"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , David Looser
wrote:

"David Looser" wrote in message
...


There was the interesting example of that heavy-metal track (can't
remember the name) which was included in the "Guitar Hero" game.
Because the version of the track included in the game was provided
before the CD mastering was performed it had less compression than the
CD version ended up with. It lead to the bizarre phenomenon of
heavy-metal fans complaining about excessive compression.

That seems to me to indicate very clearly that the heavy compression
often applied to CDs is *not* due to the demands of consumers.

I agree with your conclusions on that now, just as I did when we discussed
it in the past. :-) One of the reasons for what I've been saying. My
wish
is that 96k/24 can give people the *choice* of something that is *not*
level compressed - even in cases where the CD *is* blighted. Then both
customers and sellers could see who prefers what in reality.


And I just don't see the need to go to 96k/24 in order to avoid level
compression, it's not as though 16bit *needs* level compression. If
producers level-compress CDs "because that's what the consumer wants" why
would they not level compress 24bit as well?

It seems to me that you've given up on 44.1k/16 as having been hopelessly
compromised by record company policies, and that it's necessary to adopt a
"high-res" standard in order to get them to release material with a
reasonable dynamic range. But the problem then becomes that these "HD" files
take up three times as much space on a hard-drive and cannot be directly
burnt to a CD-R for listening to in the car, for example. If there was a
good *technical* reason for going to 96k/24 then I'd be on your side in
this, but I don't think there is. Perhaps the record companies could be
persuaded to release an "audiophile" CD version? or even make the material
available for download in both heavily and lightly compressed versions if
they are still convinced that "the consumer" is demanding "louder"
recordings.

David.