On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 10:27:00 -0800, bob wrote
(in article ):
On Jan 30, 8:06=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jan 2011 16:06:48 -0800, bob wrote
(in article ):
On Jan 30, 10:21=3DA0am, Audio Empire wrote:
Let;s face it, the reason is not all that obvious.
No, the reason is quite obvious, as a little actual knowledge of audio
and a little experimentation would show.
The fact that you have only lately come to this conclusion means only
that you have been way behind the knowledge curve. I first started
lurking at RAHE in the mid-90s, and the view you've espoused at the
start of this thread was widely expressed here even then.
bob
I mean the reasons WHY CDs are made to a lower standard than they should =
be
is not all that obvious. Again, doesn't anyone here read for content anym=
ore?
Ah, I see. The subject had been the relative technical merits of CD
and vinyl (and Stereophile's dishonest coverage of that question). Not
sure when or how it switched to, why aren't producers making good-
sounding CDs, but I missed the switch. Frankly, I don't find the
latter question so interesting. To pick up a point I think Arny made
earlier, record companies are businesses, so it's reasonable to assume
that they think this helps them sell CDs. And they might very well be
right about that, despite the grumbling of the tiny audiophile market.
Like Scott ) said in another thread: "I guess
it's more fun to ridicule than to learn."
Well, of course it is. But then I've never learned anything from
him. 
bob
The original post in this thread was about the possibility that many people
prefer vinyl to digital (specifically, CD) because the record companies put
out product that is compromised in quality to the point where it very often
doesn't sound as good as it could or should sound. We know the technical
reasons: overproduced, and overly signal processed. So the question becomes
"what are the record companies' motives for producing such mediocre work."
Some people here have made very interesting suggestions on this, including
Arny's theory that it's a business decision. It might well be. If so, I'd
love to see the logic behind it.
Back in the late 1950's when stereo first hit the market, the major labels
such as RCA Victor, Columbia, Mercury, British Decca, and EMI/HMV made stereo
records aimed at people who are likely to have component audio systems. They
did this knowing full well that most of the records sold would be sold to
people listening on cheap radio/phono consoles, and so-called "portable"
players. The fact that only a relatively few record buyers had good equipment
didn't keep the majors from aiming their product at that market, yet I never
heard anyone with lesser equipment complain that these early stereo LPs were
"too good". With this in mind, I really don't understand why record companies
would think that putting out sub-par product would somehow advance sales, and
would love to hear some justification for it.