[limpidglitch]

No, the window length ranges from 0.01 to 1 second, analysis is done on the whole file (minus the 10 seconds at either end).

 

[pinnahertz]

  No, the window length ranges from 0.01 to 1 second, analysis is done on the whole file (minus the 10 seconds at either end).

Ok, got it. 
 
What the graph is then showing is how important getting the window length right can be.  Very short windows won't reflect loudness well, and don't represent DR properly.  
 
For comparison, here is the result of some other tools, Audition, TT DR meter, and AudioLeak (Leq).
 

 

 

 

[limpidglitch]

That demonstrates pretty well that the TT-meter's DR metric has little to do with dynamic range, but does a pretty good job at quantifying the dynamism of a piece of music, which in my mind is far more useful.
Actually, the more I think about it, using dynamic range as a metric to describe music, as opposed to a technology, just gets sillier and sillier.

 

[pinnahertz]

  That demonstrates pretty well that the TT-meter's DR metric has little to do with dynamic range, but does a pretty good job at quantifying the dynamism of a piece of music, which in my mind is far more useful.
Actually, the more I think about it, using dynamic range as a metric to describe music, as opposed to a technology, just gets sillier and sillier.

Actually the TT meter tracks DR pretty well, though the number it produces is unique to itself.  I think because of the unique number the meter has not succeeded in being widely adopted, outside of their own database.  
 
I don't agree with your last statement, though.  I think DR can describe an aspect of music and show that aspects relationship to technical choices made in production.

 

[limpidglitch]

You can have a track consisting entirely of -6dBFS white noise except for one second of silence somewhere in the middle, and you'd have a track with ~90dB dynamic range. The TT-meter wouldn't track that, and I consider that a good thing.

I'm sure dynamic range has a valid place in the technical tool-kit, but as a measure of how dynamic a piece of music sounds, it's not very accurate. For one it's too sensitive to outliers.

 

[pinnahertz]

  You can have a track consisting entirely of -6dBFS white noise except for one second of silence somewhere in the middle, and you'd have a track with ~90dB dynamic range. The TT-meter wouldn't track that, and I consider that a good thing.

I'm sure dynamic range has a valid place in the technical tool-kit, but as a measure of how dynamic a piece of music sounds, it's not very accurate. For one it's too sensitive to outliers.

I guess there should be a separation between absolute DR and percieved.  I always work with percieved because it's really all that matters.

 

[Argyris]

I would argue that dynamic range should only be a concern if it's been artificially tweaked to be smaller than it should be, i.e. brickwalling. If the dynamic range is purposely limited, as per the so-called loudness wars, this should be apparent regardless of what's on the recording. One might argue that instruments and genres with a smaller inherent dynamic range will be less affected by overly zealous compression than those with a larger range, but this to me is academic. If I like full symphonic music, I'm not going to start listening exclusively to electronic just to avoid some of the compression artifacts.
 
In fact, I'm not going to stop or start listening to any genre of music solely for technical considerations*, and I honestly don't see the point in singling out any aspect of one (dynamic range, extent into the ultrasonic range, etc.) and pitting it against other genres.
 
In a roundabout way, I guess I'm saying I'm a little perplexed as to why this discussion has gone on for so many pages and what it's trying to prove. Even if you could somehow convince me that Bradley Justin Interchangeable Teen Idol III, specifically, becomes a whole new experience in high-rez, or that for some reason his music has a dynamic range that would dwarf the Rockies, that would involve me listening to BJITI III, which is not something that is going to happen anytime soon. BJITI III fans can feel superior and/or vindicated if that's what they want, and at the root of it I'm sensing that this right here might be what this discussion is really about.
 
*If I did that, I might be an audiophile

 

[pinnahertz]

  I would argue that dynamic range should only be a concern if it's been artificially tweaked to be smaller than it should be, i.e. brickwalling. If the dynamic range is purposely limited, as per the so-called loudness wars, this should be apparent regardless of what's on the recording. One might argue that instruments and genres with a smaller inherent dynamic range will be less affected by overly zealous compression than those with a larger range, but this to me is academic. If I like full symphonic music, I'm not going to start listening exclusively to electronic just to avoid some of the compression artifacts.
 
