Loudness War

Pro Software or some media players that allow you to analyze or normalize the sound seems the least expensive route.

Of course you could proceed the old fashioned route and simply start out each new disc at a lower volume setting and raise it to suit yourself.

I find such recordings are pop & rock, urban & hip hop CDs mostly. The audience they're shooting for could care less about dynamic range, and most will be deaf well before their mid life crisis rolls around.

RE Thriller
Given the time frame of it's release and the popularity of it's artist then, recording quality could have been way off the mark and pretty poor actually, and album sales would still have sky rocketed.

I don't recall hearing one person then say, "I bought the record or disc because of the quality of the production."

Just like Elvis and the Beatles before MJ, record sales simply weren't based on the quality of the sound... but merely the 'sound' or style if you will, of the recording artist.

Still today I'll buy the stuff I like the sound of on the radio or that I've heard online in a disc, only to find out it is lacking when played back on my main system. So it gets played less or played on a lesser system.

the motivation for the purchase remains the same... by and large I've deemed it popular enough or found it appealing enough to purchase. Seldom if ever am I able to preview a prospective disc on my main rig.

Quality quite often is merely an afterthought or anomoly in pop & rock. The overwhelming majority of that audience simply wants loud... not quality. 95% of the time, when at those folks homes they'll show off their new CD by turning on & up the system just that fast... to paint peeling levels and then say, "How do you like that? Sounds great doesn't it?" .

Normally it doesn't. When they come to my home the first time, everyone of them will say turn it up even if I'm already in the low to mid 90 dbs. I'll tell 'em I can't, it trips the breakers.

I'm pretty sure now, most of my pop and rock oriented friends are almost deaf. In fact some very nearly are.

I feel back then quality played such a small part as to be inconsequential. billy Joel came out with his Innocent Man LP about the same time. A few others as I recall did well then too. most were well recorded.

Add in a promotional budget of 3/4 million bucks which was unheard of then... MJ launching the video on MTV which ran the promos for weeks in advance... that got a lot of eyes and ears on it that it would not normally have had.

A great recording studio and Quincy Jones did not play a big part in the sales initially..

We sold out that day and had ordered more than we ever had previously of any album. that kept up for weeks. trust me people hadn't even heard the whole album and it flew off the shelves. neither, by and large, did the crowd buying them have the wherewithall to own a great outfit on which to play them, save for Daddy's, perhaps.

It was THE latest big deal, given the press that was paid for it, it darn well should have been too..

but the kids/people coming into my store then to buy them weren't applauding the quality... just that it was the latest MJ album that even had Vincent Price on it. Most were hearing it at the clubs not at friends houses. It did sell well outside it’s normal cultural arena, as the cuts were diverse and the appeal was very broad.

in retrospection, one can attribute quality as a factor to the bulk of the sales for that record, yet still I feel it would have had a very marginal effect on the total sales receipts.

I heard it several times on various outfits and formats. the quality was good but not astonishing. I'd say very good for pop music at the time. I never bought the recording myself... and gave away the SACD version of it someone had given to me.

I've no issue with the recording industry's upswing of quality being infused into their products begining back then in the 80s. None. I thought I said as much, though not as clearly as yourself.

My point is simple... the bulk of the MJ Thriller album sales was not based on it's quality, but it's hype.

Truth be told, I liked the thing back then and did not and do not care one wit about the artist. In fact I don't care for him then or now. he had severe issues and never addressed them sufficiently enough to prevent hurting others and worst of all, he hurt innocent children.

I'm unable to excuse such actions because of sheer notiriety or talent.

MJ's acclaim may have surpassed that of Elvis economically, but there's no fair comparison... that's like saying the vlockbuster flick of 2000 was out sold by the blockbuster flick of 2010... Tickets were cheaper in 2000... albums were cheaper and there were less people to buy them.

Elvis & The Beatles bodies of work will always out run MJ in my book... despite the $$$ signs.

had either of those promoted any album they produced in a likewise manner as was Thriller... a likewise result would have occured.

the notion of the presumed quality of the recording came purely as an aside in later years.. or now. Not back then.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.