Is the DR database really accurate for vinyl?

Thanks for joining in on the conversation!
I would say that I agree with you about the different pre amp/cart combos to a certain extent but what I have found is that only affects the DR ratings by a db maybe 2 at the most. I haven't found that it makes a 4db difference in the results. I had mentioned earlier that I experimented in messing with the EQ to get different DR results and I could only make a db maybe 2 of a difference but only when I made extreme adjustments (+10 to 12db) to the high or low frequencies.

 

I just did a test on an old brickwalled CD of mine by Abandoned Pools, and the track "Waiting to Panic". DR6 on the ripped track and it has that fat sound we'd expect from a modern pop/rock CD.

So I took the track, knocked the amplification down to -6db, de-clipped it and upped the treble just a bit (since I prefer that sound). Then re-checked the DR rating -- DR10 now. And, even compensating the volume on the original track so the loudness between the two is similar, the "new" file is noticeably "better" - less fat, less crushed. And, of course, complete trickery. Perhaps not as "warm" as a vinyl drop but if I messed with the mids maybe I could tweak that too.

I know this about modern vinyl - it could be trickery and it's why I have to factor in that risk vs. the price factor. Usually if it's something I really want and it's only a few dollars more than the CD copy I might take a chance. I'll also try to contact the label sometimes because if it was a 24/96 source used I might take the risk because of that, as well.

 

I think the de-clipping is the main reason for your DR boost more than anything. I bet if you don't do that and only adjusted the EQ the DR rating wouldn't be anymore than 7 maybe 8.

 

Of course I needed to test this. Again, same exact DR6 source file for testing, dropped to -6db to allow some headroom for the changes:

- Just the EQ... DR9
- Just the de-click... DR8

So it's really a combination of both, with the EQ being the stronger factor of the two.

 

iZotope Vinyl
The ultimate lo-fi weapon.

 

That's very unfair to Ian Shepherd. A mastering engineer who isn't working in a niche audiophile market must deliver a master that is approved by the artist, producer or record company. If he didn't do that, he wouldn't be working much.

 

That goes to the point I'm making too since I think this also could be exaggerated peaks possibly caused by inaudible clicks/pops for lack of a better term. It definitely related to how your setup picks up the information off the record although it could partially be how your record was pressed compared to how his was pressed and the fact that they were probably pressed with different plates. Vinyl pressing is such an inaccurate process it's amazing that they sound as good as they do.

 

It looks like your cartridge tracks much better, that would explain the huge differences in the sudden peaks.

 

I hear you and I figured that's what those were. What I was saying and I could be wrong is I have noticed on some of my needle drops when I have a loud peak it sometimes gets obviously overexagerated by something the needle/cartridge is doing in that grove. I was calling a click/pop for lack of a better short explanation. I usually can de-click these down to more realistic levels without being able to hear a difference in the final product.

 

I think the only answer is to use your ears and then go back and try and determine why there is a difference. I recently bought the MOV Brutal Youth Reissue and compared it to the CD which is clearly the original uncompressed mastering. The two sound pretty near identical in spite of the two different chains which you would expect introduce different colourations. Just guess my set up is pretty neutral for both vinyl or CD. Alternatively colourations in different equipment have relatively little effect compared with recording and mastering choices. It appears that Brutal Youth was mixed to 16/44.1 so vinyl should not give any greater resolution than CD.

The situation is going to be very different with an analogue recording. A vinyl mastered from the original analogue tape is going to sound very different to a CD made from a digital transfer. That still doesn't mean DR is any better from vinyl unless the CD has been brickwalled (a modern remaster). CD may have wider DR but it will likely sound inferior due to the limitations of 16 bit resolution. Conclusion DR readings tell us very little in comparing how a recording sounds on the 2 formats.

 

Right, so now we can see that not only is comparing waveforms of vinyl and CD innacurate and misleading, so is comparing vinyl to vinyl.

 

Great point! It just goes to show how skewed those DR numbers can be with vinyl and how you just can't take them for granted.

