Article in WSJ about compressed dynamic range

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.