==

I think you've sort of hit on it already--I don't know much about such ratings, but it appears to be an attempt to measure and objectively quantify data about an issue which is inherently subjective.

I sort of liken it to message boards where people debate the relative "niceness" of the weather outside:

"What a beautiful day--77 degrees out with low humidity and zero percent chance of precipitation."

"Are you shitting me? I find it horribly bright and harsh outside. Also, your opinion is useless, as you have not filled out your thermometer/barometer profile."

There is only one true measure; the ears of the listener.

It's interesting that those that seem to cite DR numbers the most aren't trying to defend or explain the reliance on those numbers.

True. There have been CDs that I've read were "unlistenable" that I didn't think were that bad.

And there are CDs where I've had the listening experience compromised by bad mixing/mastering.

But I let my ears tell me that -- not waveforms or ratings.

My initial response was to agree with these two gentlemen - music is subjective, so I think any attempt to simplify it down to one data point misses the mark. What sounds good to me may sound like crap to you, and vice versa.

But a little further analysis shows that Dan's post has a DR rating of 8, which clearly makes it invalid. That led me to examine Chris's post, and...well, here's the waveform. Let your eyes be the judge of how good it sounds...

It's simply a fairly accurate representation of how much volume compression has been added to a recording by the mastering engineer.

I am aware aware that some people prefer loud, screechy "Loudness Wars" mastering. I am not one of them.

Compression tends to work best with metal music but even then sometimes they overdo it (like the Motley Crüe remasters).

My post is compressed crap, N/R'd and clearly lacking in dynamic range.No "breath of life." Disregard everything I've said.

Waveforms are your friend.

If you put green marker around mine, and listen in a yellow room, it will sound fine.

Wayne Green, R.I.P.

NOW it's compressed!

When I wear my tin foil hat, the waveforms come in clearer.

Kids, the problem isn't with the "DR meter" or waveforms, IT'S WITH THE NEED FOR THEM. I strongly suggest that the skeptics Google "loudness wars" with an open mind.

The problem originally started with the radio stations wanting to be louder than their competitors in the days of vinyl. So mastering engineers were instructed to make records louder & louder.

With digital it got progressively worse, for several reasons:

1. If a record is too loud, the needle will literally jump off the vinyl. That limited the amount of compression they could use. Obviously, with digital that isn't the case. Analog also tends to sound warmer. It may or may not be more accurate, but it does tend to be warmer.

2. For several reasons, digital tends to be bright in the upper midrange/lower treble (1-4k). Compression also tends to add brightness in this range, & many engineers add eq there also, to make it even louder.

3. The last few years it's gotten much worse, as the current generation is used to this loud, screechy sound that hides detail & doesn't sound like real instruments (electric or acoustic). Some of the earliest badly compressed cd's sound stunning in comparison with today's AWFUL mastering: the Ryko Bowie's, the 90's Jackson Browne remasters, the Dan Fogelberg Box, & the Martin Turner remix of Wishbone Ash's Argus are a few heavily compressed earlier cd's that come to mind. They're quite unpleasant, but compare them to what's being done to many of today's artists, & all of a sudden they don't sound so bad!

Folks the DR 3's & 4's that we're starting to see are basically waveforms; there isn't any music left. A DR1 would be nothing but noise & a waveform (literally), & we are now starting to see the occasional 3. Just a couple years ago, a 6 or 7 corresponded to unlistenable, & that's now becoming the norm. There are legitimate places for compression (I couldn't play hard rock guitar without it for one; it's also helpful at times on Electric Bass, drums & even a vocalist who's volume varies); but it destroys music when over used.

I joke a lot about hating things, & yes I do hate the Loudness Wars; but I LOVE real sounding music. It adds so much to the experience. And there was no need for the loudness wars except for greed & the sheep like acceptance by the public of the many cd's that are horribly mastered.

--

Here's the thing - the reason (and probably others) blow off the strident complaining is for a couple things. First, many of the people doing the complaining, don't really know what they're talking about - they've read some articles and followed some arguments and seen some pictures, but they don't really know what those pictures mean.

A very common complaint I've seen is about "the waveform." But guess what? Every one of these is a waveform.







The assumption is that the axis of all of these plots is time vs amplitude, but in a lot of the debates I've seen no one ever identifies it. Also, without being given the scale, it's impossible to tell whether the waveform in question represents a good recording or a bad one.

And before anyone asks, I spent 20 years as a signal analyst, so I've got a little bit of experience looking at these things.

So again, it's not that I don't understand the "loudness wars," it's that most of the time the argument isn't worth my time. Yes, music is overly compressed these days, yes I dislike it. In the end though, a wave plot isn't a decisive argument - what you hear with your ears is a better indicator of whether something is satisfactory for your listening pleasure, as has already been mentioned, that's entirely subjective.

I don't disagree. If a "DR2" sounded great, I'd be ok (I hope!). I have found that MOST of the time, the "DR" tool does correlate with what I hear.

My earlier statement, "A DR1 would be nothing but noise & a waveform (literally)," might have made more sense to some of I had said something like a "DR1 would be nothing but white noise or a sonic boom."

I do not buy into any of this "Brickwalled" DR-Whatever Bull Pucky. I judge with my own ears.

For me the DR meter has some validity.

A few months back after hearing of DR ratings I grabbed about 40 CDs randomly out of my collection (some manufactured in the 80's, some current, in a couple situations took a couple different masterings of the same album, etc) listened to them, gave them a grade based on my impression of the mastering and then compared it to the DR values and the correlation between my ears and the rating was pretty good. But my ears seem to be much more forgiving than many of the audiophiles. Many of those folks say anything under a DR11 is crap. To me anything a DR9 or better is good, DR7 and DR8 is the grey area and a DR6 or less is crap. There are exceptions, but I'd bet about 80% of the time that's the way my ears hear it.

For me the DR has become essential when deciding to pick up a remastered version of an old classic that I already own. I don't think a DR value will ever steer me away from music I don't have. But if I have a CD from the 90's that is a DR12 and a new remaster is a DR6, there is no reason for me to spend money on the remaster because my experience tells me my ears will greatly prefer the version I already have...I'll find something I don't already have in my collection and spend the money on that instead.

I would say that under DR9 tends to really bother me. I do prefer 11, but can live with 9 or 10.

The "DR Meter" simply shows the average amount of dynamic range in a given recording (quietest part of a recording to loudest part)

I've had one or 2 experiences where is did not correlate with what I heard, but 99% of the time it does correlate with what I hear, & that works for me.


and I'd stay away at minimum from 8 without thinking twice.

This is very long, but is worthwhile (if you have better luck with Google/YouTube then I do)

Why Modern Music Sounds Bad - Loudness War

--