 

Does the 2nd one by your friend seem to have a louder average level though?

 

I think his point was you can't even do a vinyl to vinyl comparison when looking at the DR ratings. Your examples prove that. Same mastering, same release, different results.

 

True. The setup becomes the constant and then you can compare the two pressings off that, as long as the setup is unchanged.

 

What about the RIAA curve of the two phono pres used by the two parties? those could easily be account able for the bass being different on the two.

Also, the mastering file being used to cut the vinyl goes thru that curve, and then a different one is used to play it back on a consumers system in the phono, so there is no way the two will match the exact frequencies that were boosted or cut the same once that is done. So that might account for a dB or two....or more if you have a crappy RIAA curve. Might lose the energy, or might give a lot more in others.

 

Ian, welcome here, and thanks for the Video, very informative.

In the video, looking at the CD waveform, we can see the limiting but there is headroom above that. Did you lower the CD file to volume match with the vinyl clip? I am assuming so.

 

I think we can say pretty confidently that something in the analog chain, most likely in playback rather than production, makes digitized vinyl read higher on the DR meter than a comparable digital file or CD.

I confess I was surprised that a common master would produce a 4dB - and 50% - difference in DR. But I've often seen identical masters produce 1 or 2dB differences, and occasionally 3dB differences.

On the other hand, I think the video in the original post here clearly indicates that vinyl (as a whole playback system, not just an LP record) adds something that's technically coloration and/or distortion and/or inaccuracy - which nonetheless sounds to many ears like an improvement when applied to certain digitally limited masters.

Anyone who says they prefer vinyl rips over CDs must have the experience of the vinyl rip sounding warmer, less crispy on the high end, and more airy, with a little more dimensionality to cymbals, or bass transients, or both. I'll bet a lot of that is imperfections in the vinyl LP and vinyl playback system that are softening the blow of some stuff we don't like in the original master.

 

So, the same source file is used to create different masterings.
Because they are not the same mastering, they sound different.

No surprise there...

If we trust the video author opinion as a fact, the TT Meter is getting fooled by the way these sound differences are being presented and interpreting them as increased dynamic range (by a large difference in the reading, not just 1 or 2 dB) when in fact there was no dynamic range difference in the source file (the same file was used for both masterings).

We don't know exactly why this happens, and because of that we can't say if any reading is accurate regardless of what format is being tested, or can we reliably compare readings from different masterings (and/or formats) because we don't know exactly what aspects of the mastering or format playback are contributing for this deviance in the DR reading.

I'd say that this is not surprising, the TT meter is just a tool with a very limited scope of "action", just like all other tools. It will not tell you "the truth, nothing but the truth, and so help you..."... it's a tool, it will do it's job always in the same way (if it's a good tool) looking at "data" with the exact same "looking glass" regardless of what is there to see... and it's the tool operator's job to look at the result and make the necessary interpretation and technical contextualization.

This tells us nothing, really absolutely NOTHING about the general topic of modern CD vs modern vinyl releases and which sounds better. Does it? So let's not confuse things and leave that aside...

It does raise a few questions though:

Is it completely impossible that the average DR of the two masterings is different even though the same source file was used? (considering none of them was limited more than the other on purpose of course)
If the answer is no... how much real average DR difference would be normal? 1dB, 2dB? Not 4dB?

This is very interesting... how can these mastering techniques (and maybe inherent format characteristics but I'd say that is part of the mastering itself) change the sound presentation in such a way that it is perceived (and measured) as having more dynamic range? Doesn't that actually qualify as really having more dynamic range, if you can hear it and measure it? As strange as that might sound... the underlying question is this: can the mastering increase the average DR of the source?

Going by logic, I'd say the answer is no. But what if DR readings say otherwise (and not just from TT Meter)? What if our listening says otherwise?

What's the relation between Dynamic Range and EQ? Between DR and multiple "digital conversion" steps? Between DR and vinyl noise floor? How can it be affected during the mastering and/or during a format playback?