The end of the CD era - 2013?
Printed From: Top 40 Music on CD
Category: Top 40 Music On Compact Disc
Forum Name: Chat Board
Forum Description: Chat away but please observe the chat board rules
URL: https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6524
Printed Date: 15 May 2025 at 9:46am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.07 - https://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: The end of the CD era - 2013?
Posted By: EdisonLite
Subject: The end of the CD era - 2013?
Date Posted: 16 November 2011 at 1:05pm
|
Sad news...
According to this article, http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/11/15/music-lovers-prepare- to-say-goodbye-to-the-cd/?ncid=webmail1 the end of the CD era will probably be 2013, as all the major labels are now supposedly planning to drop the CD format altogether by that year, with the exception of a few limited edition CDs of only the superstar acts (which I guess would be acts like Lady Gaga, Beyonce, etc.) I point this out because the name of Pat's database and books are "Top 40 Music on Compact Disc", and if this really does happen within a year or so, there will be very little news to ever post on this board anymore. But perhaps, Pat could change the name of his database to "Top 40 Music in Digital Format". Of course, that would mean Pat would have to include recordings in the iTunes database that might not already be in Pat's database of albums. And if Pat's not willing or interested in doing that, then I guess the database will eventually reach its "final chapter" (with just an occasional update here or there). I'd like to hope this DOESN'T come true, but when you think of fate of the LP, the 8-track, the 45, the (pre-recorded) cassette, it's only logical that the CD format would be next. NOTE: to get to the link I am trying to include above, you must remove the space before the word "to". For some reason, Pat's software is automatically adding it there, and no matter how I try to remove it and/or get around it, Pat's software will not allow me to fix this link without adding a space somewhere where it doesn't belong. |
Replies:
Posted By: MMathews
Date Posted: 16 November 2011 at 4:46pm
|
Well, I am not sure if the demise of the compact disc is
a little pre-mature or not. Can't say for sure yet, although it certainly is a hurting format. As for Pat's database, i'd always want to be a member because even cd's stopped today, i'd always want a resource like this to see where songs WERE issued on disc. Additionally, i'd only find it an even more valuable resource if online-digital-only albums were started to be included. Just my take on it. MM |
Posted By: Todd Ireland
Date Posted: 16 November 2011 at 5:16pm
|
While articles like this are sobering to those of us who still prefer purchasing our favorite music on a "permanent" physical medium like the compact disc, I think predictions of the CD's demise in 2013 are a bit premature considering that, according to a Nielsen Soundscan mid-year report, CDs still comprise 66% of all album sales and are on pace to sell a total of over 200 million units by the end of 2011. (Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/print-edition/2011/08/05/nielsen-soundscan-album-sales-up.html - Nashville Business Journal ). That's still a lot of CDs!
I've also been reading that CD sales are still far more profitable than digital downloads for the record labels and therefore I believe the compact disc will remain a viable format longer than most people think. Regardless, I've been purchasing as many CDs as my finances will allow in recent years because I've been seeing a growing number of catalog titles going out-of-print and I suspect they will continue to do so in the not-to-distant future. |
Posted By: The Hits Man
Date Posted: 16 November 2011 at 6:21pm
|
I went and it said the page is gone. Can anyone bring un a
cached version? According to what you posted, Edisonlite, if the labels are planning to stop production of the CD, it tells me that they want to end it so they can control content and make more money off downloads. There is talk of introducing lossless files on iTunes next year. That the article has been removed tells me that the labels don't want any blow- back from this. ------------- |
Posted By: EdisonLite
Date Posted: 16 November 2011 at 8:13pm
| No, I just checked and the article is still there. I guess you didn't notice my note on the bottom of my post. You have to remove the space before the word "to" in the link I included. Pat's software adds the space and there was no way for me to take it out afterward. |
Posted By: Santi Paradoa
Date Posted: 16 November 2011 at 9:41pm
|
With four major labels left (or is it three now with EMI selling to Universal) we are getting closer to a monopoly which means eventually they can do practically anything they want whenever they want. The consumer is the loser unfortunately. That's why these small boutique/indie labels are our best bet for now when it comes to getting rare unreleased music for collectors. In the meantime, I'm snapping up every disc I need/want asap whether new releases vanish in 2013 or 2031. Thank goodness for used CDs is all I can say. ------------- Santi Paradoa Miami, Florida |
Posted By: davidclark
Date Posted: 21 November 2011 at 2:58am
|
I see Pat is now including the comment "..available only as a digital
download" for tracks available only as such. Would it not mean that the Gene Pitney tracks in mono should also be included in the database as well? I would want to know if key tracks are available as digital downloads. An example is the Gene Pitney mono tracks on iTunes (such as the 45 of "I'm Gonna Be Strong"). If that is the only way I can get it, then I will pay for the download. Seems the world is transitioning more and more to downloading songs/movies. In addition, with me on an extended leave abroad, it is not so easy to obtain CDs here, so I have to be content with listening to my MP3d collection from my MacBook Pro, and, getting songs digitally. ------------- dc1 |
Posted By: KentT
Date Posted: 07 January 2012 at 8:16am
|
MP3 is unacceptable for me to pay for. Must be in Apple
Lossless or FLAC in full CD resolution or higher. MP3 unacceptable for pro use or for audiophiles. ------------- I turn up the good and turn down the bad! |
Posted By: Todd Ireland
Date Posted: 07 January 2012 at 10:16am
|
I completely agree, KentT. I doubt I'll ever convert from CDs to digital downloads until .wav files are made widely available.
