Radiohead read on

Well dynamics are a big part of it.  Certainly not all.   If it does not sound good enough, well then either don't listen or figure out a way to make it better.

I have all of there albums except the numerous singles they've released. Lately I find myself listening to there latest release (now years old) much more than the others. I didn't like that album much at first listen, but now truly admire it & it is recorded well. I wouldn't say it's there best (IMO that would be OK Computer), but it is very good. As far as sonics, there 45rpm single release of "paranoid android" is spectacular.  I'll have to check out MUSE. The only reason I never had is one of my daughters weird friends had that sticker on the back of her car :-) 

OK, I didn’t want to do this. Here’s the Radiohead page from the Unofficial Dynamic Range Database. Keep in mind the number 14 represents the first number in the Good range for dynamic range. The colors obviously represent Bad, Transition, and Good Dynamic Range. There are three number for each listing - Average, Minimum and Maximum Dynamic Range. Now, you tell me, is that a messed up dynamic range chart or what? And let's hear it for Pablo Honey!

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=Radiohead&album=

Happy New Year

I have them all on LP (UK vinyl as available.) Their releases on vinyl all sound fine and mostly uncompressed. Taken as a whole their work is the most creative arc in pop since the Beatles.  I miss the more structured song forms that peak with OK Computer, but the dissolve thereafter into abstraction is a big trip. 

If I understand the DR charts correctly, the number represents the difference between the loudest and softest sounds per release and also shows similar best and worst track DR.

It tells you nothing for example about transient dynamics and what one might be hearing otherwise with this approach. The people who make these recordings want you to hear certain things in the mix a certain way. And be able to hear it on the devices that most people have to work with. Its an art and not a pure science.

To date I have found not much correlation between my appreciation of a recording and the numbers in this DR DB, although it is useful to help find recordings that might excel in dynamic range that one might not otherwise.
So its a useful tool but not enough to determine what to listen to or not. At least for me. YMMV.

One last point is I recall the CD Death Magnetic by Metallica to be one of the worst DR ratings at the time a couple years back. Someone sent me the CD in the mail to give a listen. Thing is for an audiophile to listen to this CD the way intended, loudly, requires a VERY good system. Listening to this CD as intended without ear bleed or negatively affecting how most other more normal CDs sound is an extremely difficult audiophile challenge I would say. There is little leeway for any added distortion to be introduced. But I have found it to be a useful test CD for my system in that regard and there is a lot of good stuff on it (if one likes what Metallica does in general of course) and the sound of my setup is better than ever I would say overall for the effort .