There are numerous facts to show that even if "record companies" do believe that "ever louder on FM"
is a good strategy, it's not:
See especially Bob Orban's article about how "toothpaste mastered" garbage is made even messier by
FM processing and doesn't come out any louder, just unlistenably murky.
The only "winner" in the toothpaste-loudness "war" is the guitar player. He's finally beat out the
drummer, whose playing is now reduced to little taps on a wet blanket (after all the dynamics have
been toothpasted out of the mix). The toothpaste dynamics syndrome is a curse, a disease and,
combined with unimaginative and/or talentless new bands, it has ruined rock music. When applied to
jazz (new or reissues) or any other, more subtle form of music, it's even more offensive.
And, just to be factual, the "golden era of rock and roll dynamics" wasn't some wide-open 90dB free
for all. Most of the "classic" popular music, even going back to the 40's, was highly
dynamics-compressed. But, in the good mixes, enough headroom was kept so drums had impact, there was
an understanding that bass notes need to move more air than upper midrange notes to be heard with
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Claude Rochon" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 5:42 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Noteworthy article on Audio-Compression in the Economist
This is not in follow-up to any of your discussions ( which i enjoy
very much nonetheless )
but a small contribution to all.
In the Economist Friday February 10th 2012
hopefully this link will work
if it does not ...check out Babbage : Difference engine : Music to
Le 12-01-24 à 10:38, Shai Drori a écrit :
> Sent from my iPhone
> On 24 בינו 2012, at 16:06, Ron Houston <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Sorry if this has been covered.
>> Can't seem to access the archives.
>> Seeking reliable sources for Stanton.
>> [log in to unmask]