What's the latest as far as availability of Apple Lossless and FLAC in full CD resolution goes? |
Posted By: davidclark
Date Posted: 07 January 2012 at 10:52am
|
I too prefer CDs over digital downloads always. However, since in the
particular case of the 45 version of "I'm Gonna Be Strong", it seems to be available ONLY as a digital download, I will indeed download it to enjoy listening to it. ------------- dc1 |
Posted By: prisdeej
Date Posted: 07 January 2012 at 11:48am
|
@KentT. I wouldn't mind broadcasting high quality MP3's as
long as the source material and codecs are correct. Good source material sounds close to me, no? ------------- DJ L. |
Posted By: The Hits Man
Date Posted: 07 January 2012 at 12:02pm
|
Gee! What happened to the 2012 prediction? Can't wait for
the 2014 prediction! ------------- |
Posted By: Smokin' TomGary
Date Posted: 07 January 2012 at 6:59pm
|
The music industry is a business. There is a cost incurred by pressing, packaging, and delivering physical media. Not so with downloads. As a collector of CD's, I used to make frequent trips to NYC shopping in the Village for promo CD singles. I stopped doing that a few years ago due to lack of available product. People with iPads, etc. are not going to carry around a bunch of CD's to listen to.
I have long been employed in the radio broadcast engineering profession. We used to be serviced with many promo CD singles. Hardly any today. It's all downloads. We get lossless cuts from the record companies. We had one Music Director years ago who preferred that. No CD to select the wrong cut, scratch or steal. While I prefer to have a physical media (i.e. CD) I do believe that it will no longer be a viable media. Proof? Tower, Virgin, etc. No more retail stores. I'd be surprised if many of the small stores I used to shop at in the Village were still around. |
Posted By: bwolfe
Date Posted: 08 January 2012 at 6:47pm
|
Its a shame that people today will take the lousy quality of an mp3 over a wav file. I'm much like the NRA...you'll have to pull away my CD's and vinyl from my cold dead hands!!! I love good sound...there's a BIG loss with mp3s.
