In Reply to: he's not completely wrong ... posted by TBone on March 13, 2012 at 11:10:23:
TBone:
While I don't really disagree, your point raises another interesting question. Why do some (too few) CDs sound genuinely good, while so many more continue to offend? What technologies or techniques are responsible for the difference, and why haven't those become standard practice in the studios? If it's possible to produce one truly good sounding CD, then it seems that it should be possible to consistently do so. Is it just fortunate happenstance when a good sounding CD is produced?
_
Ken Newton
Edits: 03/13/12 03/13/12 03/13/12 03/13/12
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: he's not completely wrong ... - knewton 11:49:42 03/13/12 (15)
- RE: he's not completely wrong ... - rick_m 13:59:43 03/13/12 (13)
- RE: he's not completely wrong ... - knewton 06:28:10 03/14/12 (12)
- RE: he's not completely wrong ... - rick_m 09:51:08 03/14/12 (11)
- RE: he's not completely wrong ... - knewton 10:35:20 03/14/12 (10)
- RE: he's not completely wrong ... - rick_m 13:47:35 03/14/12 (9)
- RE: he's not completely wrong ... - knewton 07:12:00 03/15/12 (8)
- RE: he's not completely wrong ... - rick_m 08:30:53 03/15/12 (7)
- RE: he's not completely wrong ... - knewton 12:20:47 03/15/12 (2)
- RE: he's not completely wrong ... - rick_m 16:32:51 03/15/12 (0)
- RE: he's not completely wrong ... - Tony Lauck 14:21:30 03/15/12 (0)
- RE: he's not completely wrong ... - tom.dennehy 09:06:04 03/15/12 (3)
- RE: he's not completely wrong ... - Tony Lauck 13:30:58 03/15/12 (2)
- RE: he's not completely wrong ... - tom.dennehy 17:25:34 03/15/12 (1)
- notice, but not attribute until confirmed - Tony Lauck 06:19:19 03/16/12 (0)
- mastering ... - TBone 12:23:34 03/13/12 (0)