"According to the official dynamic range data base a great deal of the reissues of classic rock recordings are aggressively compressed. "
That may well be the case, but I agree with Phasecorrect. The dynamic range as quantified there is relevant and interesting especially for noting trends in re-issues, etc. over the years but if you actually listen to the recordings listed ON A GOOD SYSTEM, that one metric falls far short from telling the whole story in regards to sound quality of recordings and how various ones differ.
In general, I've found recordings with traditional good dynamic range to be very enjoyable, but for certain kinds of music, like pop/rock in particular, the importance of dynamic range alone is less. There are many other things in a recording that might be emphasized differently as well, for better or for worse. Its like an artist attempting to perform an enjoyable cover of a standard. It might work or not, depending on the skills of the performers, or in teh case of a remaster, the engineers.
I have some of the worst rated CDs most highly compressed CDs in teh Dynamic Range DB, like Metallica's Death Magnetic.
Assuming one might like this recording to start with, I find it a useful test recording. The boundary between delivering the music as recorded well with or without earbleed is a very fine one. For example, I found that changing power cords on my amp and pre-amp alone made the difference. Whereas with many recordings, the cords might sound different, but not enough to make or break the deal. There are some very good tracks on this CD, but an audiophile might not ever be able to discover or enjoy them without having to go that extra mile to get things just right without negatively impacting all the rest. Its a very rewarding feeling for me when there is potential to enjoy almost any recording regardless of how it is recorded. To me thats what its all about, being able to enjoy all "good" music, not just the ones produced the way I might prefer or like.
