IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Current CD mastering practices, And why I now buy so few new CD's.
RockFan
post Aug 9 2005, 03:50
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 292
Joined: 20-March 04
Member No.: 12866



Although I've been aware of the ever more destructive levels of compression/limiting used over the last 5-10 years (and taken part in discussions here and other places), it only dawned on me recently that I had unconciously practically stopped buying CD's the last year or two..

By that I'm referring to largely rock, indie, jazz etc, incuding so-called 'remasters'.

There are recent releases out there which I would like to own, but with what I've come to expect from modern CD's, I know that an album which I might have 'played to death' over weeks or months in years gone by will simply get boring after a few plays. So I don't buy them. Dynamics, soft/loud contrasts, drama - squashed out of existence.

New Queens Of The Stone Age? Probably a great album - but once bitten .....

I'm increasingly going to exchanges to try and find older releases of albums I want, or even buying vinyl versions of new albums where they're released, as they tend not to be afflicted as badly.

Obviously there are a proportion of buyers who only lsiten to CD's in the car or on personals in noisy environments who couldn't care less and will keep buying, but there must be a lot of others who, like me, are completely disillusioned with this 'loudness fetish' crap and have simply lost interest.

In fact I wonder how much this has contributed to the stagnancy in sales over the last few years that the 'industry' whines about so frequently?

R.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
BradPDX
post Aug 17 2005, 01:39
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 142
Joined: 16-August 05
From: Portland, Oregon
Member No.: 23924



I have produced several CDs and been a participating musician in dozens. The practice of using large amounts of "global" compression (compression applied to the entire mix and not just particular tracks) is a phenomenon with roots back into the 70's.

Let me add something really quick and important here: totally uncompressed recorded music is relatively rare in the pop/jazz/folk world and has been for a long time.

The essential psychoacoustic problems being addressed are 1) scale and 2) noise floor. Issue 1 is the fact that most recorded music is not played at realistic performance levels - it is simply impractical for me to crank up my living room rig to even small ensemble levels without bugging half the neighborhood and myself as well. The spaces in which we listen to music are often utterly at odds with the original volume levels.

Compression, judiciously applied, allows music to be perceived as "full" and satisfying at substantially lower levels. Is it "real"? Well, no - but then, neither is a 7-piece band cranking away in my 15 x 25 ft living room being reproduced through 2 sound sources. At its best, compression is a compromise made to remedy the most basic compromise in the system - the fact that the music will NOT be played in original spaces at original levels. It will be coming out of 2 speakers in your home or car.

If anyone in this group is a musician, you can try some interest experiments. For example, I recorded a CD of 10 lullabies for my kids a while back. I did this on the cheap, just the way the kids hear me every night - 2 good condensors, a hard disk recorder, me and a Martin guitar, played live.

When the tracks were played back on good cans or speakers, they sounded great - just like the real thing. I trimmed up the beginnings and endings, burned a CD and popped it into the boom box in the kid's bedroom. My god, it was awful. At low volumes (the target use case) all detail was lost - only the vocals would jump out from the tiny box. The kids hated it.

So it pulled up the tracks again and applied global compression. I burned several discs to see which amount of compression would sound good for the kids. The answer: the one with a lot of compression. Listened to closely, the compression is obvious. But when heard at low volume on the boombox, it is great. Mission accomplished and lesson learned.

What was different from my live performances in the same room? A lot. Lower volume, limited frequency response, directional speakers, etc. The net result was that the music was better served by squishing it. Don't worry; I still play "live" most nights. Lately the kids like Gram Parsons songs.

The next thing is noise. The 70's saw the birth of real FM radio, 8-tracks and cassettes. This meant that the shift to "car listening" was underway, and the record companies obliged with increased compression. In a sense, they are right: uncompressed music in a noisy car is misery. The peaks take your head off while the music floor is inaudible. The trouble is, the cure is sometimes worse than the problem.

I agree that many recent pop recordings I have are excessively compressed, lifeless and grating. That to me is sacrificing one thing for another. But take heart; well recorded music is out there in spades as well. Lately I have been listening a lot to Sufjan Steven's excellent "Illinois" CD - wonderfully dynamic and spacious, not to mention GREAT songwriting and arranging.

And I'll bet that "Illinois" is using some compression - just not too much!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Julien
post Sep 12 2005, 14:13
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 53
Joined: 26-July 05
Member No.: 23534



QUOTE (BradPDX @ Aug 17 2005, 01:39 AM)
I have produced several CDs and been a participating musician in dozens. The practice of using large amounts of "global" compression (compression applied to the entire mix and not just particular tracks) is a phenomenon with roots back into the 70's.

