doubt you'll get there.

to play the devil's advocate, I could imagine a messed up situation where some ultrasounds would be louder than the audible range(scary!!!!), so cutting them out when converting to CD could maybe affect the DR. in that silly hypothesis the "loss of dynamic" would be in fact saving our ears.
now imagine what ultrasounds of high amplitude(higher than the audible range in my example) would do when playing the vinyl  . the needle would go all "I believe I can fly, I believe I can touch the sky!"


I'm not blaming anything or biased in eithe direction. Merely pointing out the obvious flaw in the scientific process presented.

Although the vitriol I'm getting for pointing it out is certainly pointing to biases in other's opinions.

If it's so unquestionable then let's see the simple proof in the original master DR.

TT Dynamic Range meter "lies" about vinyl's dynamic rang

Reply #82
Ask/tell Ian.  Comment on his video, if you like.

Coming back after several months to try to argue this same line isn't going to change anything.  You found your loophole and are clinging to it. Good for you!   

In the meantime, for the rest of us who have discussed this on multiple occasions, Ian's video only supplied further evidence for what we already knew, or at the very least strongly suspected.  I know I've put links up to these other discussions on more than one occasion.

To put it another way, Ian just missing the bullseye on a technicality is small potatoes. We aren't in desperate need of a slam dunk on the subject.

TT Dynamic Range meter "lies" about vinyl's dynamic rang

Reply #83
Thegreyghost, what is the problem?
Even if the record contained a perfect copy of the digital files (which it doesn't, it contains a distorted version), the playback system has so many flaws that the resulting DR meter rating will be off, because it's a bad algorithm.

Just look at the output of a turntable of a single tone. The frequency will be off, there will be phase shift vs other frequencies, the frequency will constantly change by up to a couple Hz, there will be lots of nonlinear distortion and noise, ...
Repeat the same with pulses and you will also see resonances of the moving masses involved, high levels of crosstalk especially at low frequencies (the stereo image will usually change quite a bit due to that limitation) ...
"I hear it when I see it."

Re: TT Dynamic Range meter "lies" about vinyl's dynamic rang

Reply #84
"TT Dynamic Range meter "lies" about vinyl's dynamic range"

The title of the topic should be changed since it does not reflect the actual content of the thread and it's misleading.

The meter can no lie in any way about a measurement done to the input files, whether it comes from vinyl, sourced from digital or the radio. It would be like saying Total RMS or peak analysis does not work the same for ALL digital input, which is plainly wrong since the meter does not make any assumption about the source of the input.

Another entire thing is how you interpret the results and the conclusions you got from that.

The ripped vinyl to digital DOES have different peak to RMS values than the "original" master; therefore due to different processes the vinyl cut & pressing requires and the subsequent recording needed to go back to digital, the final output is different. Another entire thing is discussing if that makes sense at all or you get any real improvement over the original brickwalled master. That's the subjective part, psycho-acoustics.

BUT the DR meter has nothing to do with that. Audition/Izotope/.... let me calculate Total RMS values, ITU BS.1770-2 loudness, etc. the fact some of those measures are good in some situations but not appropriate in others has nothing to do with them lying in any way while measuring. Are you joking or what? It only reproduces a well known fact, choose your measurement tools according to what you want to measure.

Or are we going to say a thermometer lies about the temperature of a swimming pool just because the person who wants to measure it does not consider the swimming pool may have in fact different layers of water at different temperatures?

I'm surprised to see how a forum who is so anal about scientific things makes such claims -supported by the mods- only as a personal "vendetta" against self-claimed "audiophiles" who believe in magic instead of listening and measuring samples.


Re: TT Dynamic Range meter "lies" about vinyl's dynamic rang

Reply #86
The entire content on the thread, not only the title, is full of crap and nonsense as already explained in my post.

I would not have spent my time to talk about the tittle ignoring how you played with words. Read my post, answer to it if you wanna but don't reply me with an evasive answer.

Again, what surprises me is how some of you, and specifically you (a moderator), used the tread for your vendetta.

