Quote Originally Posted by Thomas_A
"It won't be long before mixers won't need to use compressors at all, because they won't be mixing for broadcast analog as a primary listener medium."

So why not stop this nonsense-loudness race, and allow the user to decide by using a built-in dynamic range control (DRC) on the digital radios available?
That is not a question that should be answered by audio engineers. We don't make radio's, or set standards. Maybe you should write the FCC, and ask them this question. As long as things are the way they are now, this is the standard practice.

Meanwhile, Ive been talking to two other recording engineers, and they have not been able to demonstrate that high-res is audibly different (and they don't claim this either). Your concern regarding my mix of direct experience and citing others is strange, since if I would be alone with my opinions, it would seem even stranger, wouldn't it?
Your comments mean nothing to me because I don't know the engineers you (supposidly)talk to, the context of the conversation, or what actual experience these engineers have in hi rez audio.

Well what is strange is you are dismissing my comments, yet you take these "other" engineers comments as word. In other words picking and choosing information that supports your position. I have talked to at least 40 or more audio engineers(who have STRONG EXPERIENCE in high rez audio(as I do) and they don't know why high rez sounds better, it just does to them(and myself). So you can continue to argue me down, but it doesn't change my position one bit.

You are right, I cannot stop any change and I have no wish to do so. What can be done is to start a debate about the silly degradation of music that occurs and the following blaming of the CD medium as such when there is no evidence that it is audibly different from high-res.
A debate on audioreveiw is pointless. I know of no other audio engineer that frequents this board. I know of no RIAA executive , studio executive, or producer who frequents this board. So what do you hope to accomplish by your continuous rant?

The redbook CD platform has had problems from the very beginning. So many patches and fixes have been introduced to this format, that is makes your claims that it is so perfect as a audio delivery system seem silly. Redbook audio cannot be upgraded because the standards are set. Any attempt to improve on the audio just leads to degradation once it gets to the redbook platform. There is no support for multichannel, recording at 24bits requires downconversion, and noise to be added(dither) to restore lost dynamic range and punch from the downconversion. Oversampling MUST be used or the audio will suffer from ringing, time smearing, and distortion because of the use of brickwall filters. Anti imaging filters found in most CD players on the market allow for some aliasing/imaging to occur introducing some distortion to the playback chain according to a peer reviewed white paper by Richard Black, confirmed by DCs Ltd and company that makes VERY high quality A/D-D/A conversion filters and equipment.

With all of the facts going against redbook, your arguements against high resolution seem pretty silly. 24/96khz requires no dither, no downconversion, no filters with steep roll offs, no bit reduction, and no need for oversampling. It is transparent when compared to the analog source(or digital if recorded at either 24/192 or 24/96khz), and high quality mixing and mastering tools are already in place at most studios.

You have one format that requires several bandaids and has a not so perfect filter system in most players. You have another that requires no band aids, improved audio, and needs no steep filtering system. I choose the one that has the least amount of trade offs as I think any intelligent person would.

I'll skip your other comments, since there is no new information that high-res would be audibly different from CD.
You can skip yourself over a cliff for all I care, I am not trying to convince or impress you anyway.