Let me add something really quick and important here: totally uncompressed recorded music is relatively rare in the pop/jazz/folk world and has been for a long time.

The essential psychoacoustic problems being addressed are 1) scale and 2) noise floor. Issue 1 is the fact that most recorded music is not played at realistic performance levels - it is simply impractical for me to crank up my living room rig to even small ensemble levels without bugging half the neighborhood and myself as well. The spaces in which we listen to music are often utterly at odds with the original volume levels.

Compression, judiciously applied, allows music to be perceived as "full" and satisfying at substantially lower levels. Is it "real"? Well, no - but then, neither is a 7-piece band cranking away in my 15 x 25 ft living room being reproduced through 2 sound sources. At its best, compression is a compromise made to remedy the most basic compromise in the system - the fact that the music will NOT be played in original spaces at original levels. It will be coming out of 2 speakers in your home or car.

If anyone in this group is a musician, you can try some interest experiments. For example, I recorded a CD of 10 lullabies for my kids a while back. I did this on the cheap, just the way the kids hear me every night - 2 good condensors, a hard disk recorder, me and a Martin guitar, played live.

When the tracks were played back on good cans or speakers, they sounded great - just like the real thing. I trimmed up the beginnings and endings, burned a CD and popped it into the boom box in the kid's bedroom. My god, it was awful. At low volumes (the target use case) all detail was lost - only the vocals would jump out from the tiny box. The kids hated it.

So it pulled up the tracks again and applied global compression. I burned several discs to see which amount of compression would sound good for the kids. The answer: the one with a lot of compression. Listened to closely, the compression is obvious. But when heard at low volume on the boombox, it is great. Mission accomplished and lesson learned.

What was different from my live performances in the same room? A lot. Lower volume, limited frequency response, directional speakers, etc. The net result was that the music was better served by squishing it. Don't worry; I still play "live" most nights. Lately the kids like Gram Parsons songs.

The next thing is noise. The 70's saw the birth of real FM radio, 8-tracks and cassettes. This meant that the shift to "car listening" was underway, and the record companies obliged with increased compression. In a sense, they are right: uncompressed music in a noisy car is misery. The peaks take your head off while the music floor is inaudible. The trouble is, the cure is sometimes worse than the problem.

I agree that many recent pop recordings I have are excessively compressed, lifeless and grating. That to me is sacrificing one thing for another. But take heart; well recorded music is out there in spades as well. Lately I have been listening a lot to Sufjan Steven's excellent "Illinois" CD - wonderfully dynamic and spacious, not to mention GREAT songwriting and arranging.

And I'll bet that "Illinois" is using some compression - just not too much!
*



It is good to hear another point of view on the topic. I think that the audiophiles & engineers behind the www.loudnessrace.com project, even if their point is totally valid, tend to reject some things a little too quickly.

In order to fully enjoy a record that has lots of dynamics you have to setup a proper listening environement. What I mean here is that you will most likely never truly enjoy such a record on a $300 stereo in an appartment in a residential area where you cannot listen to the music at a fairly high volume.

When played at low volumes, such records will have you jump on the volume knob constantly if you want to hear the quiet passages. The problem increases greatly when the listening environement is noisy or when the playback unit has its volume output limited(In Europe, portable devices' output is limited to prevent hearing dammage).

I do not mean that super squashed records are more pleasant to hear, I just think that the increase in loudness had to happen because it is convenient for most of the listeners. The real problem is not the loudness in itself, it is the fact that this an irreversible process. Of course, you are free to rip the CD on your computer and apply heavy limiting to the audio to gain some RMS, but it is pretty tedious and not so easy for those with no audio-engineering background at all.

What would be way more interesting, in my opinion, would be that hi-fi manufacturers offer a switchable built-in limiter/maximizer in their stereos( a bit like the kind of maximizers you can find in radio stations) and portable devices. It would please the audiophile and the casual listener alike. The technology wouldn't be so complicated to implement.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
esa372
post Sep 12 2005, 15:50
Post #4





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 429
Joined: 5-September 04
From: Los Angeles
Member No.: 16796



QUOTE (BradPDX @ Aug 17 2005, 01:39 AM)
When the tracks were played back on good cans or speakers, they sounded great - just like the real thing. I trimmed up the beginnings and endings, burned a CD and popped it into the boom box in the kid's bedroom. My god, it was awful. At low volumes (the target use case) all detail was lost - only the vocals would jump out from the tiny box. The kids hated it.