Making use of TOS 1 (so essentially now this is THE TRUTH here) and violating TOS 8 since Dynamic Range of the source in this context CAN NOT be objectively measured as ironically the thread has demonstrated and falls into the subjective perception.

Where are the tests to support the claims?
Or are we judging the tool?  (back to my post, you can not claim with quotes or without them a tool meter lies about nothing)

In fact the tool measures properly the dynamic range of the vinyl recording; what is not measuring right is the DR of the source used to make that vinyl pressing. (i.e. the rip of the vinyl is not equal to the source due to filtering and other processes) So the title continues to be misleading.

Back to dynamic range, one could say that digital clipped source sounds less dynamic than the vinyl rip* from the same source and tha wouldt be perfectly fine since "dynamic range" in this context (in which TT DR tool is used) means perceived compression.  But again, there are no such tests in this thread so...

*(declipped as it's proven due to various intermediate processes pointed by you and others here or in other topics)

You essentially have taken a truth and applied it for your own convenience, even if that means to use it out of context, apply wrong terms or make unscientific claims.
Ironic, as I say, in this forum with its reputation. Obviously you know you are plainly wrong and can not edit one year later the entire thread to mask your real intentions behind this topic.

Then you are the first to point others about their ego and how to support claims but this is a good reference for anyone to see how all that becomes nothing when you have personal interest. Therefore let me ask it again and add something more: the title should be edited and the content rectified with a later post clarifying what's true and what not.

hey... TT DR tool in fact provides wrong "Dynamic range measurements" for CD too if you know how to "tweak" the input.
Does that mean the CD or the tool is crap? Or a re-evaluation of what Dynamic Range means or how it's measured is needed?

A thread clean of crap and people using this "final evidence" for their own personal vendetta, with a clear title as "TT DR tool is NOT the appropriate tool to measure dynamic range among different mediums" or "TT DR tool is NOT the appropriate tool to measure dynamic range of the source". Or even ""TT DR tool is NOT the appropriate tool to measure dynamic range"
would fit better in this forum which such strict TOS which clearly were not applied here since the mods were more interested in their interest than the rules they put there years ago.

Re: TT Dynamic Range meter "lies" about vinyl's dynamic rang

Reply #87
Sounds like you're the guy with a vendetta.

The title wasn't created by me and I have no intention of changing it.  Maybe another staff member might find your bloviated posts more compelling.

Did you even watch the video?

Do you understand that there isn't one person who is saying the program is literally lying (as in presenting a numerical value different than the one it calculated)?  This especially includes the author of the topic who has time and again demonstrated a firm grasp on the subject matter, thank you very much.

It's a provocative title intended to draw a reader in.  And your bumping it will only serve to catch more eyes, even better that you're introducing even more controversy by claiming the content of the discussion is nonsense.  This means that even more rationally-minded people will see that using DR values to compare CD against vinyl is a bad idea.

Thank you for that! :D

Re: TT Dynamic Range meter "lies" about vinyl's dynamic rang

Reply #88
For sure. I watched the video and read the SH thread posted first. Wait... Did I mention the video? Did I say the video is wrong or something? Could make corrections to the video too but I did not enter there... but the thread posted HERE, its title and its content. And then in the 2nd post I further explained some questionable behavior, like yours.

Also I read this one pointed somewhere in the thread.
http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/is-the-dr-database-really-accurate-for-vinyl.330706/page-11#post-9481216

The page 12 is gold, essentially someone pointing Ian Shepherd that TT DR meter does NOT measure the "Dynamic Range" of the source used for the vinyl, true; but it could well measure the perceived compression or "Dynamic range" of the recording from the vinyl. Ian's answer: "shut up, even if your new discussion makes sense (based in my own arguments) this my moment of glory."
i.e. people here and at that thread worked hard to show others how vinyl cutting, pressing and playback affects the final output which makes DR metering comparisons between vinyl and digital useless. Agree.
So now... the same argument is used to point that the "non faithful" to the source vinyl rip in fact sounds more dynamic than the source so it could be the TT meter in fact is measuring perfectly fine the dynamic range. At least what we perceive as that.
Obviously it fails to measure the DR of the source, it's crazy! You are not measuring that! Who really thought that?! And the thread is all about this; the vendetta against those audiophiles that said some vinyl pressings used different masters than the CDs using as evidence DR differences.
But proving wrong those people has nothing to do with the rest of the discussion...

