Lord Hasenpfeffer
June 28th 03, 08:12 PM
>> Oh, by the way, have you seen the screenshot?
>
> Yup, and it's utterly meaningless. Now, *you* might prefer all music
> to be reduced to 'normalised' pop-culture crap at maximum loudness,
> but the *artists* likely thought that not all music is *supposed* to
> peak at 0dB FS. For you to even *dream* that you have a fraction of
> the mastering ability of MFSL, is truly breathtaking arrogance. I
> guess your volume control goes up to 12..................
But surely you can see that just by looking at the screenshot that I
have done nothing to the music. It's the same both ways. It only
*looks* different when really it is not. If you think my version is
"too loud" then turn down the volume. It's that easy.
> BTW, I have seven versions of DSotM on vinyl and CD, and the MFSL CD
> is my preferred version. Of course, I haven't yet heard the
> surround-sound SACD, and it's well-known that DS was *intended* for
> multi-channel performance.
Yes, I've never heard the original quad but clearly it was not intended
for stereo. The SACD version will be a welcome and long-overdue correction.
> You seem to be totally unaware that the dynamic range of the *music*
> is only some 70-75dB at most, hence it's utterly pointless for some
> clown like you to come along and insist that the last half-dozen dB of
> the 93dB of a CDs natural range *has* to be employed.
You're failing to understand my purpose for the normalization.
> For some bozo to attempt to 'normalise' all his music to some
> notional -10dB average while avoiding peak clipping is an utterly
> disgusting barbarity.
For my purpose in having done so, it actually makes perfect sense really.
> I hate to think what you'd do with Beethoven's 'Moonlight' Sonata....
Oh, well, naturally, I'm pump that up even more.
Myke
--
-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-
>
> Yup, and it's utterly meaningless. Now, *you* might prefer all music
> to be reduced to 'normalised' pop-culture crap at maximum loudness,
> but the *artists* likely thought that not all music is *supposed* to
> peak at 0dB FS. For you to even *dream* that you have a fraction of
> the mastering ability of MFSL, is truly breathtaking arrogance. I
> guess your volume control goes up to 12..................
But surely you can see that just by looking at the screenshot that I
have done nothing to the music. It's the same both ways. It only
*looks* different when really it is not. If you think my version is
"too loud" then turn down the volume. It's that easy.
> BTW, I have seven versions of DSotM on vinyl and CD, and the MFSL CD
> is my preferred version. Of course, I haven't yet heard the
> surround-sound SACD, and it's well-known that DS was *intended* for
> multi-channel performance.
Yes, I've never heard the original quad but clearly it was not intended
for stereo. The SACD version will be a welcome and long-overdue correction.
> You seem to be totally unaware that the dynamic range of the *music*
> is only some 70-75dB at most, hence it's utterly pointless for some
> clown like you to come along and insist that the last half-dozen dB of
> the 93dB of a CDs natural range *has* to be employed.
You're failing to understand my purpose for the normalization.
> For some bozo to attempt to 'normalise' all his music to some
> notional -10dB average while avoiding peak clipping is an utterly
> disgusting barbarity.
For my purpose in having done so, it actually makes perfect sense really.
> I hate to think what you'd do with Beethoven's 'Moonlight' Sonata....
Oh, well, naturally, I'm pump that up even more.
Myke
--
-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-