------------- the way it was heard on the radio |
Posted By: Hykker
Date Posted: 08 January 2012 at 7:31pm
How many stations still play physical CDs/records/tapes on the air as opposed to a music-on-hard-drive system? I only know of one, and they're a very old-school small market station that's mostly talk anyway. It's been over 15 years since I've worked somewhere that didn't have their music on hard drive. |
Smokin' TomGary wrote:Posted By: EdisonLite
Date Posted: 09 January 2012 at 7:34am
| Yes, but do they load WAV files or mp3s into their hard drive? |
Posted By: Fetta
Date Posted: 09 January 2012 at 8:07am
|
See below article.... For the first time, digital albums outsell CDs:
http://austin.culturemap.com/newsdetail/01-06-12-22-09-digit al-albums-outsell-cds-neilsen-billboard-announce-music-indus try-growth-in-11/ |
Posted By: Hykker
Date Posted: 09 January 2012 at 12:13pm
Most, if not all modern automation systems use .wav files (with additonal headers that contain title/artist/etc.), though this was not always the case. In the 90s, when hard drives were expensive and (relatively) small, various (often proprietary) compression schemes were used, Scott Studios and Maestro (the two I'm most familiar with) used APT-X (though the header info was not compatible since at the time they were separate companies). The first station I worked at that used Scott had a whopping 9G of storage space! |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 09 January 2012 at 1:51pm
|
Sadly, though, most programmers and music directors can't hear the
different between wav and mp3 (people on this board excluded), so even if they load the songs in as wav files, that doesn't mean the files they use are all lossless to begin with. Some of them may even be under the impression that loading in an mp3 to their wav file system makes it sound better in the process. I can say for certain that at previous stations where I've worked, the automation systems recorded in wav files, but the MD had no problem loading in an mp3 that was sent via email from the label. Also, as we've seen, sometimes even the official promo CDs used mp3s as the source. It's frustrating, but that's the reality. ------------- Aaron Kannowski http://www.uptownsound.com" rel="nofollow - Uptown Sound http://www.919thepeak.com" rel="nofollow - 91.9 The Peak - Classic Hip Hop |
Posted By: crapfromthepast
Date Posted: 09 January 2012 at 2:38pm
|
You'll still find some records and CDs at the left end of
the dial. For non-mainstream music formats and specialty shows, we tend to still bring in crates of CDs and/or records. A lot of the issues boil down to convenience. Hopefully, the station is running software that allows searches. Ours doesn't (to my dismay), so a lot of us programmers bring in our laptops with better software and properly tagged files. (Tags tags tags! Essential! But you guys already know that.) Interesting that this thread started now, since I'm in the process of getting most of my library onto my laptop hard drive. I'd like to bring the laptop down to the station every week instead of two heavy creates of CD- R's. The sound may not be as good as from the CDs, but it's WAY more convenient, and my back isn't getting any younger. I'm usually a stickler for sound quality, but I think 320 kbps mp3s may work OK for radio. We have a 256 kbps live stream, so there won't be much of a difference between flac and 320 kbps for the stream listeners. And no one will notice over our FM signal. |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 09 January 2012 at 4:20pm
|
I agree, Ron. You shouldn't be able to tell the difference between a
320 mp3 and a wav file when listening on FM. If you look up the tech specs on FM signals, I don't think there are any frequencies over like 15khz that get broadcast. All of the really high frequencies are tossed out. I'm even converting from wav to 320 (LAME) for my DJ system for two reasons: the ability to tag better and to save space. As a side note, I recently exchanged emails with mainrhythm about mp3 compression, and my conclusion is that LAME mp3 sounds better than Fraunhofer. Also, I've been extremely impressed with the newer encoding on Apple's iTunes store files. There are some that I cannot distinguish between a wav file. Does anyone know what encoding is being used for those? ------------- Aaron Kannowski http://www.uptownsound.com" rel="nofollow - Uptown Sound http://www.919thepeak.com" rel="nofollow - 91.9 The Peak - Classic Hip Hop |
Posted By: Brian W.
