I was under the impression that Dialnorm was a Dolby "feature". However the DTS-MA track on the UK Blu-Ray release of "Lucky Number Slevin" does indeed carry a dialnorm flag according to my Denon 3808 Reciever. I found that rather odd (or flat-out disturbing), so I played a bunch of different discs to see how my reciever would handle them. (I've read that a bunch of THX-certified recievers will automaticly lower every DTS track by 4 db to even out the volume difference between DD and DTS! That is so not nice! :eek: , and it also means that DD with proper dialnorm at -31 i.e. off will sound louder than the DTS track because of the stupid reciever trying to fix the fact that almost everyone encodes DD with a dialnorm of -27 which results in -4db) Luckily my Denon (non-thx certified btw) seems not to lower DTS tracks for no reason, thank God. :D
Anyway, I played a bunch of regular DVDs with DTS and they seemed fine (my reciever will show "dialnorm -x" whenever a dialnorm flag is detected in the stream). I played a whole bunch of DD DVDs and all of them used dialnorm, my reciever showed "dialnorm -4" on everyone except for one track that showed "dialnorm -2". Then I played a bunch of Blu-Rays, all the DD tracks on the Blu-Ray releases I tested displayed "dialnorm -4". I started testing DTS-HD Ma and Dolby TrueHD tracks. Fox's releases (DTS-HD Ma) seemed not to use any dialnorm. Warner's THD tracks unfortunately displayed "dialnorm -4". However the two Sony releases I tested "5th Element" and "Immortal Beloved" did NOT use dialnorm (thanks Paidgeek :D ). I at last checked the volume differences with a SPL meter. Warners THD track is indeed a couple of dbs lower than their LPCM tracks. Sony's THD tracks read exactely the same as their LPCM counterparts, which means that the LPCM tracks will not sound "better" or "louder" if dialnorm is not used on the THD track and your reciever isn't screwing anything up..

The testing backed up my previous assumptions that almost all DD tracks use dialnorm, that a proper Sony THD track will have the same Sound Pressure as it's LPCM counterpart and that DTS do not use dialnorm at all* *Except my findings on "Lucky # Slevin".... which proves they can, and sometimes will...

Do anyone have any insight to DTS and dialnorm? is implemented the same way as Dolby? And have you encountered any Blu-Rays or DVDs with DTS/DTS-HD that uses dialnorm? Any feedback or comments appreciated :)

dialnorm is not a bad thing, read Josh Z's article on HD audio formats he wrote for highdefdigest.

I was under the impression that Dialnorm was a Dolby "feature". However the DTS-MA track on the UK Blu-Ray release of "Lucky Number Slevin" does indeed carry a dialnorm flag according to my Denon 3808 Reciever. I found that rather odd (or flat-out disturbing), so I played a bunch of different discs to see how my reciever would handle them. (I've read that a bunch of THX-certified recievers will automaticly lower every DTS track by 4 db to even out the volume difference between DD and DTS! That is so not nice! :eek: , and it also means that DD with proper dialnorm at -31 i.e. off will sound louder than the DTS track because of the stupid reciever trying to fix the fact that almost everyone encodes DD with a dialnorm of -27 which results in -4db) Luckily my Denon (non-thx certified btw) seems not to lower DTS tracks for no reason, thank God. :D
Anyway, I played a bunch of regular DVDs with DTS and they seemed fine (my reciever will show "dialnorm -x" whenever a dialnorm flag is detected in the stream). I played a whole bunch of DD DVDs and all of them used dialnorm, my reciever showed "dialnorm -4" on everyone except for one track that showed "dialnorm -2". Then I played a bunch of Blu-Rays, all the DD tracks on the Blu-Ray releases I tested displayed "dialnorm -4". I started testing DTS-HD Ma and Dolby TrueHD tracks. Fox's releases (DTS-HD Ma) seemed not to use any dialnorm. Warner's THD tracks unfortunately displayed "dialnorm -4". However the two Sony releases I tested "5th Element" and "Gary Oldman as Mozart" did NOT use dialnorm (thanks Paidgeek :D ). I at last checked the volume differences with a SPL meter. Warners THD track is indeed a couple of dbs lower than their LPCM tracks. Sony's THD tracks read exactely the same as their LPCM counterparts, which means that the LPCM tracks will not sound "better" or "louder" if dialnorm is not used on the THD track and your reciever isn't screwing anything up..