[...]

The next thing is noise. The 70's saw the birth of real FM radio, 8-tracks and cassettes. This meant that the shift to "car listening" was underway, and the record companies obliged with increased compression. In a sense, they are right: uncompressed music in a noisy car is misery. The peaks take your head off while the music floor is inaudible. The trouble is, the cure is sometimes worse than the problem.
So, producers are mastering albums specifically to be played on boom-boxes and car stereos... dry.gif
That's awful! That's like making movies specifically to be watched on a cell phone!

I think your reference to compression being "judiciously applied" is key. It is certainly is a useful tool, but its applications are being painfully misused... creating music wich is (as you say) "lifeless and grating".



Here are some relevant excerpts from a 2003 interview with Steve Hoffman by Keith Hanlon for Tape Op magazine. The entire interview can be found here.


Steve Hoffman: Mastering for the Breath of Life
by Keith Hanlon

As a mastering engineer, Steve Hoffman has worked on many classic recordings, but very few of them would be considered a standard CD or LP release. After working at MCA on reissue CDs from Buddy Holly and The Who (among others), he entered the audiophile world. He is currently a free agent, working on SACDs for Audio Fidelity and LPs for S&P Records.

He made his name as the mastering engineer for DCC Compact Classics. Throughout the 90s, DCC specialized in producing 24-karat gold compact discs. They released gold disc versions of albums by The Doors, Paul McCartney, The Beach Boys, Miles Davis, and many others. Even non-audiophiles feel that these discs are the definitive versions. Indeed, the first time I heard his work on Bob Dylan's "Highway 61 Revisited," I felt as though I was hearing what Dylan heard in the control room during playback.

Steve's trademark is what he refers to as the "breath of life" -- recordings that are dynamic and natural sounding. You don't have to have a $50,000 system to hear the difference.



Q. On your website, you specify your title as "Audiophile Music Restoration Specialist" instead of, say, "Mastering Engineer." Can you tell me what you think the difference is, and what you feel your job is?

A. That's a good question. I always like to use the word "audiophile" in there because nowadays a "mastering engineer" is someone who mangles the sound to the lowest common denominator. In other words, so that their CD is just as loud as everybody else's out there. Sort of the old, "my radio station is louder than your radio station" thing.

My personal opinion is that there has to be a bastion of good sound out there and many of my jobs entail much more than mastering. There's all different kinds of restoration from old records to old tapes to this and that. I didn't want to be lumped in with the mass of guys out there who just follow orders now and compress the hell out of everything.


Q. What do you mean by "just follow orders"?

A. I'm lucky because somebody who hires me is interested in getting the best sound they possibly can. Usually that is a record company that has an audiophile leaning. In other words, they are not worried about competing with the loudest CD out there. It's more of "what sounds the best on a $50,000 stereo?"

You'd be surprised at how bad most modern compact discs sound on really good equipment. It'll make your ears fall off after half an hour. When they hire me, they know that I'll keep the dynamic range intact, and try to add my trademark "breath of life" to everything.


[...]


Q. A lot of Tape Op readers are working with computers, or 4-track cassette machines. What should they consider when trying for a more natural sound?

A. They should take their fingers off the EQ buttons. I know it's tempting to EQ everything. But try and work on everything in it's natural state, because once something is EQed into the mix, it's there and you can't get rid of it. If you EQ the drums to sound really loud (in a mix), and you hear your mix on somebody else's monitors, and all of a sudden it doesn't sound as good as on your Mackie monitors, now what do you do?

Well, you keep all the signal processing until the very last minute, and only dial in one half of what you originally wanted to add. If you're going to add like 5db at 10,000 cycles to get the cymbals to go (makes a high end sibilant sound), back that off, down to two and a half. Cut it in half... you can always add more in mastering. But once it's on your mix, you're screwed. You cannot get rid of it.

The same with compression. You can always compress when you're mastering. Hopefully you can use some nice sounding analog compressors, not a merciless digital maximizer which kills everything.

The idea is… if you want your record to sound loud, there has to be a point in the record that is quieter than the loudest part or it will all sound quiet. Even the loudest loud will just sound quiet because that's not the way the human ear works. In order for something to sound loud, there has to be a little quiet part in there somewhere where your ear would go, "Oh that's quiet... whoa, it just got loud!" If it's all loud from beginning to end on every song, even the ballads, it's just not going to be effective.

