Re: Clients and The Loudness Wars


"Chevdo" <chev@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:0E7mg.64944$A8.4601@xxxxxxxxxxx
In article <Kv7mg.64943$A8.19774@clgrps12>, chev@xxxxxxxx says...

In article <1150870131.990420.312880@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
upryz1@xxxxxxxxx says...


Chevdo wrote:

fyi:

http://skepdic.com/comreinf.html

Ok - let me get this straight... You accuse rec.audio.pro posters of
"Communal Reinforcement" and post the above link. Within that very
link it states:

"The process [communal reinforcement] is independent of whether the
claim has been properly researched or is supported by empirical data
significant enough to warrant belief by reasonable people."

Are you suggesting that the information in the link you were responding
to...

http://www.mindspring.com/~mrichter/dynamics/dynamics.htm

...is NOT researched and supported by empirical data. Would you say
that chronological recording history, detailed waveform graphs, tallies
of # of clipped samples, and listening is not empirical?


No, I am saying that that collection of data, while accurate, does not
support
the delusional conclusion reached by the anti-loudness cult, which is
supported
by communal reinforcement. It's very common for the deluded to refer to a
bunch of accurate data that they claim supports their position but in fact
does
not. (for example, Ann Coulter makes a big deal over supporting her
crazed
psychopathy with copious footnotes, which she believes makes her correct).





Just to provide an analogy here, presenting accurate data about dynamics
in
sound recordings to make the subjective claim that a typically
'over-compressed' commercially available CD lacks enough dynamics to be
enjoyable is akin to saying that since two plus two equals four, four must
be
evil.

The data obviously doesn't make it evil in and of itself, but many observe a
correlation between a progressive reduction in dynamics and audio that
sounds progressively worse. It's a matter of interpretation. One mans trash
is another mans gold. You can't prove my style of music is better than
yours.

At one extreme of the audio spectrum you have silence; at the other,
absolute loudness. Neither will do for listening to audio. After all,
recorded audio can only be so loud before it becomes unintelligible. Is
there such a thing as too much compression, in your opinion?


.

Relevant Pages

  • Top MP3 players
    ... TV and video formats supported: ... Support for 480p and 576p component TV out ... Low-Complexity version of the H.264 Baseline Profile with AAC-LC audio ... Additional features: Calendar, Bass Boost, Volume control, Voice ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.vista.music_pictures_video)
  • ANN: AudioLab 3.0 Beta 1 available!
    ... AudioLab is an audio capture, playback, processing, analysis and visualization library. ... Added higher than 44100 sample audio rates support. ... Added Scope channel value intersections support. ...
    (borland.public.delphi.thirdpartytools.general)
  • Re: MP3 to PCM and playback with wave
    ... custom code for each one. ... Even MP3 alone, which is nothing ... requires custom support to strip non ... audio frames like ID3 tags and to correctly read and seek ...
    (microsoft.public.win32.programmer.mmedia)
  • Re: Moving From ProTools to Linux? Good or bad?
    ... kind of expectation that was not met, but I can't figure out what it ... and that there was reasonable support for audio hardware. ... I'm not complaining about what Ardour does or does not do. ...
    (rec.audio.pro)
  • Re: Clients and The Loudness Wars
    ... "Communal Reinforcement" and post the above link. ... ...is NOT researched and supported by empirical data. ... bunch of accurate data that they claim supports their position but in fact ...
    (rec.audio.pro)