Taylor Swift is louder than AC/DC, Motorhead & The Sex Pistols!

In this case, loud is a misnomer. They can make the vinyl just as compressed as the CD, but the vinyl is cut from analog, so it is first converted to analog and signal level is set to whatever is needed for the cutter based on the playback and mastering electronics chain.

 

what a ridiculous premise

 

If the final EQd master used for the CD is converted to analogue for the vinyl, wouldn't that make the vinyl just as compressed and with little dynamic range, even if it does not sound so loud?

 

Yes, but there are other mechanisms at work in that conversion process, so the vinyl playback captured to digital won't necessarily measure the same as the original CD if it was highly compressed and limited in the digital domain. Not sure what you mean by "not sound so loud", it will still sound "loud" compared to a record made with less compression. The "loudness" is related to the average level of the music, which should be the same if they were both made from the same source.

 

true I usually get her vinyl rather than the CD but this one took forever - I'll still probably get it though - 6 is bad but not nearly the worst - she seems to care about both sound and sales and to make a compromise but her vinyl has sounded pretty good. oh I guess I'll get the vinyl soon enough - the CD which I bought when it came out sounds pretty good in the car but not so good on the stereo in terms of dynamic range. But it's FAR from the worst. Look at that chart! They are comparing to AC/DC and Motorhead from a past millennium....

 

If Taylor Swift would join Motorhead, I'd totally quit my job and follow them around like the Deadheads used to do with the Dead.

 

Lack of dynamics & low album TT DR value doesn't always translate into higher perceived loudness... Here are 2 loudest discs in my otherwise healthy CD collection:

- Oasis - Stop the Clocks - CD2 (album RG=-12.56dB)

Code:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analyzed: Oasis / Stop The Clocks - CD2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
DR  Peak  RMS  Duration Track
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DR4  -0.09 dB  -5.42 dB  4:37 01-Live Forever
DR5  -0.09 dB  -5.27 dB  4:24 02-Acquiesce
DR6  0.00 dB  -6.50 dB  4:35 03-Supersonic
DR8  -0.69 dB  -11.48 dB  4:15 04-Half The World Away
DR5  -0.09 dB  -5.82 dB  4:42 05-Go Let It Out
DR7  -1.29 dB  -9.68 dB  2:06 06-Songbird
DR5  -0.09 dB  -5.71 dB  5:02 07-Morning Glory
DR3  -0.09 dB  -5.81 dB  7:29 08-Champagne Supernova
DR5  -0.09 dB  -5.53 dB  4:54 09-Don't Look Back In Anger
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Number of tracks:  9
Official DR value: DR5
 
Samplerate:  44100 Hz
Channels:  2
Bits per sample:  16
Bitrate:  1000 kbps
Codec:  FLAC

- Oasis - Stop The Clocks - CD1 (album RG=-12.51dB)

Code:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analyzed: Oasis / Stop The Clocks - CD1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
DR  Peak  RMS  Duration Track
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DR5  -0.09 dB  -5.76 dB  5:21 01-Rock 'N' Roll Star
DR4  0.00 dB  -4.88 dB  5:11 02-Some Might Say
DR7  -1.79 dB  -10.56 dB  4:20 03-Talk Tonight
DR5  -0.09 dB  -5.52 dB  5:11 04-Lyla
DR6  -0.09 dB  -6.94 dB  3:41 05-The Importance Of Being Idle
DR6  -0.09 dB  -7.20 dB  4:19 06-Wonderwall
DR5  -0.69 dB  -6.13 dB  6:14 07-Slide Away
DR5  -0.06 dB  -5.94 dB  4:48 08-Cigarettes & Alcohol
DR4  -0.09 dB  -6.97 dB  5:21 09-The Masterplan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Number of tracks:  9
Official DR value: DR5
 
Samplerate:  44100 Hz
Channels:  2
Bits per sample:  16
Bitrate:  980 kbps
Codec:  FLAC

These 2 are a tad louder than notorious RHCP - Californication (TT DR6; album RG=-12.31dB) & even Black Sabbath - 13 [bonus CD] (TT DR4; album RG=-12.37dB)...

 

I was under the impression that 1989 by Taylor Swift was only loud due to how it was mastered, and nothing else. If the vinyl is sourced from the same digital master, the vinyl is not going to give you that dynamic range which was crushed during the mastering process. Once the dynamic range has been squashed on the EQd master it can't be un-squashed.

