In article , Iain Churches
wrote:
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Iain Churches
wrote:
CD has none of the pitfalls with which cutting engineers were faced
on a daily basis, so the possibility of being able produce an
accurate CD is much better. But, it seems, this is not what people
want:-(
...or rather this is what many of those who produce CDs *assume*
"people want*. So impose without giving us a choice in the matter.
It's what the majority seem to (think they) want.
Well, I can't tell if it is the majority of those who produce 'popular'
CDs, but it does seem fairly common.
But Jim, it was only fairly recently that you actually became aware of
this when I pointed it out to you:-) I remember at the time you doubted
my word,
Afraid you'd have to quote back where you think I "doubt" that CDs were
level compressed or clipped. I can't recall what you assert there. But I
agree that since I've not bought many popular CDs in recent decades the
development of excessive compression and clipping had passed me by!
but subsequently found the situation to be exactly as I had
described it. It's not a new phenomenon. I wonder how it has escaped
your attention for more than 25 years?
IIRC I did explain at the time. So either your memory is playing tricks on
you, or you are trying to score debating points. Perhaps if I point out
that I'd been buying classical and jazz CDs, and that these tend not to be
affected in the same way you will recall my previously saying that.
I can't recall being systematically offerred a choice by the industry
between two versions of a CD. One 'clipped and compressed to the
innustry delusion' and the other without this being imposed, so having
no clipping and no excessive compression for the sake of obsessive
loudness.
If you hadn't even noticed, why should anyone "systematically offer" you
anything?
I'm afraid your comment shows the source of the problem.
With pop material which has no acoustic original that the purchasers will
be using as a reference, how can they tell *if* they are denied a chance to
hear two versions of the same source recordings - one highly level
compressed and clipped, the other not?
If you have missed the point as your question shows, I'd suggest you
re-read what I wrote above (and you quoted) with more care as you have
missed the vital point. You have also forgotten that I wasn't buying and
listening to popular CDs so wasn't hearing what they were like.
When people have clearly been given - in a clear and openly declared
way - a choice, and given this on enough occasions with enough variety
of music to assess, then we might be able to decide if the delusion
stands up to scrutiny.
Members of the public could put the record straight (no pun intended) at
a stroke if say 10 000 copies of a CD were rejected by them.. Returns
are incredibly low, which the industry takes as a signal of satisfaction
from the consumer.
I agree with your last point. Yes, if you give people no alternative and no
comparisons you can, indeed, go on selling them poorer quality in the
confidence that they may not realise what they are missing. And people may
buy poor copies to get content they wish when no better version is
available. I've more than once bought a second-hand magazine or book to
read the content, even when it was torn or faded and so hard to read.
I'm afraid that I have zero confidence in the assertions of industry
'experts' who presume 'people want' heavy compression and clipping and
treat anyone with an interest in popular music as a dimwit infant. Nor
any opinions obtained from clueless 'focus groups', 'gurus', etc, etc.
They are probably as expert and well-qualified in their field as you are
in yours.
Yes, in many cases I am sure they are well qualified. Indeed, from
classical and jazz CDs I'd say that the evidence shows there are many
excellent people in the field. I would also expect (as I think you have
yourself said) that some only apply compression, etc, when told to do so by
someone else.
But in fields like rock/pop the *evidence* in the form of applied level
compression, clipping, and a clear obsession with loudness shows otherwise
for the popular fields. In such cases it become irrelevant to the customers
that the producers would have known how to not apply this compression or
clip. They are given Hobson's Choice and not even told what has been
decided on their behalf.
I think you would not be pleased to have your university
activities described as a "guru in a focus group" so why do you wish to
denigrate others by the attachment of inapproriate and derogatory
labels?
I'm afraid that as an academic scientist I have to judge by the evidence.
In this case by the products - the CDs produced. Science isn't about
accepting what someone says because they are 'qualified' or wear a white
coat. Most of the CDs I have are good to superb in quality and are clearly
well produced. But as I have explained previously, only a small fraction of
them are pop/rock CDs bought in the last decade or two. In that area
problems seem rather more common.
I appreciate that the people who apply compression or clipping may be doing
so in the genuine belief that this is what 'people want'. Indeed, I assume
some people do. But until we have some genuine comparisons that have
relevance their belief has no testable basis and they are just imposing
their belief system on purchasers without even telling them - let alone
giving them an alternative.
Although I do realise they are given them the same alternative as PJW used
to give potential customers of his 33/303. When someone complained that
they didn't like the marigold colour his reaction was along the lines of
"well sod off and buy from someone else, then!" :-)
Of course, that's fine given competing amps of a different colour. But not
much good if your preferred artist is on one label.
I note that you have had a singular lack of success in your
attempts at discussion with people at EMI etc, even after I supplied you
with an ex-directory number. Why should that be? Perhaps the answer lies
in the paragraph you wrote above.
Afraid you are now drifting into irrelevances and debating ploys. Again
your memory seems to be failing you as we did discuss this here at the
time.
I'm sorry that you find it so hard to accept. But the reality is that we
have to judge the people who produce CDs, LPs, etc by the products they
output. I don't know their motives, but you and others say it is because
they think 'loudness sells'. I can then only point out that they haven't -
so far as I know - done any controlled experiments to establish this. If
you know of any such, please tell me where we can find the results and
examine them for method and statistical reliability.
Saying 'people buy the results' could just as easily be used to dismiss LPs
sales on the basis that vastly more people buy CD. However if a given item
is only available on one format, in one form, then people are given no
basis for comparison. It become 'like it or lump it'.
Slainte,
Jim
--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics
http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio
http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc
http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
Music download sites offering CD quality.
Linear Mode