And no. This is not a pro-vinyl argument but an explanation of what's going on. The same can be applied to the digital source and it will produce higher DR measurements. I just point to the vinyl related claims because those were used wrong and only show half of the truth.
The tool is not vinyl-flawed or medium-flawed, the real reasons are others. And those mechanism behind the DR measurements affect dynamic range perception, whether they are applied in the analog or the digital domain.

So... as I noted a re-evaluation of what is "dynamic range" is needed since the tool was never meant to measure real dynamic range used but dynamic range perception; obviously -no test needed- one could say the CDs would score higher dynamic range having less SNR when using the same source for both!

And yes, the thread is full of crap. There is even 3 or 4 posts by you right from the star saying.... what... nothing?

Essentially like now but at least with more words. Still open to receive an answer. Post 81.
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,102895.msg919344.html#msg919344

Btw I never said the content of the discussion is nonsense but it is full of nonsense. It's not the same.

My fridge is full of cokes. It doesn't mean there are only cokes there, I like water too. Funny seeing how you like to play with words you missed that...

Re: TT Dynamic Range meter "lies" about vinyl's dynamic rang

Reply #89
Well of course I don't believe you feel that all the posts in the thread aren't crap.  I mean, you contributed to it, right?

Re: TT Dynamic Range meter "lies" about vinyl's dynamic rang

Reply #90
Anyway, allow me to repeat my "crap" because it doesn't in any way support what was presented in the video:
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,99723.msg825917.html#msg825917

Re: TT Dynamic Range meter "lies" about vinyl's dynamic rang

Reply #91
More of my "crap" because it doesn't in any way support what was presented in the video:
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,102963.0.html

Re: TT Dynamic Range meter "lies" about vinyl's dynamic rang

Reply #92
More of my "crap" because it doesn't in any way support what was presented in the video:
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,66401.0.html

Re: TT Dynamic Range meter "lies" about vinyl's dynamic rang

Reply #93
So... as I noted a re-evaluation of what is "dynamic range" is needed since the tool was never meant to measure real dynamic range used but dynamic range perception;
What it was meant to do and what it is actually capable of doing may be two very very different things.

Perhaps someone knows of some evidence that objectively demonstrates that TTDR reliably measures the perception of dynamic range.

If you didn't know anything about this community one of the first things you should know is that it rejects the idea that perception cannot be tested on the grounds that it is subjective.


Re: TT Dynamic Range meter "lies" about vinyl's dynamic rang

Reply #95
I guess this has been covered already, but here's an example of (heavy) EQ'ing causing a DR5 sample to increase to DR14  (the song is "Copy Of A", from NIN's Hesitation Marks, audiophile mastered edition, measured with DR-Meter 1.4a).

This is an extreme example just for fun. Of course, it sounds really tinny after boosting the treble 16dB.

sox -G 02\ Copy\ Of\ A.wav copyofa.wav rate 44100 trim 5:00
sox -G copyofa.wav copyofa_eq.wav treble 16

Quote
-----------------------------------------------
 Statistics for:    copyofa.wav
 Number of Samples: 997658
-----------------------------------------------

                  left              right

 Peak value:     -0.10 dB   ---    -0.00 dB
 Avg RMS:        -5.88 dB   ---    -5.30 dB
 DR channel:      5.04 dB   ---     4.62 dB
-----------------------------------------------

 Official DR value:  DR5
===============================================
Quote
-----------------------------------------------
 Statistics for:    copyofa_eq.wav
 Number of Samples: 997658
-----------------------------------------------

                  left              right

 Peak value:     -0.00 dB   ---    -0.50 dB
 Avg RMS:       -15.49 dB   ---   -14.78 dB
 DR channel:     14.29 dB   ---    13.55 dB
-----------------------------------------------

 Official DR value:  DR14
===============================================

Re: TT Dynamic Range meter "lies" about vinyl's dynamic rang

Reply #96
I guess this has been covered already, but here's an example of (heavy) EQ'ing causing a DR5 sample to increase to DR14 

Isn't that behaviour kind of natural compared to just changing the level 3dB down, as I mentioned earlier (page 2)?

