[[email protected]]

John Williamson wrote: "If what they wanted and bought had a good dynamic range, that it what engineers would produce"

I don't think the people who bought "Aerosmith" or "Dark Side Of the Moon" 40 yrs ago were thinking, 'I'll buy these - they have good dynamic range". They bought them because they were fans.

The facts are, those albums, and the CDs of them from the '80s, ARE more dynamic and overall sound better than the so-called 'remasters' you and others on here are so proud of.

Computers and DAW technology exist now that allow everyone, from top-tier engineers to Joe listener with a PC to listen to and analyze the damage being done.

Once mo The public buys what is offered. It is the artists and the labels who demand their music be squashed and then made as loud as possible.

[John Williamson]

On 20/08/2014 13:39, wrote:
John Williamson wrote: "If what they wanted and bought had a good dynamic range, that it what engineers would produce"

I don't think the people who bought "Aerosmith" or "Dark Side Of the Moon" 40 yrs ago were thinking, 'I'll buy these - they have good dynamic range". They bought them because they were fans.

The facts are, those albums, and the CDs of them from the '80s, ARE more dynamic and overall sound better than the so-called 'remasters' you and others on here are so proud of.

Which shows your lack of comprehension. In no way have I or anyone else
osting in this thread defended the current fashion for squashing the
dynamic range down to nothing. All I have done is point out *the current
fashion in popular music* and the way that engineers`in the market have
to either produce what that`market requires or starve.

Computers and DAW technology exist now that allow everyone, from top-tier engineers to Joe listener with a PC to listen to and analyze the damage being done.

And if you don't like what you hear, there are sites that let you
download the raw material and mix your own version of some (Not all)
tracks. Shrug

Then compare your version with the version the artistes mixed for
themselves, taking *all* the factors into account.

Once mo The public buys what is offered. It is the artists and the labels who demand their music be squashed and then made as loud as possible.

Once more. The public are offered what they are willing to buy. If they
don't like it, they don't buy it, and everybody in the industry starves.
The public in general want what they hear on the radio, which in most
cases has been passed through an Optimod set for maximum loudness within
the station's selected "sound", which includes things like dynamically
equalising everything so that a listener won't want to touch the volume
or tone controls between tracks and they complain if the CD they buy
doesn't sound like that. The days when disc jockeys used to twiddle on a
piano between tracks if the tracks were in different keys have *long* gone.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[John Williamson]

On 20/08/2014 13:30, wrote:
John Williamson wrote: "On 20/08/2014 11:53, wrote:
geoff wrote: "

Correct. But putting "digital" in front of "remastered" means a lot if you're in sales & marketing. And due to rampant bad practices, the term "digitally remastered" has become synonymous with hyper-compressed brickwalled reissues.

Only because the marketing droids want it that way. Which in turn is due
to the public wanting it that way.
____________
Prove that the public wants it "that way": Brick walled & squashed.

They buy it. If they didn't want it, they wouldn't buy it.

Prove otherwise.

Snip
I'm not mixing up anything. And because most of what we call classics were produced before digital, we must be able to correlate the avg and peak levels of those legacy albums in modern full-scale terms.

This is easily done. Digitise the classic version, then use the metering
in a DAW.

You asked me earlier to point out examples of you posting rubbish. You
post is a prime example. Every single point you make in it shows your
lack of appreciation of commercial, artisitic and technical factors in
recording.
- show quoted text -"

Yes, I do lack appreciation - for the ignorance of the artists and labels who demand loudness processing and squashing dynamics, and for engineers who always fold up like a two-dollar suitcase instead of sticking to established audio principles.

You obviously don't work as a recording engineer then, or in any other
employment that requires dealing directly with clients. "The customer's
always right" is a core principle in any successful business.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[William Sommerwerck]

wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck wrote: "Pop music recording (in the broadest sense of pop)
has never been much about accuracy."

