[Karl Uppiano]

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article .com, Dave
writes
On 23 Jun, 06:44, "Colin B." wrote:
In rec.audio.tech Dave wrote:

I have been disappointed with the audio quality of some CDs I have
bought recently. Is there a free program I can use to get an accepted
measurement of fidelity? (like a signal to noise ratio)

I have my suspicious that some may have been stored an MP3s and then
"unripped" in the factory. So how can I tell for certain if my CD has
been an MP3, or other lossy format? I'd hope mp3 storage would leave
different markers than the original tape, for example.

Unless these are pirated copies, the answer is most likely not. That's
too much pointless effort for commercial studios to go through.

The answer is much more mundane: Most recording sucks.
Maybe I should retrain when I get to 50 because by then all younger
sound engineers will have grown up with MP3s and not have a clue what
decent audio sounds like.


Sadly.. Never a truer word written in jest....

Former Beatle, George Harrison said that every generation has its own
"sound", depending on the kind of mixers they used (he probably meant more
than mixers, but I think he referred to mixers specifically). He made some
mention of the sound of Hoagy Charmichael recordings. But engineering
techniques will exploit and/or compensate for the technology at hand. CDs
made from masters originally targeting vinyl sometimes didn't sound as good
as CDs made from masters targeting CDs. Engineers recording to analog tape
at times deliberately overloaded the tape for specific effects (sometimes
providing the illusion of dynamic range that wasn't actually there). Each
generation had its supporters and detractors, and each cited "solid,
factual" evidence to support their opinions. Audio recording was, and still
is, more of an art than a science.