Re: TT Dynamic Range meter "lies" about vinyl's dynamic rang

Reply #97
The title of the topic should be changed since it does not reflect the actual content of the thread and it's misleading.
This is a hilarious suggestion. Whoever thinks that the moderators' job is to dynamically change the thread titles to reflect the discussion in the thread must be new to internet fora.

If this wasn't meant as a joke: I'm opposing it, but I'm confident the moderators wouldn't be inclined to do this, anyway.

The page 12 is gold, essentially someone pointing Ian Shepherd that TT DR meter does NOT measure the "Dynamic Range" of the source used for the vinyl, true; but it could well measure the perceived compression or "Dynamic range" of the recording from the vinyl. Ian's answer: "shut up, even if your new discussion makes sense (based in my own arguments) this my moment of glory."
No, that is not what Ian answers. It is your malevolent distortion.

You are obviously referring to SergioRZ's speculations. The problem with him seems to be that he's not even wrong. He is clueless enough to take the coincidence that the DR meter sometimes agrees with his perception of dynamic range, as a sign that it may be purposefully programmed that way. That's a very basic logical fallacy, and the discussion with him could stop there.

It is quite clear that the tool does not measure the perceived dynamic range, but rather a technical definition of dynamic range that is derived from the difference between average and peak power. If there is any confusion at all, it is between those different meanings of the same term.

If you are interested in the technical DR measure, the tool may well be the right one for you, and in this sense it probably doesn't lie at all. If you are expecting a measurement result from it that matches perceived DR, the tool will disappoint you. That's what Ian has shown, and that's what the discussion was about, modulo the nonsense that inevitably creeps in when people contribute who haven't a clue what they are talking about.

Re: TT Dynamic Range meter "lies" about vinyl's dynamic rang

Reply #98
I had already read all those topics, anyway thanks for them greynol.

Other users could see, independently of my last post which added some things some of you may not agree with, how greynol is clearly not answering to anything I put. Just giving links and writing evasive answers.

Just saying.... I can be wrong or right about a part of the topic and still that has nothing to do about the other part.

Eric.W that manipulation does in fact affect dynamic range perception, another entire thing if that's enjoyable since the rest of the band is compressed. Again the tool measures Peaks to RMS, and your manipulation changes peaks to RMS so....
We can discuss the conclusion you make from the results but you can not discuss the results! And that's where this thread has failed. Check my first post. Not that I'm saying I disagree with most things from this thread ;)

Quote
This is a hilarious suggestion. Whoever thinks that the moderators' job is to dynamically change the thread titles to reflect the discussion in the thread must be new to internet fora.

Erm.... like greynol did at some point later in the thread? ;)

I love the arbitrary use of the TOS in this forum.

And again, if this thread is about the Tool NO ONE can make a claim about it lying or reporting wrong results. That's false and misleading.

If this thread is about the results and how they are interpreted, then the title needs a fix and there is a ton of misleading info within this thread and the links. Like any controversial topic, ok. But it doesn't hurt to rectify it. Or only the vinyl myths wiki can be edited?

Please don't be shortsighted. Even if 75% of this forum or this thread is true, and greynol is most times right that doesn't mean the forum or Greynol's word equates The Truth. At some point in your fight against people making claims without evidences you have fall in your own trap using anything as a gun against them and making other unscientific claims.