In fact, I'm not going to stop or start listening to any genre of music solely for technical considerations*, and I honestly don't see the point in singling out any aspect of one (dynamic range, extent into the ultrasonic range, etc.) and pitting it against other genres.
 
In a roundabout way, I guess I'm saying I'm a little perplexed as to why this discussion has gone on for so many pages and what it's trying to prove. Even if you could somehow convince me that Bradley Justin Interchangeable Teen Idol III, specifically, becomes a whole new experience in high-rez, or that for some reason his music has a dynamic range that would dwarf the Rockies, that would involve me listening to BJITI III, which is not something that is going to happen anytime soon. BJITI III fans can feel superior and/or vindicated if that's what they want, and at the root of it I'm sensing that this right here might be what this discussion is really about.
 
*If I did that, I might be an audiophile

You run into problems when trying to separate something done as part of artistic expression and something done to be competitive in loudness.  It's not always easy to tell why processing has been done, even when taken to the extreme.
 
The only reason this discussion has gone this far is that someone who should and does know stated that EDM has less dynamic range than some other genres, and wouldn't benefit from hi-res.  Then the fun started, and we went down the whole synth capabilities road, and a side road at that.  In the end, gregorio was right, and in some aspects, others were right too.  
 
And we don't have any hi-res EDM anyway.  

 

[LazyListener]

  I did this because he didn't seem to be aware of that some snyths are capable of creating content that could only be captured in 192kHz/24bit. But I agree on that in practice, this is meaningless and not only because how synths are used (creative choice) but due to the practical limitations of the synth. I really hope my stance is clear now.

Your example was only one synth and you mentioned a crazy wide DR of 70 db, so it was an extreme example.  I'm sure many synths can be manipulated to a more common, reasonable and listenable dynamic range.
 

  1. He discussed it theoretically and described a synth patch with 70dB of dynamic range which would be unplayable.  He did not demonstrate it.  
 
2. Yes EDM is inherently more limited.  IT's part of the genre.  Show an example of even one EDM track with classical music type dynamics.
 
3. When everyone creating the same genre makes the same creative choice it defines the genre.  You could compress classical music into a 8dB DR window, and everyone would hate it.  You could create EDM with wider dynamics than any piece of music on record, and everyone would hate it.
 
You can misapply technology all day long to make a theoretical point, it doesn't change the validity of Gregorio's core statements. 

1.  He demonstrated how the dynamic range of a synth can be manipulated.  If you define synth as a single, synthesized, electronic sound, there is nothing stopping EDM producers from including that sound in their mixes at various db levels, from very soft to very loud, and anywhere in between.  Is there?
 
2.  Again, the dynamic range of EDM is NOT inherently any more limited than any other recorded music genre.  Maybe we have different meanings of inherently.  http://www.dictionary.com/browse/inherently.  "Permanent and inseparable...quality or attribute."  It's not permanent or inseparable.  It can be adjusted and manipulated like any other genre.  It's limited between theoretical and audible limits, just like any other recorded genre.  As I've mentioned in previous posts, EDM producers are free to create EDM tracks with relatively narrow dynamic range or relatively wide dynamic range.  Dynamic range alone does not define a genre.  http://productionadvice.co.uk/edm-dynamics/
 
     As far as asking for an example of an EDM track with Classical music type dynamics,  I don't know if one exists or not.  Probably does.  But even if it doesn't, it doesn't mean it can't exist.  That's the whole point.  It can exist because electronic music made using synthesizers can have just as wide a dynamic range as any other recorded music genre, including Classical.
 
3.  Agree with the first part - defines the genre, although dynamic range alone doesn't define any genre.  You're using extreme examples, and also assuming what people like or hate.  That's just your opinion.  Fact is, dynamic range is relatively more compressed in EDM generally speaking than with Classical, but so is just about every other genre.  This is more or less common knowledge and no one is arguing this.  The more important general point I've been making is that electronic music doesn't have to be any more limited in terms of dynamic range than other genres.  EDM's dynamic range isn't compressed because synthesizers are being used instead of acoustical instruments.  It's being compressed to purposely sound loud and impactful.
 