The other guy on this thread said the vinyl edition of 1989 has a DR rating of 11, which is good dynamic range.

 

^^^ There was a 2-part thread on accuracy of TT DR values for vinyl a while ago, actually:

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/is-the-dr-database-really-accurate-for-vinyl.330706/
http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/is-the-dr-database-really-accurate-for-vinyl-pt2.333229/

 

Shows OK Computer in the DR10 range...more like DR7, eh?

 

OK, but I'm not sure what you are responding to in my post. The digital data on the CD is not analog. If you take that same CD and play it back while converting back to digital, and then measure it again, it will probably measure better than before. Some of the tools that are abused in the creating of the squashed CD masters create digital waveforms that are not very representative of what the analog signal looks like when reconstructed. I think the DR Database tool attempts to measure using oversampling filters, but probably doesn't do a good enough job on some of these badly mastered CDs. On the other hand, it does seem to be fairly accurate when comparing better mastered CD and vinyl, both old and new, and audiophile type releases that are done in both formats. Are you saying it is known that the vinyl and CD for this TS release were mastered from the same source without any "extra" work on either?

 

More good news for vinyl. It seems that the good news is unending although I guess an album at digital zero will be hard to top.

But as long as they move asymptotically from 1 down to zero it could be unending.

 

I doubt most sales are even physical. Probably should offer audiophile download vs. standard or "club" version. I prefer looking at Taylor to listening to her anyway. Once she dropped the last vestiges of her country trappings, I stopped buying.

 

i agree in that one can not sight one single title & declare that sales for said album constitutes LOUD wins "The Loudness Wars".
"Frozen" sold because of the movie and music & "1989" would have sold w/a higher dynamic range as well, cause its more about the personality and videos appose too the lack of dynamic range.
----------------------------------------------------------------
"Brothers In Arms by Dire Straits is the album with the lowest DR number, being DR16... "
"BiA" has the highest listed # not the "lowest".

 

Here's a download of the report on BBC Radio 4's The World Tonight (27/04/2015) about the loudness wars, including an interview with and a demonstration by Ian Shepherd of Mastering Media Ltd in Cambridgeshire, England.

It's a 320kbps MP3 file, lasts for 4.02 minutes, was sourced from the digital satellite broadcast of BBC Radio 4 and was edited by yours truly.

https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=DA502D850D997AE2!3745&authkey=!ABkuWQ0pcfY19nQ&ithint=file,mp3

 

Pft.....Swift and Metallica still have to beat the kings.

 

This IS a case where the vinyl master is considerably more dynamic than the digital. I like to point that out because it's not necessarily the case....the mythos that one can't limit a vinyl master to the degree they can CD is dead incorrect. I have modern vinyl presses that are less dynamic than their DR6 (or 7 maybe) CD.

Now, if only the majority of that disparity wasn't the consistent transient of a drum machine peaking loudest in the mix.

 

Ian Shepherd has explained why DR values are not accurate for vinyl and why you can't use them to compare digital and vinyl versions of the same album.

 

Would just like to note that Ian Shepherd caught a lot of flack from some folks here for the (IMHO ridiculous) charge of not being sufficiently "anti loudness" - and here he is getting worldwide exposure for our cause. So I hope those folks will give Ian credit where credit is due!

 

I think it's more accurate to say that he has tried to explain, and as testikoff pointed out above, there was a very lengthy thread here where he and others offered many theories, but in the end, I don't think it was fully resolved, especially the premise that the DR Database tool is not accurate for vinyl. It may even be safer to say that it isn't accurate on the typical highly compressed and limited CDs produced now, even though that was the original intent for it's use. Pick out a well mastered album and compare, the CD and vinyl will have close to the same value.

 

Come on, album TT DR8+ value was Ian's acceptable number (goal even), IIRC...

 

Minimum goal.

 

Ah, I was trying to find this the other day. The thing is... in the comparison that supposedly shows that digitally sourced vinyl is no different than the cd, I thought the vinyl sounded better, which led me to believe that there IS some validity to DR ratings for vinyl.

 

Interesting enough my local newbury comics now puts up a Display of "Top 10 Selling Vinyl Albums" & taylor has been in the #2 spot for a few weeks since they started doing this .

 

Thanks !!! ~~~


For me i always found Pop cd's a little more forgiving on my ears vs. loud mastered Rock cd which i just can't stand .....