Quote
If you didn't know anything about this community one of the first things you should know is that it rejects the idea that perception cannot be tested on the grounds that it is subjective.
... read my 1st post. Either you are talking about the Tool and the measurements or about the dynamic Range and how it is perceived. The 1st requires a title fix and thread rectification, the second requires tests which I don't see here.

So it's you who should decide the topic (or the one who created it), not me. I simply pointed to both possibilities.

1st post in thread:
Quote
Anyone who still clings to waveforms and DR numbers to "prove" that a particular vinyl release has a greater dynamic range (i.e. less compression) than the CD version must watch this video...
For sure the thread was not limited to what the starting post seemed to suggest. That claim is true 100%, but the rest...
At the point you abandon discussing how the same master was used for the CD and the vinyl and start discussing how it sounds or what dynamic range means or how it's measured this topic lost their sense.
And don't tell me this thread has no post about that, or are you going to delete them too?

Quote
You are obviously referring to SergioRZ's speculations. The problem with him seems to be that he's not even wrong. He is clueless enough to take the coincidence that the DR meter sometimes agrees with his perception of dynamic range, as a sign that it may be purposefully programmed that way. That's a very basic logical fallacy, and the discussion with him could stop there.
.... so this thread is all about how the tool DOES NOT measure Dynamic Range. Now you say it does it right (?). Great.

Either it measures dynamics range and you have to accept filters and playback affects the dynamic range of a signal or what you are measuring is another thing. But you can not maintain both claims according to what you want to prove just to say to some of the audiophiles: f**ck you!
They deserve. ok.. but that's not the right way of proving nothing.

That discussion is perfectly fine and made sense and it's needed. So why Ian did not continue with it? I'm not saying he had all the evidences to make a new theory, but he simply found a flaw in the conclusions people have been making when using the TT DR tool and did not want to consider new options when people pointed to them. To me that's enjoying your moment of glory. No more. Ego.

Saying is "quite clear" what it measures or not to me is not so clear since it seems every time one really wants to test it people is more interested in personal attacks (masked within scientific claims) to other people beliefs than anything.

Again the "real" definition of Dynamic Range needs not clarification. A CD has less SNR. If the same master is used in vinyl and CD, the CD wins. End. If this thread is here is because there is more to what we understand as Dynamic Range. There is perception and we are trying to measure it. Don't say now you don't want to discuss it.

Declipping a signal does affect dynamic Range measurements. Most filters under right circumstances work like declipping tools (don't ask me examples, use any editor by yourself!). That magically transforms the source? No. But the output has different Dynamic Range since you modified the signal, saying the opposite is crazy. (therefore the vinyl recording can be more dynamic than the CD and the master, BUT the extra dynamics are not coming from the source, ok) Peak to RMS changes in both cases.
Does it sound more dynamic?
Well... that's what I suggest you to discuss if you really want to discuss about dynamic range. And that requires testing.

Pressings CD masters to vinyl is crazy anyway. Give me the real thing.

Do you see now how the tittle is wrong? TT Tool does not lie. The Peak to RMS in vinyl is higher than in CD when using the same source. Similar filtering can be applied to digital source to get the same results. And that in fact is what we are calling Dynamic Range and really changes! So... what part of the tittle is right?

I even agree with the most part written here but that's not the point. Anyway, someone with common sense could read between lines in my posts and get the idea. That's enough for me, so I'm done.

Re: TT Dynamic Range meter "lies" about vinyl's dynamic rang

Reply #99
Quote
Declipping a signal does affect dynamic Range measurements. Most filters under right circumstances work like declipping tools
While filters change the shape of the waveform, they don't necessarily remove any of the crackle and harshness that comes with clipping, so describing an equalizer a declipper is highly misleading.

I played around with the Phase Rotator in Reaper on a highly clipped track (Spice Girls - "Holler"). With the phase rotated by 90°, the peak level increased by whopping 9 dB (DR 5 -> DR 14) while the sound stayed exactly the same to my ear.

I suspect that some CDs with pre-emphasis in the DR database might have elevated ratings, due to high frequency peaks. My anecdotal experience indicates about 2 dB difference.

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2021