"It's no surprise there's a large market for LPs among pop listeners.
CD transfers of analog master tapes can sound "sterile". "

It's because there's *something* those listeners just don't like about
the CD versions - they just aren't as informed to the terminology and the
reasons behind it. So when they drop the vinyl, -- which btw does not
tolerate dynamics squashing as well as digital- it's like a sonic revelation
in comparison.

All the "information" in the world won't change someone's tastes or beliefs
(qv, politics).

I listen mostly to classical, and started my live-recording "career" using
analog recorders. Digital had its own sound -- or more accurately, less of a
"sound". It was obviously more-accurate -- at the expensive of warmth,
smoothness (etc) -- all the pleasing things analog lovers like about analog.

Got a pair of the original Advents in good working order? Play a modern
digital recording (jazz or classical, preferably) through a really
high-quality speaker. Then play it through the Advents. The Advent screams
"analog". It wipes out most of the things that distinguish digital recording.

[[email protected]]

Yes, I do lack appreciation - for the ignorance of the artists and labels who demand loudness processing and squashing dynamics, and for engineers who always fold up like a two-dollar suitcase instead of sticking to established audio principles.





you are picking a fight with the wrong people.

Most of the engineers here agree with you, the engineers don't like hyper compression either. But the engineers are paid by their clients.

You should take your arguments against hyper compression up with the people that have the power to change it, the artists and the producers, not the engineers.

you are alienating the people who agree with you

Mark

[John Williamson]

On 20/08/2014 15:16, wrote:



Yes, I do lack appreciation - for the ignorance of the artists and labels who demand loudness processing and squashing dynamics, and for engineers who always fold up like a two-dollar suitcase instead of sticking to established audio principles.





you are picking a fight with the wrong people.

Most of the engineers here agree with you, the engineers don't like hyper compression either. But the engineers are paid by their clients.

You should take your arguments against hyper compression up with the people that have the power to change it, the artists and the producers, not the engineers.

you are alienating the people who agree with you


Thanks, except you replied to the wrong person. It's Geoff, aka
thekmanrocks that doesn't realise that engineers do what they're paid to
do. I do some engineering, and produce whatever the client asks for,
putting up only token opposition if I don't like it.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Scott Dorsey]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote:
CD transfers of analog master tapes can sound "sterile".

Usually because the listener was used to the distortions of vinyl -
without knowing what that implies.

I have loads of early CDs which were in effect just a straight
transcription of the (analogue) master tapes. Usually with a steep fade in
and out between tracks to get rid of tape noise. And apart from that, all
sound infinitely better than the LP. Of course, that may be 'sterile' to
some.

Maybe.

A lot of those master tapes were mixed, though, with LP cutting in mind.
There was a lot of push to keep low end under control and out of phase high
end down as far as possible.

It's possible that a little equalization of those tapes might have got
something closer to the producer's ideal in his head.

It's possible that it may not, though. I'm still very annoyed that the
kick drum on Itchykoo Park was "fixed" on re-release.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

vinyl, - which btw does not tolerate dynamics squashing as well as
digital-

As someone who spent an internship cutting 45s as loud as possible, I can say
that this isn't exactly correct. It's just that the procedures are different
and the consequences are different.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:
John Williamson wrote: "The real ****wit is the one who continually has things explained to him "

This type of name-calling does nothing to further the discourse.

This is discourse? We repeat things over and over to you and you don't get
them, so someone else repeats them again. That is not discourse.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[hank alrich]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

wrote:
John Williamson: 90% ehh?

Break that down for me, provide proof.

At least my intentions are good!

Your intentions are good, but it's very clear you don't understand the
problem either politically or technically, and your constant harping on
and misinformation does damage to your own cause. What I find more offensive
is that it does damage to _my_ cause.

I have fought strongly against hypercompression for many years, and your
yammering is making the fight more difficult rather than easier because
all of this junk is discrediting the idea you claim to support.
--scott

Hear, hear, and here.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[S. King]

On Wed, 20 Aug 2014 05:39:28 -0700, thekmanrocks wrote:

John Williamson wrote: "If what they wanted and bought had a good
dynamic range, that it what engineers would produce"

I don't think the people who bought "Aerosmith" or "Dark Side Of the
Moon" 40 yrs ago were thinking, 'I'll buy these - they have good dynamic
range". They bought them because they were fans.

