"flipper" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:35:29 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:
It is interesting to note the re-appearance of VUs added to the
existing meter overbridge, particularly in mastering suites.
Well, you'd know more about the mastering studios than I would. All
know is how they work 
I do find it interesting that people will jump onto a 'new way' and
then, maybe, 'rediscover' there was a 'useful reason' for the other
way after all.
Perhaps it is due to commercial pressure, who knows, but there
has been a tendency to switch to new technology while still not
taking advantage of all it has to offer.
Well, I think people generally accept new technology because it almost
invariably is 'better' with, perhaps, a few bumps in the road and some
wiggle room depending on how one defines 'better'.
Morning Flipper. I enjoyed your post.
Yeah, and that's what makes it so egregious. It's certainly
understandable when limitations force a compromise but not so
understandable when it's simply thrown away.
Agreed. The medium does not seem to be used anywhere
close to its full potential.
The artist is not to blame.
There seems to be some debate on that matter.
I have never heard the artist blamed. How can it
be his/her fault? The artist usually has nothing to say
about production or marketing.
Just going by what I've heard, that sometimes it is the artist
themselves, but I get the impression that, most of the time, it's the
producers.
Most artists have little or no say in the technical aspects of
the recording. Their area of influence becomes less and less
after mixing and presentation decisions (sleeve pics, notes etc)
have been made.
Indeed. It would be quite easy now that music is available
for download, to make a compressed .mp3 available for those
who seem to want that kind of sound, and an uncompressed .wav
file for those that don't. We shall see.
Wouldn't; that take two masters though? I mean, if your mastering with
the intent of scrunching it to hell and back you might not necessarily
do it the same as when going for best fidelity, right?
The final production master is made from a studio master (or pre-master)
which is usually blameless. Making a precise clone of this, without the
"improvements" is quite straightforward.
As I think I alluded to before, maybe that's a natural result of
'consumerism', as viewed by 'aficionados' who, often, were 'the
first'. Their priorities are different than the 'mass market'.
Yes. Agreed. The problem is that the ratio is about 100:1 :-)
with the "louder is better" brigade in the vast majority. But,
if the user had a player with compressor and EQ built in,
(simple- low cost) he/she could be given a clean product
to mangle or not as he/she wished. That would solve the
problem at a stroke.
But what percentage of the public are interested do you
think?
Well, that's the million dollar question, isn't it? I don't know but
I'd bet not the 'majority', because that isn't the top of their
priority list.
Those are my feelings too. Most people have never had the
luxury of choice or comparison, and don't realise what
CD is capable of.
However, if they knew they could have 'better' music for free and that
the primary reason it isn't is for a supercilious 'loudness war' their
opinion might change... even whether they could 'tell' or not.
People don't generally like being ripped off and "well, you can't tell
anyway" sounds like a charlatan's excuse for doing so.
I get the impression that most people are satisfied, and so don't
feel they are being "ripped off" Those who lament the poor quality
do feel they are being offered a deliberately mangled product.
I didn't mean to argue with it because I haven't seen the data, just
the 'conclusions' and arguments drawn. I mean, for example, did they
ask people if they'd rather have a good sounding CD or a crap loud
one? Or did they just ask if loud was 'good'?
It is very easy to influence the outcome of a poll by asking
"leading questions", so some care must be taken in this. I
think the opening question has been "Are you satisfied with
the quality of CD production" (Most people said that they
were indeed satisfied) The second question was "Where
do you listen to music mainly." (To which the majority replied
"in the car" or "in-ear, while walking jogging etc etc"
I get the feeling that few people make time for
listening to music except as a background activity.
This is perhaps why there is no longer an accent
on quality.
They talked to people in the process of buying a record at a store,
and asked "Are you satisfied with the sound of CDs as currently
produced" Most were totally satisfied.
Studies are always interesting because data is data but conclusions
are not always as obvious as they might seem. Like, are people
'satisfied' because they have a 'standard of comparison', and the CDs
meet it, or because they've been told 'digital audio' is 'the best'
you can get and so, it 'must be'.?
Yes.
Even if they have a 'standard of comparison', what is it and how did
they arrive at it?
It might be interesting to ask people why they spend 'big bucks' on
'high quality' audio equipment when the CDs are mangled crap and I
imagine you might get a lot of "huh?"
Most systems see to be very low cost (albeit remarkably
good for the money - with the exception of speakers)
The numbers of "technical
returns" are very small indeed.
If it plays the music then what 'reason' would there be for a return
and what's the alternative if you did? An even worse MP3 of it or a
'perfect' FLAC copy of what you rejected?
The term "technical return" encompasses product
that has technical shortcomings, which strictly-speaking
a compressed of clipped CD has. But a lawyer would be
hard-pressed to convince a court that this was so. The
problem is that the customer returns his/her CD to the
shop, and the assistant compares it with another, identical,
CD from stock, and shows there is nothing wrong with it.
If the customer then says, "They are all bad" the sales assistant
is likely to call security.
I'm just suggesting that 'technical returns' might not be indicative.
The problem really is that people are pretty lethargic. I know
from talking to my local record shop owner, that many people buy
eight or ten CDs at a time, and so if one or two of them are a little
compressed, well "Hey. So what!"
It is interesting too that there is a very clear double standard here.
Most classical and jazz CDs are immaculately mastered.
I guess they figure those listeners are more discerning.... and have
cars with 'quieter' interiors
Or maybe, being 'perfectionists', they've mastered the use of a volume
knob.
I think it is because the manufacturers know they are dealing with
a more discerning audience, who don't listen to the recording a
couple of times, and by something else next Saturday, but add to
their collections and listejn to the music on a regular basis. It
is interesting also that in the EBU area at least, radio stations
playing classical music and jazz do not compress the music to
death as their popular counterpart stations are so keen to do.
Regards
Iain