erl
New Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2004
- Posts
- 32
- Likes
- 0
This is a follow-up to a phenomenon mentioned in passing in the thread "Comparison between BH and TBH" in the Headroom forum, which I think deserved it's own thread.
Eagle_Driver wrote:
Quote:
There was also a reference to a list of recordings graded by loudness
I don't understand the reasoning as to why "CDs have suffered from severe compression, caused in part by the fact that most such CDs were mastered too loud (or too hot)."
Being a software engineer, I would think that the highest quality (lowest quantization noise) would be achieved by calibrating the recording such that the highest points on the waveform use the extreme available sample values (ca +-32767). That way quieter portions of the recording would use higher sample values and have a lower quantization noise.
Does Eagle_Driver at. al. mean that the recordings are amplified so much that the samples don't fit in 16 bits, and that the recording engineers compensate for that by compressing the samples?
Eagle_Driver wrote:
Quote:
Now, I've heard modern, mostly acoustic recordings - and they all sound hollow and artificial to my ears, even on a relatively high-end home system. And in my experience, digital is NOT better than analog. The trouble with most of today's digital recordings is that the engineers have actually misused the technology: Unless I go for the classical music recordings that very few people around here buy these days, all pop/rock/rap and most jazz CDs have suffered from severe compression, caused in part by the fact that most such CDs were mastered too loud (or too hot). In fact, this race for maximum loudness has GOT TO STOP! Otherwise, we'll all be stuck with nothing but a big, steaming pile of dogmeat for available recordings. |
There was also a reference to a list of recordings graded by loudness
I don't understand the reasoning as to why "CDs have suffered from severe compression, caused in part by the fact that most such CDs were mastered too loud (or too hot)."
Being a software engineer, I would think that the highest quality (lowest quantization noise) would be achieved by calibrating the recording such that the highest points on the waveform use the extreme available sample values (ca +-32767). That way quieter portions of the recording would use higher sample values and have a lower quantization noise.
Does Eagle_Driver at. al. mean that the recordings are amplified so much that the samples don't fit in 16 bits, and that the recording engineers compensate for that by compressing the samples?