The testing backed up my previous assumptions that almost all DD tracks use dialnorm, that a proper Sony THD track will have the same Sound Pressure as it's LPCM counterpart and that DTS do not use dialnorm at all* *Except my findings on "Lucky # Slevin".... which proves they can, and sometimes will...

Do anyone have any insight to DTS and dialnorm? is implemented the same way as Dolby? And have you encountered any Blu-Rays or DVDs with DTS/DTS-HD that uses dialnorm? Any feedback or comments appreciated :)

That was Beethoven, in Immortal Beloved. :)

That was Beethoven, in Immortal Beloved. :)

D'oh! :eek: Sorry, offcourse it was, I must've been tired (and ripping 180 Mozart CDs to mp3 didn't help my train of tought :D ) Edited the oroginal post.

dialnorm is not a bad thing, read Josh Z's article on HD audio formats he wrote for highdefdigest.

Hi Spy :D
I know that dialnorm is a rather controversial subject. :cool: I've read the highdefdigest article and also other articles that claim dialnorm is a "good thing" or at the very least not a problem. But there's certainly arguments on the other side too. Quite frankly I'm sceptical of the use, and don't see any reason to use it on HD/DVD Medias. I can see it's usefullness in broadcasting, but that's about it. And furthermore, since everyone seem to be using the default -27 setting (which results in -4db) it is totally useless. I have movies were the trailer sound or menu sound is waay louder than the actual movie, and both tracks uses the default -27 dialnorm(!) :eek: If you have different sources recorded at different levels and you use the same dialnorm setting on all of them (-4db) you just lower the volumes with the same amount, they will still be different volumes, i.e. totally utter useless. And that's what the majority of the encoders do. Not to mention that all studio-masters are mixed at refence level (85db) and therefore the need of in-reciever dialnorm should be non-existent.


Here's a critical voice (DaViD Boulet) quoted from the homethaterforum
Hey Paul,

the problem with DN isn't that it lowers the dynamic range (volume) by 4 (or more) db... the problem is HOW it does it.

It does it by digitally recalculating the audio data to digitally down-scale the waveform.

That means that you will NEVER get bit-for-bit accuracy from a TrueHD stream that's been flagged with dialog-normalization.

And it can't be bypassed because Dolby won't allow any in-spec consumer gear to let the user avoid it! It doesn't matter that it's just a meta-data instruction flag: if Dolby REQUIRED that it's processing instructions be followed by your decoder, then the fact that the original PCM lossless data was represented prior to DN processing is moot.


Dolby can claim that the process is transparent. But I find it less-than-ironic that when Dolby TrueHD streams on HD DVD didn't sound as good as their PCM counterparts, the first reason offered by industry sources involved with the mastering were "probably because of the Dialog Normalization on the TrueHD".
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3202147-post64.html

There is no "otherside", only ignorant people who don't know what they are talking about, and your link proves it too. He's confusion of loudness[volume] and dynamic range is a testament to that.

And yes DTS does give you an option to use DN. Interestingly they didn't advertise that fact too much since that was one of their criticism of Dolby, or to be exact one of the reason why DTS sounds better in their opinion.DTS themselves is more often the source for misleading dopey comments that is being picked up by their useful idiots[their blind followers] and run all over with it on the net.

This article also touches on your concern about THX processors lowering DTS tracks by 4db, which is a good thing and your knee jerk reaction is unwarranted.

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_7_2/feature-article-dialog-normalization-6-2000.html

Hi Atilla :D
I can agree that there is a lot of ignorance and false information flowing about in the hi-fi world. :( However I think you're a bit rash in just overlooking the opposing arguments by calling them ignorant.
I've read the Secrets Og Home Theatre article before and I know what it says. In theory it all sounds fine and dandy, but in practice there's elemets that concerns me. As Boulet mentioned "It [Dialnorm] does it by digitally recalculating the audio data to digitally down-scale the waveform." In theory that might not be as bad as it first sounds, since it's all done in the digital domain. It can however be tested with encoding software on a computer. I did some tests myself, i took an uncompressed stereo PCM wave file. Ran a -4db dialnormalization on it and saved it. Thereafter i opened the newly created file, applied a +4b normalization as saved it under a different filename. Now, since I've only digitally amplified and de-amplified the file(s) in the digital domain in a lossless container, one would think that the original file and the last file which now is back to the same volume-level should be bit for bit identical, right? WRONG, they are NOT. The (byte) size is EXACTLY the same, BUT the CRC check is different. The content is not longer bit-for-bit identical. When opening the waveforms in an audio-editing program they look pretty much the same, but when you start zooming in on the waveform, you can see very small differences it the peaks. Is it an audible difference? I don't know. Probably not. But it does concern me and it gives somewhat more credibility to Boulet's quote: "That means that you will NEVER get bit-for-bit accuracy from a TrueHD stream that's been flagged with dialog-normalization."

