------------------

 

Last edited: Feb 25, 2018

Just from the waveforms it's obvious that the mastering guy didn't exaggerate - with the effect that this song will sound more "dynamic" but also softer than modern songs pushed to the extreme. And that's the problem. Dunno what big radio stations do - will they reduce the level of modern songs squashed to death to equalize the subjective volumes or would the song above just appear softer?
I'd prefer the first option by far, bringing us "dynamics" back

 

I found this track interesting, the chorus sections have been slammed to the max for creative effect. It makes the song IMO, so breaking all the rules is sometimes good

 

Last edited: Feb 23, 2018

Downloaded your mp3. Chopped it up into Original (top, teal) and Remastered (2nd, gray).



Doesn't look bad to me, nothing wrong with either. If you like higher PLR, listen to the original mix, or (drum roll) use an expander.
Compression is 100% reversible, no information is lost (well, some is lost and some is gained, due to limited bit depth, but that's another story).
Flip your compressor upside down, and dial in whatever PLR pleases you. Like this:



(track #3 = Original normalized; track #4 is Remix expanded & normalized).
Still want moar PLR? Kick that knee back harder (track #5 = Remix with PLR = 19.something). More dynamic range than you can shake a stick at

Radio is not for audiosexual. It's something listened to in cars (high noise floor). Listening to high PLR content means not hearing most of it.
Classical/jazz recordings were never in the Great Loudness Warz, so no reason for classical/jazz stations to change. Pop/top-40/oldies stations play pop, mostly without remastering it. They play what their listeners like, the way their listeners like it. Because (commercial) radio is a business,
TL;DR: There's no need to get upset

 

That was no helpful for me, because what was the point of the Remaster in the first place? To reduce its original Dynamics that were already good??

I am a hard follower of the good dynamics in music, and if the original song was sounding great, then why change it? There is no HD in this more compressed and limited song at all, even less when music services turns down the volume if the song is louder than their loudness units standards. Yes, the re-mastering sounds "transparent", but the original mastering was also transparent.

8 DR is a great number for a modern EDM track, but for a song with such acoustic sound and original dynamic performance 12 DR was perfect.

 

Ha, that's exactly what I'm doing for years with old Audio CDs when I'm transfering them to my computer. Just a bit limiting to listen to them in the background (some of them weren't even normalized).
I used to measure with TT DR meter only, but meanwhile I mainly use LUFS measuring.

 

Sorry OP, I really should read before typing. Looked at your pictures & assumed the exact opposite of what you actually wrote. Oh well.

 

My thoughts exactly. IMHO no reason to do it on source audio data. Sure, car radios should have an option for ReplayGain and Loudness adjustment when the situation calls for it. Same for DAPs




Yet those are scenario specific situations, for all other uses the source audio should remain untouched.
That was the mission RG originally started with.


@Cardamom
Where exactly is the remastered waveform you posted?
The included MP3 does not contain such material:

 

Last edited: Feb 24, 2018