"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...

You may need to get out more, David. Take a walk in the garden and clear
your head. :-) To simplify in the hope of making what I already said
clearer to you:

I'm suprised at you, Jim, making comments like that. It's not your usual
style, had a bad day did you?

A) 96k/24 may bring the advantage in practice that the producers don't
foul
up what they flog on that basis as much as they often do when they flog
the
same content in other formats. Instead of "louder is better" etc, they may
provide versions on the basis that the customer does want good quality.
Nothing to do with the technology of CDDA. Everything to do with the
attitudes of the sellers re the customers.

B) We can only buy (or refuse to buy) what someone puts on sale.

C) Only time will tell *if* we are given the chance.

Yes, that's what you said before. I understood it perfectly well the first
time, repeating it won't make any difference. But it's all very tenous:
"96k/24 *may* bring the advantage", "they *may* provide versions" etc. Well
maybe, but then again maybe not. If they can't, or won't, produce recordings
that actually use the performance that CDDA is capable of, why should they
treat 96k/24 any better?


Again to clarify. My comments had little or nothing to do with what CDDA
and 96k/24 are technically capable of.

Exactly. That was my point. I made a comment about the performance of CDDA,
and you replied with a long post that was about something else.


Hope you now follow that. If not, I'll give up. :-)


I followed it the first time Jim. It's not like you to use the "if you don't
agree with me you haven't understood me" argument :-(

However I do find your thinking somewhat odd. It reminds me a lot of Iain's
justification for the CD version of a dual LP/CD release having a lot more
dynamic compression than the LP on the grounds that they are for "different
markets".

I think we both agree that CDDA is capable of far better performance than
you might think from many of the recordings that are put out by the major
record labels. But surely the solution to that is to encourage them to
improve their standards on 44.1k/16, not to fall for a marketing ploy that
involves an unnecessary 200% increase in data?

David.

On 27/02/2011 15:34, David Looser wrote:
"Jim wrote in message

Hope you now follow that. If not, I'll give up. :-)


I followed it the first time Jim. It's not like you to use the "if you don't
agree with me you haven't understood me" argument :-(

What did you expect from a senile old Scotch fart?

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
¨
It reminds me a lot of Iain's justification for the CD version of a dual
LP/CD release having a lot more dynamic compression than the LP on the
grounds that they are for "different markets".


Jim's claim that the people involved in CD mastering are
"witless" and "incompetent" just does not stand up, because
the same CD facilities are turning out impeccable uncompressed
classical and jazz CDs together with heavily compressed pop
material.

I would be interested to know, David, what you personally
think the explanation is for this, if not to meet the demands
of the consumer.

Iain

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
¨
It reminds me a lot of Iain's justification for the CD version of a dual
LP/CD release having a lot more dynamic compression than the LP on the
grounds that they are for "different markets".


Jim's claim that the people involved in CD mastering are
"witless" and "incompetent" just does not stand up, because
the same CD facilities are turning out impeccable uncompressed
classical and jazz CDs together with heavily compressed pop
material.

I would be interested to know, David, what you personally
think the explanation is for this, if not to meet the demands
of the consumer.


CD mastering people are subject to the whims of the record companies, not
those of the consumers. No one (certainly not the record companies) has ever
asked consumers how much compression they want, nor have they had the
courage to try marketing heavily and lightly compressed versions of the same
material in parallel CD or download versions (i.e.. both versions on the
same medium).

So my explanation is that it's the record companies, in a competitive race
for "loudness", who are demanding heavy compression, rather than the
consumers.

Whilst out-and-out pop music has always used heavy compression, those aren't
the sort of records that exist in LP/CD parallel issues. There is no reason,
other than a cynical marketing ploy, for the CD versions of those to use
higher compression than is used for the LP.

David.

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
¨
It reminds me a lot of Iain's justification for the CD version of a dual
LP/CD release having a lot more dynamic compression than the LP on the
grounds that they are for "different markets".


Jim's claim that the people involved in CD mastering are
"witless" and "incompetent" just does not stand up, because
the same CD facilities are turning out impeccable uncompressed
classical and jazz CDs together with heavily compressed pop
material.

I would be interested to know, David, what you personally
think the explanation is for this, if not to meet the demands
of the consumer.


CD mastering people are subject to the whims of the record companies, not
those of the consumers. No one (certainly not the record companies) has
ever asked consumers how much compression they want, nor have they had the
courage to try marketing heavily and lightly compressed versions of the
same material in parallel CD or download versions (i.e.. both versions on
the same medium).

