In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

It's called a concept. I understand music bands have been engaged in
the
same process trying to sound louder than the other bands.

Untrue. The "loudness" is done in mixdown and mastering. Most producers
of
contemporary music look for a heavy, dense sound.

It is true. Take the cotton out of your ears. Of course it is done with
track mixing. You think the musicians are compressing their physical
instruments? Hilarious!

You said the bands were responsible. They are not. And mixdown is a lot more
than combining tracks at different levels... often individual instruments
are processed individually to bring out a particular "sound" the producer is
after. Again, it's not the band that makes thise decision in 99% of the
cases.

I have never laughed so much over a post! You are outdoing yourself
today.

People resort to MP3 to save disk space not because it sounds good. MP3
is not all the same as you can determine the level of compression.

With terabyte HD's under $200 and 500 gig laptop drives at about $120 and
various memory plug ins at 8 gigs for around $20, there is no need for 128
kbs MP3s... it's simply the de facto standard for consumer audio.

MP3s are not overally intended always to save disk space. They are used at
the high end (256 kbs and 320 kbs) to be infinitely portable and
exchangable. A huge percentage of commercials come to stations now online
and in MP3 format, and most promotional music is in MP3 format... everyone
can play them, every system can use them.

You are funny today. I'm not putting a computer in my car. The CD player
plays CD's only so no MP3 in the car for me so i just burn my own CD's.

And
before you get all crazy dynamic range compression is not the same thing
as data compression.

I realize this. Dynamic range compression is the restriction of the audio
content to a specific range. In this instance, I was discussing MP3's, not
the air chain of a radio station.

Again, the limited dynamic range is necessary to keep al program content
above the noise level of the listening environment. Radio is not the same
as
listening to a CD.

The old record were capable of around 80 dB and CD's are around 90 dB. I
don't see why radio stations can't do 80 dB. The transmitters can handle
85% modulation.

AM can handle 100% negative peaks, and most transmitters of the last few
decades can do maybe 140% on positive peaks.

FM transmitters can do way over 100% modulation, as the standard in the US
is simply +/- 75 kHz deviation for the arbitrary 100% modulation. In fact,
one can go to about 130% before receiver bandwidth shape factors make it
start sounding ugly.

Dynamic range is limited to make radio listenable in the typical
environments radio is heard in. The dominant factor is in-car, where if you
go beyond about 8 to 10 db noise masks some of the audio. So all other
environments where radio is used are subject to the limits of the worst one,
which is mostly in-car.

And as for previous statements about table top radio with speakers only
a foot apart being worthless for stereo these can generate decent stereo
separation through electronic delay processing.

I said no such thing, and you are lying. I said that many so-called stereo
clock radios have speakers that are 3" to 4" apart, and unless you put your
head within a few inches of the radio, the stereo effect is lost.

Yeah whatever. Some have delay processing between the channels that can
pretty good however far apart the speakers are and you don't need to
stick your head up next to the radio for it to work.

Hey, I just heard a spot for HD radio. I can answer it this way,
American's are smart enough to stay away from it. Ha, ha.

And you know so little about consumer behaviour that you should be written
up as a case study.

You are defiantly a very special case 6 dB man.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California