Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site

As things stand today, I believe that the biggest gain in quality is not to be had via the pursuit of higher resolution formats.

A friend of mine who works for a large media distribution business (like Amazon) recently gave me a bunch of sample CDs that were left over from previous evaluations in their listening room. Record labels regularly send these samples out to large retail operations hoping to secure an order. Many of the CDs are bare, with no cover art, and have only a simple hand written title for purposes of ID. Most have a word saying something to the effect that the material is "not for resale". Listening to these recordings revealed in all cases a total absence of dynamic compression; they actually sound really good.

This is somewhat surprising, as I would have thought all mastering to have been done before issuing even the pre-sale samples, but apparently not, or apparently there are two versions (one compressed and one not). In any case, I interpret this finding as an admission on the part of the labels that the effects of dynamic compression are in fact detrimental, and that people running the labels are completely aware of the damage it does.

Though the material on newer (purchased) CDs seems to have less dynamic compression than was the case with CDs from about 3 years ago, it is still present and widely used, and I fully expect that the commercially available versions of these samples will receive the compression treatment.

This I just do not understand... The original motivation (mastering a recording to sound louder than offerings from competing labels when broadcast over the radio) is no longer valid; as a result of this practice (dynamic compression to increase perceived loudness), broadcast signals are now processed before diffusion such that perceived loudness is held at a constant level. Unless I am missing something, there is no longer any reason to continue the practice of dynamic compression; I just don't get it !

The only possible motivation I can imagine is in the context of an individual listening to music files in a noisy environment (an MP3 player used in the subway for example); such a user might "benefit" from dynamically compressed files where the quiet passages are boosted. So is that it? Is this what's dragging down the quality for all users? There has got to be a better way!

jd*

Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site