Dynamic Range - the golden key to music nirvana?

Good post, phusis.  I agree with what you wrote,  but I think you misunderstand my point.  Headroom is great and I’m sure that in many cases it is a key contributor to the sense of “aliveness” of the system.  However, I’ve heard heard plenty of systems with plenty of headroom that don’t give one that sense of aliveness.  Sure, they can play at concert hall levels, but still not have the rhythmic litheness that some amplifiers with much lower headroom have.  I’m not discounting headroom, only refuting the idea that dynamic range is “the golden key to music nirvana”.  Some gear simply moves with the music better than others and ultimate headroom does not guarantee that attribute, in my experience.  

@frogman wrote:

It is not ultimate dynamic range that matters most. Instead, what gives reproduced music its sense of aliveness (dynamic realism) is HOW the equipment handles the dynamic swings of the music. What is the point of being able to achieve concert hall levels at home if one chooses to not listen at concert hall levels at home? Should this mean that we will then never experience dynamic realism? I don’t think so.

Not to discount the importance of micro-dynamics, but ultimate macro-dynamic range is in fact a core contributor to how dynamics are handled and perceived at less than live levels as well; as a general observation, the more headroom you got (and usually that’s fairly limited with low sensitivity, full-range handling speakers), the less strained and more effortless (and thus more authentically) those dynamic swings will be delivered. Transient response and lack of smear comes into play as well in making dynamics appear more realistic, where a larger radiating surface area that moves much less for a given SPL will store less energy and reduce inertia.

Quite a few people have experienced high sensitivity speakers - certainly from the central/upper midrange on up, though usually dialed back passively to match the lower sensitivity of the woofer section - but moving down in frequency and maintaining high sensitivity (and avoiding more outspoken resistor attenuation on up - again, passively) requires some serious size, which is also why most haven’t heard what high sensitivity below the power region (i.e.: all the down to ~20Hz) can do to the overall perception of dynamics. That stuff is just in a very different league dynamically, trust me, even at less than live levels.

A typical giveaway to how people don’t understand or value the importance of headroom is that they’re automatically assuming a high-SPL capacity system (fully indicated with large, high sensitivity speakers and plenty of power) is mainly about blasting away at the max. volume that system is capable of. No, it’s the reserve in abundance in the entire frequency region that matters and that such a system provides for, while also giving the opportunity to experience what live levels, reproduced cleanly and at ease, sounds like. Many may not need that, but that’s not to say it doesn’t matter if one sets the bar high enough.

@mijostyn wrote:

The maximum volume of a system has as much to do with speaker efficiency as it does with amplifier power. And as far as perceived volume goes the frequency response of a system can affect this dramatically. Some systems cruising along at 110 dB do not sound that loud at all until you try to talk. A system that produces adequate acoustic power below 50 Hz can sound very dynamic and life like at volumes under 100 dB.

+1

Dynamic range? Ok, good for those who desire and value it, and not so good for those who don’t. Just that simple. High End Audio in like a "Big Boy" toy store, where each individual audiophile gets to pick and choose their very own personal, favorite toys to play with in order to create a desired type of sound, for their own, personal listening pleasure. Again, as we all know, everything in high end audio is based upon personal preference. This isn’t rocket science. If you like a system that provides you with lots of dynamic range, and this is how you like listening to your music, then just go ahead and put together a system that will give you what you want. What the heck!.

@cleeds 

No, "we" don’t know that at all. The superior dynamic range of digital is only potential. The dynamic range of the vast majority of commercially recorded music fits comfortably within the capabilities of quality analog media.

I agree with you that analog media has plenty of dynamic range for excellent music reproduction. It's just not greater than digital's dynamic range, or potential dynamic range as you point out. It's no good if the mastering doesn't take advantage of it, or if the music has no need for it.

I work with a guy that has used Studer tape machines quite a bit. I asked him what he thought about the dynamics, and he said they have a hump in the bass response that can come across as punchy sounding. Depending on how fast you run the tape the center frequency of the hump changes. 

You missed the step about understanding what dynamic range means. Skipping that step and wasted a lot of effort chasing the impossible. In that step you would have discovered usable dynamic range. Anything over about 115db is wasted. For arguments, call it 120db. 120db is loud! Your room is 30+. 120-30 = 90.

