Hi all!
Im confused about the so called loudness war.
First, I wonder why DR compression became a thing with CDs. It seems to me nobody was discussing loudness war before CD. But I might be wrong. Yes, there was DR compression but I don't remember it was an issue. That's because CDs have no limits on how loud program material can be. Too low of a crest factor will cause the cutting lathe stylus for record production to overheat, and too high of a peak level will cause the reproduction stylus (as well as the cutting stylus) to jump out of the groove and create a pop. Plus, lookahead brickwall limiters were only possible in DSP.
I have read that making music sound louder makes people wrongly think it sounds better, like louder=better, hence people buy it. But by the time CDs arrived, people were already enthusiastically buying DR uncompressed vinyl. So from the pure marketing point of view, I see no reason to DR compress music. There was no need to convice people to buy CDs. CDs where the real deal back then and everybody loved them. Then, what was the need to DR compress music when CD arrived? The argument that this was done purely for marketing reasons does not convince me. But Im no marketing expert and I might well be completely wrong. It was entirely marketing based.
My second question is perhaps a heresy. Can a DR compressed album (remastered) sound better (be more faithful) than the previously DR uncompressed version of it? The answer is, as usual, "it depends."
Let me explain. Lets take any Led Zeppelin album. It seems to me that the newer the version, the less dynamic range it has. There have been countless of versions of Led Zeppelin IV, for instance. As you go from vinyl to CD and as years go by, every newer version seem to have less DR. As far as I know, band members have been involved in the remasters. They seem to endorse all remasters. The same happens with Iron Maiden remasters. As far as I know, band members seem to claim their newer versions (remasters) sound better. Yet these newer versions have less DR. But can you argue against the artist? Fidelity seems to be related to being faithful to what the artist intended. If artists tell you their remasters sound better, does it make sense to argue against the artist? With in reason, yes. Artists often have compromised hearing from high volume shows - prior to the days of IEMs they usually didn't even wear earplugs, and shows are definitely at hearing damage levels.
Now, Im probably gonna say something very, very foolish because I know my knowledge is very limited (Im basically ignorant and I admit it): Is it possible that one particular album shows a very wide DR but in truth some of that wide DR is due to some very, very soft noise introduced in the recording process? I mean, very soft sounds or noise that are very soft but that should not be there, not part of the song, but somehow got their way into the final recording.... Then if you release a new version and you cut out such unwanted soft noise, DR might seem to be reduced when in fact, it is not. Actually, yes! That's entirely a thing. For that reason, LUFS incorporates a gate so noise below a set level is not included in the calculation.
Now, Im also confused because some people in music forums strongly (almost religiously) recommend to buy japanese remasters of old CDs. For instance, I have read people who absolutely recommend buying the japanese remasters of Judas Priest. But when I look for them, these japanese remasters are also heavily compressed. The same people consider the UK/US 2001 Judas Priest remasters to be absolute crap, but the newer Japanese remasters to be absolute gold. Yet the japanese remasters are heavily comporessed. So, why one must be better than the other? Why one compressed version is garbage while the other is diamond if both are DR compressed? Because the Japanese one sounds better. There's more to sound than compressed/not compressed, the tonal balance also must be considered.
Here I have talked about rock, pop and metal and sometimes I think for such kind of music DR compression is unimportant. Within reason, yes.
As far as I know, classical music CD are never DR compressed and if done it would be a huge mistake, I guess. That's because compared to pop music (which I am including rock, blues, pop, EDM, etc) classical and jazz has enormous composed-in dynamic range. Compression would be stepping on the composer's intentions.
But I wonder, is it a mistake to buy remasters? Or is it a case by case situation? Absolutely case-by-case. Some sound better than others.
Thanks all.