What is Dynamic Range and why it matters?

[sachinchavan 15865]

A comprehensive (but basic) article covering many of the points in this thread:

Understanding Dynamic Range in Audio

What is dynamic range and how does it affect music? We'll break down the basics in this article.

emastered.com

 

[mbhangui]

We have been discussing the dynamic range of various genres and point to be noted is that amongst the classical music, only the western classical has a high dynamic range. Not indian classical. Dynamic contrast is generally not an important proponent of Indian Classical Music. Much of the music is soft and reflective and other music is loud and more boisterous, but generally, a single piece of music sticks to one volume throughout to accompany the mood that is being developed via the raag.

 

[arj]

We have been discussing the dynamic range of various genres and point to be noted is that amongst the classical music, only the western classical has a high dynamic range. Not indian classical. Dynamic contrast is generally not an important proponent of Indian Classical Music. Much of the music is soft and reflective and other music is loud and more boisterous, but generally, a single piece of music sticks to one volume throughout to accompany the mood that is being developed via the raag.

Indian classical and classical based film music is about microdynamics ie the subtle variations in pitch and tone which also not so easy to get right. even in western music instruments like a rattle is used and the ability of the system to flesh that out as well as show the difference between each shake . so while the macro dynamics can come in , the micro is what which can get lost.

 

[sachinchavan 15865]

Indian classical and classical based film music is about microdynamics ie the subtle variations in pitch and tone which also not so easy to get right. even in western music instruments like a rattle is used and the ability of the system to flesh that out as well as show the difference between each shake . so while the macro dynamics can come in , the micro is what which can get lost.

Very true. Is there anything in the recording/mastering that could also affect how well or not the microdynamics in the original rendition are captured? Would compressions also affect microdynamics like they do macrodynamics? I’d imagine it could, depending on the compression algorithms used.

 

[arj]

Very true. Is there anything in the recording/mastering that could also affect how well or not the microdynamics in the original rendition are captured? Would compressions also affect microdynamics like they do macrodynamics? I’d imagine it could, depending on the compression algorithms used.

Quality of mastering should directly relate to it ie quality of the microphone and equipment used .
Your question of compression and effect on micro is interesting. I can only presume that since amplitude of the entire range is being reduced, there could be a loss there.

 

[square_wave]

I find it to be constant and smooth when the dynamic range is low. With high dynamic range it is distracting and is not soothing, with very high dynamic range if the passage is too low then it almost feels like no music is playing, and if it is too high (especially suddenly) then it is a jolt.

I don't know why a singer would not whisper 30db lower (these things don't matter to me) but I think that based on your post you value accuracy, not necessarily to the signal but to real life music as you perceive it. I value tone above all else.

Interesting, I don't find jazz/Classical to be rich or complex. They may have high dynamic range on some recordings but I don't listen to these genres. I think the reason is simple, they make what sells. I primarily listen to Rock,Metal and Electronic. A bit of Pop. Maybe that will help you understand the preference for low dynamic range as these genres often have low dynamic range and many people look down on these genres for their low dynamic range, especially those who listen to things like jazz and classical.

Even with Rock music, if you go and listen to live bands, there is way higher dynamic range than what is in their CD / Streaming version. That is what gives "life" to music (along with true tone, of course!). When you hear their CD / Streamed version, you are not hearing anything close to the original. People who only listen to rock / metal and crave for that dynamic range usually assemble music systems that modify the sound to give them a taste of the original. With such music systems, all other music sounds really bad.

All music has big dynamic range. The preference ( or need ) to lower dynamic range is purely to solve a marketing problem. Nothing else.

Jazz and classical music are not "things" ! If you talk to real rock musicians and get to know their background and influences, a lot of it has to do with Jazz, classical and blues.

Cheers!

 

[Decadent_Spectre]

Even with Rock music, if you go and listen to live bands, there is way higher dynamic range. That is what gives "life" to music. All music has big dynamic range. The preference ( or need ) to lower dynamic range is purely to solve a marketing problem. Nothing else.

Jazz and classical music are not "things" ! If you talk to real rock musicians and get to know their background and influences, a lot of it has to do with Jazz, classical and blues.

Cheers!