No matter what you've read about that, ease off on the maximizer. Please! [laughs]


Q. What about the person that says, "Well, I listen to stuff in my car, on my boombox or my home stereo. Why should I care about the audiophile's point of view?"


A. There will be a day, when this person is now a rich and famous rock star, and he or she will be able to afford a really nice stereo. And when that happens, all the warts that made your mix sound good on that $100 boombox are going to be sticking out like a sore thumb. So what you want to do is plan for the future and not take everything to it's lowest common $100 boombox, just make sure that you leave some for someone with a really nice stereo. Like your mom's or dad's stereo. Try it on that. How does this sound on theirs? Does it sound too bassy or too bright? Is there bass? Does it sound exciting? If it doesn't, then obviously something is wonky with the mix.

Another thing I want to mention while I have this little soap box is never mix really loud. Mix at a lower volume. Mixes that are loud are thrown off by the equipment going into hypershock. You'll never get the right amount of bass. The bass always tends to distort loud, and it starts to sound louder, so you turn down the bass. But when you play it at a normal volume, there will be no bass. Your ear is totally compressing it as it's playing back and you're not getting the full picture. Try mixing it at a normal volume. If your mix sounds lousy at a normal volume then you're doing a lousy mix. Fix the mix. The end. [laughs] The readers are gonna hate me, but it's true! What can I say?

Repinted with permission.


...and here's another point:
QUOTE (Keith Hanlon)
Something else happened in the 90s. More people had CD changers, and they started to notice that an "old" CD was quieter than newer discs. They automatically assumed that was bad, because it was annoying to keep adjusting the volume.


