Rope said:
Currently, very few recordings have dynamic impact. The majority are compressed to the point of unrecognizable from the original. That's what you get in the digital age so people with their iPods and MP3's are happy.
Rope
Hmmm. That's certainly not my experience.
I hear no difference, on average, between today's recording, those from just before the age of "iPods and MP3's" and from the era prior to that.
New CDs, on average, have the same "dynamic impact" as older ones to me. Some have more. Some have less. Same as it's always been.
The big difference, since quite some time ago, is that formats like SACD offer terrific "dynamic impact" and my one recent music BD even more so.
In fact I'm not even sure that I could notice a difference in "dynamic impact" between any CD, old or new, and an MP3 ripped from it at say a 192 bitrate.
I wonder what others think.
Jeff
ps. I'm confused by what you say above. The first sentence says few recordings have dynamic impact. What do you mean by recordings? The original masters? What format are you listening to these "recordings." I assume that the second sentence is referring to these same recordings, but I'm confused by your reference to "the original." So the recording in the first sentence is not the same as in the scond, or the original? And are you then saying, in the third sentence, that iPods and MP3's have somehow ruined something? The "recordings" as opposed to "the originals." Pardon my confusion. My comments above were based on an assumption that you simply meant "today's commercially available music is..."