@asctim nice explanation!  @bjorn154  - I would read what he wrote again. We can't hear loud and quiet sounds at the same time.

CD has a dynamic range of 115db. It has an SNR of ~ 90db. All CDs are dithered.

@bjorn154, you got punked about the SPL120. You misled yourself.

The 120V technology works with +/-60 V. To be able to handle such a high voltage, we have developed special proprietary operational amplifiers that can operate with a DC voltage of +/-60 V: the SPL 120V SUPRA operational amplifiers. This high voltage would destroy conventional components and operational amplifiers.

100W amp, 8 ohms I would estimate at +/- 43V or 86V.  250W amp, there are lots, +/- 65V or 130V.

You did not understand because many audiophiles had forgotten what is music directing their attention to sound...

And worst, they are mostly attentive to the audio rig specs more than to acoustic...

Then they miss the condition which are necessary to put in place the musical concept of timbre for example...

Timbre is first a musical and acoustic concept ... Not an audiophile concept related to components specs AT ALL...The component specs must be right for sure to begin with but this is not enough for the controlled experience of timbre...

Then the definition and experience of macrodynamics and microdynamics as perceived in musical and acoustic condition is not dependant only of THE AUDIO SYSTEM first and last, even if for sure the audio system must work optimally and be well chosen..It is not dependent of the small room acoustic alone either...

But a good system will not replace recording trade off conditions which is acoustics nor replace the synergy between gear and small room acoustics either...

It is easy to verify that the TIMBRE definition with his 5 conditions is not related in his macrodynamical aspects and microdynamical one mainly and ONLY to the Db scale measurement and not even ONLY to the frequencies scale... Time envelope and timing play fundamental part here...Then the Ears/brain must work too...

Then frogman was right because he spoke by taken into account the two set of acoustic factors at play in the recording room and in the small listener room , which cannot be optimal if the subtle behaviour of the system/room is not fine tuned in such a way as being able to deliver a macrodynamic/microdynamic balanced experience ... Macro-Dynamic range of speakers and room are not enough to deliver the musical experience intended at it is...It takes the microdynamical aspects and their cou-pling together is an experienced and controlled optimal ratio ...

Then you have no idea what he spoke about because you have reduced musical and precise acoustic concepts and experience to audiophile attention oriented upon the GEAR working and the room macrodynamical working instead of putting your attention to basic acoustic and microdynamical timbre musical concepts...

A violin playing a set of tones expressed as intended by the recording engineer in the music hall macrodynamic/microdynamic balanced ratio and details is the PERCEIVED ratio which matter the most...This is what must be translated in through the speakers room ...

It is useless to tune a room for the gear specs ...We must tune it ALSO according to the playing instrument timbre experience manifesting THROUGH the ears we have for the room we have...

But a real knowledge of what timbre is and how to master his experience and subjective perception ask for minimal musical experience way more than just the  audiophile various components experience and knowledge ...

We must tune a system with our ears not by gear specs reading or electrical measurements ... A tool do not replace hearing... The  PERCEIVED ratio microdynamic/macrodynamic is not reducible to room acoustic alone and to gear specs alone and to measurements alone... We need listening ears ... And basic knowledge about playing timbre experience...

Many audiophiles had no idea what is timbre in acoustic...

How do i know?

I know because being an audiophile myself i had no idea what it was and how must be set the conditions for his perception BEFORE studying basic acoustic...

And the indication pointing to that ignorance in many audiophiles is their insistence on dynamic INSTEAD of timbre at the center of all musical and audio experience...

Most audiophile are focus on gear not on acoustic knowledge nor musical experience as musicians are...

We must learn basic music concepts and basic acoustic concepts and read less about gear specs and measurements... 😊

Dynamic versus timbre is not a question about personal tastes... It is a basic acoustic question on microdynamical/macrodynamical perceived ratio to set the right timbre perception conditions in a speakers/room...

The same knowledge the recording engineer had used, the audiophile must learn it in reverse with speakers /room trade off instead of microphones/room trade off ...

