Is New Vinyl Exempt from Loudness Wars?

Next up, Rolling Stones.

Rolling Stones vinyl

Vintage vinyl

The Rolling Stones Between the Buttons [vinyl] i 1967   12 10 15 lossless Unknown
The Rolling Stones Some Girls (Australia CUN 39108) i 1978   13 12 15 lossless Vinyl
Rolling Stones It's Only Rock 'n Roll 1974 14 11 15 lossless Vinyl
Rolling Stones Out Of Our Heads 1976         12 10 13 lossless Vinyl
Rolling Stones Aftermath i 1984         14 12 14 lossless Vinyl
Rolling Stones Let It Bleed 1969         13 12 14 lossless Vinyl
The Rolling Stones Tattoo You [vinyl] 1981 13 12 15 lossless Vinyl
The Rolling Stones Miss You [12" vinyl] i. 1978   15 14 16 lossless Unknown
The Rolling Stones Exile On Main St. [vinyl] i 1973   12 10 14 lossless Unknown

Recent vinyl

The Rolling Stones Wild Horses (Acoustic Version)/Dead Flowers [7" vinyl] i 2015   10 10 10 lossless Vinyl
The Rolling Stones Sweet Summer Sun - Hyde Park Live [vinyl] i 2013                 09 08 12 lossless Vinyl
The Rolling Stones A Bigger Bang [Vinyl] i 2005   10 09 12 lossless Unknown
The Rolling Stones Doom And Gloom [Vinyl] i 2012   10 10 10 lossless Unknown

Here are some comparisons of CD vs Vinyl

The Rolling Stones Bridges to Babylon [vinyl] 1997   12 11 14 lossless Unknown
The Rolling Stones Bridges to Babylon (2009 Remaster) i 2009   06 05 07 lossless Unknown
The Rolling Stones Bridges to Babylon i 1997   07 06 08 lossless Unknown

The Rolling Stones A Bigger Band (Special Edition--CD only) i 2005   06  05  08 lossless Unknown
The Rolling Stones A Bigger Bang [Vinyl] i 2005   10  09  12 lossless Unknown

- cheers

As I recall the three numbers are:

1. DR for the entire album/release
2. DR of the track with minimum DR
3. DR of the track with highest DR

So it tells you not just range for the whole album/release, but which tracks are best and worse. First number should always be in the range of second and third I would expect (average is somewhere in the range of min and max).

I don’t know how the site is managed or how the numbers are verified or not.

My gut interpretation from what I have seen so far is the numbers are of interest but should be taken with a grain of salt or two.    I personally would not use this alone to determine what to buy unless overall dynamic range is all one cares about.  I have many wonderful sounding recordings that do not rate particularly high here.  Amy Winehouse Back in Black is a good example.

Maybe others have more insight regarding the reliability of the numbers reported.

Mapman is correct with #s 1, 2, 3. #1 is the average of the entire album.  The higher the number, the more dynamic range (less compression).
If you click on the album title, all tracks will be displayed with their dynamic range.

I agree that the DR scale should not be the only criteria used in determining the sonics and range of the recordings. Although, I have found that CDs listed with low numbers in the red zone are overly compressed and not worth buying. (usually during the years of the Loudness Wars).

Agree with lowrider except some very red releases might still be worthwhile if....

1) You like the artist and want the music
2) You don’t care about earbleed
3) If you do care about earbleed, you better have a top notch system with low distortion and noise levels. That way you might still enjoy the music that’s there. The example for me I would cite is Death Magnetic by Metallica which is one of the worst DR recordings listed but I still enjoy cranked up high as it should be. It is still good nicely etched and crafted metal music, just not very dynamic.  It makes for a good test record actually along with the others if recordings like that matter to you at all.