I have to disagree. Taking an existing recording and modifying it to the extent that they have for this release is not only unwarranted, but damaging to the original sound. Trying to modify it to sound more "modern" is simply a gimmick to lure you into buying it again. What was finally laid down on the original tapes was what was appoved by Culshaw and the Decca team. To take the tapes and and compress them and attempt to make it louder is not only ridiculous and damaging to the sound, but it is also dishonest.
Decca spent time and money remastering this when it was completely unnecessary. To reduce the dynamic range of any recording from the original has been going on for a long time, but it is simply done for listening on lower end equipment, like tiny earbuds, small speakers and cellphones with underpowered amplifiers, or the radio. A format like SACD was designed for the serious home hi-fi listener to have large, full-range speakers and low distortion equipment. Putting such a remaster to SACD was folly.
Now, it would make much more sense to create a "remaster" in mind for those with smaller equipment and listening to streaming services, and then for SACD, a non-remastered version, representing what was actually on the tapes, without tampering, normalizing, compressing, or applying any EQ'ing at all. It was my hope that these SACDs would have a version that had not been tinkered with. Such was not the case. To get that SACD, you need to buy the Stereo Sound edition. That maintains the original Dynamic Range and it represents the original recordings and John Culshaw's vision honestly.
Hmmm... I guess my experience with the 24/192 stereo remastering is quite a bit different than yours. And my feelings towards Dolby Atmos has changed slightly.
First, the prior digital re-transfers were done at 16/44 or 24/48 or 24/44 (not sure) so they have more jitter and poorer transient reproductions. Either way, the transfers were plagued with noise where they were digitally removed using older technologies which also created artifacts. So I don't consider the latest archival transfer into 24/192 to be a "gimmick". To me, this is the best last attempt for archival preservation before the tapes turn to shred and become unusable.
I personally have not noticed that the new 24/192 transfer to be more dynamically compressed than my older CD versions at all. I actually felt that it's to the contrary because without the noise reduction artifacts from the two previous transfers, I found the dynamics to be preserved and I can hear better microdynamics, details and transient accuracy compared to the older transfers.
My understanding of the SACD transfer is from the 24/192 stereo remaster and not a 5.1 SACD transfer from the Dolby Atmos mix.
This review also supports the fact that it's not just me who thought that there was no dynamic compression:
Classical Candor: Wagner: The Golden Ring (SACD review)
The part where I disagree with the review with respect to the 24/192 stream is that I did not find the newer remaster brighter at all.
Now with respect to Dolby Atmos re-mixing of stereo tracks, I used to hate it. My dealer has Dolby Atmos setup and I've tried it at his store for pop music and classical music and I personally was slightly underwhelmed. Dolby Atmos mixes sometimes have higher dynamic range than the previous mix:
Do Immersive Audio Mixes Sound Better? - Immersive Audiophile - Audiophile Style
Part of the issue is that if you stream the Dolby Atmos mix from Apple Music, it is a lossy stream, rather than the lossless stream. And I don't believe you can buy the original lossless Dolby Atmos stream anywhere at this time. Not totally sure though.
But the reason why I am less averse to Dolby Atmos remastering nowadays (other than my personal ambivalence towards the format) is that stereo mixes are also mixes. Solti's Ring is a perfect example. Our older vinyl/CDs were not recorded on a single microphone and then directly transferred to disc. The recording was done on multiple microphones and the various tracks are mixed and combined with steering of the microphone outputs towards left/right channel during the mixing process (not to mention EQ, normalizing, etc). Hence, to me, there is nothing inherently "wrong" when you take the same multi-microphone recording and then mix it for a Dolby Atmos multi-channel format. I mean, you can argue that it might be better if multiple multichannel microphones are setup to record in Dolby Atmos first and then the multichannel microphone inputs are then mixed into Dolby Atmos would create a more realistic soundfield.
Of course, in audio, it is fun for different people to have different opinions on the same tracks. At the end of the day, all versions of Solti's Ring are still available somehow to people so we can always pick and choose which version we like the most to listen to and enjoy. And the ones we don't like, we can always sell online to recoup some costs back.
www.soundonsound.com
