In article , Iain Churches
wrote:

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


In any individual case I can't tell if the problems are due to an
'accident' or more deliberate.

There are no "accidents" Too many stages of checks and balances.

Depends on your definition of 'accident'. You can also say there are no
'traffic accidents' as they generally have a cause, and might have been
prevented if someone had behaved differently. Post hoc arguments can muddy
this.

But I doubt that 'accidents' *never* occur. If you think no-one ever makes
a mistake then I'm afraid I don't share your belief on that point. FWIW I
also agree with what you've said, re those who choose to add level
compression and clipping *genuinely* believe this is "what is wanted". The
snag is that them believing this doesn't mean their thought is well-founded
in the relevant case.

Can you state some instances and examples within the classical genre?
If you don't want to post them on an open group, please send by e-mail.
In confidence of course.

If you look on my webpages you can find measured examples. e.g. the 'Living
Stereo' CD release with gross clipping. I presume this was because they
were selling 'loud' as if it meant 'wide dynamic range'. But I can only
surmise why this was done.

It seems to me to be insane for CD mastering to be anything more than
transferring the supplied master to CD, as faithfully as possible.
When the material is supplied on a CD-R (as I believe it often is
these days), then the manufactured CD should simply be a clone of the
master.

I agree. However as *Iain* has reported here, it certainly happens
that a recording sent off to be put onto CDDAs comes back with added
compression, etc.

This case was the first in which I was involved and even then not
directly from the outset. But it transpired that clear, written
instructions had been sent for "no changes of any kind to be made" even
though the peak level was rather on the conservative side. It took a
single telephone call from an EU lawyer to get the plant to admit
"human error" and the matter was resolved subsequently.

So 'accidents' *do* happen. :-)

BTW I was listening to a recording I'd made from R3 DAB some years ago. And
I was struck by just how low the modulation levels were at the time, ad
that there was no sign of any deliberate or automated compression. The
result compared very well with a couple of BIS CDs of music by Sibelius I
also listened to that are excellent. However thoughout I had the volume
gain set over 20dB above what I use for things like R4 speech. Which is as
it should be from my POV. But I guess some people would be baffled or
irritated by this given the routine use of compression.

As a result of the thread,. I have had correspondence with people who
have received questionable service in CD mastering. One even told me
that his material came back "pitch corrected" !!

I'm quite happy to agree that these problems are far rarer with classical
CDs than pop. However problem cases do arise and can be found. Alas, this
is no consolation when someone finds what they have obtained *is*
compressed and/or clipped - with no alternative on offer.

The price of quality is eternal vigilance?... :-)

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

In article , Iain Churches
wrote:

"David Looser" wrote in message
...

We don't know what buyers expect,

I think we do.

because no one has ever asked them.

The fact that people are not aware of the market research and have not
been approached themselves, does not mean that the research has not been
done, and that other people have not been asked in significant numbers:-)

Ah. Argument by claims of hidden evidence. Which no-one else can therefore
examine and check to see if it supports the claimed concusions. And which
even you don't know exists, but just have faith that it must exist.

The method of mystics and charlatans down the ages. Revelations not meant
for mere man. You'll be telling us next that when people work on recordings
they all wear pointed hats and cloaks covered in atstrological and
alchemical symbols with potent meanings. That may make as much sense as
some of the things we know they do from the output they produce. ;-

It may be that there is no published data, but I strongly believe that
the request for louder CDs has come from the public.

You *believe* this. I prefer evidence. As David has pointed out, when
people can hear a choice, they can express their preference - which may
*not* be as the makers expected. Ditto for the cases you have encountered
where something was done which was not wanted. So the evidence we *do*
have seems to conflict with this mysterious 'hidden knowledge' only
available to the priviledged - who - on the evidence - make a guddle of
what they produce.

After all, it would be so much easier, and cheaper for record companies
to make straight 1:1 CD masters as is done with classical and jazz CDs
than spend hours (and many hundreds of pounds/euros in trying to produce
a louder master.

Which tells us what they *believe*. Yet not why 'accidents' happen.

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

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
USB turntables seem to be quite a "hot" line.

