Article in WSJ about compressed dynamic range

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...)