This article also touches on your concern about THX processors lowering DTS tracks by 4db, which is a good thing and your knee jerk reaction is unwarranted.

I don't agree, this function assumes that every DD track is -4db. Which for the most part is true, but there's concert DVDs and other DVDs which use Dialnorm -31 (off) and there is also DD discs that uses other values as -2 -5db, which means that it's a totally useless function. And I'm against the principle. Either you adhere to the dialnorm-flags or you don't. You can't just assume that everyone will use -4db forever and automaticly adjust every DTS track. That's just stupid and defeats the hole concept of dialnorm in the first place.

I can agree that there is a lot of ignorance and false information flowing about in the hi-fi world. However I think you're a bit rash in just overlooking the opposing arguments by calling them ignorant.
I've read the Secrets Og Home Theatre article before and I know what it says. In theory it all sounds fine and dandy, but in practice there's elemets that concerns me. As Boulet mentioned "It [Dialnorm] does it by digitally recalculating the audio data to digitally down-scale the waveform." In theory that might not be as bad as it first sounds, since it's all done in the digital domain. It can however be tested with encoding software on a computer. I did some tests myself, i took an uncompressed stereo PCM wave file. Ran a -4db dialnormalization on it and saved it. Thereafter i opened the newly created file, applied a +4b normalization as saved it under a different filename. Now, since I've only digitally amplified and de-amplified the file(s) in the digital domain in a lossless container, one would think that the original file and the last file which now is back to the same volume-level should be bit for bit identical, right? WRONG, they are NOT. The (byte) size is EXACTLY the same, BUT the CRC check is different. The content is not longer bit-for-bit identical. When opening the waveforms in an audio-editing program they look pretty much the same, but when you start zooming in on the waveform, you can see very small differences it the peaks. Is it an audible difference? I don't know. Probably not. But it does concern me and it gives somewhat more credibility to Boulet's quote: "That means that you will NEVER get bit-for-bit accuracy from a TrueHD stream that's been flagged with dialog-normalization."

The point isn't if it's bit by bit accurate but just how much difference there is. Nothing you would be able to hear, period.I don't agree, this function assumes that every DD track is -4db. No it isn't, but the -27dbfs for dialog level has been used long before DTS was created, and it's the most used for Dolby encoded material as well. Why not for DTS? Either you adhere to the dialnorm-flags or you don't. You can't just assume that everyone will use -4db forever and automaticly adjust every DTS track. That's just stupid and defeats the hole concept of dialnorm in the first place. Well that's tired old rant without any meaningful merit.And I'm against the principle. Are you really now? :D

Here's a critical voice (DaViD Boulet) quoted from the homethaterforum...First, he's confusing dynamic range with attenuation (which is the equivalent of turning down the volume knob). Second, the digital recalculating he mentions will also happen whenever you apply commonly used features like bass management and time alignment. So unless he's using truly full range speakers that are placed exactly equidistant from his listening seat, he's always "digitally recalculating" all the audio data already. I did some tests myself, i took an uncompressed stereo PCM wave file. Ran a -4db dialnormalization on it and saved it. Thereafter i opened the newly created file, applied a +4b normalization as saved it under a different filename.You performed a second step of digital manipulation that DialNorm doesn't. If listeners want to bring the volume back up by 4dB, it's typically done in the analogue domain. Is it an audible difference? I don't know. Probably not.Digitally attenuating the level by 4dB equates to losing less than one bit of resolution. If you can hear the difference between 24 bits and 23.5 bits, then you have a legitimate complaint about DialNorm.

Sanjay

If you can hear the difference between 24 bits and 23.5 bits, then you have a legitimate complaint about DialNorm.

