What is Considered bad DR?

What number is considered bad dynamic range on an album? The DR Database has from 00 to 14+. The numbers from 0 to 7 are red, but I am guessing that there is a huge difference between them. I heard someone here calling Oasis's Morning Glory "diabolical" which has a DR of 05. What about an album with 06 or 07? Are those then "bad" but not "diabolical?

 

Depends on the music in question. Don't think there's one magic figure which applies across the board I'm afraid.

 

First and foremost, your ears are the best judge. Looking at a prescribed number can never tell you what level of enjoyment you're going to get from something. You like what you like, no matter the DR value.

Secondly, the color coding on the DR database is arbitrary. It doesn't mean a whole lot, to be honest.

Finally, generally speaking - and not taking into account your own personal taste - the higher the number the better. However, it's not something you can use in a blanket fashion. For example, the original CD of Alan Parsons Turn of a Friendly Card, had a high DR number - but the CD is very poor as a listening experience. On the other hand, Judas Priest's last album has a very low DR number, and much praise was heaped on it here.

You won't find agreement on what is best . Some think DR8 is abysmal, others not. It's a case by case basis, imo.

 

The US country singer Carrie Underwood hasn’t done many albums, but they all look like this:

Album list - Dynamic Range Database

 

For classical music I'd say anything below 13 can be considered bad or at least not good in terms of dynamics. For jazz music I'd draw the line at 10 (even though I'd much rather see higher). For rock and pop music I'd say:
3-4: brickwalled to death
5-6: way too compressed, fatiguing
7-8: louder than it needs to be
9-10: OK, at least in terms of dynamics
11-14: I hardly get to see this on new CDs, but I think they all should be up here.

 

So much red, this is really diabolical! LOL

 

Hmm that's what I think too, it seems that for me anything over 7 is fine. Of course yeah it would be better if it was all in the greens. I have noticed that the albums that sound bloated and loud tend to be under 7. Some 6's are acceptable, but yeah 5s and 4s have all sounded like crap to my ears.

 

One song I think has way too much dynamic range is Chuck Mangioni's "Land Of Make Believe", from the "Concert" LP.

 

Ouch! Thanks for the warning...not that I even know who she is.

 

She’s primarily known for having some of the worst sounding albums in country music.

She’s currently one of the biggest female acts in the genre.

 

For me, it's the number that fatigues the ear after 5 songs or so. It's basically when you get into single digits with DR.

There is a huge difference in dynamics between an 11/12 vs 8/9. I can listen to DR 11 all day long at reasonably cranked volumes and be ok. At 8/9, it starts to get tiring.

From there, it gets worse. Titles at 7, or 5 - this is, in my opinion, unlistenable stuff. Everything is the same volume - a whisper, and a cannon. At those levels you hear compression artifacts, too, most commonly a "pumping" effect when something that should have been very loud happens, and due to the compression everything else gets lower in volume for a moment. The back and forth is the pump. You can hear it with drums and vocals.

Now, this is not to say that a low DR can't be an artistic expression. It's all fair game. My comments mostly apply to music that spent decades in DR12+ form, and has been remastered to single digits. Should be a crime with jail time.

 

After listening to a lot of stuff, I also arrived at DR 10 as my minimum and DR 11-12 (or more) as a "golden standard". Sometimes there's a very good remaster which is 1-2 DB lower than the original version which was DR 12-13 and I'm also fine with that. But I agree - a single digit DR should exist only as artistic intention.

 

There's really no call for that kind of compression, especially when you see (and hear) country music done right courtesy of the late great Doug Sax.

Album details - Dynamic Range Database

 

I wouldn't even go that far. Oasis be damned.

 

Hmmm I don’t think I have come across her, although I do not have a good awareness of that genre. And with numbers like that, I feel tired already.

 

She has quite a shrill, piercing voice anyway, so it’s an odd mastering choice.

 

A lot of the problem depends on the ability of your equipment to handle it.

There is nothing wrong with the original Nimbus pressed Creation CD of What's The Story. Neither is there any problem with the 5.1 SACD. And there is certainly nothing wrong with the LP.

 

It is amazing when you listening to a mastering by someone like Doug Sax and follow it up with a debacle like Oasis. The louder masterings are unlistenable. There is no magic number, but stay away from those redder numbers on the DR website.

Some mild compression can sound OK on heavy rock records because it gives a then a feeling of more punch, but a little goes a long way. The AC/DC , and Red Hot Chili Peppers remasters are examples of how bad things can sound if the music is squashed.

 

It depends on the content, if it’s meant to be loud, but doesn’t clip or distort, a low DR can sound fine imo. Example, I think the Mastered for iTunes 24/96 version of Metallica’s Death Magnetic sounds pretty damn good for what DR it is.

 

Anything under 10 for the whole album.
The first Boston non remastered disc has a DR of 10. That's my personal benchmark. But ideally you want 11 or better.
Unfortunately, almost all modern masterings are single digits.

 

Some of you have really high standards, I can listen to whole albums on 7 just fine without fatigue, most of those sound good to me.

 

While we’re here I’d like to know why the ‘smiley-face’ EQ is a bad thing: sounds good to me..

Boost the bass, boost the treble. Why not?

 

Dynamic range is cool.
Too much is not... you go from inaudible to ear melting, and therefor don't really hear the whole song. Too little ends up flat.

Each to their own, but although I have heard many discs that run a bit too flat, I have never had ear fatigue in my life ... I am not really even sure what on earth that could be to be honest

The numbers mean nothing to me really

 

Depends on the album I guess. Most would say that the way the album is mastered is the way it is supposed to sound.
I haven't use EQ on my playback since I was a teen, but when I was a teen, Smiley Face was my go to lol

 

Because they've departed from the master tape for all of us. And depending on how they did the boosts, it may be hard to reverse engineer. Particularly if we are talking about non-digital content. You as an individual may want to turn up your bass and treble, but don't turn up mine! An audiophile doesn't want the color added.