--------------------
Clowns love haircuts; so should Lee Marvin's valet.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
- RockFan   Current CD mastering practices   Aug 9 2005, 03:50
- - Shade[ST]   I have a few King Crimson, Jascha Heifetz, and Hor...   Aug 9 2005, 04:26
- - irishcrazy2005   I am by no means an audiophile, and I guess that I...   Aug 9 2005, 06:43
|- - matth6546   QUOTE (irishcrazy2005 @ Aug 9 2005, 12:43 AM)...   Aug 9 2005, 20:31
|- - Vanishing   QUOTE (matth6546 @ Aug 9 2005, 09:31 PM)today...   Aug 10 2005, 09:05
|- - Bob Speer   Text removed by author   Mar 4 2006, 07:30
- - WmAx   QUOTE (RockFan @ Aug 8 2005, 10:50 PM)... Ro...   Aug 9 2005, 06:47
- - wodney   I concur with the thread poster. I rarely buy cd...   Aug 9 2005, 20:56
- - Lyx   Guess it depends on music-taste...... with most of...   Aug 10 2005, 12:02
- - esa372   A case in point: Rush :edit: link   Aug 10 2005, 14:32
- - chri5   I agree. An album which has been mastered without ...   Aug 10 2005, 15:29
- - snookerdoodle   I have to add that I just think that we have Yet A...   Aug 10 2005, 16:08
|- - legg   QUOTE (snookerdoodle @ Aug 10 2005, 10:08 AM)...   Aug 10 2005, 16:20
|- - PoisonDan   QUOTE (snookerdoodle @ Aug 10 2005, 05:08 PM)...   Aug 10 2005, 16:29
||- - snookerdoodle   QUOTE (PoisonDan @ Aug 10 2005, 09:29 AM)Havi...   Aug 10 2005, 17:17
||- - no.667   QUOTE (PoisonDan @ Aug 10 2005, 07:29 AM)Also...   Sep 12 2005, 20:35
|- - RockFan   QUOTE (snookerdoodle @ Aug 10 2005, 07:08 AM)...   Aug 10 2005, 23:04
|- - Cartoon   QUOTE (snookerdoodle @ Aug 10 2005, 05:08 PM)...   Aug 11 2005, 11:18
||- - snookerdoodle   QUOTE (Cartoon @ Aug 11 2005, 04:18 AM)In pri...   Aug 11 2005, 15:30
|- - GeSomeone   QUOTE (snookerdoodle @ Aug 10 2005, 05:08 PM)...   Aug 14 2005, 23:15
- - irishcrazy2005   OK, this is going to sound very stupid, but rememb...   Aug 10 2005, 18:13
|- - Lyx   QUOTE (irishcrazy2005 @ Aug 10 2005, 07:13 PM...   Aug 10 2005, 23:11
|- - bug80   QUOTE (Lyx @ Aug 11 2005, 12:11 AM)QUOTE (iri...   Aug 11 2005, 11:12
|- - irishcrazy2005   QUOTE (bug80 @ Aug 11 2005, 04:12 AM)I hope t...   Aug 11 2005, 17:01
- - Funkstar De Luxe   Norman people don't give a fuck about how a CD...   Aug 10 2005, 23:25
|- - Lyx   QUOTE (Funkstar De Luxe @ Aug 11 2005, 12:25 ...   Aug 11 2005, 00:42
|- - WmAx   QUOTE (Lyx @ Aug 10 2005, 07:42 PM)QUOTE (Fun...   Aug 11 2005, 01:14
- - RockFan   I forgot to include one of the most important casu...   Aug 10 2005, 23:26
- - snookerdoodle   CNN has an article about the industry and how de...   Aug 11 2005, 17:55
- - Erukian   I sorted foobar's playlist by album gain, and ...   Aug 11 2005, 18:58
- - Mo0zOoH   ‘The Wall’ mastered by Fidelity Labs g...   Aug 12 2005, 22:25
|- - esa372   QUOTE (Mo0zOoH @ Aug 12 2005, 02:25 PM)‘The W...   Aug 14 2005, 16:25
|- - Mo0zOoH   QUOTE (esa372 @ Aug 14 2005, 06:25 PM)QUOTE (...   Aug 16 2005, 03:21
|- - Cyaneyes   QUOTE (Mo0zOoH @ Aug 15 2005, 10:21 PM)QUOTE ...   Aug 16 2005, 03:29
- - NeoRenegade   QUOTE (irishcrazy2005 @ Aug 10 2005, 12:13 PM...   Aug 14 2005, 18:40
- - HotshotGG   QUOTE I forgot to include one of the most importan...   Aug 15 2005, 00:16
- - Hermit-ically Sealed   Hi, I'm a lurker of this site from time to tim...   Aug 16 2005, 05:50
- - Lyx   oh my god! Maybe even that animation on loudn...   Aug 16 2005, 06:58
|- - Hermit-ically Sealed   QUOTE (Lyx @ Aug 15 2005, 09:58 PM)oh my god...   Aug 17 2005, 00:50
|- - Hermit-ically Sealed   QUOTE (Lyx @ Aug 15 2005, 09:58 PM)if i read ...   Aug 17 2005, 02:29
- - BradPDX   I have produced several CDs and been a participati...   Aug 17 2005, 01:39
|- - Hermit-ically Sealed   QUOTE (BradPDX @ Aug 16 2005, 04:39 PM)Let me...   Aug 17 2005, 03:11
||- - WmAx   For examples of albums with simple microphone plac...   Aug 17 2005, 03:21
||- - richms   QUOTE (Hermit-ically Sealed @ Aug 16 200...   Aug 17 2005, 05:01
|- - Lyx   QUOTE (BradPDX @ Aug 17 2005, 02:39 AM)But ta...   Aug 17 2005, 04:04
||- - bug80   QUOTE (Lyx @ Aug 17 2005, 05:04 AM)QUOTE Oh s...   Sep 1 2005, 12:45