Not to mention that the information affected is at the lowest level of the audio energy being reproduced; trivial compared to the noise floor generated by the listening environment and the inherent limitations of the playback equipment.

Even in theoretical 'best case' scenarios anyone listening to a fully resolved 24-bit PCM or DTS-HD MA soundtrack at less than 144dB peak output (ie. above the pain threshold), or a 16-bit soundtrack at a peak output level below 96dB, would be consciously introducing exactly the attenuation that so many people so vocally object to.

It's quite a storm in a teacup.

Adam

It's quite a storm in a teacup.Indeed. And that 144dB swing is not something any device I know of can reproduce electrically.

It's like the SACD vs DVD-A sound quality wars, where folks would bring up all sorts of minutae without noting the obvious: both formats were capable of reproducing sound well beyond our human hearing. Did it really matter than one went out to 48kHz while the other could do 50kHz?

Likewise, the storm in the teacup may seems significant until you realize that moving your subwoofer a foot will make a bigger audible difference in sound quality than 4dB of digital attenuation.

Sanjay

Jeez, we're still arguing about how useless dialogue normalization is in a properly calibrated home theater?

Jeez, we're still arguing about how useless dialogue normalization is in a properly calibrated home theater?

It may be useless, but it's also harmless.

It was added to DTS for HDM. The default value is off in the DTS encoder.

There is no "otherside", only ignorant people who don't know what they are talking about, and your link proves it too. He's confusion of loudness[volume] and dynamic range is a testament to thatFYI the dialnorm metadata should in theory reflect the amount of dynamic range compression implemented in the mix.

Dolby production guidlines recommend a monitor calibration of 79dB SPL (aka -25dBFS) for DVD release. When compared to the industry standard 85dB SPL, the 79dB cal will induce the mixing engineer to raise the measured mix' average volume, thus "compressing the dynamic range".

The weighted long term average volume should be measured (Dolby LM 100) and the metadata set accordingly. If the DN value is not set correctly..DRC and downmix features will not work properly.

DN by definition reflects this embedded dynamic range compression, and your volume knob CANNOT undo this fact.

It was added to DTS for HDM. The default value is off in the DTS encoder.;)

It may be useless, but it's also harmless.

I don't think any serious audiophile wants to take that chance. :D

I don't think any serious audiophile wants to take that chance. :DWhat chance, that the volume knob can't be turned up 4dB?

Sanjay

FYI the dialnorm metadata should in theory reflect the amount of dynamic range compression implemented in the mix. ...snip...

DN by definition reflects this embedded dynamic range compression, and your volume knob CANNOT undo this fact.

DN reflects the headroom of the delivery medium. It cannot tell you if the program uses all that headroom or not--or how often it happens (how dense is the mix). If your definition of compression is any mix that reaches 0dBFS, then is it less compressed when a mixer uses processing devices to keep the program peaks well below full scale?

If your definition of compression is any mix that reaches 0dBFS, then is it less compressed when a mixer uses processing devices to keep the program peaks well below full scale?FYI the DN value reflects the programs measured average volume and in "theory" the mix engineers reference monitor calibration point. As the calibration point is adjusted downward mix dynamics are compressed. i.e. a given K-20 mix can still have a momentary peak of 0dBFS, this fact has no correlation to average program (Loudness) volume..although the amount of compression (and dynamic range) are directly correlated.http://pas-products.com/K-System.html
This leads us to the logical conclusion that we can produce programs with different amounts of dynamic range (and headroom) by designing a loudness meter with a sliding scale

The K-20 meter is intended for wide dynamic range material, e.g., large theatre mixes, "daring home theatre" mixes, audiophile music, classical (symphonic) music..

The K-14 meter is for the vast majority of moderately-compressed high-fidelity productions intended for home listening…

Average level - Area under the rough waveform curve, ignoring momentary peaks.

Headroom - ratio between peak capability of medium and average level of program. There is no standard averaging method for determining headroom. I've used a VU characteristic for purposes of discussion.

DN reflects the headroom of the delivery medium. Paradox:
When implemented DN attenuates everything such that all programs
have 31 db headroom, regardless of its original headroom.

FYI the DN value reflects the programs measured average volume...
Yes, it is the headroom between the averge dialoge loudness and 0dBFS, and that is all. I was trying to clarify that DN does not in any way reflect the amount of dynamic range compression implemented in the mix.