In short sir, I have no idea what you are talking about other than a unique personal experience that has little bearing on the rest of us.

mijostyn

In short sir, I have no idea what you are talking about other than a unique personal experience that has little bearing on the rest of us.

It isn’t clear what your issue is, or to what experience of mine you refer, because you don’t say. Nor is it clear who you pretend to speak for when you refer to "the rest of us." So I really have no idea what you’re talking about, either.

Well, I guess that makes two of us. I have no idea what your comments have to do with mine. More specifically, why the argument? In a sense, we are saying the same thing. That is, that it is not maximum volume that expresses dynamic realism. I elaborated and wrote that it is the sense of rhythmic liveliness, even when within a relatively limited dynamic range as heard in a good live performance that matters most; and whether the equipment can reproduce that sense. Not all can. Reread my post. Perhaps it will help the second time around. Now, if an argument is what you’re looking for, please go elsewhere.

@cleeds ​​@frogman 

Most homes do not have a dynamic range of 100 dB, There is easily 40 dB of background noise in your average house. The maximum volume of a system has as much to do with speaker efficiency as it does with amplifier power. And as far as perceived volume goes the frequency response of a system can affect this dramatically. Some systems cruising along at 110 dB do not sound that loud at all until you try to talk. A system that produces adequate acoustic power below 50 Hz can sound very dynamic and life like at volumes under 100 dB. In short sir, I have no idea what you are talking about other than a unique personal experience that has little bearing on the rest of us.

@bjorn154  those two specs don't mean much, I bet the Levinson amp has better dynamics than a lot of equipment that measures better.

@bjorn154

Seems like you give more weight to measurements than reviews. I took a top down approach.

7 years ago I was a raw newbie so started a deep OCD research recording my findings on a large spreadsheet with dozens of tabs. Keeping track of component comparisons so I can derive a price/performance idea. Trying to demo the best speakers I could find (Stereophile and TAS lists) then trying to create the as close to same sound but within my budget. Electronics I don’t have experience to evaluate, so I figured if I get the speaker right then it’s up to me to put together the supporting electronics.

When I find a component of interest, I rely heavily on “multiple” reviewers for their experience/expertise. If they all say similar praises, then I might try out the component. I can always change later- nothing is in stone. Dynamics is amongst the factors, along with crystalline airy highs, deep defined base, linearity and neutrally in my main system. I ended up with Constellation Inspiration electronics heavily based on TAS 50 Greatest Bargains in High-End Audio. Starting from scratch, it was a challenge to keep a lid on my budget which depending on the component it often slipped significantly.

I also have a 100db speaker for my flea watt system in which I run tubes starting with the 300b Frankenstein V2 tube amp for that midrange magic, especially with voices.

So I was just looking at the mighty Mark Levinson amplifiers. True Class A. The 534 for example is a $25,000 behemoth weighing in at 100 lbs. I read some of the reviews and every one praises the dynamics and how silent it is. There are very few specs on the site so I pulled up the manual. Not much there either except:

SNR >85 db

THD <0.3%
 

Now this amp may have many admirable traits, and I certainly hope so based on the price, but dynamic and quiet are not attributes I would expect with those specs. Reasonably good HT receivers do better. These Class A amps are falling behind the times in terms of what can be achieved at much lower cost and in much smaller packages, while still maintaining that silky smooth analog sound. 

IMO, the LA4 or HPA4 are THE Benchmark products to own. 

The HPA4 and LA4 are exactly what I want in a preamp. Connectivity and silence. The LA4 volume control is also my best. I should have kept the HPA4. The AHB2 suffers from the slight deficiency in bass. I love the top end of the AHB2. 

The Holo Serene (which I also have) is very much like the LA4 but without a lot of the nice features the LA4 has. Just a tad warmer than the LA4.

I am using the LA4 with a Magtech amp into Magnepan LRS+ speakers in a small office. This is a very high sonic standard to improve upon. I do not think I can.

I have both a Son of Ampzilla II and a Benchmark LA4.

I agree that DR is an important metric but only to an extent. The vast majority of music does not have a dynamic range exceeding 100dB.

