Does a high Dynamic Range AUTOMATICALLY mean high quality master?
Mar 4, 2016 at 5:10 AM Post #16 of 18
  and is this picture relevant?

 
Relevant to what? Relevant to the amount of compression applied, yes. Relevant to the overall perceived quality, no. The whole concept of the DRD is a dumbed down, dramatic over simplification of a not so simple situation, so that consumers can understand/appreciate it. I don't disagree with (in fact I strongly support) the overall aim of the DRD but IMHO, there should be a more detailed explanation available on the site, for those interested in a better, more accurate understanding of the issues. This is important because the explanation as given is over simplified to the point of it being completely false in some situations! For example, "dynamic and pleasant" and "over-compressed = unpleasant" is a gross over-simplification. There are in fact many situations where the reality is: "dynamic (high DR) = un-listenable" and "highly compressed (low DR) = Far more pleasant"!
 
G
 
Mar 4, 2016 at 7:38 AM Post #17 of 18
in fact I vaguely remember one test where people seemed to prefer the more dynamically compressed file. and it's logical (up to a point), because they usually don't reduce dynamic for no reason. the aim behind it is the "louder is better" idea.
I guess as a very general guideline, the reference to dynamic and music genres works ok, and indeed jazz or classical are prone to be mastered with more dynamic. the music tends to cover a wild dynamic, and the listeners of those genres often know the real deal and expect to get most of it in playback with a CD, so the sound engineers usually work toward that aim.
but it would be very wrong to assume the superiority of a music genre from that. you can't really master stuff for the radio or nightclubs the same way you do classical music. I for one almost never listen to classical in a noisy environment like a car, I either miss half the music masked by the ambient noises, or I have to listen at mad loudness. neither giving me an enjoyable experience.
 
also while I wish a great many albums could be mastered with more dynamic, at the same time, I have on occasions, used a compressor on limited frequencies, to make a voice a little less annoying/harsh/or even sibilant. 
a master engineer certainly can do more than set a global compression range, and on voices for example, they usually do compress them and I'm grateful for that kind of focused dynamic compression.
so as Greg points out, it's not always as simple as huge dynamic =good sound.
 
Mar 4, 2016 at 8:38 AM Post #18 of 18
I think, repeating myself a bit, that it's really mainly about comparing two versions of the same track/album, not "does classical sound better than metal." Taking metal as an example, it was clear that something like Death Magnetic hit a nerve, and that's despite being in a genre where DR5 is pretty typical. So yeah, the squishing was simply taken too far, and the DR rating confirms that, and it confirms that people thinking the Guitar Hero version sounded better weren't imagining things.
 
In the end it's all about the musical material. For instance, one recording I have of Beethoven's symphonies is about 2-3 DR points below the other one's I have, and indeed it is louder out of the box. But does it sound that much worse? No, not really, because Beethoven isn't particularly dynamic. If I loudness match and compare, it doesn't stick out as "bad." On the other hand, I heard a recording of Mahler's 6th symphony that is even more relatively compressed compared to others, and I just can't listen to it, because the compression  takes away the impact of some of the big climaxes.  Note that it's still in the DR12-15 range, which just shows that you indeed should consider the DR measure in a relative rather than absolute sense.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top