Classic rock: best remasters

Recent masters of The Doors catalog.

"According to the official dynamic range data base a great deal of the reissues of classic rock recordings are aggressively compressed. "

That may well be the case, but I agree with Phasecorrect. The dynamic range as quantified there is relevant and interesting especially for noting trends in re-issues, etc. over the years but if you actually listen to the recordings listed ON A GOOD SYSTEM, that one metric falls far short from telling the whole story in regards to sound quality of recordings and how various ones differ.

In general, I've found recordings with traditional good dynamic range to be very enjoyable, but for certain kinds of music, like pop/rock in particular, the importance of dynamic range alone is less. There are many other things in a recording that might be emphasized differently as well, for better or for worse. Its like an artist attempting to perform an enjoyable cover of a standard. It might work or not, depending on the skills of the performers, or in teh case of a remaster, the engineers.

I have some of the worst rated CDs most highly compressed CDs in teh Dynamic Range DB, like Metallica's Death Magnetic.

Assuming one might like this recording to start with, I find it a useful test recording. The boundary between delivering the music as recorded well with or without earbleed is a very fine one. For example, I found that changing power cords on my amp and pre-amp alone made the difference. Whereas with many recordings, the cords might sound different, but not enough to make or break the deal. There are some very good tracks on this CD, but an audiophile might not ever be able to discover or enjoy them without having to go that extra mile to get things just right without negatively impacting all the rest. Its a very rewarding feeling for me when there is potential to enjoy almost any recording regardless of how it is recorded. To me thats what its all about, being able to enjoy all "good" music, not just the ones produced the way I might prefer or like.

It's true that is where the biggest market is these days but I think it mostly impacts newer pop recordings targeting the mass market.

Still better probably than what I remember hearing coming out of my AM radio which was the closest equivalent back in the day.

Its always a mixed bag, and the nature of the mix changes over time.

++ on Lowriders mentions.

"Mapman, nobody is saying dynamic range is the only audio parameter worth mentionng, but if it ain't dynamic I ain't interested."

To each their own. Many probably feel that way.

The problem is that a single dynamic range metric per track or album really only tells part of the story about even the dynamics, ie the overall range.

I find the dynamic range measure useful but not sufficient to tell me what recordings I will find enjoyable or not. It is definitely deficient as an acid test.

That's like saying the only mountains worth climbing are the tallest. They may offer certain thrills not found elsewhere, especially to a professional mountain climber, but there is much more to it than just that in many cases for most folks to enjoy.

GEoff,

No objections to what anyone looks for in their recordings.

Yes, you are right they give the min, max and mean as I recall. Those are meaningful standard statistics but it cannot be argued that they only tell a very small part of the story and that there is more to what makes a recording enjoyable or not than its overall dynamic range.

For example, it tells you nothing about what to expect in terms of frequency range, transients and detail, just a few of teh other things in the recipe for a good recording.

I've sampled the new Zep IV remaster a bit. On "Battle of Evermore" the overall inherent murkiness of the recording persists but I think the remaster helped clean it up overall somewhat. At least that was my initial impression.