Dynamic Range Analysis 1970-present: updated

A few years ago I generated a few graphs using data from the DR database and shared them here: Dynamic Range Analysis 1970-present

I've updated these analyses using data up to last weekend. Thought folk may be interested in seeing what may have changed. More info here: Dynamic Range Analysis 1970-present

A few things I noted:

1. DRs generally are getting lower (perhaps due to lossy sources)
2. Vinyl is getting better
3. Lossless sources are staying the same

 

Very interesting.

I think this helps explain the differences between those who make a fuss about DR values and those who can't understand why DR is helpful.

As can be seen by your graphs, we have basically had 20 years of low DR. So for many, perhaps even most, here at this forum a low DR is normal, and so, if they can hear dynamics, DR9 sounds dynamic, and DR5 isn't. So for them how someone can complain about a DR9 recording is a mystery.

As a proud old-fart my standard is pre-1980 and the very early days of CD. So for me DR12 is what I expect, DR9 usually sound very compressed, and lots lower than DR9 is unlistenable.

 

You say vinyl is getting better but you cannot trust DR values of vinyl rips they are not accurate.

 

That assumes young people dont listen to old music.

 

Don't confuse using DR to compare using DR to compare CD with vinyl with using DR to compare vinyl to vinyl.

Have you got a reason for thinking DR of vinyl rips can't be used to compare different vinyl rips?

And note that we all agree that very different EQ values can change the DR of the same master, but this isn't the reason why most masters differ in DR.

 

I asume that most young people mostly listen to music that is less than 20 years old

And if you listen to music older than 20 years that has been bought in the last 20 years then it is pretty common for only compressed remasters to be available, so even though old music is being listened to this is through the filter of modern remastering.

When I complain here about a recording being only DR9 pretty much everyone who disagrees says that the recording sounds great to them (and thus I'm wrong to complain).

If someone said that yes, it is compressed, but that doesn't bother them, then that is different because who am I to say that they should have my audio taste. But I dont' get this. Rather it is that it now seems that most here can't hear the difference between DR12 and DR9. As seen by the graphs, DR9 has been normal for about 20 years.

 

Is the DR database really accurate for vinyl?

 

That is about is the DR database really accurate for comparing vinyl with CD.

The question for the table above is whether DR is accurate for comparing changes in vinyl over the years.

That is a very different question.

 

All good points - perhaps I was wrong to write 'getting better'. This is all subjective and, as pointed out, relies on the rips. But, given the sample size (>8000 for vinyl, 98k for non-vinyl), the trends are what could be useful.

These variations (smooth changes etc) would be highly unlikely to be the result of, say, the software used to write a wav file or the cartridge (who would replace their cartridge each year to one of a differing DR-reading capability?). And let's not go to interconnects or gold-plated kettle leads... Also, someone ripping a new vinyl pressing in year n would likely be using the same system to rip a pressing from year n-20, e.g. So average all this and we'd get a fairly useful trend. Irrespective of the arguments over the validity of DR measurements of vinyl and their magnitude. But I'm no statistician!

 

Some very worthwhile indications of trend. Obviously there will be extraneous/confounding variables that skew the findings (possibly more than one such variable from the needledrop process), but the trend is still clearly established. I would be interested to go back before 1970 to map (the commonly cited) claim that dynamic range compression was employed by producers in that era for AM radio airplay. Is there a post-1970 reduction in compression (more obvious than what can already be seen here) as FM started to become more dominant?

 

I presume CDs are in lossless?
What data represents lossless pre-cd age? You have lossless data going back to 1970?

 

As someone who grew up from a kid through to adulthood during 90% of that entire graph and who didn't have a clue about dynamic Range until about 10 or 15 years ago, I find it interesting casting my mind back remembering my thoughts on the changes at the time, I can remember my thoughts at the time and it's quite funny now to re evaluate them with some basic knowledge.
The louder tracks were initially irritating but also welcome as I was doing lots of listening via personal music players of one sort or another at the time in the late 80s / 90s, it was fashionable or law maybe at the time to place quite low max volume limits on them, so louder tracks would give you that extra boost you needed in noisy environments, I was also moving from vinyl as my main home listening media over to CD, as a kid with a crap mini system turntable & CD player, the louder, compressed cds with more bass sounded much better then my dynamic vinyl which sounded flat and tinny on the rubbish system.
What's interesting remembering back now is without realising I was already getting sick of the lack of dynamic sound and the increasing compressed nature of music.
With regards listening to music that's compressed and has poor dynamics I can see why its happened and why it spread so quickly and widely.
Listening to it is like having a mini sugar rush or a nicotine boost, its loud, punchy and in your face, but without realising it the buzz soon wears off, the flat wall of sound begins to grate on the ears slowly, you don't hear the subtle tones and levels in the music and your ears get frustrated and bored, bass is nearly always set too high so when you introduce any sort of sound enhancement it all gets muddy and distorted, if your listening to a compilation from various sources, after a few loud songs your soon glad to get to a one with more dynamic Range.
I can also see it not improving for many years due to the way people listen to music, compressed sources though docking stations. Music with little DR suits these and makes them sound better, someone was showing me there £600 Bose docking station last year, remarking how good it sounded, had to dig deep into the soul on that one.

 

Here's the complete data set going back to 1955. I've added in the count values for each year too. You can see we get some pretty ropey figures...

I did my best to make sure each entry was classified as it should - so CDs in lossless etc. Pre-CD entries marked lossless I assume are CDs of those masters from that era (if people have entered the data correctly). Remasters of old albums should be given the year of the remaster.

This isn't 100% accurate as one could spend far, far too long on data cleansing...

 

I too am sensitive to DR, and my standard is similar to yours: DR-11 is basically my tipping point, meaning 12 or above is preferred, 11 I can live with, DR-10 or below is undesirable and I will only purchase if there are no better options (meaning if it is a legacy album I will actively search older versions with acceptable DR). What I want in a CD is DR that is equal to the original release on vinyl (if the original release was before the CD era) or CD.

The exception? When I believe low DR was an artistic choice of the band at the time the record was made. E.g., I'm an Oasis fan, and records like Morning Glory were originally released in a highly compressed state, because that's how the band wanted it to sound. So I want my copy to have that original DR, not something more expansive. So I am not anti- low DR in principle, what I object too is low DR that is inconsistent with the original release.

For another example, right now, I'm listening to the 1993 remastered version of Aerosmith's Rocks on CD. It has DR 11 with a tight range of min 10, max 12. Not ideal, on the border, but so far I'm sticking with this. I know the original 1976 vinyl is better, but at DR-12 not by enough to repurchase.

FWIW, i do NOT consider DR to be the be-all, end-all of overall sound quality. But to me it's a necessary condition: if DR is low, then I am unlikely to enjoy the record no matter what other sonic qualities it has.

 

It doesnt matter if it's lossless or not the DR will be the same.