The facts are, those albums, and the CDs of them from the '80s, ARE more
dynamic and overall sound better than the so-called 'remasters' you and
others on here are so proud of.

Computers and DAW technology exist now that allow everyone, from
top-tier engineers to Joe listener with a PC to listen to and analyze
the damage being done.

Once mo The public buys what is offered. It is the artists and the
labels who demand their music be squashed and then made as loud as
possible.

We get it. You don't like squashed music. You think that the engineers
and mastering houses who follow their client's wishes should help to
change that. You are preaching to the wrong choir. Drop it. You waste
all of our time with your one-note crusade. Find some other way to get
attention. Go picket a record company. Get arrested. Yeah, that's the
ticket. Do that. Go away.

[S. King]

On Wed, 20 Aug 2014 07:03:27 -0400, None wrote:

whining little baby K @ gmail.com wrote in message
...
I'm not mixing up anything.

Yes you are. You have no understanding of the technical or business
issues, so you have no understanding of whether you're mixing things up.
Your denial is based on ignorance, idiocy, and stubbornness. But not
understanding.

And because most of what we call classics were produced before digital,
we must be able to correlate the avg and peak levels of those legacy
albums in modern full-scale terms.

You don't even know what that means, if anything.

Why are we responding to this twit? I'm going to do my part by a)blocking
him because he is so annoying, and b)blocking this thread that is
dominating our news group. We're crapping in our own bed here.

[hank alrich]

geoff wrote:

On 19/08/2014 2:33 a.m., wrote:
. And aiming for zero full scale has definitely resulted in some LOUD
new albums, and remasters.


"Zero full scale" has little to do with the "loudness".

geoff

Preach it, brother, but you're talking to a brick.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[hank alrich]

wrote:

And I believe that if just one or two really outstanding ones spine up and
plant their feet: "Sorry, But if you want your record turned into sonic
mush you'll have to pay someone else"


The areas of audio knowledge in which you have proven yourself clueless
is extensive. With the above conjecture you demonstrate that such
expertise applies as well to the world of business.

You have zero concept of how competitive today's mastering scene is, how
many fine engineers there are, and how they all need work to survive.

You send a perfectly good (i.e., pays the bills) client out one time
because you seek to implant your own sense of esthetics in place of
theirs and you will have lost a client, probably forever.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[hank alrich]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
geoff wrote:
A legitimate part of that scenario is because many CDs from the '80s
were still being mastered, or straight transcription of music mastered
for the constraints of vinyl. Put the bass back to where the producer
decides he would like it, and the overall effect is louder.

Many of the first CDs didn't peak to anywhere near 0dBFS, either.

I have a Jennifer Warnes Famous Blue Raincoat CD that peaks around
-14dBFS!

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[hank alrich]

John Williamson wrote:

On 20/08/2014 13:06, wrote:
So someone who doesn't toe the "Remasters are always better than the
Orig" party line, and kiss some ass while they're at it, is automatically
an "amateur ****wit".

God bless you brother.


The real ****wit is the one who continually has things explained to him
by people far more experienced and talented than he is, but refuses to
learn anything from that explanation.

+1M

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[hank alrich]

None wrote:

wrote in message
...
First off Sean, do NOT, EVER, quote anything posted by 'N0ne'sic
or even refer to him/it, in a post.

Do you use comedy writers?


I shall reefer to none.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[hank alrich]

Peter Larsen wrote:

On 17-08-2014 15:03, None wrote:

Everyone's in general agreement, Krissie child. There's an idiot, and
you keep proving that it's you. Maybe you could find somewhere else on
the net that you could use for toilet paper, and stop wiping your ass
here on RAP.

