[bjmjpl]

Originally Posted by TheOriginalJez

It would surprise me to see anything else. Everything has to sound the same across the board now so what you get on radio has to be exactly what the single and the album sound like... blame the people who wanted lower sized files with "the same quality" and the radio-pop of the late 90s early 00s... Theoretically it could all change now, since you don't have the same quality loss problem with digital signals as you do with analogue but something tells me o-t-t compression on top 40 albums is probably here to stay.

well this is really interesting, the first i have heard an actual reason for this....makes sense finally...

just thought it was a cool website to track this stuff....

you would think these bands would release a special, limited or audiophile version and make a big deal out of the uncompressed, organic sound. It would garner more physical media sales as well as some good press from those in the know...and just maybe start a revolution...

i know jovi might not want to trend set here....

but more vinyl-loving, music-authenticity-centric bands like Pearl Jam and The Black Crowes at least.....

!

[Dave 1986]

Originally Posted by bjmjpl

you would think these bands would release a special, limited or audiophile version and make a big deal out of the uncompressed, organic sound.

That's what I always thought. Release a crappy flat-sounding compressed version on iTunes and a more open dynamic audiophile version on CD. It's stupid as record companies seem to think the louder an album is produced, the more units it'll sell.

[TheOriginalJez]

The problem is the average listener just doesn't care or know any better. They might say they do... but for example how many people can really tell the difference between a lossy mp3 and a full quality wave file? I spent years studying it and I struggle a lot of the time.

As for mastering the cost of a decent mastering engineer and a good mastering studio is still quite high so you'd need a really decent size of market to buy in to bother mastering twice, the chances are it's not financially worth it. Of course you could just master once with greater dynamic range but then "it doesn't sound like it does on radio". And the industry still considers radio the biggest advertising tool for music really.

Of course, if you get into the right kind of music a lot of indie releases do play for the artistic vibe but you're unlikely to get it from a major, or a large indie, so you might have to really dig to find some of those acts.

I want to make another point though cos a few posts here seem confused: Audio compression does not equal small files. Audio compression just makes the peaks and troughs of volume closer together. File compression makes small files, and that's something completely different - then we get into the realms of lossy and lossless compression and audio quality rather than dynamic range.

[bjmjpl]

nice last paragraph - well done

[bjcrazycpa]

Originally Posted by TheOriginalJez

The problem is the average listener just doesn't care or know any better. They might say they do... but for example how many people can really tell the difference between a lossy mp3 and a full quality wave file? I spent years studying it and I struggle a lot of the time.

As for mastering the cost of a decent mastering engineer and a good mastering studio is still quite high so you'd need a really decent size of market to buy in to bother mastering twice, the chances are it's not financially worth it. Of course you could just master once with greater dynamic range but then "it doesn't sound like it does on radio". And the industry still considers radio the biggest advertising tool for music really.

Of course, if you get into the right kind of music a lot of indie releases do play for the artistic vibe but you're unlikely to get it from a major, or a large indie, so you might have to really dig to find some of those acts.

I want to make another point though cos a few posts here seem confused: Audio compression does not equal small files. Audio compression just makes the peaks and troughs of volume closer together. File compression makes small files, and that's something completely different - then we get into the realms of lossy and lossless compression and audio quality rather than dynamic range.

{{Hand Up}} I'm one of those...I can't really tell the difference! Thanks so much for your distinction between compression and small files...I needed that clarification.

[Dave 1986]

I just looked on that site earlier (as I do regularly) and noticed someone has uploaded "unmastered" versions of Have a Nice Day and The Circle. Each of them show far greater dynamic range compared to any retail versions available. No I know there are unmastered versions of certain albums available, such as the Red Hot Chili Peppers' Californication and Linkin Park's Hybrid Theory, so I was wondering do the Bon Jovi ones really exists or it just a hoax by someone?