Which core statements of Gregorio's are you referring to?  He initially said that EDM is the genre that would benefit the least from Hi-Res, partly due to limited dynamic range.  Then after some discussion, we all agreed that EDM would not benefit any more or less from Hi-Res than any other genre.  Then, I provided a link to some posts over at gearslutz.com, that seemed to suggest that if anything, EDM may benefit at least somewhat from Hi-Res (high sample rates) during processing, oversampling, anti-aliasing, and things like that, yielding a noticeably cleaner, clearer sounding final mix.

 

[LazyListener]

  The link discusses a different topic for the most part. Just because some people work at 96k (setting their DAW's sample rate to 96k) it doesn't automatically mean that there will be any frequencies over 22kHz. Typically there won't be any, unless they directly forced their synths to do so, in which case, they would most likely run into the same kind of problems as I did. Maybe they could record some acoustic instruments at 96kHz and then use that in their music but this is again an entirely different case.
 
 
 
"soft synths and dsp/fx plugins often sound much better at higher sample rates - even if the benefit is just less audible aliasing
over sampling plugins help too - try guitar rig with/without the 'high' quality mode on... the difference is huge and pronounced
a final format of 16/44.1 doesn't negate the benefits"
 
This could be a noteworthy post, as this explains how I made my synth to make ultrasonics. First, I chose a signal which had enough frequencies above 22kHz. Normally, these frequencies would alias back below 22kHz which could alter the sound in a very noticeable way. The higher the original frequency were, the lower the aliased frequency would be. So, after applying enough oversampling, none of the strong/loud harmonics were aliased. This alone wouldn't be enough to produce ultrasonic content, because if the DAW's sampling rate was at 44.1kHz, all the high frequencies would be filtered out. So after the oversampling I also had to change that to 192kHz so the frequencies wouldn't get filtered up to ~96kHz.
As you can see, the high frequencies is just a byproduct of oversampling (which is typically being used for anti aliasing not for making high frequencies). Even the post's maker says "the final format of 16/44.1 doesn't negate the benefits."

Honestly, I don't know the technical ins and outs like you and others here do.  I think I've made that clear with my posts so far.  But what I gathered from that gearslutz link was that high sample rates (Hi-Res) used during processing could actually have an audible benefit in the final product/mix.  Not saying ultrasonics, but benefits in the audible range.  Am I close?
 

   
1. Pinnahertz already addressed the logical fallacy of this statement.
1a. No it does not! Many "synth" patches have extremely limited dynamic ranges. Then there is also the creative choice of the producer to reduce dynamic range but as Pinnahertz also tried to explain to you, the creative choices of producers are limited by the genre.
 
2. Of course it does ... because if it doesn't then your argument is nonsense! Other music genres employ an acoustic drum kit and/or other acoustic instruments which virtually ALWAYS produce frequencies (significant amounts in the case of a drum kit) which can only be captured with hires sample rates. EDM typically does not employ acoustic drum kits (or any other acoustic instruments) and even if there are some EDM tracks with ultrasonic content, "some" is far less than the "virtually always" of just about all other music genres!! EDM therefore benefits from "hires" sample rates "far less" than other genres. Just to be clear, I'm talking about "benefit" in terms of accuracy rather than in terms of audibility.
 
3. Gearslutz is a forum used by highly experienced pros, complete noobs and everyone in between. Modern (computer based) electronic music requires nothing more than a laptop and the download and installation of a bunch of free/cheap software. There are countless thousands of people out there who after installing that software spend a few hours/days/weeks playing around with it and then announce to the world that they're music producers or audio engineers. If you're going to reference material from forums, you need to make sure you're not referencing ignorant nonsense from noobs! Just to be clear, there maybe some audible advantages to locally oversampling some soft synths (and other processors) but typically no benefit to working at or distributing "hires".
 
4. Huh? Are you really saying that you don't see how deliberately low-res content would have the least to gain from hires?
 