Date Posted: 09 January 2012 at 5:08pm
They do, I was susprised to find out. I thought a 320 mp3 is a 320 mp3 is a 320 mp3. Not so. I recently encoded the well-known "killer sample" of the song "Show Me Your Spine," and while I was able to differentiate between the .wav file and the MP3 100% of the time with Foobar's ABX fetaure on all the files, there were FAR fewer artifacts with LAME at 320 than there were with iTunes's MP3 encoer or the Fraunhofer MP3 encoder. In fact, I would say the LAME MP3 was close to transparent, although once I idenitfied WHERE the artifact was, I could ID it every time. One tip I found: if you're encoding at a flat bitrate rather than with LAME's variable bitrate encoder, do NOT use a quality setting in your command line (i.e., q7, q3, q0, etc.) It seems that these quality settings are ONLY designed to work with the variable bitrate feature and will actually make a straight-bitrate MP3 sound WORSE. Apparently this is a bug that has been known about for some time, but I experienced it firsthand while experimenting with the "Show Me Your Spine" sample. Another tip: If you want, you can set a minimum bitrate with LAME on the variable bitrate files. I use LAME V0, the highest VBR (variable bitrate) setting, but I want my mono files to be a flat 256kb so they will match any I bought online, such as some mono Digital 45s that have never been made available in lossless. (If you just use V0, mono files will be around 170kb.) Just enter BOTH settings in the commandline and it will give you V0 with the minimum bitrate specified. For example, my LAME commandline in Foobar is simply: -b256 -V 0 - %d |
Posted By: prisdeej
Date Posted: 09 January 2012 at 9:47pm
It depends on the Fraunhofer codec you're using. I use the Radium Fraunhofer 320k since the beginning of time. [It doesn't function past Windows XP, however] I've made some comparison to LAME. I've always preferred it over LAME. The Fraunhofer version Itunes uses is inferior, however. Since we're on the topic, one difference I can not hear is Stereo VS Joint Stereo. I've always selected stereo assuming it's the purest. ------------- DJ L. |
Posted By: Hykker
Date Posted: 10 January 2012 at 9:17am
Don't even get me going! I had a PD once who pretty much built his on-air library from stuff he'd downloaded from the old Napster...lots of badly encoded 128K (or worse) mp3's. Ugh! In most cases he couldn't hear the difference, and on those he could his attitude was "it's better than not having the song". Sigh. He's out of the biz now.
Most of the stuff that's serviced to radio via download is 320k mp3 anyway, and you really can't tell the difference on an FM. Just beware of cascading codecs though as far as streams go...especially if there are digital processing devices in the airchain. Every time the audio goes thru a D-A (or A-D) conversion more crud creeps in. |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 10 January 2012 at 6:10pm
Interesting. I'm sure the Fraunhofer encoder in Cool Edit Pro is ancient and far inferior to LAME. That's the only one I've really used regularly and the one I used for a comparison test. I'm glad to know that they continue to make improvements to the codecs. ------------- Aaron Kannowski http://www.uptownsound.com" rel="nofollow - Uptown Sound http://www.919thepeak.com" rel="nofollow - 91.9 The Peak - Classic Hip Hop |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 10 January 2012 at 6:16pm
I'm glad to see that many tracks are being serviced as wav files now, too. TM Studios even requires the label to provide a wav file before they will service it on their discs. The problem, though, is that they don't really check to see if the wav file may have started as an mp3. After all, they service hundreds of tracks each month, so it would be impossible to put that kind of quality control in place. There are many songs on their discs, as I've mentioned in other posts, that started out as lossy files. As far as the mp3s go, they are probably also using the iTunes codec or some other inferior codec. I've analyzed them with both my ears and the spectral analysis on Cool Edit Pro, and they don't sound or look as good as what I can create with the LAME codec. ------------- Aaron Kannowski http://www.uptownsound.com" rel="nofollow - Uptown Sound http://www.919thepeak.com" rel="nofollow - 91.9 The Peak - Classic Hip Hop |
Posted By: NightAire
Date Posted: 12 January 2012 at 2:57am
|
iTunes isn't using mp3 at all; they're using some version of AAC or AAC+.
BTW, the advantage of joint stereo is that anything that is in both channels is only encoded once instead of twice, one for each channel. The reason THAT is an advantage is that it leaves more of the bits (320kbps, or 256kbps, or whatever) to encode the rest of the audio. In effect, you're giving the encoder more "breathing room" to encode the harder stuff. There is NO loss to the stereo image, only improvement to the fidelity. The only time you'd want to encode raw stereo is (MAYBE) if you had two completely independent channels of audio left and right... even then, I don't think it would hurt, there just wouldn't be any advantage. Unless somebody can come up with a valid reason otherwise, always, always, ALWAYS use joint stereo when you have the option! Especially at lower bitrates, your ears will thank you. :) (Seems I've heard some encoders won't even do joint stereo at higher bitrates; that might be why you hear no difference.) ------------- Gene Savage http://www.BlackLightRadio.com - http://www.BlackLightRadio.com http://www.facebook.com/TulsaSavage - http://www.facebook.com/TulsaSavage Tulsa, Oklahoma USA |
Posted By: EdisonLite
Date Posted: 12 January 2012 at 7:13am
Which has better quality for digital downloads - iTunes or Amazon? (I think Amazon digital is sometimes referred to as Amazon-mp3? Is it really mp3 still or is it also this "AAC" thing?) |
Posted By: Brian W.