I don’t find the SOA II lacking in any regard vs the AHB2. I owned the AHB2 for a couple years and while it’s a good amp, I concluded the SOA II is considerably better. It’s nearly as quiet as the AHB2 and certainly quiet and transparent enough for all practical purposes. I suspect it’s even better in some regards than bridged mono AHB2s, because IME, the SOA simply has a more organic sound than a single AHB2, but with better bass, the latter of which is probably the main and possibly only benefit of dual AHB2s.

IMO, the LA4 or HPA4 are THE Benchmark products to own. The DAC3 and AHB2 are certainly good but not world-class. The LA4 makes everything upstream and downstream sound better, that is, with the caveat of requiring good synergy. In many systems there is a risk of the LA4 sounding too “lean,” partially due to its incredibly wide bandwidth and phase accuracy.

🥃🍿🥃 🍿 

Thoroughly enjoyed your entire post, and taking notes for my own system.

I guess you don’t understand sarcastic humor.

I guess you don't understand your topic. Just guessing, mind you - but must say that you write a good sentence. You wouldn't be a CHAT BOT, now, would you?

I completely agree w/ Frogman. The dynamic swings from silence to a peak & back to silence is to me what mostly differentiates live from reproduced music. It’s how we immediately know when walking into a bar, restaurant or even hear music from down the street that’s it’s live. This is especially true for a full drum kit which I think is the ultimate dynamic challenge for any audio playback system in terms of dynamics. Nothing comes close to the attack speed along just about the entire frequency range from bass drum to cymbals. 
 

For myself, a high sensitivity speaker is required to reproduce top tier dynamics because regardless of the power & quality of amplification, other speakers , regardless of design, compress & distort the signal to some greater degree. 

Very important...

And it is why the synergy between gear matter but the trade-off acoustic choices of the recording process and conditions cannot be reproduced in all his subtle levels without a good room acoustic...

Audio is about acoustic of the recording room or hall and the acoustic of you room  with you ears between ...

Because As Frogman said small level  microdynamics is the key...

It is about the constant micro dynamic swings that occur in a performance even when the music stays within a limited dynamic range. This is what gives musical phrasing its meaning.

It is not ultimate dynamic range that matters most. Instead, what gives reproduced music its sense of aliveness (dynamic realism) is HOW the equipment handles the dynamic swings of the music. What is the point of being able to achieve concert hall levels at home if one chooses to not listen at concert hall levels at home? Should this mean that we will then never experience dynamic realism? I don’t think so.

Some equipment is quite capable of playing music at concert hall levels while still being incapable of reproducing the sense of aliveness and dynamic “tension” that one hears during a good live performance; like a coiled spring ready to uncoil at any moment. Musical excitement is not about ultimate volume. It is about the constant micro dynamic swings that occur in a performance even when the music stays within a limited dynamic range. This is what gives musical phrasing its meaning.

Let’s say you are new to this hobby and you are sitting in front of your computer since there are hardly any brick and mortar audio stores any more. Where would you start if you wanted to build a good system? Not to single anyone out, but say you took the advice that timbre is the critical characteristic of a system  

tim·bre

/ˈtambər/

noun

1. the character or quality of a musical sound or voice as distinct from its pitch and intensity.

How would I know what timbre a piece of equipment will generate? My approach is very simplified, but it is something you can start with that is measurable and readily available. If you, for example, have heard a tube amp and have already fallen in love with that sound, or timbre if you may, then my approach obviously gets thrown out the window since the DR you are going to get is more like in the 90’s at best. I get the tube timbre. I have a tube amp myself. It can be mesmerizing for certain genres. However, if I could only build one system that is not a very versatile piece of equipment and maybe something I would not want to listen to all the time. You have to turn them on and off all the time (my wife finds this very annoying), they run very hot and waste a lot of energy, the hiss from thee tubes in idle can be annoying etc. so certainly a little more specialized in its applications and probably not something I would recommend to a novice without actual extensive listening. 
 

My OCD compelled me to take this to an extreme and I am now, surprisingly, very pleased with the results. Maybe my advice would be to focus on pieces of equipment that exceed say 120 db of DR to open up the field and budget ranges. 

