Re: Remastering


"Don Pearce" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:473f05c3.231496343@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 17:13:51 +0200, "Iain Churches"
<IainNG@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"Don Pearce" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:473ef2e7.297968171@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 13:43:44 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
<dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article <GvA%i.253688$1a6.243472@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Iain Churches <IainNG@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I pointed out to him on many occasions that therecord companies
were simply giving the public what they (think they) want.
Judging by the very low numbers of returned pop CD's, this
seems to be the case.

Thin is many buy pop records based on hearing them first on the radio.
And
all pop radio stations process their output heavily - in a fairly
similar
manner to that done by the re-mastering boys. If something is compressed
to within an inch at mastering doing the same thing again on
transmission
ain't going to make it sound much different.

I wish that were true. BBC London 94.9 is primarily a talk station,
but they try to play records as well. I'm convinced they just run them
through the speech processing limiters, because even heavily processed
pop records sound like nothing on earth. I feel like starting a major
rant about technical incompetence within the BBC, but I'm going out
for a walk instead as the sun is just coming out.


This situation could be turned around very quickly, if people
who were not satisfied, actually did something about it.
A return of say 100 000 CDs to a major label would
start a few questions at boardroom level. But most
punters are satisfied, and those who are not, prefer
just to grumble. Now that computer download sales
have taken off in a big way, with .mp3 becoming the
reference format, the level of expectation will fall
even further.

Iain



Don't know what you are talking about here Iain. I was complaining
about what BBC incompetence is doing to broadcast sound quality, not
about the source material.

I think the same applies Don. If 100 000 listeners were to complain
to the BBC (preferably in a single multipage document) about the dire
quality of broadcasting of which you speak, then they would probably
do something about it. Silence is interpreted as approval.

Iain


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Remastering
    ... Iain Churches wrote: ... Thin is many buy pop records based on hearing them first on the radio. ... ain't going to make it sound much different. ... BBC London 94.9 is primarily a talk station, ...
    (uk.rec.audio)
  • Re: Valerian Vinyl
    ... sound so awful. ... Have you ever wondered why live events 'sound' better than any recording? ... A jazz orchestra has strings? ... That I'm not sure, Iain. ...
    (uk.rec.audio)
  • Re: Too neat to waste...
    ... socks of anyone who thinks CDs really offer 'sound quality'...!! ... Iain: The above is an example of the kind of statement I was referring ...
    (uk.rec.audio)
  • Re: Anything positive to say about BBC HD quality.
    ... Iain. ... There is *never* any problem hearing the difference between real horns ... horns don't have just one sound - their sound depends on ... which actual instrument (Iain seems unaware of the audible differences ...
    (uk.rec.audio)
  • Re: Radio Mics
    ... 'Sound' appears to come second place on perhaps most commercial recordings ... too these days, Iain. ... all these were studio recordings. ...
    (uk.rec.audio)