You obviously don't see Maplin 'fliers'. They can't shift the ones they
have.

--
*Monday is an awful way to spend 1/7th of your life *

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

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"David Looser" wrote in message
...

We don't know what buyers expect,

I think we do.

Do you? based on what?

because no one has ever asked them.

The fact that people are not aware of the market research
and have not been approached themselves, does not mean
that the research has not been done, and that other people
have not been asked in significant numbers:-)

I notice you included the word "the" in front of market research, as though
there was some, yet you appear not to be aware of any. I think the most
probable reason that none of us have heard of any is that none has ever been
done. Anyway what question would you ask? "Do you like your records loud?",
"do you want all the musical dynamics crushed out of your records?" Market
research is notoriously prone to bias in favour of the result the sponsoring
organisation wants. If the record industry is going to claim that it has
asked the public what it wants in terms of dynamics then I'd want to know
what questions were asked.

Anyway modern audio equipment has gain and to spare. If someone wants their
records loud they only have to turn the volume up.

It may be that there is no published data,

Well none of us are aware of any.

but I strongly
believe that the request for louder CDs has come from
the public.

I'm not sure that the fact that you believe something makes it true.

After all, it would be so much easier, and cheaper for
record companies to make straight 1:1 CD masters as
is done with classical and jazz CDs than spend hours
(and many hundreds of pounds/euros in trying to produce
a louder master.


If a "louder" product is required, then that can be done in the studio
before the master is sent for CD mastering, that is the logical and sane
procedure. With movie soundtracks a magnetic master is sent to the lab for
recording onto the optical film soundtrack. The lab doesn't then re-work the
material to make the film "louder", their responsibility is to make the film
sound like the master, not impose their own artistic judgement on it. Why
should the record industry adopt a different and illogical procedure?

It seems to me to be far more likely that it's the record industry which
is demanding "loudness", rather than the consumers. Maybe the producers and
executives believe, as you do, that the public are demanding it. Since you
are an industry insider yourself perhaps you've just picked up the received
belief from within the industry. Or maybe this obsession with loudness is
just competition between people within the industry to make the loudest
records. Who knows?

It has recently come to light just how irrational the behaviour of the
financial sector can be, why assume greater rationality from the record
industry?

David.

In article , David Looser
wrote:
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

Do you? based on what?

because no one has ever asked them.

The fact that people are not aware of the market research and have not
been approached themselves, does not mean that the research has not
been done, and that other people have not been asked in significant
numbers:-)

I notice you included the word "the" in front of market research, as
though there was some, yet you appear not to be aware of any.

So far as I can tell, Iain is simply feeling that said 'research' *must*
exist. i.e. a matter of faith on his part.

Even if some *does* exist we still can't tell if it genuinely shows to what
extent it supports the level compression, etc. It is - apparently - a
precious 'secret' which must not be contaminated by the gaze of outsiders
who might find flaws in said 'research' or the way 'conclusions' are drawn
from it.


I think the most probable reason that none of us have heard of any is
that none has ever been done. Anyway what question would you ask? "Do
you like your records loud?", "do you want all the musical dynamics
crushed out of your records?" Market research is notoriously prone to
bias in favour of the result the sponsoring organisation wants.

Sir Humphry rules. The choice of the questions affects the answers you will
get. As will careful selection of who you ask. (Or hiding from those who
might object.)

Take as an example the recent decision by the BBC to remove all their radio
stations from Freeview in Scotland to make way for one Gaelic TV channel.

Almost no-one in Scotland even knew this was being considered, or that
there was a (carefully worded) 'questionnaire' about it on the BBC Trust
pages. For some odd reason around half the respondents said they are
'Gaelic speakers/learners'. Yet the figure for the population overall is
well less than a tenth of that so far as I can discover.

Clear statistical bias in the population who responded. Perhaps due to a
special interest group alerting their sympathisers to 'get the result we
want' whilst most people had no idea what was happening.

The closest question you could find in the questionnaire to people being
able to say they did *not* want the radio removed was one asking if other
methods should also be considered. Most *did* say 'yes' to this.

