Is music quality moving away from the "audiophile"


I recently read an interesting post on the production of the new Metallica album and how its sound has been catered to the Ipod generation. Formatting the sound of the album toward the ipod itself. With computer downloads, mp3's etc, etc. it seems that "compression" over quality is becoming the norm.

In the Metallica example, I have been a fan since 84. Now, i know they are not a good example for the so called "audiophile", but that being said the production on this album is terrible. Actually, worse than their previous album St. Anger. Who makes the call on this? The band, engineer, record company? A combination of all?
zigonht
I hope that the music quality is headed away from the "audiophile" many of which embrace the music of the jazz lite vocalists Krall, Barber, Cole, Monheit, Jacintha etc., as well as the soppy folk lite vocals of a deceased "singer" who's name will remain unspoken.

As far as sound quality goes, the hobby is dieing, as we are not enlisting young recruits in sufficient numbers to sustain it. If dynamic range compression improves the sound of music on i-pods and car stereos to the point where more young people become interested, I am all for it.
Compression is generally part of the mixing or mastering process (often both). I can't blame most artists for doing whatever it takes to appeal to the iPod generation - I would be doing the same thing myself. However, there are still plenty of good recordings being put out, though they aren't the easiest to find. The latest Lindsey Buckingham album is a good example; it was recorded, mixed, and mastered on analog tape with no compression. The CD version sounds great, but the vinyl is divine and his virtuosity on the guitar is readily evident.

In your example of the latest Metallica release, try to get your hands on the Guitar Hero version of the album - it is uncompressed. That's right, the version made for the video game is better for audiophile level equipment. Why? Likely they didn't spend the time and money on mixing/mastering for that version than on the commercial release.
...and then there's Mr. Tom Petty...who made sure that in the recent Mudcrutch release, NO compression was used. Classy guy...

For sure compression would sound harsh on Tom Petty's ATC speakers. I find Tom Petty's CDs are often extremely well recorded: his careful attention to sound quality is probably only exceeded by Pink Floyd.
There are hundreds, probably thousands, of great recordings out there! Many are old, but they can be found. As indicated by others, there are very few current artists that care about sound quality. Look for the older gems and you won't be disappointed.
Are most artists and producers moving away from "audiophile" type of recording? I would say for the most part, yes. The days are long gone by when people had a dedicated two-channel system and while maybe they couldn't afford SOTA equipment, certainly were aware of the sonic benefits that such such systems could deliver, and certainly wanted the recording they were purchasing to be able to deliver everything their systems could deliver. Nowadays it seems it's more about "quantity over quality". People don't care how good a recording sounds as long as they can download as many recordings as they can. The Ipod and MP3 generation only cares about "how much" and not about "how good" the music recordings that they get. Unfortunately to many artists and producers are more than willing to cater to that mindset and give them their super-compressed mixes. Support "Turn It Up".