Let’s say you are new to this hobby and you are sitting in front of your computer since there are hardly any brick and mortar audio stores any more. Where would you start if you wanted to build a good system? Not to single anyone out, but say you took the advice that timbre is the critical characteristic of a system  

tim·bre

/ˈtambər/

noun

1. the character or quality of a musical sound or voice as distinct from its pitch and intensity.

How would I know what timbre a piece of equipment will generate? My approach is very simplified, but it is something you can start with that is measurable and readily available. If you, for example, have heard a tube amp and have already fallen in love with that sound, or timbre if you may, then my approach obviously gets thrown out the window since the DR you are going to get is more like in the 90’s at best. I get the tube timbre. I have a tube amp myself. It can be mesmerizing for certain genres. However, if I could only build one system that is not a very versatile piece of equipment and maybe something I would not want to listen to all the time. You have to turn them on and off all the time (my wife finds this very annoying), they run very hot and waste a lot of energy, the hiss from thee tubes in idle can be annoying etc. so certainly a little more specialized in its applications and probably not something I would recommend to a novice without actual extensive listening. 
 

My vote is we limit this forum to members that have longer attention spans than an ant.

My vote is limit posts to 500 words (1/4 of this one). Fortunately I bailed after the first 100. 

As I stated at the very beginning DR is not the only consideration and everyone will have a different experience. DR is not the end all obviously and to some way down the list. It was just my guiding light and experience. There are a myriad of choices as we all know. For me it was a way to narrow the choices down and in the end it achieved what I was looking for. It also happens to be one of the measurements, alternatively SNR, that is not too ambiguous that most manufacturers supply in their specs. 🤷‍♂️

You are not wrong because without dynamic timbre cannot be right or optimal either...

In the definition of timbre the attack is important ...

Why did i contradict you then ?

😊

Because when we tune a room timbre is the pilot the gounding basis to tune the room ...

But i forgot that we need a synergetical coupling of the gear pieces able to render dynamic FIRST before even tuning the room...😁

Sometimes i reacted too swiftly... But as you see i am able to reconsider my perspective...

Then i was biased here by my room tuning experience and i apologize for my spontaneous reaction ...

We are right together in two complementary perspective anyway ...

@mahgister "

The golden key of audio is not dynamic, it is timbre experience and spatial localization...

Dynamic is third at best not first and not even second..."

As an opinion based on your preferences and experience, I respect what you’re saying. However, my preferences and experiences are somewhat different.

For me, dynamics and spatial localization are what make music come alive. Timbre experience - texture - is far more subjective and negotiable. Nothing can replace the dynamics that make an instrument, a note, a voice, stand separate from others, and hearing that suspended in the virtual space, the venue, sets the stage for the timbre experience, which to me is severely compromised in the absence of the first two.

asctim

We know that reel to reel tapes and the machines they are played back on do not actually have higher dynamic range than digital recordings and digital playback devices.

No, "we" don’t know that at all. The superior dynamic range of digital is only potential. The dynamic range of the vast majority of commercially recorded music fits comfortably within the capabilities of quality analog media.

@mahgister "

The golden key of audio is not dynamic, it is timbre experience and spatial localization...

Dynamic is third at best not first and not even second..."

As an opinion based on your preferences and experience, I respect what you're saying. However, my preferences and experiences are somewhat different. 

For me, dynamics and spatial localization are what make music come alive. Timbre experience - texture - is far more subjective and negotiable. Nothing can replace the dynamics that make an instrument, a note, a voice, stand separate from others, and hearing that suspended in the virtual space, the venue, sets the stage for the timbre experience, which to me is severely compromised in the absence of the first two. 

As a learning experience, is there a citation you can share supporting your third paragraph?

I have not been able to listen to reel to reel in extended sessions. I did get a chance in 2019 to hear a demonstration at the California Audio Show. In that demonstration I had no complaint with the reel to reel playback, but the room was defining the dynamic range and I didn’t perceive it to be any better with the tape compared to the LP or digital playback I had heard earlier in that room.

I read a report from a mixing/mastering engineer that magnetic tape loses some of it’s transient response within hours after the recording due to the magnetic particles drifting. He said he can hear the difference between the live feed, the original reel to reel tape immediately after recording, and the same tape a few hours later. So that wouldn’t be the total dynamic range, but the fine detail, high speed dynamics. I suspect that this may be one of the reasons some people prefer the sound of magnetic tape. Digital’s transient speed combined with some of the unnatural consequences of microphones and speakers may be tiresome and irritating to the ears. A little smoothing may actually come across as more natural sounding.