You pussy yellowbelly you, if you want to use that language on the
internet then post under your own name like the good people here. Your
points are often interesting, your net behavior likewise, but in a
different way.

Peter Larsen

Nice creative writing skills, though. g

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Scott Dorsey]

hank alrich wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
geoff wrote:
A legitimate part of that scenario is because many CDs from the '80s
were still being mastered, or straight transcription of music mastered
for the constraints of vinyl. Put the bass back to where the producer
decides he would like it, and the overall effect is louder.

Many of the first CDs didn't peak to anywhere near 0dBFS, either.

I have a Jennifer Warnes Famous Blue Raincoat CD that peaks around
-14dBFS!

And it has a weird sub-Hz tone from a malfunctioning servo loop also!
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, August 20, 2014 1:03:05 PM UTC-4, hank alrich wrote:
Non.org wrote:



rote in message

negroups.com...

First off Sean, do NOT, EVER, quote anything posted by 'N0ne'sic

or even refer to him/it, in a post.



Do you use comedy writers?





I shall reefer to none.



--

shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com

HankandShaidriMusic.Com

YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

_________
Perhaps you and he/it are one! Judging solely from yours and his tones.

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, August 20, 2014 9:32:49 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
On 20/08/2014 13:39, wrote:



Once mo The public buys what is offered. It is the artists and the labels who demand their music be squashed and then made as loud as possible.



Once more. The public are offered what they are willing to buy. If they

don't like it, they don't buy it, and everybody in the industry starves.

The public in general want what they hear on the radio, which in most

cases has been passed through an Optimod set for maximum loudness within

the station's selected "sound", which includes things like dynamically

equalising everything so that a listener won't want to touch the volume

or tone controls between tracks and they complain if the CD they buy

doesn't sound like that. The days when disc jockeys used to twiddle on a

piano between tracks if the tracks were in different keys have *long* gone.



--

Tciao for Now!



John.
_____________________

When I was a teen in high school my classmates and friends used to tease me(in a friendly way of course) about my music listening preferences: 80% radio, the remaining 20%, cassettes, and maybe a few records or later on CDs.

I remember to this day what one fellow student, checking out my new boombox, told me: "Get the album - you'll hear it the way it was meant to be. I know radio is easy, just press 'On', tune to a station, plug in your headphones, and rock away, but trust me. Record a cassette of the record and it will sound better on that box than it will ever sound from that tuner."


It took me ten years to slowly figure out what he was saying. By the late 1990s, my LP and CD collection had blossomed. And in nearly every instance, everything on CD or vinyl even sounded better than what came over the air.. I couldn't pin-point exactly why, but I do remember having to turn the volume a lot higher, especially for LPs, and for CDs.


That was last century. So if I understand you correctly, the current practice is to make recordings for sale of popular music sound like they do on a typical mid-to-major market Top-40 or Adult Contemporary or Hip-Hop FM station. In plainer words: emulate the heavily processed sound of radio. I would still like to be pointed to a source of statistics showing that music listeners want CDs/downloads of their favorite artists to sound just like they are coming off Z-100 or KAMP.


That is certainly a turn-around from the days when that high school senior explained to this high school junior with his boombox about LPs and CDs sounding better than FM radio.

[John Williamson]

On 20/08/2014 18:02, hank alrich wrote:
wrote:

And I believe that if just one or two really outstanding ones spine up and
plant their feet: "Sorry, But if you want your record turned into sonic
mush you'll have to pay someone else"


The areas of audio knowledge in which you have proven yourself clueless
is extensive. With the above conjecture you demonstrate that such
expertise applies as well to the world of business.

You have zero concept of how competitive today's mastering scene is, how
many fine engineers there are, and how they all need work to survive.

You send a perfectly good (i.e., pays the bills) client out one time
because you seek to implant your own sense of esthetics in place of
theirs and you will have lost a client, probably forever.

You also lose all their real life friends, their Facebook friends and
anyone they know on *any* social network as potential customers.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[John Williamson]

On 20/08/2014 20:57, wrote:
When I was a teen in high school my classmates and friends used to tease me(in a friendly way of course) about my music listening preferences: 80% radio, the remaining 20%, cassettes, and maybe a few records or later on CDs.

