"Glenn Richards" wrote in
message
. uk
Arny Krueger wrote:

Back in the 1980s when people used to buy the LP and the
CD of the same album, play them both and compare the
results, they weren't really comparing the two media.
Instead, they were comparing the (generally quite
separate) mastering decisions--EQ, limiting,
etc.--behind the two products, plus the particular
characteristics of their LP and CD playback equipment.

So what that posting is basically saying is that CD is
capable of far better quality sound than vinyl, but due
to sloppy mastering (loudness wars anyone?) vinyl
generally sounds better?

Huh?

My position is that CD is easily capable of far better sound quality than
vinyl, even when people work their butts off trying to make vinyl sound
good. Furthermore, since the CD has been the predominant mainstream method
of distributing music, music has in general sounded far better because it
was no longer cursed with the audible artifacts that are inherent in LPs.

Because it hasn't been compressed to within an inch of its life?

Hypercompression is a production technique, not an inherent property of a
distribution medium. However. the LP format has historically been more
likely to use compression, because the basic dynamic range of the LP medium
is less than that of wide dynamic range music. Thing is that even the LP
format didn't need hypercompression.

The reason that so much music is hypercompressed today is because people no
longer predominately listen to music as their sole activity. Music is more
likely than ever to be listened to while the listener is doing something
else that is more important to them. Therefore, dynamic range is a detriment
to many listener's use of music.