The topic I was discussing was the qualitative differences between commercial albums and commercial CD's.
No. Your statements made it quite clear that you were discussing the merits of CD versus vinyl in general.
When was the last time you had the equipment to lay down some tracks on vinyl? Approximately never ... right? I know I never had it although I think my uncle has something in his basement to make 78's with. Therefore it follows I could only have been talking about commercial pressing of vinyl records. And from that it follows that I was talking about commercial cds. Lets face it if you are going to produce your own
quality audio CDs a standard computer with run of the mill sound card is not going to cut it. You will likely need something on the order of $20000 in equipment to do a passable job. Sure you can make cds with a $500 computer but that is strictly amature hour. Even then you can get fairly good results if you know what you are doing.
The point about internal variation in classical music was not differences between compositions but differences within compositions some ranging from pianissimo up through fortissimo. Have briefly perused the wikipedia entries relating to metal it seems they have one thing in common which is the louder the better although this may be a poor description of the underlying theme. Certainly I would not expect any such extremely quiet sections in such music as is found in Emerson Lake & Palmer's "Just Take a Pebble" song. A genre characterized by extreme volume would not seem to be a candidate for normalization as there are few quiet parts that need boosting.
Don't go to wikipedia to learn about metal. Find someone who understands the genre and have them educate you using musical examples. Loud music can be listened to at a low volume, quiet music can be listened to at a high volume, and even loud songs will suffer from the over-use of compression. For instance, with every bass drum hit, the rest of the tracks may disappear as they are made quieter to allow for the bass frequencies to be squeezed into the waveform. The best way to prove it would be to run a metal track through compression and then use your ears to hear the difference.
Having been a music consumer for 35-odd years I think I know enough. Metal music in general is loud and aggressive. the more extreme types that have grown from its roots have only gotten louder and more aggressive. What used to be metal is now merely hard rock. Oh and you say squeezed and I said squashed what is the difference? How much goo comes out of my ears when I have to listen to it?
Differences in the target media.
Amounting to...? 
You didn't answer my question.
Yes I did, repeatedly. if you need it explained then amounting to what we have been talking about.
Nice term but it was not an attack, it was a statement of definition which was finished in the next section.
It was an ad hominem because you were attacking me as a person instead of what I was saying. I think you're smart enough to understand that.
My saying you are not an expert is not an attack it is a statement of fact. Talk to me again when you have worked at the top of the industry for 20 years. Then you will be an expert. Right now from what I can tell you are an ardent amateur. I am a slightly interested spectator.
This qualifies you to speak to commercial music production? Tell me what label you are signed with, one recording I can go down to the local music chain and buy that you mastered and I'll concede that you are an "Expert" though I won't really believe it.
Do you have access to the million dollar equipment on a day to day basis that a professional studio engineer pumping out album after album has? I don't think so.
What million dollar equipment are you thinking of specifically? Premium analog equipment can run for that much. That's why digital is so popular: Because digital recording studios can achieve superior quality to analog at a fraction of the cost. That said, a lot of people like analog equipment because of the vibe, and there is good stuff out there. Some of the things that make analog recordings "bad" are actually liked by a lot of people, so there's another argument in favour of analog.
Now, back to your statement: I never said I was an expert. You're building strawmen. You're also using ad hominem attacks again: You're attacking me as a person instead of what I'm actually saying. Why not address what I'm actually saying instead of trying to start a flame war?
I did not start this discussion you could have left me to my "illusions" instead of taking issue with 6 words out of the post.
If you are not an expert then why is it an attack to say you are not an expert? Especially as I was trying to wind up the discussion. I have tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and I have tried to be cordial.
As for the equipment; the million dollar amount was obviously pulled out of my hat, but I would be willing to bet that the equipment in David Bowies home studio , for example, is quite a bit more pricey than the equipment in yours.
EDIT You have to understand that alot of my information may be out of date as it comes from the birth of the CD that is no reason to get overly involved in the discussion.
