Non-Audiophile and Audiophile versions

[msagar]

NIN Offers Audiophile Mastered Version of New Album | AudioStream

 

[matbhuvi]

That's quite nice. Wish every album is released like that. Recently bought a 3 in 1 vintage tamil movie audio CD. There was hell a lot of clippings to compress more music into a single CD. I had to extract them out and fix the clipping in Audacity to make the music bit more listenable. Being loud is quite important for many. Many in our forum too consider not being loud as bad quality recordings. They don't understand loud is good is a myth.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

I'm in two minds about this. What's going through my head at the moment, is this...

There should not be "audiophile versions." Audiophile versions is just reasons for potentially higher prices and potentially higher audio snobbery. There should be evolution and improvement in recording and publishing methods and they should be available to all, regardless of whether or not they have the equipment to get the best out of it.

An exception occurs to me immediately: Leaving aside the pros and cons of the format, when it comes to very high-res downloads, it is reasonable that they should cost more, simply because of the quantity of data.

Music should be for all. The guy with a boom box today might buy his first stereo tomorrow. How are people ever to realise that, actually, high-dynamic-range sounds better unless it becomes the norm. High compression levels is something that was foisted on the music industry decades ago by radio stations and is simply a bad habit that they need to abandon. It is not going to cost them more to do that: good mixing and mastering is not going to be any more expensive than bad.

 

[sbg]

That's quite nice. Wish every album is released like that. Recently bought a 3 in 1 vintage tamil movie audio CD. There was hell a lot of clippings to compress more music into a single CD. I had to extract them out and fix the clipping in Audacity to make the music bit more listenable. Being loud is quite important for many. Many in our forum too consider not being loud as bad quality recordings. They don't understand loud is good is a myth.

I had recently read an article in some magazine, that Dolby Lab india, when they researched the indian demography - their answers were that people wanted loud, but their analysis was that they were looking for clarity.
Its is not a myth, it is the perception of what they want but most of them cannot co-related or put the right words.

 

[ranjeetrain]

I had recently read an article in some magazine, that Dolby Lab india, when they researched the indian demography - their answers were that people wanted loud, but their analysis was that they were looking for clarity.
Its is not a myth, it is the perception of what they want but most of them cannot co-related or put the right words.

Agree with that. My not-so-audiophile friends immediately get taken by the "clarity" of my system the first moment they hear it. "Clarity" is the first word they utter (because I don't play it loud in first place). I increase the volume only if the track demands. And if I do so, they go like... Wow, so "loud", so "clear".

So there are two things (in laymen's terms). Loudness and Clarity. If a high profile technology company such as Dolby were to do a research in a region like India, they will not only have to gather the answers, but will also have to develop the ability to read (understand) them (the answers).

 

[matbhuvi]

But, i always listen to music at loud volume. Around 85+db. My basic active system is capable of handling it. It becomes a problem only when people want to get the clarity / details in low quality amplification. The low quality amplification is all around us in our TVs, radios, AVRs, iDevices, portable players, phone etc etc. So, it is not a bad marketing strategy to clip the dynamics to increase the amplitude.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

I'm not sure that I agree with that. Even basic equipment will reveal more, but cannot if the more is not there to reveal.