6. This is patently incorrect! While the creators themselves are only creating electronically, they are virtually always using recorded/captured sound waves in the form of "samples" (in samplers or forming the basis of many/most soft-synths' patches). Furthermore, these samples are typically already highly processed (inc. compressed), which is why many synths/synth patches have restricted dynamic ranges!
 
G

1.  Yes, already addressed by him and my response to him.
1a.  I think we're getting crossed between the meaning of "synth" that has caused a lot of the confusion.  If by synth, we mean a short, singular, electronically created sound, then I agree - some synths, maybe most, have a relatively narrow dynamic range.  I was using "synths" as shorthand for synthesizers, which to me, are any electronic device or software used to create electronic/synthesized sounds.  With that said, synthesizer technology as a whole is not any more limited in dynamic range or even ultrasonics, than recorded acoustical instruments.
 
     I disagree that the creative choices of producers are limited by the genre.  At least not when it comes to subject at hand - dynamic range.  Stylistically, yes.  You can't create a song so different that it no longer sounds like the genre.  But we're talking only dynamic range.  You vary dynamic range widely without jumping out of the genre.  The producers, artists and their artistic and creative choices define the genre.
 
2.  What does "benefit in terms of accuracy" mean?  What is the point of the "accuracy" if there's no perceivable benefit to the listener?
 
3.  Are you saying the link to the gearslutz forum I posted was a bunch of "ignorant nonsense from noobs?"  You say pros hang out there, too.  So they didn't chime in?  So you're saying EDM may benefit from Hi-Res, just not working at or distributing it in Hi-Res.  Thanks for clarifying that.
 
4.  No.  I'm saying I don't see how that specific example (some use of lo-fi processors which still capture what they're supposed to capture in terms of frequencies) explains how EDM as a genre benefits the least from Hi-Res.
 
6.  I didn't realize most of today's software synths were created using samples.  Are you sure about this?  I was under the impression that samples were mostly a thing of the past, and that today's synthesizer tech was largely fully digital and electronic.  Not so?

 

[pinnahertz]

  Your example was only one synth and you mentioned a crazy wide DR of 70 db, so it was an extreme example.  I'm sure many synths can be manipulated to a more common, reasonable and listenable dynamic range.
 
1.  He demonstrated how the dynamic range of a synth can be manipulated.

No, he did not. He did not demonstrate anything regarding dynamic range of a synth, he only made a statement.

If you define synth as a single, synthesized, electronic sound, there is nothing stopping EDM producers from including that sound in their mixes at various db levels, from very soft to very loud, and anywhere in between.  Is there?  

Oh, I don't know...perhaps the fact that it would have no artistic merit? The sound was a 5kHz square wave. Only one harmonic, the third, fell into the audible spectrum. I wouldn't have to be a square wave for a producer to achieve the same sound.

2.  Again, the dynamic range of EDM is NOT inherently any more limited than any other recorded music genre.  Maybe we have different meanings of inherently.  http://www.dictionary.com/browse/inherently.  "Permanent and inseparable...quality or attribute."  It's not permanent or inseparable.  It can be adjusted and manipulated like any other genre.

You are being pedantic. There is no technical reason the dynamic range of any genre is limited, but there are major artistic reasons why it is, and those reasons and the use of dynamic range limiting processing in EDM contribute to its sonic definition. Therefore, the entire genre becomes more limited in dynamic range.

It's limited between theoretical and audible limits, just like any other recorded genre.

There is no genre of music that even comes close to the theoretical dynamic range capabilities of recording. Not one.

As I've mentioned in previous posts, EDM producers are free to create EDM tracks with relatively narrow dynamic range or relatively wide dynamic range.  Dynamic range alone does not define a genre.  http://productionadvice.co.uk/edm-dynamics/  

Ah yes, my friend Ian Shepherd. You may not know him, but he is one of the prime anti-loudness-war guys. His site used to link directly to the TT DR meter, now he sells his own. He's all about increasing dynamic range. And he's right, it's just that he ignores a few aspects about why producers do what they do, and the result is a lot of really good windmill tilting. Great guy, I respect him a lot.
Look, unfortunately, like it or not, within a genre dynamics are dictated by competition. Once it's been limited, crushed, squashed, and smashed my nearly everyone, that sound becomes part of the definition. It's not a technical thing, it's an emotional competition. Yes, it's illogical, but it is reality.

