Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site

Guy, that is one excellent clip!

It does explain a lot of the problem, and I can understand why Pop and Rock are most affected, and why Jazz and Classical are more often less horribly affected.

It seems a lot of older but remastered recordings have received the LOUD treatment as well.

But what about labels like EMI... Take for example Nigel Kennedy's "East meets East" (not my favorite music) recorded in 2003 by EMI Classics; one would think it might be done right. What a screechy bearly-listenable waste of $15!

Here is where I see a real opportunity for a big record label:
Imagine that Virgin decided to offer the radio edit version of their recordings (the LOUD versions), as they do now, and also as downloads. Then imagine, for selected performances/artists, they offered in parallel a "connaisseur's version" of the same material that has simply been properly recorded... Sold for the same price. One would not need a high resolution player to hear the benefits. With correct marketing this could give people a real reason to return to buying music on a physical support (instead of downloading it).

Regarding those artists who demand that their music receive the LOUD treatment (see post by Gregm):
This is not a problem. An artrist who is insensitive to the damage done by the LOUD treatment is not going to create anything that a proper recording technique might improve.

jd*

Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site