"Jenn" wrote in message
...
: In article ,
: Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
:
:
: Real Audio Sucked wrote:
: Only because the brigade he's in, is made up of actual EE's and the people
: bitching about him haven't even been to an electronics school.
:
: Which qualifies him for judging how things sound?
:
: Oh, are you claiming better hearing, Jenn? :-)

carefuly dodging the question, noted.
:
: Wouldn't think of it! ;-)

the odds are rather good, though, considering age & gender :-)
Rudy

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"ScottW" wrote in message
news:VFKPf.135464$0G.56970@dukeread10
wrote in message
nk.net...

"Glenn Richards" wrote
in message

It simply isn't so and I have quite a few
albums that do sound lots better than their CD release.

Bad mastering. So what?

The client always walks out of the mastering facility
with what he wants, so in his terms of reference it is
not bad mastering.

"So what" ?????
Arny yuou can't be serious
To me it's a crime to spend hrs, weeks,
months sometimes making a master recording, and then
have someone destroy it by making a clipped CD?


I also have a few albums that stand up well against most
CDs. I have a few CDs that actually perform to a level the technology is
capable of, but rarely delivers.

Actually, the audio CD format is capable of dynamic range and low
distortion that simply cannot be exploited with any real-world recording
of live music or music played on non-electronic instruments. Even most
electronic instruments are hard-pressed to produce truely CD quality
sound.

Even large symphonic recordings rarely, if ever have a dynamic in excess
of 80dB so one would think that the CD would be the perfect medium.

As regards popular music (I am not implying that classical music
is not popular but speaking of a gen-) the CD is a sometimes a
great disappointment. It is of consolation to no-one to be told
"The studio master is actually fine, but we had to make the CD
a bit louder and a bit brighter, oh and add a bit more bass too
(a polite way of saying "turn it inside out" ) because everyone
else does, and our CDs cannot be perceived to be lower in
average level, LF or HF content".

Iain.

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"ScottW" wrote in message
news:VFKPf.135464$0G.56970@dukeread10
wrote in message
nk.net...

"Glenn Richards" wrote
in message

It simply isn't so and I have quite a few
albums that do sound lots better than their CD release.

Bad mastering. So what?

The client always walks out of the mastering facility
with what he wants, so in his terms of reference it is
not bad mastering.

"So what" ?????
Arny yuou can't be serious
To me it's a crime to spend hrs, weeks,
months sometimes making a master recording, and then
have someone destroy it by making a clipped CD?


I also have a few albums that stand up well against most
CDs. I have a few CDs that actually perform to a level the technology
is
capable of, but rarely delivers.

Actually, the audio CD format is capable of dynamic range and low
distortion that simply cannot be exploited with any real-world recording
of live music or music played on non-electronic instruments. Even most
electronic instruments are hard-pressed to produce truely CD quality
sound.

Even large symphonic recordings rarely, if ever have a dynamic in excess
of 80dB so one would think that the CD would be the perfect medium.

As regards popular music (I am not implying that classical music
is not popular but speaking of a gen-) the CD is a sometimes a
great disappointment. It is of consolation to no-one to be told
"The studio master is actually fine, but we had to make the CD
a bit louder and a bit brighter, oh and add a bit more bass too
(a polite way of saying "turn it inside out" ) because everyone
else does, and our CDs cannot be perceived to be lower in
average level, LF or HF content".



Or put simply, a lot of CDs are a lot crapper than a few here* would like to
admit. Note that anyone extolling the 'superiority' of CDs....

pauses for the laughter to subside

....always points to summat like the loopy money Sheffield Labs disks to make
their point? I've had direct correspondence only *today* from one here who
has just received a copy of a 'famous album' and who has been blown away by
it, compared to the CD! (No names, no pack drill, no Pink Floyd!! ;-)


*And everywhere else it seems - is everything going to be multi-crossposted
now? (Are we going to become a Federation?)

Iain Churches wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"ScottW" wrote in message
news:VFKPf.135464$0G.56970@dukeread10
wrote in message
nk.net...

"Glenn Richards" wrote
in message

It simply isn't so and I have quite a few
albums that do sound lots better than their CD release.

Bad mastering. So what?

The client always walks out of the mastering facility
with what he wants, so in his terms of reference it is
not bad mastering.

"So what" ?????
Arny yuou can't be serious
To me it's a crime to spend hrs, weeks,
months sometimes making a master recording, and then
have someone destroy it by making a clipped CD?


I also have a few albums that stand up well against most
CDs. I have a few CDs that actually perform to a level the technology is
capable of, but rarely delivers.

Actually, the audio CD format is capable of dynamic range and low
distortion that simply cannot be exploited with any real-world recording
of live music or music played on non-electronic instruments. Even most
electronic instruments are hard-pressed to produce truely CD quality
sound.

Even large symphonic recordings rarely, if ever have a dynamic in excess
of 80dB so one would think that the CD would be the perfect medium.

As regards popular music (I am not implying that classical music
is not popular but speaking of a gen-) the CD is a sometimes a
great disappointment. It is of consolation to no-one to be told
"The studio master is actually fine, but we had to make the CD
a bit louder and a bit brighter, oh and add a bit more bass too
(a polite way of saying "turn it inside out" ) because everyone
else does, and our CDs cannot be perceived to be lower in
average level, LF or HF content".

Iain.

My heart sinks when I am told a publisher believes himself to be
"creative". In practice it means that he creates nothing, offers only
wildly impractical "contributions", and tries to alter my work. I had
one clown about ten years ago who didn't like some of the backgrounds
in a particular chapter, so just before the book went to press, when I
wouldn't see it again, he pulled *only* the backgrounds he didn't like
out, and left the rest in that chapter. This was in a book for other
graphic designers, who notice such things, in a chapter on the value of
consistency; this idiot made me look like a hypocrite who preaches what
he doesn't practice. The equivalent would be if you cut a test disc,
and then some "creative" moron "equalized" it just before it was
pressed for sale...

Andre Jute