Date Posted: 12 January 2012 at 8:15am
The files iTunes sells are Quicktime AAC encoded at 256kb Constrained Variable Bitrate. (Which they call iTunes Plus.) |
Posted By: Brian W.
Date Posted: 12 January 2012 at 8:19am
I think Aaron was referring to files that he encodes with iTunes MP3 encoder himself, which I've read is their custom version of the old Xing MP3 encoder. Whatever it is, it's shite compared to LAME. Didn't believe that until I compared them myself. But none of them are as good as AAC, which is the only compressed format I tried (MP3, AAC, and WMA) that could handle the above-mentioned "Show Me Your Spine" killer sample with no artifacts at all. |
Posted By: KentT
Date Posted: 12 January 2012 at 9:36am
|
You can tell the difference on even AM. MP3 does not do
multi-generation hops through a digital air chain without sounding bad. .bwf format best for on air. This is coming from a broadcast engineer. ------------- I turn up the good and turn down the bad! |
Posted By: NightAire
Date Posted: 12 January 2012 at 5:35pm
|
Amazon is doing 320 kbps mp3 (for the most part).
Which is better? Are apple trees or pear trees better? :-) AAC is VERY good; it is an extremely efficient codec, and a worthy successor to mp3. If you put a 256 kbps AAC file up against a 320 kbps mp3, it would be extremely close (and difficult if not impossible to tell from the source)... but I think if there WAS an audible difference, the winner would be AAC. ------------- Gene Savage http://www.BlackLightRadio.com - http://www.BlackLightRadio.com http://www.facebook.com/TulsaSavage - http://www.facebook.com/TulsaSavage Tulsa, Oklahoma USA |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 12 January 2012 at 6:25pm
|
I agree. I've listened to some AAC files (iTunes purchases) where I cannot
detect any artifacts at all. Although it's really difficult to tell with 320, I can usually detect some artifacts with all bitrates of mp3s. ------------- Aaron Kannowski http://www.uptownsound.com" rel="nofollow - Uptown Sound http://www.919thepeak.com" rel="nofollow - 91.9 The Peak - Classic Hip Hop |
Posted By: EdisonLite
Date Posted: 12 January 2012 at 9:52pm
| Aaron & Gene (and anyone else who might know) - I thought with iTunes we download m4a files. Have they changed it to these AAC files now, or are they one and the same? |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 12 January 2012 at 10:42pm
|
The "m4a" is merely the file extension and "container," but the audio within is encoded in AAC. ------------- Aaron Kannowski http://www.uptownsound.com" rel="nofollow - Uptown Sound http://www.919thepeak.com" rel="nofollow - 91.9 The Peak - Classic Hip Hop |
Posted By: PopArchivist
Date Posted: 31 July 2022 at 4:22pm
A little late to comment but I agree on the whole 320 LAME mp3 conversions. I find LAME to offer the best reduction without sacrificing much. For my Iphone I used 320 LAME rather then take up the space of lossless. As far as Itunes, the quality in 2022 for a lossy file is so superior with mastering if no lossless is available it is far superior in mastering. Even some older tracks have been mastered better. There was a time when Itunes mastering left a lot to be desired but now whatever software they use makes some of the older songs sound better. The fact is that CD is going the way of the dinosaur. All the huge selling artists don't offer their albums on CD anymore. Entire albums go digital and are downloaded. An example of an all digital collection is Stevie Wonder who offered a 48 Disc Complete set digitally with extras. While CD's are desirable for some between streaming (Spotify, Qobuz) and downloading (Itunes, 7digital, Qobuz) people find coasters not to their liking. The times they are a changin'. ------------- Favorite two expressions to live by on this board: "You can't download vinyl" and "Not everything is available on CD." |
Posted By: AutumnAarilyn
Date Posted: 31 July 2022 at 7:21pm
|
Cd had a bump in year over year sales in 2021 which is
the first that has happened in over 20 years. Vinyl has also had increases which has always been a head scratcher. Mega collectors and today's vinyl connoisseur do not place many spins on each album so the wear isn't really as much an issue. It's recently been revealed that MOFI and others use digital sources for vinyl which sort of isn't the purpose. It will be interesting to see how sales do the rest of the year. I believe cd is making a huge comeback. The major artists of interest are all going to get a bump in used sales as are imports and Rhino collections. Labels did themselves in when they offered cd-r's as cds. Concord really butchered the Fantasy catalog after purchase but in fairness they couldn't really turn a profit. Downloads have also declined but labels are getting smart upon their insistence of streaming. Streaming is tough for me to navigate but it's one comment or unsigned contract away from getting pulled. It's sad but life was better in 1988! |