     As far as asking for an example of an EDM track with Classical music type dynamics,  I don't know if one exists or not.  Probably does.  But even if it doesn't, it doesn't mean it can't exist.  That's the whole point.  It can exist because electronic music made using synthesizers can have just as wide a dynamic range as any other recorded music genre, including Classical.

A track like that doesn't exist (I'll eat those words if someone references one), and can't exist for the reasons above. They aren't technical reasons or constraints, they are much stronger than that.

 
3.  Agree with the first part - defines the genre, although dynamic range alone doesn't define any genre.

And around we go...I'm getting dizzy in the circular logic.

You're using extreme examples, and also assuming what people like or hate.  That's just your opinion.

Well, my opinion comes from working for many years in classical music broadcasting. You know what the biggest technical challenge was? Trying to apply dynamic range processing so people could hear all of the music in a relatively noisy listening environment without getting irate phone calls about how we were killing the emotion in the music with our lousy processing. Yeah, for me that statement was fact.

Fact is, dynamic range is relatively more compressed in EDM generally speaking than with Classical,

"I'm so dizzy!
I'm so dizzy, my head is spinnin'
Like a whirlpool, it never ends....
And it's you (who's)making it spin
Your makin' me dizzy!"

but so is just about every other genre. This is more or less common knowledge and no one is arguing this.

Classical, jazz, folk, early electronic music, even classic rock (the Greatful Dead had classical music dynamics in early concerts).

The more important general point I've been making is that electronic music doesn't have to be any more limited in terms of dynamic range than other genres.

Producers think differently, clearly.

EDM's dynamic range isn't compressed because synthesizers are being used instead of acoustical instruments.

Partly it is. Synth patches, many of them, are extremely limited in dynamic control. It make playing them much easier if they are electric-organ-like in dynamics.  That means a key press starts and stops a sound with no dynamic control at all.  This is another "yes they could, but no they don't" arguement, so let's just not do it, ok?

It's being compressed to purposely sound loud and impactful.  

Loud, yes. Impact comes from dynamics and high crest factor, so no to that one.

Which core statements of Gregorio's are you referring to?  He initially said that EDM is the genre that would benefit the least from Hi-Res, partly due to limited dynamic range. 

Yes, that one.

Then after some discussion, we all agreed that EDM would not benefit any more or less from Hi-Res than any other genre.

If you've followed gregorio, you would know where that is really coming from. And I agree.

Then, I provided a link to some posts over at gearslutz.com, that seemed to suggest that if anything, EDM may benefit at least somewhat from Hi-Res (high sample rates) during processing, oversampling, anti-aliasing, and things like that, yielding a noticeably cleaner, clearer sounding final mix.  

Yeah, Gearslutz...a fully authoritative reference site comprised of rank amateurs, weekend warriors, artists, and a handful of professionals. I have no doubt you think your reference linked to the latter. It did not. Their observations are laden with expectation bias and complete lack of scientific testing.

 

[LazyListener]

  Ok, got it. 
 
What the graph is then showing is how important getting the window length right can be.  Very short windows won't reflect loudness well, and don't represent DR properly.  
 
For comparison, here is the result of some other tools, Audition, TT DR meter, and AudioLeak (Leq).
 

 

 

So, wait.  Am I reading this right?  Beethoven's 9th has about a 40 db dynamic range?
 

  You run into problems when trying to separate something done as part of artistic expression and something done to be competitive in loudness.  It's not always easy to tell why processing has been done, even when taken to the extreme.
 
The only reason this discussion has gone this far is that someone who should and does know stated that EDM has less dynamic range than some other genres, and wouldn't benefit from hi-res.  Then the fun started, and we went down the whole synth capabilities road, and a side road at that.  In the end, gregorio was right, and in some aspects, others were right too.  
 
