Originally Posted by mcnarus
Yes, but isn't the dynamic range greater
for the CD version???
Here's the pitch - according to Stereophile, the same recording on a so-called high resolution format has less dynamic range.
(Also, what are the odds the minimum RMS power in the right channel is identical to two decimal places?)
Umm, its the same noise floor, and any compression happened to what was above it?
That the dynamic range is roughly the same shouldn't be surprising at all, since both start from the identical analog master.
That suggests that the dynamic range of the CD version was *never* a problem.
While interesting, this isn't directly relevant to the OP's question, since the differences reflected in these numbers are largely the product of mastering decisions, rather than anything inherent in the formats he's asking about.
I've been saying all along that since the CD, the technical limitations of mainstream media has never
been the cause any problems with dynamic range. The program material always seems to have much less dynamic range than the limits of the media.
In this case the dynamic range of the recording seems to be about 65 dB, which is 30 dB worse than Redbook with flat dithering. Add modern shaped dither, and the music is more like 60 dB worse than what a CD can do.
The DSOTM recording is a complete studio/multitrack/mixdown job, so its dynamic range is whatever the guys who made it wanted it to be. If they wanted a recording with 100 dB dynamic range they knew how to do it then, and could still do it today.
It would be easy enough to do some downwards expansion or gain riding or remixing to obtain more
dynamic range. Any good Mix-A-lot DJ could do it this afternoon.
That no audiophile label seems to have done so, sends a message that 65 dB dynamic range is what a lot of people, even almost all audiophiles actually want.