Article in WSJ about compressed dynamic range


There was a front-page article in today's Wall Street Journal about the problem of compressed dynamic range with pop albums (done in order to make everything sound louder). Ted Jensen and Bob Ludwig are quoted. Pretty good read for a lay article.
raquel
Any lawyers out there - possible class action lawsuit here? I have over 1000 CD's and I would estimate that at least 10% are "hard clipped" throughout - that means totally maxed out with flat square waves on peak parts in the music. In any other respectable business this kind of faulty product would be recalled.

See this site - software now exists that will tell you how bad a CD product is CD Clipping

We also have "expert" witnesses who have made public statements. It is fairly easy to prove that the product is faulty.
The most compelling reason I shy away from some contemporary audio formats and music genres.
In my area digital CBS TV station broadcacts at least twice louder (up to point of distortion) than digital NBC station. In addition CBS spikes high frequencies - probably to get more vivid sound on TV speakers without tweeters.

It is very difficult to prove that product (CD) is faulty since they will show better sales and a lot of satisfied buyers. It is all targeted toward average person and not the audiophils. I have nightmares about everything changing, one day, to only one format - MP3.
I agree with the record companies. Compression is necessary for the vast majority of consumer listening situations where the quietest sounds would be obscured by ambient sound, such as in outside mp3 player use, or automotive applications and the largest peaks would exceed the capabilites of most similar consumer playback gear. Regression to the mean is a good thing. Audiophiles, generally are a higly vocal population that is but a small sub-set of the buying public. The record companies would surely starve by catering to the high-end set, not that they aren't eating cat food already due to the downloading issues.
Viridian, wouldn't it make more sense for manufactures of electronics geared for small, budget, or portable use have an eq switch for such instances, than to forever damage historic documentations of musical performances?
Of course. And the listening situation argument doesn't hold water with me. I was listening to my car stereos in in the vehicles I've owned since the early 70s and the music never sounded as crap as a Foo Fighter, Nirvana, Metallica, Green Day song sounds now. And cars were a lot noisier inside then than they are today.
Why saddle consumers with extra cost, no matter how small, in their music replay devices to satisfy a miniscule part of the population? This is market driven, not some aestetic decision made by engineers. The elitist minority is welcome to vote with their pocketbooks; no one is required to buy anything that is not consonant with their artistic sensibility, no matter how frail.
Unsound, one small correction. EQ is different from compression so an EQ switch on consumer electronics, which most alread have, would not fit the bill. There are many excellent articles, like the one referenced at the head of this thread, that explain compression, as opposed to EQ.
Ok, wrong term, then add a compression switch. Didn't DBX offer something like this years ago on their inexpensive cd players? What ever happend to the idea of "high fidelity"? The lowest common denominator mentality is compromising our culture, and not just in audio.
Unsound - isn't it strange that they keep master tapes pure and uncompressed but we won't be ever able to hear them because of this mentality?
Perhaps some studio rats might pipe in, but it's my understanding that the process used to make super loud recordings involves much more than simple compression. It's not just flicking a single switch and it cannot presently be duplicated at the consumer end.
Unsound - isn't it strange that they keep master tapes pure and uncompressed but we won't be ever able to hear them because of this mentality?

It is so sad...

Perhaps some studio rats might pipe in, but it's my understanding that the process used to make super loud recordings involves much more than simple compression. It's not just flicking a single switch and it cannot presently be duplicated at the consumer end.

Most DSP's have a reduced dynamic range feature which is needed on crap systems as movies often have great dynamics (still). If you ever struggle to hear dialogue on a movie then you have a "crap" system that unfortunately benefits from the compressed modern pop crap from the studios (this is unfortunately many more systems than most people actually realize - it is not just iPods, boomboxes and cars - many systems have a deeply scooped midrange and benefit from audio compression in order to make dialog more audible...)
What a mess! Geesh, it almost makes the continued pursuit of the holy grail of audio, a complete and utterless waste of time, money and effort.