Broadcast Quality --was-- Re: [BC] Cascading Algorithms

[Cowboy]

On Sunday 02 July 2006 10:32 pm, John Buffaloe wrote:
> OK.  Let's face the facts like real men.  Nobody under 30 (with the
> exception of a few MIT engineering students) gives a crap any more about
> audio quality.  All of us GEB's (of which Rich Wood is the Golden Ear Lobe
> winner) are dinosaurs.  Audio quality has given way to convenience in
> dragging around three thousand songs data bit mashed to hell so we can have
> our entire libraries of songs we're sick of anyway available to us while we

 Perhaps, but as a professional in the field, it's STILL my opinion that GIGO !!

 If you want to smash, compress, and compact, that's FINE ! Go for it !
 What ends up on your iPod, is not my concern.

 If I ( we ) put out the best there is, then you can crush, compress, and compact
 to your heart's content, and be happy.

 Once compressed ( any lossy form ) then the original hi-fi can NOT be recovered.

 If I ( we ) start with compressed digitized audio, we lose a few high end listeners,
 and we save $5.00 on storage.
 If we spend that $5.00 we lose NO listeners, and you can still crush at the other end.

 A few years ago, Layer II was not a bad compromise. Storage was expensive ( and not
 just in dollars ) and help was needed.
 We've gotten through that "going through" stage, and there is no longer any need
 whatever to pre-destroy quality at any level.

 In case you hadn't noticed, I still favor starting with, and maintaining throughout the
 broadcast plant, the highest quality possible. Start with the best that can be had.
 You can always make it worse later.

 That, from a guy who can't hear it anyway, no matter what you start with !

-- 
Cowboy