Quote:
[1] The albums that have, for me, the most lasting appeal, those that I can really unwind to, are albums that again, score better. [2] Now, this is of course subjective and could be influenced by all sorts of biases, I get that. [3] But there is also at least some research on the topic suggesting that people prefer less compressed music... [4] I have the most dynamic version (the vinyl) ...
[5] I think the measurements are important because there is evidence that I am not alone in preferring more dynamic recordings.
1. In most cases and for most people the opposite is true.
2. There is a high possibility of this being a factor in your case (see #4).
3. The research does not suggest that! It suggests that under a specific set of circumstances people prefer less compressed music.
4. The algorithm used by the DR database has been proven to give false readings for vinyl rips, typically registering several points higher DR than is actually the case.
5. This is the area where things get tricky. Although you may not be alone, you are in general, in a tiny minority.
[1] the loudness war is IMO the worst thing to hit the industry after guys making artistic decisions based on money prospect only. ... [2] I wouldn't want highly dynamic music all day long at home, or even worst, in noisy environments with my IEMs. ... [3] so while dynamic brickwalling should be punishable by law, [4] I believe that a lot of materials are much better with some degree of dynamic compression.
1. To be honest, I personally think there are far worse. For example; incredibly cheap/accessible recording technology and the incredibly low average prices consumers now pay for music have significantly driven down the amount of time, money and expertise invested in creating music products.
2. This goes to the heart of the issue. A high dynamic range is preferable only in relatively rare circumstances; when critically listening with a good quality sound reproduction system in a relatively quiet listening environment. While these circumstances are common amongst head-fi members, they are far rarer amongst the general public.
3. In actual fact the exact opposite of your statement is already true! In TV broadcast in some countries (the USA for example), not brickwall limiting the signal is punishable by law (CALM Act, 2010). I suspect there maybe a misuse/misunderstanding of the term "brickwall" here?
4. Again, this is another "heart of the issue" statement. In practise, some degree of compression is virtually always desirable and indeed, there are virtually no commercial audio products released which do not have compression applied. The issue is not as simple as many view it to be! Given that compression is effectively a requirement, the question is, how much compression is the right amount? The reason the issue is not simple is because the correct answer is, "it depends". It depends on the genre of the music, where, how, when and with what the consumer will be listening and how the music was performed and how it was recorded/sourced. Most commonly, the answers to these questions are only a basic starting point for the amount of compression applied and there are further levels of subtly within these answers. For example, orchestral symphonic music is generally the most dynamic genre but exactly how much dynamic range depends on the composer and the symphony (in addition to other factors). Mozart symphonies for example would generally have less dynamic range than say a symphony by Mahler or Stravinsky. Some genres, electronica in general and EDM in particular for example, depend on a large amount of applied compression. Indeed, an amount of compression which would be considered well into "loudness war" territory if applied to many other genres but if not applied to EDM would result in a loss of some of the defining characteristics of what makes EDM, EDM!
Compression exists as a tool because good things can be done with it, it's just been abused.
True. The difficulty is in deciding when it's been abused, what constitutes "abuse". Listening to orchestral music while driving, one would need a great deal of compression to actually render it listenable, an amount of compression which would certainly constitute "abuse" when listening to that same recording on a decent hifi system at home. The DR database is a useful tool (although there are better IMHO) for giving some indication of dynamic range, what I strongly disagree with is it's concept of massively over-simplifying the issue by using the blanket statement that higher DR is better. Is a Mahler symphony automatically way better than the average EDM track? Is a Mahler symphony automatically better than a Mozart symphony? Is a recording of a Mahler symphony automatically better than a different recording of exactly the same Mahler symphony, just because it has a higher DR score? The answer to these and a number of similar questions is, "not necessarily, it depends, the exact opposite could be true!" and in this respect the DR score is of relatively little importance and potentially, extremely misleading!
G