I remember to this day what one fellow student, checking out my new boombox, told me: "Get the album - you'll hear it the way it was meant to be. I know radio is easy, just press 'On', tune to a station, plug in your headphones, and rock away, but trust me. Record a cassette of the record and it will sound better on that box than it will ever sound from that tuner."

It must have been an AM tuner, then. Cassette was and is dire. FM was
and still is better.

It took me ten years to slowly figure out what he was saying. By the late 1990s, my LP and CD collection had blossomed. And in nearly every instance, everything on CD or vinyl even sounded better than what came over the air. I couldn't pin-point exactly why, but I do remember having to turn the volume a lot higher, especially for LPs, and for CDs.

They weren't as compressed as the radio signal, which had to be that way
to maximise coverage and grab listeners' attention as they were scanning
the dial.

That was last century. So if I understand you correctly, the current practice is to make recordings for sale of popular music sound like they do on a typical mid-to-major market Top-40 or Adult Contemporary or Hip-Hop FM station. In plainer words: emulate the heavily processed sound of radio. I would still like to be pointed to a source of statistics showing that music listeners want CDs/downloads of their favorite artists to sound just like they are coming off Z-100 or KAMP.

The statistics you want are in the record charts. Apart from one or two
cases where fans of an old group collude on social media and manage to
elevate their favourite band up the charts just to make a point, it's
all brick wall limited stuff. People pay money for it, and refuse to pay
money for stuff with decent dynamics.

That is certainly a turn-around from the days when that high school senior explained to this high school junior with his boombox about LPs and CDs sounding better than FM radio.

*Now* you're beginning to get it. It's a fashion, just as 45's were a
fashion, then cassettes, then Minidiscs, and now mp3 players and phones
are fashions in listening.

There have always been people willing to take the trouble to get better
sound quality, but the vast majority want what they hear most of the
time, which, in the case of most of the music buying public now is music
squished to within an inch of its life.

There is a market for super high fidelity, unsquached recordings, but it
is relatively tiny, and won't get larger until the great unwashed stop
wanting their easy fix of pap music (Not a typo) all the time.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[geoff]

On 20/08/2014 10:53 p.m., wrote:


Listen to an "original" release of (say) Abbey Road, and then listen to
the 2009 digital remaster. Are you suggesting you prefer the old ?!! "

You're DAMN RIGHT I DO. And the complaints about the compression on the stereo reissues from that year are all over the internet. Sorry to bust your high-falutin' engineering bubble!


Well you must be deaf as well as stupid.

geoff

[geoff]

On 21/08/2014 2:16 a.m., wrote:



Yes, I do lack appreciation - for the ignorance of the artists and labels who demand loudness processing and squashing dynamics, and for engineers who always fold up like a two-dollar suitcase instead of sticking to established audio principles.





you are picking a fight with the wrong people.

Most of the engineers here agree with you, the engineers don't like hyper compression either. But the engineers are paid by their clients.

You should take your arguments against hyper compression up with the people that have the power to change it, the artists and the producers, not the engineers.

you are alienating the people who agree with you

Mark



He's simply found a bandwagon he can jump on, and imagines mouthing off
about it gives him tech and musical creds whiule proving the opposite.


geoff

[geoff]

On 21/08/2014 2:24 a.m., John Williamson wrote:
On 20/08/2014 15:16, wrote:


Thanks, except you replied to the wrong person. It's Geoff, aka
thekmanrocks that doesn't realise that engineers do what they're paid to
do. I do some engineering, and produce whatever the client asks for,
putting up only token opposition if I don't like it.


John, I think you are confused about who is who, and who is arguing what.

geoff ( NOT a.k.a. themanrockrocks in any way shape form or though)

[geoff]

On 21/08/2014 12:06 a.m., wrote:
geoff wrote: "- show quoted text -
And damn any amateur ****wit who insists on spouting drivel.

geoff "


Are you in a race with 'N0ne' to the bottom of the professional conduct barrel or what?