The result is that many radio stations will be replaced by *one* Gaelic TV
station. People in Scotland will get a poorer access to radio than
elsewhere, regardless of the Universal Service Obligation of the BBC.

One of the 'justifications' given BTW is that "Freeview has 'view' in the
name, so isn't for radio". Look for the same approach being applied in the
rest of the UK as a result of this 'research'. This may be how the BBC meet
their Universal Service Obligation.

It would be laughable if it wasn't going to inconvenience many people.

The BBC trust could of course have avoided the scrutiny of their 'research'
by refusing to publish the summary analysis. Then we would have just been
told "market research shows this is the right decision" and we'd be left to
accept what the wizards told us... as per Iain's faith in those who produce
compressed CDs.

Mushroom farm.

BTW There *were* alternatives. e.g. sharing the 'Parliament' channel some
of the time. And of course we already have the channel on other platforms,
and there are other Gaelic channels and programs on Freeview already.


It has recently come to light just how irrational the behaviour of the
financial sector can be, why assume greater rationality from the record
industry?

The remarkable thing is how those involved *still* go on acting as before
and apparently believing that they "know best". Manifest evidence that the
bankers were clueless and incompetent and greedy is simply waved away. The
wizard wears an impressive hat and mutters his magic spells to impress the
audience. :-)

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

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Iain Churches
wrote:

"David Looser" wrote in message
...


There always has been a divided market, with some listeners demanding
the highest quality possible, and others happy with pretty much
anything

Indeed. It is said that the ratio is now about 20:1 The percentage of
what used to be called "serious listeners" has taken a nose dive.

TBH I doubt that the number of "serious listeners" has even been much more
than a tiny fraction of the population.

When I lived in the UK, I can remember that every
district had a "gramophone society" I lived in Ealing
before moving to Richmond and was a member of the
Ealing, Acton and Windor societies. Each had a healthy
membership, three or four times the number of people
who post regularly on UKRA :-))


However many years ago the minority who became 'hi fi enthsiast' became
noticable enough for some companies to take interest in them. They were
then immersed in a large number for which 'hi fi' was the latest consumer
'must have'... until that particular wave rolled on to other things.


Yes that true, and there was a strong DIY element too.
People used to built speaker, turntable bases, valve
amps etc etc. In these plug and play days, no one
seems to build anything anymore. And as all amps and
CD players sound the same, the only thing the DIY
audiophile can do is to mess about with interconnects:-)

As far as popularity is concerned, Hi-Fi seems to have
gone the way of the Lindy Hop:-)

Iain

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

Do you? based on what?

because no one has ever asked them.

The fact that people are not aware of the market research and have not
been approached themselves, does not mean that the research has not
been done, and that other people have not been asked in significant
numbers:-)

I notice you included the word "the" in front of market research, as
though there was some, yet you appear not to be aware of any.

So far as I can tell, Iain is simply feeling that said 'research' *must*
exist. i.e. a matter of faith on his part.

Yes That is correct. Otherwise, I cannot see why
on earth anyone should spend hours and many hundreds
of pounds working on a perfectly good studio master to
make it "louder" in a specialised and very expensive suite
set up expressly for that purpose.

Fortunately, I am not involved in such projects and
have little or no contact with labels who produce
such material. If I were/if I did, I would certainly
make it my business to find out what was going on
and why!

This seems to be a storm in a teacup, which is
only of interest to a couple of people on
an inconsequential UK newsgroup.

The situation seems unlikely to change, and so
there seems to be little point in discussing it ad
nauseam.

Iain

In article , Iain Churches
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Iain Churches
wrote:

"David Looser" wrote in message
...


There always has been a divided market, with some listeners
demanding the highest quality possible, and others happy with
pretty much anything

Indeed. It is said that the ratio is now about 20:1 The percentage of
what used to be called "serious listeners" has taken a nose dive.

TBH I doubt that the number of "serious listeners" has even been much
more than a tiny fraction of the population.

When I lived in the UK, I can remember that every district had a
"gramophone society" I lived in Ealing before moving to Richmond and
was a member of the Ealing, Acton and Windor societies. Each had a
healthy membership.

Yes. I belonged to one for a while. The membership was a tiny fraction of
the population.


