On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 20:38:11 -0500, Lord Hasenpfeffer
wrote:

Martin Tillman wrote:

Previously...

Message-ID:

It amazes me that I can rip a WAV directly from an older commercial CD,
"normalize" it to 2dB beyond zero (i.e. -10dBFS) and then encode from it
an MP3 that sounds dramatically better than its own CD source.

This is true. It does amaze me. Only now I know more about why this is
the case. The original CD source is "unnormalized" in my sense of the
term. The MP3 is made from a normalized WAV. In in general, most
people (including me) tend to believe that louder is better ... because
with loudness comes clarity.

No, with loudness comes compression, and a *false* impression of
clarity given by the restricted dynamics of the reproduction. Radio
stations have been doing this for decades.


This remains... an MP3 made from an older, quieter, unnormalized WAV
sounds poor to me compared to an MP3 made from a normalized one at the
same level of volume. I frequently listen to my MP3s in random shuffle
mode. Without "normalization", "remastered MP3s" sound are louder and
clearer sounding that "unremastered MP3s". Therefore, it is useful for
me to normalize older WAVs so that all of my MP3s have a nice, even
loudness. If I don't the older MP3s sound like crap in comparison the
newer "remastered" ones.

This has become a very boring conversation.

This is true................

Basically, mix 'em up any way *you* like, but please refrain from
coming on here claiming that you've discovered some wonder product,
and 'whopped the ass of MFSL', 'cos both statements are *wayyy* wide
of the mark. What you're talking about has been known for decades, and
is just the sort of barbarity that MFSL deliberately tried to avoid.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering