3 ms·
I don’t think that’s giving people enough credit. Sure, if you master for CD to exploit as much dynamic range as possible (as is often done with high end classi
by chongli 4y ago
I don’t think that’s giving people enough credit. Sure, if you master for CD to exploit as much dynamic range as possible (as is often done with high end classical music) then CD quality is truly amazing and vinyl can’t even come close.
But, a lot of popular music out there isn’t mastered for that use case (high end ABX testing). On the contrary, there are tons of CDs that are extremely compressed (in the dynamic range sense) so as to sound as loud as possible on the radio [1]. If you compare one of these CDs with an earlier (or even contemporary) vinyl release which has been mastered correctly then of course the vinyl will sound better!
Unfortunately, because we’re dealing with a Wild West of media, new and old, floating around in the marketplace we don’t have the luxury of a perfect ABX comparison, and so people will continue to buy and prefer old formats. It is for that reason that we can’t dismiss them.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war
- cbhl 4y agoDo mixers still optimize songs to sound loud on the radio? I imagine these days most new music discovery happens via YouTube or Spotify.
- cfraenkel 4y ago"radio" in this case refers more to 'cheap equipment played in a noisy environment'. Back in the 70s ~ 80s that meant car speakers playing over road noise. Now it's cheap ear bud or tinny bluetooth xyz playing over road noise / transit / coffee house ambient noise. It's not how the music gets to you, it's the environment you (most people, that is) hear it in. And on top of that, for most of the audience, it's background noise. So to catch your attention, it gets mastered as 'loud' as possible. Because the next / previous tracks in the playlist are. And so it goes.