And we don't have any hi-res EDM anyway.  

Well, that someone didn't say that EDM wouldn't benefit from Hi-Res.  He said that EDM benefits the least from Hi-Res vs other genres, partly due to limited dynamic range and other factors.  That's what prompted all my questions.  Couldn't understand how EDM would benefit "the least" of other genres.  I never argued that EDM has more compressed dynamic range than most genres.  At least I never intended to.  That's pretty much a given and something I knew even before the discussions began.  EDM is not alone.  Most popular music genres today, created electronically and/or recorded, have relatively high dynamic range compression.  My argument was simply that EDM and any music created using "synthesizers" (general term) is no more restricted in its dynamic range capability than recorded music created using acoustic/mechanical instruments.
 
Sorry if I gave the wrong impression.  It was not my intention.  There was a lot of misunderstanding because we didn't focus on slowing down and defining terms being used, like "synths" and "inherently."  I'm glad we all agree now that EDM does not benefit any more or less from Hi-Res than any other genre (at least audibly), and that EDM is not inherently (permanently) restricted in its dynamic range capability than any other genres.

 
Oh, and to correct your statement:  "In the end, LazyListener was right, and in some aspects, others were right too." 

 
 

 

[pinnahertz]

 Ok, got it. 
 
What the graph is then showing is how important getting the window length right can be.  Very short windows won't reflect loudness well, and don't represent DR properly.  
 
For comparison, here is the result of some other tools, Audition, TT DR meter, and AudioLeak (Leq).
 

 

 

So, wait.  Am I reading this right?  Beethoven's 9th has about a 40 db dynamic range?
 

 You run into problems when trying to separate something done as part of artistic expression and something done to be competitive in loudness.  It's not always easy to tell why processing has been done, even when taken to the extreme.
 
The only reason this discussion has gone this far is that someone who should and does know stated that EDM has less dynamic range than some other genres, and wouldn't benefit from hi-res.  Then the fun started, and we went down the whole synth capabilities road, and a side road at that.  In the end, gregorio was right, and in some aspects, others were right too.  
 
And we don't have any hi-res EDM anyway.  

Well, that someone didn't say that EDM wouldn't benefit from Hi-Res.  He said that EDM benefits the least from Hi-Res vs other genres, partly due to limited dynamic range and other factors.  That's what prompted all my questions.  Couldn't understand how EDM would benefit "the least" of other genres.  I never argued that EDM has more compressed dynamic range than most genres.  At least I never intended to.  That's pretty much a given and something I knew even before the discussions began.  EDM is not alone.  Most popular music genres today, created electronically and/or recorded, have relatively high dynamic range compression.  My argument was simply that EDM and any music created using "synthesizers" (general term) is no more restricted in its dynamic range capability than recorded music created using acoustic/mechanical instruments.
 
Sorry if I gave the wrong impression.  It was not my intention.  There was a lot of misunderstanding because we didn't focus on slowing down and defining terms being used, like "synths" and "inherently."  I'm glad we all agree now that EDM does not benefit any more or less from Hi-Res than any other genre (at least audibly), and that EDM is not inherently (permanently) restricted in its dynamic range capability than any other genres.

 
Oh, and to correct your statement:  "In the end, LazyListener was right, and in some aspects, others were right too." 

 
 

We are arguing in circles!

EDM is more inherently limited in dynamic range than other genres. Not for technical reasons! I'm sorry if you can't seem to understand this!

Please do not "correct" my statement. That is not what I said, not what I meant.

There are many, many things that you posted that are completely wrong. I see absolutely no cause for the ""!

