Have now come to the conclusion that the word "remastered" should really
be pronounced "*******ised"...

In a posting a while back I think I said that the remaster of Paul
Simon's "Graceland" hadn't been subjected to the loudness wars...

Bzzzzzt! Wrong answer! The MP3s I had of this album had been ripped from
the original release, not the remaster I bought a couple of years ago.

Look and weep...

2004 re*******:

http://intranet.squirrel-net.co.uk/i...ubble-2004.png

1986 release:

http://intranet.squirrel-net.co.uk/i...ubble-1986.png

Volume levelled with ReplayGain to 89dB before doing a volume plot.

That would explain why the MP3s I had (even at 192 CBR) sounded better
than the CD. I've since bought the non-remastered CD off Amazon
Marketplace (along with original releases of Billy Joel's "An Innocent
Man" and Dire Straits "Brothers In Arms").

Where does this "louder is better" mentality come from?!? If it sounds
better "loud" then turn up the volume ffs!

Mentioned this to a friend of mine - not a techie but likes his music,
has a reasonably good setup (Yamaha AV amp and Gale speakers, good old
Richer Sounds!). Showed him the plots above and his response (after
explaining why they do this) was "yes... but if I want it louder I just
do this..." and made a gesture of turning up a volume knob.

And that's a non-techie non-audiophile type. He's a builder by trade and
tends to listen to metal and heavy rock... and even he's noticed how bad
modern CDs sound.

--
Glenn Richards Tel: (01453) 845735
Squirrel Solutions http://www.squirrelsolutions.co.uk/

IT consultancy, hardware and software support, broadband installation