glennewdick, You might be right. But it still doesn't make sense. Most of the folks playing through the computer or cell phone probably have Sound Check or some version of it turned on and don't even know it. So the attention grabbing effect of high compression is completely neutralized. Radio stations essentially do the same thing so no advantage there.
And all that makes me wonder why this technique is so ubiquitous. It is an added step in the production process, not something that has to struggled against. So even from the prospect of production cost it does not make sense. So far I have heard no reasonable explanation why this phenomenon persists.
gawdbless, I understand what you are saying but when critical tonal variations, which are probably one of the primary components to rich, lush sound, are not there, maximizing what is left seems fairly futile from a hard core hi-fi perspective. Not saying it can't be improved. As mentioned, I can improve things a little with judicious EQ. I'm assuming that takes advantage of the fact that the perceived loudness of various frequencies is different even at the same output volume. (There is a name for this but I forget). In the end though, without critical variations in tonal range (probably not the right word...it is all complicated) it seems like pretty much else we do to the signal is, pardon the vernacular, polishing a turd.
And when I say that I'm talking about recordings with average dynamic range in the 4-5 range, which is common now. I think when a recording is in the 8-9 range more can be done with it and those, even though many consider that range to be unacceptable, sound okay to me.
And all that makes me wonder why this technique is so ubiquitous. It is an added step in the production process, not something that has to struggled against. So even from the prospect of production cost it does not make sense. So far I have heard no reasonable explanation why this phenomenon persists.
gawdbless, I understand what you are saying but when critical tonal variations, which are probably one of the primary components to rich, lush sound, are not there, maximizing what is left seems fairly futile from a hard core hi-fi perspective. Not saying it can't be improved. As mentioned, I can improve things a little with judicious EQ. I'm assuming that takes advantage of the fact that the perceived loudness of various frequencies is different even at the same output volume. (There is a name for this but I forget). In the end though, without critical variations in tonal range (probably not the right word...it is all complicated) it seems like pretty much else we do to the signal is, pardon the vernacular, polishing a turd.
And when I say that I'm talking about recordings with average dynamic range in the 4-5 range, which is common now. I think when a recording is in the 8-9 range more can be done with it and those, even though many consider that range to be unacceptable, sound okay to me.