We know that reel to reel tapes and the machines they are played back on do not actually have higher dynamic range than digital recordings and digital playback devices. But the perception of better dynamics is there in some cases, so finding out more about why the dynamics seem better I think is worth further investigation.

My own experiences with setting up systems and experimenting with crossover settings, equalization, and room treatments has caused me to occasionally get a sound with unusual apparent dynamic impact. I typically get this with speakers set up in rooms, but others have reported similar effects with headphones, while experimenting with various filters. The perceived impact can go through the roof, so to speak, but it’s not clear exactly what was done to create that effect. I never tend to stick with those setups because it often works really well for certain songs but overall sounds imbalanced in some way.

Have you had an experience with open reel to reel recordings played back on a high quality tape machines, like Studer, Otari, Revox, or Nagra The improved sound quality over other sources is genuine to me and reflects the enhanced dynamic range of tape recordings and playback. Therefore, I too think dynamic range is under appreciated 

The golden key of audio is not dynamic, it is timbre experience and spatial localization...

Dynamic is third at best not first and not even second...

At least not for classical music listener or jazz listener  who dont bother  too much with electrified amplified music...

From the measurements I’ve seen, it’s very difficult to achieve a dynamic range with any speed to it beyond about 15dB in real world listening situations. If you can get 8th notes separated by 8th note rests to achieve more than 15 dB of dynamic range you have an exceptionally well controlled room. With headphones you can do much better than that, but it doesn’t come across as sounding any more dynamic.

If your room has an RT60 time of 0.3 seconds in the mid frequencies, that is considered good for a HiFi listening room. That means that it’ll take a 3rd of a second after a sound stops to achieve 60 dB of dynamic range. That’s assuming the noise floor in the room will allow 60 dB to happen. Rooms that are faster than that are generally not preferred by most listeners.

That said, I'm not against the electrical components achieving a much higher dynamic range than that. There are benefits that can be heard. But the overall perceived dynamic impact can be very high in a good room even if the system doesn't achieve much more than 60 dB dynamic range.

I'm not sure the OP was a long-winded gag or to be taken seriously. But sure, Dynamic Range is very important if you want to recreate the experience of a live concert.  The reality is that most of us DON'T do that.  We listen at much quieter volumes (to protect our hearing) and only occasionally "crank it to 11". 

Of course you have to find synergy between components, especially speakers, to achieve anything close to reality. Speakers run out of gas often long before powerful amps do. Yet, you may LOVE the sound signature of those speakers. 

Life is always a compromise at ANY price point. We have to choose what is important to us within the constraints of our budget, size of listening room, treatment, the damage we are willing to do to our ears, etc. 

In retrospect, I recall the early years of the CD where dynamic range was used to make them sound amazing. Even though they in theory had about a 95dB range, I think most of the better recordings actually used about 65 dB to 70 dB of that. Still, compared to the lesser range of LPs, it was impressive to hear and very impactful. Then the insane "loudness wars" started. Ugh.  And I still love to hear LPs that were recorded well, even with their limitations.  I think they'll be around at least another 50 years - maybe. 

Sounds impressive. Following component DR = improved system DR? Would be interesting to hear

I agree DR is important. Try to improve it with amplifier:

1a) Current capacity.

1b) Slew rate

1c) Total gain.

1d) Bipolar transistors in a common emitter configuration.

2) Better cables which lower the noise floor thereby improving DR

3) Active speakers which have no energy absorbing crossover and amp is directly coupled to the driver.

4) Rigid, non-deforming speakers drivers also help. Like metal vs poly.

5) Eliminate the pre-amp. Not sure of pre-amp gain is necessary

just some thoughts.

@panzrwagn maybe you just made a good argument to go with an integrated solution.  I have a Cambrdge Evo all in 1 integrated that to my ears at least has fabulous dynamics.  One would expect the engineers to be able to do a proper job of integrating things.  