...and in "theory" the mix engineers reference monitor calibration point.
No, that's not entirely true in all cases. For that reason, there is another piece of metadata called Mixlev which reports the loudness of the control room monitor. But that data is almost never provided. For films we can use DN to reasonably deduce the monitor level because films are mixed in rooms calibrated to known levels, and mixers usually place dialog at the same loudness. But in fact they don't all mix dialog at the same levels.

I remember a movie called Air Force One which was mixed in a calibrated theater for SDDS 7.1, and DN measured as 27 dB. So we can look at 27 and deduce the monitor level was 85 dB for -20dBFS as usual. When the film was transferred to home video, it was downmixed from 7.1 to 5.1. The mixers pulled the overall gain down 4 dB to allow room for the loudest passages to mix without needing peak limiting. The DD track carries a DN of 31, which is correct. But the monitor level was not changed, as your theory would imply.

As the calibration point is adjusted downward mix dynamics are compressed. i.e. a given K-20 mix can still have a momentary peak of 0dBFS, this fact has no correlation to average program (Loudness) volume..although the amount of compression (and dynamic range) are directly correlated.
The mix is not necessarily more compressed when the mix room cal level is dropped. It is only that the mixing engineer is pushing dialog harder into the recording, and there is less headroom available in the recording medium above the dialog. Whether the mixer ever runs into the headroom limit of the recorder is his choice based on what he's mixing--maybe he does, maybe he has several dB headroom margin left over. Whether he applys dynamic compression or not is his choice. Audio signal compression is not an automatic byproduct of a lower mixing level.

No, that's not entirely true in all cases.

..But the monitor level was not changed, as your theory would implyThe word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily "always" based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality.But in fact they don't all mix dialog at the same levels.Irrelevant, measuring a given dialogue or program average level per Dolby' subjective guidlines is pointless. Broadcast, cable, ect. ok super wonderful application for (DN) it. Given they (Network affiliates) have yet to get stereo correct, theres not a chance in hell they’ll get surround even close to unity!
The mix is not necessarily more compressed when the mix room cal level is dropped.Pay close attention because this is the last time I will repeat the following.

"There’s zero reason to raise the subjective average dialogue/program level +4dB in the mix (and at the same time maintain the exact same overall dynamic range i.e. peak offset from the measured average level) only to reduce it -4dB upon reproduction. Unless the original intention was to reduce dynamic range and compress IT"

If the above quote makes no sense to you please contact dts, for some reason they see things the same as I.

Thomas Brunet
Film Television & Sound Engineer
Savannah College of Art & Design
http://www.scad.edu/

The word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily "always" based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality.
Exactly. The statement you made >>the dialnorm metadata should in theory reflect the amount of dynamic range compression implemented in the mix. <<, which was presumably intended to appear as a fact, was actually your conjecture or opinion. On that, we agree, since I explained it was not factually correct.

Pay close attention because this is the last time I will repeat the following.

"There’s zero reason to raise the subjective average dialogue/program level +4dB in the mix (and at the same time maintain the exact same overall dynamic range i.e. peak offset from the measured average level) only to reduce it -4dB upon reproduction. Unless the original intention was to reduce dynamic range and compress IT"
Your theory (cited above) referred only to the signals between dialog and anything louder in the mix. By virtue of this, you are assuming the change in dynamic range resulting from a reduced monitoring level always and only involves loud signals. In actuality, the adjustments made by a mixing engineer might only appear in lower level signals, with no change to loud signals. It is a distinct possibility.

Furthermore, even if a mixing engineer makes a mix with reduced, same, or louder peak program levels in response to a different mix level calibration, there is no guarantee that the mix reaches 0dBFS (the headroom limit of the delivery format). So, as I have explained, DN does not reflect the program's peak characteristics, only the headroom of the delivery medium above dialogue level.