So someone who doesn't toe the "Remasters are always better than the Orig" party line, and kiss some ass while they're at it, is automatically an "amateur ****wit".

God bless you brother.



I never suggested that. Many (most ?) of the remasters from the 80's and
'90s suffered from the limited technology (largely 'bits') of the time.

It is YOU who made the all-encompassing generalisation. Except yours was
not even a generalisation but an all-encompassing blanket statement.

geoff

[John Williamson]

On 20/08/2014 22:24, geoff wrote:
On 21/08/2014 2:24 a.m., John Williamson wrote:
Thanks, except you replied to the wrong person. It's Geoff, aka
thekmanrocks that doesn't realise that engineers do what they're paid to
do. I do some engineering, and produce whatever the client asks for,
putting up only token opposition if I don't like it.


John, I think you are confused about who is who, and who is arguing what.

geoff ( NOT a.k.a. themanrockrocks in any way shape form or though)

Sorry, guv! I thought I'd seen the name Geoff at the bottom of some of
its posts.

My sincere apologies to you.

The attributions in this thread are all to pot now.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff wrote:
On 20/08/2014 10:53 p.m., wrote:

Listen to an "original" release of (say) Abbey Road, and then listen to
the 2009 digital remaster. Are you suggesting you prefer the old ?!! "

You're DAMN RIGHT I DO. And the complaints about the compression on the stereo reissues from that year are all over the internet. Sorry to bust your high-falutin' engineering bubble!

Well you must be deaf as well as stupid.

In any event it depends on the original since the UK and US releases of the
original LP sounded pretty dramatically different.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
geoff wrote:
I never suggested that. Many (most ?) of the remasters from the 80's and
'90s suffered from the limited technology (largely 'bits') of the time.

I'd love to know why anything originally well recorded on analogue
required 'remastering' anyway? Apart from, of course, to try and persuade
the gullible public they're getting something 'better' and making a quick
buck?

Even more so when the vast majority no longer even listen to CD, but MP3
downloads.

--
*Confession is good for the soul, but bad for your career.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[[email protected]]

John Williamson wrote:

"Sorry, guv! I thought I'd seen the name Geoff at the bottom of some of
its posts.

My sincere apologies to you.

The attributions in this thread are all to pot now.
- show quoted text -"

Some of "IT'S" posts?!

You must have me confused with 'N0ne'. I'm an actual human being.


The whole point of this thread was the hordes of engineers over on Slutz who proclaim "don't look at meters, ignore the numbers!" So drivers should ignore the gauges on their dashboards, and pilots, the instruments in their cockpits.

Smh...

[John Williamson]

On 21/08/2014 00:26, wrote:
John Williamson wrote: "People pay money for it, and refuse to pay
money for stuff with decent dynamics. "

BULL****! Music buyers do NOT drive the loudness/anti-dynamics war - the ARTISTS, their managers, and the labels do!

The people buy the music because it(the lyrics, melody, or the artist's experiences) speaks to them, even though avg volumes of CDs have soared since the mid-1990s and crest factor has become practically nonexistent. What they buy is what rides up & down the Billboards and other charts of the industry, regardless of the obvious decline in fidelity.

You really know very little about how this or any other industry works.

For reference, the maker of a thing (CD, MP3 download, movie, car, fork,
spoon....) will make what their research tells them that the purchaser
will buy. Then they make it.

You have just proved your ignorance yet again.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[[email protected]]

John Williamson:

Read this http://www.cnet.com/livefyre/57454451_12/ and be sure to tap Comments and read all of them!

I have yet to find any concrete data, anywhere online, proving that customers buying CDs in stores or d-loading from iTunes & Amazon demanding they be made more compressed and louder.