Posted By: Hykker
Date Posted: 01 August 2022 at 5:17am
Curiously, is there a plug-in for Adobe Audition for the LAME codec? |
Posted By: Jody Thornton
Date Posted: 01 August 2022 at 3:47pm
Well in actuality, a few things to point out about vinyl playback. First in the 70s and 80s, many of us who were used to decent maintained Technics or the many CEC rebranded turntables weren't really complaining about record wear. Sure there were pops and clicks, but most of my LPs and singles sounded "practically" as good as a CD. So when I first heard the now late Vangelis on a CD for the first time in 1983, it sounded kind of "meh" to me. It just sounded like an average run of the mill, plain LP. Sure it sounded like brand new after twenty plays, but I was expecting more from digital. I already had great sound from a decent turntable. CDs were only great at first glance if you graduating from a BSR changer, or if you didn't really take great care of your stylus and records. I know there are contradictory opinions to this, but that was my observation. That's why even to this day, I stuck with vinyl, even during the "extinction" years between 1991 and 2006. I do realize that as a format the CD player is a superior format to the table, but I've had a good run with my LP and singles collections. As for analog discs being cut from digital recordings and masters, I don't see that as missing the point, or objectionable in any way. "Gaucho" by Steeley Dan is a digital recording and sounds best on various LP releases and seems comparatively bland to many across CD releases. I'm sure that's mostly down to mastering conditions, but I have many terrific LP pressings made from digital recordings. ------------- Cheers, Jody Thornton (Richmond Hill, Ontario) |
Posted By: EdisonLite
Date Posted: 14 November 2022 at 1:58am
I agree. There are times when I can only find new songs available on iTunes (it even happened today) and not on Qobuz, 7D, etc. And it really sounds great. Richie, I assume you still buy lossless when available. Right? I do, too - although I sometimes question that decision when iTunes vs. qobuz is, say, $0.99 vs. $1.79 per song, but the audiophile in me can't help myself. (My ears probably wouldn't hear the difference if I always just bought iTunes files.) |
Posted By: EdisonLite
Date Posted: 14 November 2022 at 2:00am
|
Oh and I meant to add this about the comments of the CD becoming a
dinosaur. True, but I NEVER NEVER thought vinyl would have a comeback, but it is - which means the younger generation has to buy turntables for them. So my theory is, 20 years from now, CDs will come back and young kids will have to buy newly-made CD players. If it can happen to vinyl, why not CDs? |
Posted By: PopArchivist
Date Posted: 14 November 2022 at 10:04pm
|
Breaking News:
The CD is still alive! ------------- Favorite two expressions to live by on this board: "You can't download vinyl" and "Not everything is available on CD." |
Posted By: headstar
Date Posted: 15 November 2022 at 1:07am
I suspect the loudness war had a lot to do with the vinyl resurgence. As producers would brickwall the CD version of an album and do a much better mastering for the vinyl (aka can't brickwall vinyl). Also the trend of people who weren't even born in the 80s having "nostalgia" for the 80s and it's dominant media formats. Though the real CD-Killers have been legal/illegal downloads and streaming (not just services like Spotify, but every song is on Youtube for free). |
Posted By: Jody Thornton
Date Posted: 15 November 2022 at 1:35am
Yes but records were still compressed in their day. Listen to some early 90s Capital/EMI Releases such as Hysteria by Def Leppard, or Brigade by Heart. Lower modulation for sure, but like a brickwalled CD, no dynamics. It sounds like FM radio on your turntable. ------------- Cheers, Jody Thornton (Richmond Hill, Ontario) |
Posted By: Hykker
Date Posted: 15 November 2022 at 5:49am
It goes back further than that. There's almost no dynamic range in most Dave Clark 5 songs, and they've been that way since the mid 60s! I have to wonder how much of the vinyl purchased today actually gets played vs having been bought either to be cool or as a potential collectors item. |