Dynamic Range=DR...?

It still doesn't bother me one bit. Mountains out of molehills I say..

"In September 2007 the Audio Engineering Society published the results of a year-long trial, in which a range of subjects including professional recording engineers were asked to discern the difference between SACD and compact disc audio (44.1 kHz/16 bit) under double blind test conditions. Out of 554 trials, there were 276 correct answers, a 49.8 % success rate corresponding almost exactly to the 50 % that would have been expected by chance guessing alone.[41] The authors commented:
Now, it is very difficult to use negative results to prove the inaudibility of any given phenomenon or process. There is always the remote possibility that a different system or more finely attuned pair of ears would reveal a difference. But we have gathered enough data, using sufficiently varied and capable systems and listeners, to state that the burden of proof has now shifted. Further claims that careful 16/44.1 encoding audibly degrades high resolution signals must be supported by properly controlled double-blind tests.[1][42]
Following criticism that the original published results of the study were not sufficiently detailed, the AES published a list of the audio equipment and recordings used during the tests.[43]"

I would personally like to beat whoever decided to crush Relationship Of Command till their brain could be drank through a straw. I like a lot of the songs, but the album is beyond ruined for me. It turns a far more artistic band into a cookie cutter soundstage of constant loudness. It really does feel like a decision that does not reflect the art. Might as well release the Kind Of Blue: Smashd 2 Fuk Edition.

Now if people prefer crushed, I am fine with that. But to say pop is crushed for any other reason than everyone already crushes it? Totally false. It might start just becoming an aesthetic soon - but it's largely just the demand of conformity, which they see as QC, in the mass production of music.

SACD did fail because no one cares. There's no evidence to suggest any limitations of 44.1Khz/24 bit can be observed by a human being.

Fair enough.

I think the first album I owned that I felt was arguably much too loud was Biffy Clyro's Puzzle. I was 15 and beginning to understand ear-fatigue. Could hear it really well over the school bus, though..

I''ve recently bought a few duplicates of some CD's on vinyl, for exactly those reasons popmann. One of the recent Foo Fighter's CD's I happened to hear xix months back, was so horribly compressed and distorted, I was amazed such a hugely successful band would let that slide. Dave Grohl does know better, I think.

I can assure you it's the artists and their managers as opposed to the labels. Crushed CDs sound wimpier on the air due to the distortion pushing down the broadcast processing. The stations know better and many people at the labels know better.

It's driven by paranoia.

I discovered how BAD new music sounds when I got the Nirvana remasters off HD tracks . They are 24bit 48K remasters , "supposed" to be "better" , but it sounds like ass . The remasters have a way different impact on me when I listen to it . Theres no dynamics and it sounds flat with no power . So for me , it does ruin the listening experience .

I wanted to like the Nirvana remaster , but again and again comparing with the original CD release , it does not sound as good and is boring to listen to . Thats when I started only buying CD's pre 1995 used off ebay or amazon . When I see remaster I run away !!!!!!

The only remasters that I've found good , is the new Beatles stuff . Those CD's sound really good .

I think DR13-DR11 , is the good zone .

I agree scumbum. I think remasters should only present the music in it's best form, closest to the original. By this I mean if say a bad 1988 CD master was lighter in the bass than the original, it's good to put it back, but pumping up the volume to merely be as loud as a current release is misguided.

Anything remastered by Mobile Fidelity, DCC, AudioFidelity is done as it should be. Anything done by the original label sucks. I've not found an exception...not to say they don't exist, but...There comes some subjectivity--take the first Counting Crows...the label release (93?) was good..Mobile Fidelity bettered it at some point..but the new SACD is the first example I have of more dynamics not equalling better--there's a little too much drum transient, which makes the drums actually hit LESS hard. Mind you, it's a DB or two--none are "loud". The original and MFSL are like DR11 and I think the SACD gains one or two. But, on the upside, the lead vocal sounds nicer and more natural, so--depends on which matters more to you.

The Eagles remasters on HDTracks are gorgeous...which technically I think were sponsored by the labels, but the CDs that WEA released fom the same sessions blow--loud modernized masters.

I visited Mobile Fidelity's mastering studio. The only signal processing available was the playback head eq. controls on the front panel of their custom A to D converter that the playback head was plugged directly into. Talk about a short signal path!