Way higher dynamic range than? There is no "life" in music, it is music, and if there was it certainly doesn't come from dynamic range. No it doesn't. No it isn't to solve a marketing problem, it actually sounds better to many people, any suggestion to the contrary is just a guy thinking his preference is superior.

jazz and classical are boring and uninspired. Things is fitting for them from my perspective. Some musicians may find some influence in some jazz and classical, that really doesn't mean anything other than some musicians took inspiration from these genres when creating completely different music.

 

[Phew]

Way higher dynamic range than?

Your collection of FREE music that you like to listen.

 

[keith_correa]

Most high dynamic range music to me sounds raw, unmusical and makes extended listening very uncomfortable. That's the reason a live outdoor gig to me sounds bad. I don't think people go to hear live gigs for the sonics - it's the atmosphere and nothing compares to that. That is probably what contributes to "life" to the music, IMO. If that's "life" in music, give me "death" or "half life" any day. But this is me. YMMV!
Case in point - listen to one of the greatest live outdoor gigs - "Live Aid". Gives me a massive headache!

 

[Decadent_Spectre]

Your collection of FREE music that you like to listen.

Not sure I understand.

Most high dynamic range music to me sounds raw, unmusical and makes extended listening very uncomfortable. That's the reason a live outdoor gig to me sounds bad. I don't think people go to hear live gigs for the sonics - it's the atmosphere and nothing compares to that. That is probably what contributes to "life" to the music, IMO. If that's "life" in music, give me "death" or "half life" any day. But this is me. YMMV!
Case in point - listen to one of the greatest live outdoor gigs - "Live Aid". Gives me a massive headache!

I agree with this. I made a similar post a few days ago somewhere.

 

[ssf]

Your collection of FREE music that you like to listen.

Really ? Are we doing this now ?

From my limited understanding of dynamics in music, I have listened to music like the one I am listening to now. Diana Krall teaching me the look of love, and this is jazz and I don't find a lot of dynamic range in this song. I have listened to a few rock with quite a bit of dynamic range and yes, in western classical too.

Do I like my music to be devoid of dynamic range ? No, I guess not. The delicate whistle of Klaus makes quite a difference to the Wind of change among numerous other songs that I listen to.

As stated earlier by esteemed members, it boils down to personal preferences and nobody is to judge on how we like our music to be.

 

[grindstone]

My sense is that people are talking about different things. It is desirable to hear (say) 40 violins live, but not a mediocre recording of a live festival of electrified music.

As for "life" in music, it's been my exp that low-sensitivity speakers kill it to the extent any exists in the recording. If you live with high sensitivity speakers, the compression is all you can hear on bad recordings--to the extent that it's a showstopper.

You know how it's obvious, walking into a venue from outside, that an artist is playing or it's PA between sets? Even through walls, we can discern dynamic range.

It's just that there are so many tradeoffs in achieving what we prefer that not all of us are discussing the same things. If you live with 100+ dB speakers, compression will drive you to change all your source material or surrender to lower-sensitivity.

Things are better know (quobuz) than they've been for a while. I also think @arj nailed it with the nugget about how we use music. Sometimes I want that wall of violins to blow me over, sometimes I just want (flat, steady) background music that doesn't distract me from reading HFV threads

 

[Phew]

Really ? Are we doing this now ?

Why else does this thread exist? There is a question and there is an answer.

 

[square_wave]

Most high dynamic range music to me sounds raw, unmusical and makes extended listening very uncomfortable. That's the reason a live outdoor gig to me sounds bad. I don't think people go to hear live gigs for the sonics - it's the atmosphere and nothing compares to that. That is probably what contributes to "life" to the music, IMO. If that's "life" in music, give me "death" or "half life" any day. But this is me. YMMV!
Case in point - listen to one of the greatest live outdoor gigs - "Live Aid". Gives me a massive headache!

Looks like you read the whole thing wrong. there is nothing called " high dynamic range music ".Dynamic range is the difference between the softest and the loudest sound. That is how all music sounds in real life. Any music. So, if you don't like high dynamic range, that means you don't like the natural dynamic range in real unrecorded music . And that sounds like weird logic.

I think you are referring to extremely loud stadium rock. That gives me a headache too. A small rock band playing in a small venue with good acoustics has way better dynamic range. Sheer loudness has nothing to do with dynamics.

Also, people's preference for music has nothing to do with dynamic range.

 

[keith_correa]

Looks like you read the whole thing wrong. there is nothing called " high dynamic range music "

Yes, I used the wrong term when I said "high". I meant "wide".

Dynamic range is the difference between the softest and the loudest sound.

