Interesting that you’re measuring the difference from the Macabre null test in LUFS, since I generally only see that in regards to mastering and human perceptions of overall loudness. That said I would assume that the -80 LUFS is going to translate to an ABSURDLY low dBFS reading. You said it yourself, the difference is measurable but I don’t think it’s appreciable.
It should be fairly easy to measure the dynamic range of any given song or album (just find the difference between the quietest and loudest parts of the file), but it’s sort of a moot point, I think. The CD standard provides a dynamic range of 96dB but what’s the last album you’ve heard that actually uses all 96dB of that available range? Does an album mastered so loud to the point where the CD’s are (intentionally) clipped benefit from a few more dB of dynamic range it was never mastered to use in the first place? I’m willing to be proven wrong, but my gut says no, there’s no benefit.
This is what I was sort of getting at. Most albums aren’t set up to need more dynamic range, so having more headroom doesn’t matter.
As for the last album I’ve heard that uses a lot of dynamic range…that would probably have to be One Step More And You Die by MONO. That’s a really hard question.
Here’s the output of the Dynamic Range Meter foobar plug-in:
foobar2000 1.6.3 / Dynamic Range Meter 1.1.1
log date: 2024-10-27 17:18:47
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statistics for: 02-Com(?)
Number of samples: 42139020
Duration: 15:56
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Left Right
Peak Value: 0.00 dB --- 0.00 dB
Avg RMS: -8.19 dB --- -7.61 dB
DR channel: 5.56 dB --- 4.93 dB
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Official DR Value: DR5
Samplerate: 44100 Hz
Channels: 2
Bits per sample: 16
Bitrate: 889 kbps
Codec: ALAC
================================================================================
I think I can probably do better than this, but finding it is gonna be like a needle in a haystack.
Yeah, a dynamic range of 5RMS is not very much at all
Yep! And hence why I’m right there with you with this basically just being a gimmick. And for any artist or project that TRULY needs more, most recordings are now done at 24 bits offering 144dB of dynamic range and the listener will mostly be streaming it.
I’m cruising through my collection at the speed of a turtle. My max score so far is 13, with two ties, both from the same unlikely source.
foobar2000 1.6.3 / Dynamic Range Meter 1.1.1
log date: 2024-10-28 08:11:15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statistics for: 12-Area 51: Escape
Number of samples: 10784768
Duration: 4:05
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Left Right
Peak Value: 0.00 dB --- -0.21 dB
Avg RMS: -15.49 dB --- -14.92 dB
DR channel: 12.64 dB --- 12.43 dB
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Official DR Value: DR13
Samplerate: 44100 Hz
Channels: 2
Bits per sample: 16
Bitrate: 850 kbps
Codec: ALAC
================================================================================
foobar2000 1.6.3 / Dynamic Range Meter 1.1.1
log date: 2024-10-28 08:11:40
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statistics for: 25-Mission Failed
Number of samples: 6914048
Duration: 2:37
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Left Right
Peak Value: -1.68 dB --- 0.00 dB
Avg RMS: -16.10 dB --- -14.95 dB
DR channel: 11.97 dB --- 13.06 dB
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Official DR Value: DR13
Samplerate: 44100 Hz
Channels: 2
Bits per sample: 16
Bitrate: 533 kbps
Codec: ALAC
================================================================================
I have one other sound track that I want to check, but there’s probably not much in my library that can top a 13.
