Dynamic range measurement is different than http://dr.loutness-war.info

Roon’s Dynamic Range measurement system is lousy.

For example, Donna Summer’s CD, Bad Girls, which has a dynamic range of +16, according to the web http://dr.loudness-war.info/, is detected by Roon with a Dynamic Range of +7.

So the Roon measurement is very unreliable. Can you do something about it?
Thank you.

It’s not lousy, it uses a different system which generates a different value.

It seems that you would like them to use the system used by DR database. For reasons discussed extensively on this website, they don’t. This is from Roon’s KB explaining why they use R128 instead of the system the DR database uses:


How is Dynamic Range computed?

As with Volume Leveling Roon’s dynamic range calculation is done based on R128 standards. In technical terms, Roon’s “Dynamic Range” is the same as R128’s “Loudness Range”.

That there are older methods of computing Dynamic range out there–most commonly by measuring the “Crest Factor”.

Crest Factor measurements reflect the difference between the average volume and the peak volume–so they are easily swayed by periods of silence or near-silence (which distorts the average), and by short-duration peaks–which may not represent the volume of the loudest parts of the track accurately.

The R128 method is more resillient. It begins by computing the statistical distribution of loudness values present at different points in the track, ignoring periods of silence. The computed dynamic range represents the difference between the 10th percentile and the 95th percentile of that distribution. In other words, the “top” of the range is the volume level that 95% of the track sits below, and the “bottom” is the volume level that 90% of the track sits above.

Though both methods portray roughly the same information, Crest Factor values aren’t directly comparable to values produced using the R128 method.


Different measurement standards; different master?

I don’t think you’re comparing apples with apples.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


Roon’s measurement of dynamic range is different to the six albums (that I can find) measurements of dynamic range in the web dynamic range database. The only ‘16’ I can see is a vinyl rip.

Which master is Roon measuring for you?

Roon uses the R128 standard, the loudness war website uses crest factor.

There’s a feature request to make crest factor a selectable option:

This is the disc that I have and the measurement that I do gives me the same data as that published on the web Dynamic Range DB.
The maximum range is +17

What result do you get if you analyse that track using the R128 algorithm?

He’s already said in his opening post.

It’s like measuring the temperature if Centigrade or Fahrenheit. Fahrenheit sounds better but 32 degrees is still Bloody warm in centigrade :joy:


I’ve just checked three of my cd rips using the Orban loudness meter analysis. Using default settings I get comparable results to those reported by Roon.

What did surprise me was the number or reconstructed samples that were over 0dBFS on two of the files.

Actually… maybe I wasn’t surprised. Black Keys and Amy Winehouse.

No, it’s not like Centigrade or Fahrenheit. Those two scales are measuring the same thing and you can easily convert from one to another. You can’t convert between R128 and the crest factor results from the DR Database.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

Moderators have temporarily closed this thread as it was being derailed by continued discussion of moderation. Read this post first and then open a thread in the Roon Community Site section if you wish to discuss moderation.

1 Like

This topic was automatically opened after 34 hours.

I think the bottom line might be that LRA is not a measure of dynamic range, nor should it be used as a proxy for dynamic range.

As an aside, it turns out I have five versions of Brown Eyed Girl, four of which appear on CD ‘samplers’. They are all different.

The version with the highest LRA number turns out to be the mono radio edit; it is by far the poorest ‘sound’. The two channels are not identical, leading me to suspect a transcription from vinyl.

The version with the lowest LRA number is on the ‘Still On Top’ compilation, which I guess is ‘remastered’… and also has many inter-sample peaks above 0dBFS.

What a mess…

Thanks, I didn’t know about the Orban loudness meter program. Running it on a smattering of my files reveals a pattern: most music I have that is not expressly mastered in “audiophile” ways has plenty of reconstructed samples over 0dBFS, even if its loudness measures are pretty good.

I suspect that Roon’s volume leveling hides these from my DAC in most cases.