Do we really need anything greater than 24/96? Opinions?

Folks, this is not faulty logic. It is no logic at all.

From: https://www.maat.digital/dro2/ . This has absolutely nothing to do with whether 16//44.1 is enough or 24/96 is enough. It is like saying "blue" when I ask you what time it is.

However, since you want to selectively use this database to move forward an irrelevant argument, I can play along too. If you look at the peak dynamic range, which is the best indicator of the technical ability of the format, as opposed to the average dynamic range, which is more indicative of mastering choices, then virtually all the top peak dynamic range albums are download, or CD (or unknown).

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list/dr-max/desc

What is DR?

The DR algorithm, related to PLR (Peak–to–Loudness Ratio) or “crest factor,” specifically measures the dynamic density or lack of dynamics caused by overly aggressive dynamic compression and limiting. Although the companion DRMeter MkII provides a manual measurement of the "official" integrated DR or DRi, only DROffline and DROffline MkII can generate official values automatically and in the background.

geoffkait18,604 posts11-29-2019 3:27pm

>>>>Folks, that’s the kind of faulty logic that comes from reading technical books too much and not spending enough time in reality. The discussion of dynamic range and the dynamic range database has *everything* to do with the discussion of data rate, sampling rate and format. What the dynamic range database shows - if you analyze it - is you’re screwed no matter which digital format you buy into. He-loo! Unless you don’t care about dynamics. In which case you’re in the wrong hobby, gentle readers. 🧑🏻‍🚀

Your analysis in incorrect. You cannot go by max dynamic range only because the max can occur very infrequently on a given album or even only once or one one track. That is precisely why the database provides minimum and average and maximum dynamic range. You would be much better off choosing average and/or minimum dynamic range if you wish to see how *overly compressed* a given album is. Thanks for playing along, anyway. Better luck next time.

VI,

The whole point of the database is to keep track of how recording engineers and the industry are compressing music (unnecessarily). It is not relegated just to CD, but has been happening to Vinyl as well since the early 70's. It is a choice. The Average shows the decisions of the recording engineer. The peak is most reflective of the format potential. A CD or digital download can use it's peak DR throughout the whole CD if it so chooses. With vinyl, you will literally jump the track with too much DR, and you are limited in track space. The time is 4:04pm VI, not blue.

geoffkait

The discussion of dynamic range and the dynamic range database has *everything* to do with the discussion of data rate, sampling rate and format

Yes, of course. That should be obvious to anyone, unless perhaps they are seeking an argument.
atdavid

If you look at the peak dynamic range, which is the best indicator of the technical ability of the format ...

I’m not sure that’s even remotely true. It’s just another of your "opinion stated as fact" assertions.

... virtually all the top peak dynamic range albums are download, or CD (or unknown).

So what?

You totally don’t get it. There are relatively few instances in over 100,000 entries where the dynamic range of the same issue of CD is higher than the vinyl issue. That’s just the way things are. You lose again. Einstein has the same affliction, arguing wrongly until he was blue in the face. 🥶 So you’re in good company. 😬

I never said vinyl was immune from over-compression. That’s putting words in my mouth I did not say. However, vinyl over the years has fared much better than digital. Just look at the data. Hel-loo!

Whack a mole! The sport of kings. I’m thankful for this opportunity to play Whack-a-mole, in the future there are no more audio forums.