How Science Got Sound Wrong

Mahlman
It’s aggressivedynamic range compression I’m referring to. You know, the suffocation of the music. 🥵
OK how do you reverse such a thing, if it can be done? Have you tried Audacity? For my purposes it does seem to make things better most of the time.

>>>>>I don’t think it can be reversed. The best thing would be to stop doing it. But since they probably won’t stop it - it’s actually gotten much worse - I obtain CDs issued prior to the start of the Loudness Wars, mid-late 1990s. I also consult the Dynamic Range Database if I’m debating buying a more recent issue. 

atdavid660 posts12-05-2019 11:06amYou are referring to something that some people actual like ... whether we do or not.

>>>>I assume you mean teeny boppers, I.e., someone who doesn’t know the difference.

Interestingly they are files to see this loudness war with some examples on Wikipedia...I learn that today....

And btw for those keeping score....the quote was...

literally billions and billions

Like what happened to literally, and where did the extra billions come from

"literally" was there. It stayed in your quote when I copied it.

The remainder of billions were added to make up for your inaccurate statement it was only billions and billions. It, in fact, was billions and billions and billions.

atdavid

. Apparently there are people in this world who find vinyls lack of dynamic range, destruction of channel separation, equalization/de-equalization oddities, low SNR, and a host of other artifacts enjoyable.

That may be true, but it would apply to only a tiny minority. Audiophiles who play LPs work hard and often spend considerable money to avoid these "host of artifacts" that you reference. The notion that those qualities are what attract people to LP is silly.