So my explanation is that it's the record companies, in a competitive race
for "loudness", who are demanding heavy compression, rather than the
consumers.

Whilst out-and-out pop music has always used heavy compression, those
aren't the sort of records that exist in LP/CD parallel issues. There is
no reason, other than a cynical marketing ploy, for the CD versions of
those to use higher compression than is used for the LP.


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.

David.

In article , Iain Churches
wrote:

"David Looser" wrote in message
... ¨
It reminds me a lot of Iain's justification for the CD version of a
dual LP/CD release having a lot more dynamic compression than the LP
on the grounds that they are for "different markets".


Jim's claim that the people involved in CD mastering are "witless" and
"incompetent" just does not stand up, because the same CD facilities are
turning out impeccable uncompressed classical and jazz CDs together with
heavily compressed pop material.

Interesting use of an implicit "all" before "the people". :-)

Shame that the above misrepresents what I actually wrote/meant. So becomes
a form of the 'Straw Man' debating ploy.

Where did I claim that what I wrote applied to *all* producers of *all*
CDs? Did you not notice my positive comments about Chandos and others? Or
the various other wordings to indicate I was referring to *some* of those
involved, not all? By their works ye shall know them. :-)

Have you already forgotten the discussions we've had about this in the
past? Where I made quite clear that what I regard as 'witless', etc, is
the way *some* makers *presume* [implied 'all' by *them*] people will
'prefer' high levels of compression. Thus giving people no chance to
compare and decide. Hence ensuring their faith in 'louder is better'
isn't tested by the results of a genuine side-by-side comparison in the
open.

The point here is to judge each of them on their behaviour.


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

"David Looser" wrote in message
..

I would be interested to know, David, what you personally think the
explanation is for this, if not to meet the demands of the consumer.



So my explanation is that it's the record companies, in a competitive
race for "loudness", who are demanding heavy compression, rather than
the consumers.

Yes.

Whilst out-and-out pop music has always used heavy compression, those
aren't the sort of records that exist in LP/CD parallel issues.

The difficulty with that assertion is that is can only be supported by you
falling back onto selectively defining "out-and-out pop" to mean "examples
that fit my claim". :-)

I have found various examples for all kinds of music where the CD is
compressed more than the LP. From Hendrix to Classical.

Yes, this only happens because those doing it *think* it means the CD will
'sell more' as a result. And yes, not all CDs are like it. Not all makers
do this to everything.

Third and final time.

The point I have been making is that there *is* now a divided market
ranging from a muddy floor where over compressed and clipped CDs compete
with pirate low-rate mp3 downloads, reaching up though uncompressed and
carefully produced material.

The difficulty for would-be-buyers and would-be-sellers of the better
quality it to 'handshake' this requirement so they can recognise what is
required - despite the fog of 'louder is better'.

One way to do that is to have specialist labels. Another is via format. So
it is quite possible for someone willing to pay more for something like
96k/24LPCM to use that as a 'flag' that they expect high audio quality and
that they want something very different to a poor mp3 or overcompressed CD.

To some extent this *is* happening already - look at the examples I've
mentioned. Chandos, Linn, and others. But it is now up to
would-be-*customers* as well as makers to do this *if* they want to find a
route to establish the demand for good quality.

In theory this could be done via CDDA. The problem is that is already
compromised since - apart from making assumptions on a statistical genre
basis - there is no way for the makers to tell which customers would have
wanted something made in another way. So unfortunately we do seem to need a
distinction by format (and probably by price).

But as I've said, I have no idea how many would do this. Time will tell.
Alas cynically deciding in advance "96k/24 will just be a way to flog the
same rubbish again" and so taking no interest would kill this possibility
at birth.

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 , 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.

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 , 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.

"MiNe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Iain Churches" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,

"When they¹re not selling their guitars to buy turntables, they¹re
selling their turntables to buy guitars * EaLo¹s hipsters are
frontline
soldiers in the culture war.


This "culture war" is news to me, can you please expand a little?

I believe this is just a colorful description to dramatize the hipster
daily grind.

I see. I don't have a clue about the modern "hipsters" but I
do know from my study of jazz, that hipster was a common term
in describing the afficionados of the new form of jazz music -
Bebop that was emerging immediately post war. It was
an exciting time in the history of music.

I can see why they like vinyl and turntables:-)

Iain