What I find really interesting in Mark's post #15 (to which I added the screen recording etc.) is that when we compare the original CD sound with the squashed and then loudness reduced remastered sound, there is a marked difference in subjective sound quality once the sound quantity (loudness) is approximately the same. The sort of subjective difference in quality that could so easily lead a home listener/reviewer to attribute adjectives to that difference. Did you notice that?The problems with the remaster are well-known. It's a real shame...
To make it clear, I've taken Mark's original and followed it with his compressed and then loudness reduced version. Assume you had not read anything about compression, clipping, headroom, amplifier power supplies - in fact, your technical knowledge and understanding was zero (and you were perfectly content with that situation). By just listening to these Dire Straits clips below, representing not two different masterings but two different amplifiers, turntables, cartridges, cables, speakers or whatever, would you say, for example, that one was more clinical and "digital" sounding, and the other more "analogue" sounding?
See how loudness of a sound stream and the musical context and spaciousness around it (all detected as loudness variations by the ear and converted into subjective impressions in the brain) absolutely and unequivocally defines its perceived quality? Loudness, level defines everything in audio because we have no other way of detecting changes in local air pressure around our heads i.e. what humans call sound.
Remember! Loudness, a scientific quantity, defines subjective (non-scientific) quality. If there is no change in loudness, there can be no change in event detection and hence no true change in quality.