As always, it’s not that easy. They’re not measuring the same thing, so it’s not a matter of changing ‘scale’. Including a crest factor DR number would require reanalysing all your files; and is (probably) not available for streamed files.
To borrow the earlier analogy, it’s not like Centigrade vs Fahrenheit, more like (I’m struggling for a good analogy - sorry) mass vs density. Both properties of the same physical ‘thing’, and both useful to know, but different…
Thanks. I went ahead and made the feature request. I would encourage other to do so too.
This is the EBU document describing LRA. This quote may be relevant…
“Loudness Range should not be confused with other measures like dynamic range or crest factor, etc.”
Perhaps Roon should not describe LRA as a DR measurement, or at least make it clearer that it’s not a reliable proxy.
Thought?
How much clearer would you like it to be? It’s got its own entry in the KB.
I know. I re-read it half an hour ago to be sure what it says.
To me, the KB conflates LRA and DR then, quietly, at the end, says it’s not really the same. Given the proportion of Roon users who never seem to find the KB, how many read to the end of the page? Is that good enough?
(I’ll get off my soapbox now… sorry… )
It seems absolutely crystal to me, but ymmv.
One should not have to read the knowledge base to discover that what Roon labels as the dynamic range number is indeed NOT a dynamic range number. It is labeled incorrectly and I believe it is done on purpose. Why? So Roon does not have to provide the “hobby standard” dynamic range number as that would require a license, more work, and may cause problem with Qobuz and Tidal.
Apart from it consistently reading ‘dynamic range’ when the EBU use pretty much the same words and call it ‘loudness range’, and tell you it’s not the same thing at all (not ‘[not]directly comparable’), no problem at all!
Edit - bother - must burn my soapbox…
I just can’t get bent out of shape about it. I’ll leave you chaps to it.
Another thread muted.
@AndyR is not “bent out of shape”. He, and I, think that Roon should not call it “Dynamic Range” when it is really “Loudness Range”. Even the EBU, who created the R128 standard, says is should not be conflated with “Dynamic Range”.
Burying the clarification in the knowledge base with a justification for using the EBU “Loudness Range” as “Dynamic Range” doesn’t really cut it.
Roon is not the only program which label’s R128 as Dynamic Range so does JRiver, granted the type is specified in parentheses . So, Roon’s use of the term is not so far fetched or unique.
Well, I don’t consider anything in the knowledge Base to be buried. However, what the DR value means is clearly specified when looking at a Track’s File Info. See:
This topic has been discussed before in detail including responses by some devs, it is a valuable read, see:
This is an Argumentum ad Populum. Just because JRiver does it too, it must mean it is correct to do. That is a VERY weak and fallacious argument. Look, the EBU (the creators of R128) document that describes the “Loudness Range” measurement says this:
“Loudness Range should not be confused with other measures like dynamic range or crest factor, etc.”
In other words, it is not meant to be used as a dynamic range number because it is not a dynamic range number. Yet that is exactly what Roon does. Uses it as a dynamic range number. What JRiver does is irrelevant. Roon is misleading because it is representing the number as dynamic range when it is a number used for loudness control in broadcasting.
In that thread you said was a valuable read, you effectively said that the crest factor-based number DR uses provides you with meaningful information while the R128 number is misleading. What I read from Roon “devs” was justifications for using that number over the crest factor DR Database number. What you wrote was spot on and what the devs wrote is an effort to justify a poor choice.
One can argue the pro’s and cons of either method until the cows come home, but that doesn’t help if all I want to do, is compare an albums DR value with http://dr.loudness-war.info, which is not an unreasonable or even unusual request.
If it were labelled as Loudness Range (R128) in ‘file info’ that would be better, but I suspect people would still persist in misinterpreting it. I guess I hope correct naming might stop ‘Roon’s DR numbers are rubbish’ threads… but on reflection, probably not…
If what we really want is the numbers from the loudness war site, visiting the site gives us that and (usually) a bunch more information.
I’ve not looked, but maybe someone has already written a script or program to analyse local files and embed a DR tag. Now there’s a thought…
I just play the music and notice a bigger LU number has more dynamics, this is also reflected in the progress bar graphic. What more do you need, forget the stats and focus on the music.
I do. Mostly. I only occasionally succumb… 
Although this topic is almost a year old since the last reply it was indeed useful to me because I was not understanding the Dynamic Range readings on Roon versus others I have used and seen including those at DR Database. No that I understand away I go on my merry way.
Yeah. But, it sure would be nice if Roon would provide REAL dynamic range numbers instead of labeling EBU R128 “Loudness Range” numbers as “Dynamic range”.
YES!, the Dynamic Range label in Roon is so confusing and wrong, all my super higly compressed unlistenable albums have better rating than most of my other stuff.
From my point of view, the presentation of EBU R128 data in Roon as Dynamic Range, is just another attempt to cover up and support the bad masterings we have these day because of the “loudness war”.
Like it or not, the crest factor gives you a lot better indication of what you are about to listen too. If Roon don’t want to add the Crest Factor Dynamic range, then they at least should add the option to completely disable EBU R128 Dynamic Range presentation.