 

[LazyListener]

  No, he did not. He did not demonstrate anything regarding dynamic range of a synth, he only made a statement.
Oh, I don't know...perhaps the fact that it would have no artistic merit? The sound was a 5kHz square wave. Only one harmonic, the third, fell into the audible spectrum. I wouldn't have to be a square wave for a producer to achieve the same sound.
You are being pedantic. There is no technical reason the dynamic range of any genre is limited, but there are major artistic reasons why it is, and those reasons and the use of dynamic range limiting processing in EDM contribute to its sonic definition. Therefore, the entire genre becomes more limited in dynamic range.
There is no genre of music that even comes close to the theoretical dynamic range capabilities of recording. Not one.
Ah yes, my friend Ian Shepherd. You may not know him, but he is one of the prime anti-loudness-war guys. His site used to link directly to the TT DR meter, now he sells his own. He's all about increasing dynamic range. And he's right, it's just that he ignores a few aspects about why producers do what they do, and the result is a lot of really good windmill tilting. Great guy, I respect him a lot.
Look, unfortunately, like it or not, within a genre dynamics are dictated by competition. Once it's been limited, crushed, squashed, and smashed my nearly everyone, that sound becomes part of the definition. It's not a technical thing, it's an emotional competition. Yes, it's illogical, but it is reality.
A track like that doesn't exist (I'll eat those words if someone references one), and can't exist for the reasons above. They aren't technical reasons or constraints, they are much stronger than that.
And around we go...I'm getting dizzy in the circular logic.
Well, my opinion comes from working for many years in classical music broadcasting. You know what the biggest technical challenge was? Trying to apply dynamic range processing so people could hear all of the music in a relatively noisy listening environment without getting irate phone calls about how we were killing the emotion in the music with our lousy processing. Yeah, for me that statement was fact.
"I'm so dizzy!
I'm so dizzy, my head is spinnin'
Like a whirlpool, it never ends....
And it's you (who's)making it spin
Your makin' me dizzy!"
Classical, jazz, folk, early electronic music, even classic rock (the Greatful Dead had classical music dynamics in early concerts).
Producers think differently, clearly.
Partly it is. Synth patches, many of them, are extremely limited in dynamic control. It make playing them much easier if they are electric-organ-like in dynamics.  That means a key press starts and stops a sound with no dynamic control at all.  This is another "yes they could, but no they don't" arguement, so let's just not do it, ok?
Loud, yes. Impact comes from dynamics and high crest factor, so no to that one.
Yes, that one.
If you've followed gregorio, you would know where that is really coming from. And I agree.
Yeah, Gearslutz...a fully authoritative reference site comprised of rank amateurs, weekend warriors, artists, and a handful of professionals. I have no doubt you think your reference linked to the latter. It did not. Their observations are laden with expectation bias and complete lack of scientific testing.

No offense, but I'm done.  All I see is cherry picking details and creating new, useless arguments where there weren't any.  Arguing for argument's sake.  Not seeing or being able to accept the larger argument conclusion, in favor of cherry picking statements out of context for argument's sake.  Points you argued against, you're arguing for now because it suits the situation.  Yes, I mentioned EDM DR stems from artistic choice, not from technical limitations.  Glad you're finally on board with that and found some way to use it in a rebuttal to something I said.
 
Calling me pedantic because I offered a definition of inherently?  Really?  It was necessary as you guys obviously applied a different meaning and that changed the entire discussion.  And you're not being pedantic cherry-picking meaningless details for argument's sake, while the whole time refusing to accept someone's general conclusion?
 
And where's your proof that the gearslutz link I posted to was full of misinformation?  Rather than say "they're full of crap" in your fancy manner, why don't you provide your own links or analysis to support your position - that Hi-Res processing offers zero audible differences in the world of EDM production?  Where's the link to your double blind study that supports your position?  All you've offered is opinion, so far.
 
But don't worry about all that.  I have some free time, but not enough to go on and on forever with you guys about this.  And I can see by your replies, that it would indeed go on forever, if I didn't call it quits.  So I'm done.
 
Thank you for all the useful info.  I gotta run.  Don't worry.  I'll check in from time to time.

 

[castleofargh]

each side has elaborated a lot, even potential confusion on terms has been voiced. some stuff said were clearly false and that too has been pointed out and IMO clearly explained several times now.
at this point here is what I'm reading: someone said "humans have 2 arms".  and another dude has seen a picture of that kid born with 3 arms and goes, "that claim is false, humans can have more than 2 arms".
relative vs absolute.