[None]

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
It's Geoff, aka thekmanrocks

Geoff isn't Kretin Boy. Kretin Boy's name is Christopher. Since Kretin
Boy is too stupid to use proper Usenet quoting conventions, and since
he's not literate enough to properly attribute quotes, it can be hard
to tell from its posts. He's too busy ranting in caps-lock and posting
from Google Groups and whining about things he doesn't understand.
****wit.

[None]

wrote in message
...
John Williamson wrote:

"Sorry, guv! I thought I'd seen the name Geoff at the bottom of some
of
its posts.

My sincere apologies to you.

The attributions in this thread are all to pot now.
- show quoted text -"

Some of "IT'S" posts?!

You must have me confused with 'N0ne'. I'm an actual human being.

Aren't you the putz who tells people not to refer to me in their
posts?

The whole point of this thread was the hordes of engineers over on
Slutz who proclaim "don't look at meters, ignore the numbers!" So
drivers should ignore the gauges on their dashboards, and pilots,
the instruments in their cockpits.

Ride that hobby horse, Krissie! But ride it around your own nursery.
Nobody's interested in your horse**** hear.

[None]

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 20/08/2014 20:57, wrote:
That is certainly a turn-around from the days when that high school
senior explained to this high school junior with his boombox about
LPs and CDs sounding better than FM radio.

*Now* you're beginning to get it.

Just an illusion. The Kretin doesn't "get" anything.

[John Williamson]

On 21/08/2014 12:05, wrote:
John Williamson:

Read this http://www.cnet.com/livefyre/57454451_12/ and be sure to tap Comments and read all of them!

Apparently, I have to be a member to read it. No thanks. Closed forums,
in my experience, are very rarely representative of popular opinion.

I have yet to find any concrete data, anywhere online, proving that customers buying CDs in stores or d-loading from iTunes & Amazon demanding they be made more compressed and louder.

And I've never found any statistics *anywhere* that prove that people
worldwide go into a burger joint and *demand* burgers that taste of
nothing and are produced in an anonymous factory by a secret method.
However, McDonalds remains the most popular burger chain in the world.

By your theory, they should have gone out of business decades ago, as
many people claim their food is inedible at best.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[[email protected]]

John Williamson wrote: "And I've never found any statistics *anywhere* that prove that people
worldwide go into a burger joint and *demand* burgers that taste of
nothing and are produced in an anonymous factory by a secret method.
However, McDonalds remains the most popular burger chain in the world. "

But that is exactly what YOU, and the author of that CNET article, claim, that consumers demand 'Death Magnetic'-style processing on albums they buy.

Basically every reply to the article ridiculed what that author claimed.

[hank alrich]

S. King wrote:

On Wed, 20 Aug 2014 07:03:27 -0400, None wrote:

whining little baby K @ gmail.com wrote in message
...
I'm not mixing up anything.

Yes you are. You have no understanding of the technical or business
issues, so you have no understanding of whether you're mixing things up.
Your denial is based on ignorance, idiocy, and stubbornness. But not
understanding.

And because most of what we call classics were produced before digital,
we must be able to correlate the avg and peak levels of those legacy
albums in modern full-scale terms.

You don't even know what that means, if anything.

Why are we responding to this twit? I'm going to do my part by a)blocking
him because he is so annoying, and b)blocking this thread that is
dominating our news group. We're crapping in our own bed here.

+1

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[hank alrich]

John Williamson wrote:

On 20/08/2014 22:24, geoff wrote:
On 21/08/2014 2:24 a.m., John Williamson wrote:
Thanks, except you replied to the wrong person. It's Geoff, aka
thekmanrocks that doesn't realise that engineers do what they're paid to
do. I do some engineering, and produce whatever the client asks for,
putting up only token opposition if I don't like it.


John, I think you are confused about who is who, and who is arguing what.

geoff ( NOT a.k.a. themanrockrocks in any way shape form or though)

Sorry, guv! I thought I'd seen the name Geoff at the bottom of some of
its posts.

My sincere apologies to you.

The attributions in this thread are all to pot now.

Without the water pipe I might not have survived this thread.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic