cliveb wrote: > As usual, generally insightful comments from Archimago. I do however > have one minor nit to pick... > > I suspect your definitions of tier1 and tier2 would encourage the > continued use of excessive dynamic range compression for tier1. > Meanwhile, if a mastering with natural dynamics is made for tier2, why > shouldn't it also be made available at 16/44? > The average Joe is going to buy the cheapest version, regardless of > mastering quality. So if we had a "tier1.5", (where the tier2 mastering > is used but downsampled to 16/44, and priced the same as tier1), with > luck it might actually help in some small way to drive hypercompression > out of the marketplace.
You have to remember that there is (often) a reason producers and artists use "excessive" compression (and often it is an "artistic choice") - both the artists/producers and the average Joe actually prefer the compressed sound. Yes, it might be because by now, it is what they are used to, but it is still their preference. "To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=104904 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