Furthermore, even if a mixing engineer makes a mix with reduced, same, or louder peak program levels in response to a different mix level calibration, there is no guarantee that the mix reaches 0dBFS (the headroom limit of the delivery format). So, as I have explained, DN does not reflect the program's peak characteristics, only the headroom of the delivery medium above dialogue level.I have already explained to you why that statement is "misleading". With all do respect Roger you just don't seem able to grasp how "raising average volume" correlates to perceived content compression which btw does NOT even envolve reaching the 0dBFS LIMIT. Durrough has designed a pro precision meter that will illustrate this fact in real time.

http://www.dorrough.com/dorrough/about_us/about_vision2.html
The third factor bringing true "scope-like dimension" to the new metering system is the meaningful relationship between the two ballistics. As the "power density" of the audio signal builds, the gap between the PEAK and AVERAGE ballistics narrows. If only the sound density increases, as with processing, the maximum peak LED reading remains relatively stable as the AVERAGE closes in behind it, effectively quantifying the degree of compression. The user is presented with more information, so well integrated that the data is more quickly perceived and more easily understood. Rather than having to choose between the VU's mission of insuring consistent levels and the PPM's mission of protecting peaks, the Dorrough Loudness Monitor accomplishes both, simultaneously;)!

With all do respect Roger you just don't seem able to grasp how "raising average volume" correlates to perceived content compression which btw does NOT even envolve reaching the 0dBFS LIMIT.
Did you miss the part where I stated exactly this point?

>>In actuality, the adjustments made by a mixing engineer might only appear in lower level signals, with no change to loud signals. It is a distinct possibility.<<

You are so intent on arguing with me you don't even realize when we agree. Bye! Discussion complete.

Roger FWIW its your logic thats circular and for the record you're the one that wishes to argue not me.
12-20-07, 10:38 PM #163
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=951321&page=3
In a mixing room, lowering the monitor level causes the mixing engineer to push the sound elements higher into the mix.aka dynamic range compression, and the mixing engineer is perceptually induced to raise the Mix' overall volume to compensate for the lower calibration. This is not rocket science.
12-21-07, 03:40 PM #190
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=951321&page=2
When does the dialoge level ever get raised?The MIX:)

you're the one that wishes to argue not me.
Ok. Let's see. I already agreed with you that changing the monitor level results in reduced dynamic range. So how many times do I have to repeat it before you stop telling me I don't agree with that?

>>Roger: ...causes the mixing engineer to push the sound elements higher into the mix<< aka dynamic range compression, and the mixing engineer is perceptually induced to raise the Mix' overall volume to compensate for the lower calibration. This is not rocket science.
I see where we differ. Your definition of compression includes the result caused by artistic choice and use of faders. I would not automatically characterize all such reductions in dynamic range created by a mix engineer as increased compression. All one can say for certain is that the dynamic range of one mix is less (or more) than that of another mix. To me, the term compression implies some form of compressor/limiter algorithm as been applied to the audio. But let's say I adopt your terminology--that compression = dynamic range.

>>Roger: When does the dialog level ever get raised?<<
The MIX:)
Exactly! Again, we agree.

Do you now agree that DN does not reflect compression? If so, we should exchange Candygrams. :p

To be fair Roger, I admire your succinct and professional exchanges with me. FWIW I’m not trying win this debate.. but I do take issue with forum members who suggest I’m 100% wrong, instead of simply agreeing to disagree.
To me, the term compression implies some form of compressor/limiter algorithm as been applied to the audio.This is exactly the point I’m trying to get you to reconsider. A lot of pro’ in the industry are not able to grasp the following concepts. i.e.

I was first exposed to this very concept during a Durrough Meter product demo at my work place ~5 years ago. Durrough' algorithm which generates the meters complex ballistic display signature characteristics could perceptually indicate in real time the effect of just raising VOLUME. i.e. how peak and average program density interacted. As the average volume is emphasized:

http://www.dorrough.com/dorrough/about_us/about_reading.html
The PPM would be relatively oblivious to the building density behind the beat. With the Dorrough meter's "Practical Standard Ballistics", as instruments are layered-in, you can watch a contiguous group of LEDs build-up behind the PEAK indicator. You can actually see the "density" of the soundDurrough uses the term (linked url in post #25) processing, which is accurate, but gain alone is in fact processing. Just increasing the programs average volume.. the Durrough will show this (gain) interaction between Average & Peak aka degree of compression. Again no discrete compressor or limiter needed, just additional gain.

It’s also a wonderful illustration regarding nominal A/D and D/A unity. Many engineers in the industry are not able to grasp that those are NOT just Ones and Zeros in the digital payload. They represent realitvie magnitude (volume) and are contrived per SMPTE, AES, and EBU (normalization) standard reference (weighting)..including dB SPL value.