Let's define some terms, shall we? Dynamic range, measured in decibels, is the 'distance' between the noise floor and clipping. Of each component in a system. This means to maximize dynamic range that all components should clip at the same time. That's the whole idea behind gain-staging. It's no help if the gain of the preamp is 10 or 20 dB more than it needs to be, that just raises the noise floor, add in your source gain levels, and it's easy to degrade dynamic range by 30, 40, even 60dB. Concert Hall background noise levels strive for 30dBA and peak SPLs are 115 to 129 dBA. My calculator says that's 75-90 dB. Maximum real world dynamic range. 16 bit digital has a resolution of 96dB, 24- bit 144 dB, and no analog system vinyl or tape can reach 90dB reliably. But, here's the problem. At the bottom of the digital dynamic range there's not many bits to describe the amplitude of the signal, regardless of sample rate. Lossy compression makes that worse by losing the low level information ( harmonics, room acoustics, and a lot more) completely. 

So, adding all that together, the realized dynamic range and the realized bit depth of any digital system is easily and audibly compromised. For analog systems another factor comes into play - the human ears abilities to hear below the noise floor. Not as well, but it's well documented, so analog and digital systems can't be directly compared. Suffice to say digital components need greater dynamic range than their analog equivalents, as well as careful gain-staging to realize the full dynamic range of the system and the potential dynamic range of the media. Unless you set your system up with an oscilloscope and voltmeter, the odds are it isn't optimally setup. No magic, just math. 

Agree good dynamic range is one of the key parameters that separates the champs from the wanna bees  

I’m plum flustered

Hogwash I tell you! Pure hogwash!

A fabrication of the worst type, stereo misinformation!

Well I never!

Just when I thought I had seen it all!

Thank you for the thoughtful documentation of your journey to a system that really engages you. I think that is the desire for us all. Of course we all have different values and they change over time.

As you noted at the onset there are more attributes than just dynamic range that are important. I think early on dynamic range was an important parameter to me as well. But, over time as I became aware of more nuances to music it became less important. I reached a point where my system “performed so well” that it was the system (as opposed to the music) I listened to… the slap, the minuscule details, and not the music. It would captivate me for about 45 minutes and then I would lose interest and do something else. For various reasons I started to wonder how my system compared to the real thing… quickly realizing the only way to know what the real thing was, was to listening to unamplified instruments and music. I realized very quickly my system was incredible detailed, and fast, and revealing but did not sound like the real thing… it was somewhat sterile an analytical.

I changed course… changing my speakers, and getting ride of my massive amps and switching to tubes. What was missing was the soul of the music… the rhythm and pace. Over a ten or fifteen year transition, I now have the most engaging and emotionally involving system I have heard, with the details and realistic / detailed bass. I spend about three hours a day with it, and must pull myself away each day because I want to hear the next tune, or finish what I am listening to.

So, of course, different people have different values and are looking for different things. But you’ll find a lot of us old farts have slowly migrated to tubes and worry less about dynamics, slam, and unending detail and get the gestalt right to our delight. Looking back, I probably would have pursued rhythm and pace with great tonal balance sooner versus later. But that is what makes this pursuit so great, we keep reaching and being rewarded for our achievements.

I just came in from the porch and am correcting the many mistakes I made in this post and put on Chopin’s Nocturnes… speaking at tugging on the heart strings.

bjorn154

I guess you don’t understand sarcastic humor. 

So the whole lengthy post is a gag? I get it now.

After many hours of research I come to find out that Class A/AB typically operate at a maximum of 30V. The significance of this is that this also constrains the maximum DR of these amps to about 100 db as it is related to the operating voltage.

Um, this is hogwash from beginning to end. The "typical.... maximum" is wrong, the significance is wrong, and the DR is wrong.

Those "many hours of research" the author claims they undertook were not well spent at all.

FWIW, optimal DR may be a blessing for younger audiophiles, but for the older group with HF hearing issues not so much. They lose some HF and they turn up the volume to hear the highs again, and drive younger folks out of the room. I'm older and have little problem with jazz, but classical recordings can be a problem. Some recordings have optimum DR but I loose the low level highs. Need a compression device I think. :-)

I guess you don’t understand sarcastic humor.