However many years ago the minority who became 'hi fi enthsiast'
became noticable enough for some companies to take interest in them.
They were then immersed in a large number for which 'hi fi' was the
latest consumer 'must have'... until that particular wave rolled on to
other things.


Yes that true, and there was a strong DIY element too. People used to
built speaker, turntable bases, valve amps etc etc. In these plug and
play days, no one seems to build anything anymore. And as all amps and
CD players sound the same, the only thing the DIY audiophile can do is
to mess about with interconnects:-)

They can certainly do more than that *if* they decide to. But only a
minority will make the effort to learn or fiddle about modifying/building
things. I suspect these days they would be as likely to do this by altering
their computer or writing software than by more 'old fasioned' means.

As far as popularity is concerned, Hi-Fi seems to have gone the way of
the Lindy Hop:-)

Again, I don't see much evidence that a serious interest in HiFi is either
more or less common that it was. All that has happened is that a larger
tide of interest in consumer products and/or music washes around it, either
coming under the 'HiFi' banner or not as time passes.

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

In article , Iain Churches
wrote:

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

Do you? based on what?

because no one has ever asked them.

The fact that people are not aware of the market research and have
not been approached themselves, does not mean that the research has
not been done, and that other people have not been asked in
significant numbers:-)

I notice you included the word "the" in front of market research, as
though there was some, yet you appear not to be aware of any.

So far as I can tell, Iain is simply feeling that said 'research'
*must* exist. i.e. a matter of faith on his part.

Yes That is correct. Otherwise, I cannot see why on earth anyone should
spend hours and many hundreds of pounds working on a perfectly good
studio master to make it "louder" in a specialised and very expensive
suite set up expressly for that purpose.

Your viewpoint is quite understandable, being based on the assumption that
people who present as 'experts' must think rationally, etc.

The snag is that from the outcome and the lack of any external sign of this
'evidence' I doubt your faith in them is well founded. They may well
beleive they are right, but may simply be wrong to do so. They may either
have little or no reliable evicence, or are simply drawing incorrect
conclusions from it.

To tell, we would need the evidence, not just their belief, or your belief
in them.


This seems to be a storm in a teacup, which is only of interest to a
couple of people on an inconsequential UK newsgroup.

That's odd. I seem to recall it being an issue on a number of websites and
in various magazines. And more than one person making a fuss about it.
Indeed, I think a few years ago one of the speakers at a Uk 'music awards'
ceremony complaining about the obsession with mindless compression and
loudness.

The situation seems unlikely to change, and so there seems to be little
point in discussing it ad nauseam.

I agree. Whenever we do discuss this you simply repeat your articles of
faith. Which gets us no-where. :-)

However the point I was making was that there may be ways past this problem
by giving the public a *choice*. Then we could get some evidence, and the
situation might change - at least by giving people genuinely different
options to choose as an individual.

Simply ignoring the question will, I agree, be likely to mean it will
become a self-fulfilling prophecy that it "seems unlikely to change". No
doubt this would suit those in the biz who present themselves as gurus and
make a living out of being able to apply 'magic compression to boost sales'
and who have secret wisdom the rest of us mere mortals are not allowed to
share - but we are lead to believe must exist. :-)

Twas ever thus with voodoo priests and other members of the tribe of
wizards and wearers of Big Hats. ;-

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

On 03/03/2011 10:42, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
Iain wrote:
USB turntables seem to be quite a "hot" line.

You obviously don't see Maplin 'fliers'. They can't shift the ones they
have.


I did wonder when they'd reach saturation.

I was round a friend's house the other day and her 16 year old daughter
has just discovered records - gave her a few duplicates I had, Clash,
Nina Simone, sort of mainstream stuff I like.

Two things - she knew the music. That quite surprised me. Couldn't quite
figure out whether she liked it, but that brings me on to the second thing.

When I asked her why on earth she bothers faffing about with records she
didn't seem that sure. The covers, certainly. She also said she liked
the sound, but couldn't explain why/what which was all the more baffling
because her record player's one of those 70s radiogram type affairs with
a 'rich' tone.

Youngsters today, eh? :-)

Rob