||- - Yaztromo   Sorry if this has been posted before but I noticed...   Sep 5 2005, 23:20
|- - GeSomeone   QUOTE (BradPDX @ Aug 17 2005, 02:39 AM)The pr...   Sep 1 2005, 11:14
|- - Julien   QUOTE (BradPDX @ Aug 17 2005, 01:39 AM)I have...   Sep 12 2005, 14:13
|- - markanini   QUOTE (Julien @ Sep 12 2005, 02:13 PM)What wo...   Sep 12 2005, 14:56
|- - esa372   QUOTE (BradPDX @ Aug 17 2005, 01:39 AM)When t...   Sep 12 2005, 15:50
|- - bug80   QUOTE (Julien @ Sep 12 2005, 03:13 PM)QUOTE (...   Sep 12 2005, 17:03
|- - B.Fink   QUOTE (Julien @ Sep 12 2005, 02:13 PM)What wo...   Mar 15 2006, 16:33
|- - PoisonDan   QUOTE (B.Fink @ Mar 15 2006, 05:33 PM)QUOTE (...   Mar 15 2006, 17:46
|- - Triza   QUOTE (PoisonDan @ Mar 15 2006, 08:46 AM)QUOT...   Mar 16 2006, 02:53
- - dreamliner77   It's not that we are all the use of any compre...   Aug 17 2005, 01:42
- - Axon   Heh, I wouldn't be so sure about that. Alleged...   Aug 17 2005, 01:49
|- - RockFan   QUOTE (Axon @ Aug 16 2005, 04:49 PM)Heh, I wo...   Aug 17 2005, 02:09
- - richms   Another issue I have is that a few of the recent C...   Aug 17 2005, 03:38
- - Hancoque   I have another example for poor mastering. This is...   Sep 6 2005, 01:38
|- - Hermit-ically Sealed   QUOTE (Hancoque @ Sep 5 2005, 04:38 PM)I post...   Sep 6 2005, 05:34
|- - Martel   QUOTE (Hancoque @ Sep 5 2005, 04:38 PM)... It...   Mar 6 2006, 17:14
|- - Hancoque   QUOTE (Martel @ Mar 6 2006, 06:14 PM)edit: Pe...   Mar 6 2006, 18:58
|- - Martel   QUOTE (Hancoque @ Mar 6 2006, 09:58 AM)... I ...   Mar 7 2006, 17:33
- - shadowking   Till this day I cannot sit through St Anger. In co...   Sep 6 2005, 09:00
- - Axon   Hancoque, do you have a link to that Metallica for...   Sep 6 2005, 18:04
- - Hancoque   They seem to have changed the forums. I can't ...   Sep 6 2005, 18:10
- - Vanishing   I just read a review of the new Waves L3 Multiband...   Sep 8 2005, 13:30
|- - bug80   QUOTE (Vanishing @ Sep 8 2005, 02:30 PM)I jus...   Sep 8 2005, 13:36
|- - Cyaneyes   QUOTE (Vanishing @ Sep 8 2005, 08:30 AM)I jus...   Sep 8 2005, 15:12
- - Grey   QUOTE (RockFan @ Aug 8 2005, 10:50 PM)In fact...   Sep 12 2005, 00:34
|- - micmac   QUOTE (Grey @ Sep 11 2005, 05:34 PM)QUOTE (Ro...   Mar 9 2006, 07:31
- - Triza   Julien, Iteresting debate. Good points why compre...   Sep 12 2005, 15:06
|- - Julien   QUOTE (Triza @ Sep 12 2005, 03:06 PM)Julien, ...   Sep 12 2005, 16:41
|- - Triza   QUOTE (Julien @ Sep 12 2005, 07:41 AM)QUOTE (...   Sep 12 2005, 18:01
||- - Julien   QUOTE (Triza @ Sep 12 2005, 06:01 PM)QUOTE (J...   Sep 12 2005, 19:01
|- - Cyaneyes   QUOTE (Julien @ Sep 12 2005, 11:41 AM)Clippin...   Sep 13 2005, 19:35
- - Drexl   I don't remember where it was, but I remember ...   Sep 12 2005, 20:36
|- - no.667   QUOTE (Drexl @ Sep 12 2005, 11:36 AM)I don...   Sep 12 2005, 21:01
- - trebius   Ok now i'm new to the audiophile side of the a...   Sep 12 2005, 23:54
- - Triza   Indeed. A bit OT: The other interesting thing is ...   Sep 13 2005, 00:25
- - seannyb   Hard limiting / compression is only half the story...   Sep 15 2005, 03:49
- - Triza   Well you can tell me whatever you want, but 16 bit...   Sep 15 2005, 13:29
- - Acid8000   I just bought the 1994 remaster of Pink Floyd...   Sep 16 2005, 05:36
- - dreamliner77   Gotta love that PIO got the last quote: http://ww...   Mar 4 2006, 07:51
- - Never_Again   Great idea, agreed. Where do I sign?   Mar 15 2006, 19:19
- - Axon   I tried to make a similar proposal on SteveHoffman...   Mar 15 2006, 20:03
- - BradPDX   I don't think that the idea of onboard compres...   Mar 15 2006, 20:07
- - Axon   That's contingent on producers buying into the...   Mar 15 2006, 20:18
|- - BradPDX   QUOTE (Axon @ Mar 15 2006, 12:18 PM)That...   Mar 15 2006, 20:42
- - eZze   this is my first post here... i was reading about ...   Mar 16 2006, 04:21
- - Lyx   QUOTE (eZze @ Mar 16 2006, 04:21 AM)this is m...   Mar 16 2006, 06:08


Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 23rd September 2014 - 09:51