Yes, I know.

That is how all music sounds in real life. Any music. So, if you don't like high dynamic range, that means you don't like the natural dynamic range in real unrecorded music . And that sounds like weird logic.

No, not all music. The width of the dynamic range depends on other factors too including the type/genre/sub-genre of music.

 

[ssf]

Why else does this thread exist? There is a question and there is an answer.

Ok. I guess I read you wrong.

 

[sachinchavan 15865]

The discussions on this thread are vacillating between:
a) dynamic range in the music itself
b) dynamic range in the recording you are playing, and
c) dynamic range your system is reproducing

So, when we discuss correlation between DR and genres, we are on a) above. Certain genres of music are low on DR and suited better to background listening. Some other genres are high on it and compel your to pay attention.

However, there can be exceptions to the above and what matters is the DR in the specific music being being played. Now, this is where discussion b) comes in. All the mixing/mastering/remastering et al that the sound engineers do on the music can either keep the DR in the original piece intact, or reduce it down. This is where the ‘loudness war’ happened. Now, those who have ears/systems that can discern compression wouldn’t usually like DR reduced in this fashion, even if they prefer low DR genres as above. Well, unless you are interested in the loudness too - boom box/parties for example.

And then we get to what kind of speakers and systems produce the music on the record/stream without further compression (discussion c)). Yes, usually high sensitivity speakers do a better job here. But I am not sure if sufficiently amplified low sensitivity speakers won’t (ATC comes to mind). Lots of factors, including the room can affect the DR you actually listen to. And a lot of effort we put on optimising our setup usually goes in preventing further compression.

That is how I understand the thread and the subject now. There can be of course technical imperfections in the above as I am a lay listener. And would be glad to learn from.

Personally, I’d like the best (highest) possible DR in all the above a, b, and c, whether I am listening intently or in the background. It just feels more lively. If I want to do an activity where I don’t want to be distracted, I’d not put the music on. But that’s just me. I can understand those who’d like soft music played in the background like in an elevator/restaurant. I do dig it too, but not from my system. Speaking of system, my main system (a budget setup) has limitations in producing the DR in the recording (c above). However it’s a compromise I have settled for. I could probably get higher DR through more powerful class D amplification in same budget, but then I might lose the tonal accuracy (I know that couid be debated by some, and I hope D class improves soon to the point where it’s not an issue - so much more economical and green that’d be). My desktop (headphone) system however, does a much better job of the dynamics.

 

[prem]

You may find below article from Yamaha intetesting​

​

DYNAMIC RANGE AND MUSICAL GENRE​

All music has some degree of level fluctuation, but some genres tend to have broader dynamic ranges than others. Recorded pop, rock, R&B, hip-hop and country music usually have a relatively modest dynamic range — typically around 10 dB, although there are exceptions. Electronic dance music (EDM) probably has the smallest dynamic range — often in the 6 dB neighborhood — but makes up for it by creating contrast with its almost infinite array of instrument colors and textures coming from synthesizers and samplers.

On the other end of the spectrum are jazz and classical music, which can have considerably large differences between their quietest and loudest parts. In jazz, uptempo songs typically go from loud passages played on brass and saxophone instruments to quiet piano and bass solos. Even in jazz ballads, the dynamic range is usually relatively wide. A study of dynamic range in different musical styles conducted in 2016 revealed that dynamic ranges in jazz generally varied from 13 dB to 23 dB.

As a group, classical recordings have the widest dynamic range of any genre. The same study cited above found that recorded classical music typically offers between about 20 dB and 32 dB of dynamic range. While that might seem like a lot, it’s still quite a bit smaller than that of a live symphony orchestra performance, which can be as large as 90 dB.

 

[arj]

...
Case in point - listen to one of the greatest live outdoor gigs - "Live Aid". Gives me a massive headache!

Yeah..Heavily Amplified music, especially rock and mostly Pop is very often done very wrong and gives a headache ! I prefer recordings to that as well

But if you do get a chance to listen to unamplified then its quite different .need not be by any of the greats even a local singer singing an acapella sounds so good.

and a well done sound in a rock concert is amazing. Roget Waters shows come to mind....very much like the Cinemas with good and average audio systems

 

[square_wave]

No, not all music. The width of the dynamic range depends on other factors too including the type/genre/sub-genre of music.

That is true. But the fact remains that anything in real life has a natural dynamic range. Be it high or low depending upon the material.