Are todays digital recordings engineered to sound best on a smartphones?

I only have Sony MDR 7506 headphones and don't use them much so can't really say much about DR compression vs headphones.

I’ll say straight up that I am not a big fan of Greta Van Fleet....but I am a huge fan of a band that tours with them from time to time called the Struts.

Same thing happened to me with them. Sounds fine in the car. Sounds okay on ear buds. Sounds like crap on my hi-fi system. Loudness through the roof. Almost too loud at the lowest volume setting. Turning it up makes it worse.

I do not have trained or golden ears when it comes to nuanced listening but I can hardly tolerate overly compressed stuff. Which is almost everything new. I can mess with some of it with a digital equalizer and make it palatable but only just. What follows is a list of great acts with dismal DR on their albums:

Greta Van Fleet
The Struts
Tedeschi Trucks
Gary Clark, Jr
Alabama Shakes
Neko Case
Leon Bridges
St. Paul and the Broken Bones

Just to name a few. Instant listening fatigue.

But here’s the thing, sometimes the DR will be bad on all sources of a band’s album: CD, hi-res download and vinyl. That is the most common. But, in some cases one medium will have much better dynamic range. Gary Clark Jr.’s album Blak and Blu on CD is terrible. On HD Tracks it is considerably better.

I was researching the Tom Petty anthology The Best of Everything and the HD Tracks file has excellent DR. The DR of the CD has not been posted but some reviewers have said it is terrible. I hope that is not true.

Edit: The HD Tracks file is $38. The album set is over $60. The CD is $16..............but it doesn't cost a penny more to record a Cd with good DR than it does to make on with poor DR.

roberjerman, That might be true but I have plenty of rock and pop albums that were produced at the highest levels possible and with extraordinary DR. Mark Knopfler and Steely Dan are standouts in that respect.

I am particularly disappointed in Tedeschi Trucks since it is my understanding that they have their own studio so that they have control over the production process and still make overly compressed albums.

Even the hi-res version of the Tom Petty album I mentioned above is produced with very high DR.

@gawdbless : I should have been more specific. Both the Tedeschi Trucks and Gary Clark, Jr. albums I was referring to are studio albums. Their DR has been tested and in some cases by more than one person. DR is terrible.

As far as Tom Petty, I was only referring to the CD of "The Best of Everything". But that was just based on reviews. DR testing has not been reported on the CD.

I will also say that compressed DR does not seem to bother some people, even people who seem to be picky about lots of other SQ nuances. It baffles me how though. When DR is compressed nothing in the component chain can bring it back. And when the tonal range is compressed there is ’less’ to hear in terms of tonal variation.

There are some very very experienced people here who also suggest that by room and system tweaking a low DR recording can be made to sound good. I don’t have the experience or knowledge to refute that and none of us has any basis for questioning someone else’s ears but I still don’t see how you can significantly improve something that simply is not there.

glennewdick, You might be right. But it still doesn't make sense. Most of the folks playing through the computer or cell phone probably have Sound Check or some version of it turned on and don't even know it. So the attention grabbing effect of high compression is completely neutralized. Radio stations essentially do the same thing so no advantage there. 

And all that makes me wonder why this technique is so ubiquitous. It is an added step in the production process, not something that has to struggled against. So even from the prospect of production cost it does not make sense. So far I have heard no reasonable explanation why this phenomenon persists.

gawdbless, I understand what you are saying but when critical tonal variations, which are probably one of the primary components to rich, lush sound, are not there, maximizing what is left seems fairly futile from a hard core hi-fi perspective. Not saying it can't be improved. As mentioned, I can improve things a little with judicious EQ. I'm assuming that takes advantage of the fact that the perceived loudness of various frequencies is different even at the same output volume. (There is a name for this but I forget). In the end though, without critical variations in tonal range (probably not the right word...it is all complicated) it seems like pretty much else we do to the signal is, pardon the vernacular, polishing a turd.

And when I say that I'm talking about recordings with average dynamic range in the 4-5 range, which is common now. I think when a recording is in the 8-9 range more can be done with it and those, even though many consider that range to be unacceptable, sound okay to me.