Why English CDs are recorded at lower volume?

[Nano]

I refer to most reissues of English rock done in Britain. I had this experience with people like Genesis, Van der Graaf, Hammill, XTC, Robert Fripp... Have to put the volume 3 or 4 points higher with them.
In fact I see there are volume differences in between several countries. English CDs would be the lowest, then German (distributed here, sound pretty good), then USA... The ones made in Argentina and Brazil sound pretty loud, without crisping the sound. I have a Billy Paul compilation made in Brazil and it's one of the better CDs I have in terms of sound quality, being also of the loudest.
Can someone explain this?

[BrunoRepublic]

Most likely the English CDs are bucking the current trend of compressing and hard-limiting everything so that the volume seems louder but the dynamics are greatly reduced and the music is just ONE HUGE BLAST OF SOUND WITH ALL THE DEPTH SQUEEZED OUT OF IT.

Seriously, though... extract some of the tracks and load them into a wave editor... I'm willing to bet that they'll both peak very near 0db. If they both peak at or near the max, but one sounds quieter, that means that the quieter one is less compressed -- which is a good thing! It means that the recording has more depth, more dynamics, more life!

LOUDER does not mean better. Many contemporary productions have absurd amounts of compression and limiting applied, just to make them seem LOUDER when compared to another recording because everything thinks LOUDER is BETTER. But the result is that music is becoming more and more and more and more compressed. We're getting to the point that most music has only about a 3db dynamic range. Sadly, many disco compilations and reissues have fallen prey to this madness. While compression was necessary back in the days when most music was heard through AM radio, there is no excuse for it now. Stop the insanity!!

[QUINNY]

Graham: I have to agree with you to some extent. I think you'll find it was FM radio that made producers seek those extra few dBs, 'cos a CD which was less loud/compressed simply didn't sound as good to the dear folks in their cars. It's a very hostile environment and anything which had more than say 20dB dynamic range would tend to get lost.
Personally I hate to see the meters hitting 0dB all the time, but that's the way most others like it I guess. However, everything I put through my TC Finalizer always ends up sounding better for a little judicious compression and general level raising.

[Nano]

OK, I admit I kinda like those heavy basses and loud mastering of today's reissues :oops: With the old ones, if you try to listen to a track with huge leaps in volume (say, "Dancing with the moonlight knight" by Genesis) I mostly have to be turning up the volume at the beginning, then lower it a bit when the band comes in, then going up again in the middle part... But, overall, the volume control is always higher than with other CDs.
It reminds me a bit some old home recordings with badly made cables, in which the intro sounded good, but then the drums came in and the whole volume stepped down... :evil: and you were touching the controls all the time.
Now another problem presents when I want to make a mix tape for a friend, or DJing a party with home equipment (it's been decades since the last time I saw a mixer!) Say, you want to segue any old Motown CD with a Rhino reissue of Stax material and BLAM! the whole thing goes through the roof. If viceversa, people look at each other and say, "how come there's no more music now?" while the voice of Al Green murmurs far in the background

[Bernie]

I've always been a fan of British vinyl pressings and CD reissues of classic material for the reasons Graham stated. It's simply amazing how good the music sounds when a little extra care is taken by the engineers and those involved. Less is actually more!

Listen to the British compilation CD, "TK Disco 45 Collection Volume 1" and it will be readily apparent how a little extra without the extras goes a long way. Even the one song that was taken directly from a vinyl source sounds balanced and clear.

When I used to sell audio and video back in New York our customers almost always went for the louder audio piece or the brighter and more saturated television picture despite my trying to explain that sometimes that wasn't always better. Oh well...

[Nano]

You guys got me suspenseful now. I'll have to go back to those Al Green CDs (I'm quite sure my "Take me to the river - Greatest Hits Vol. 2" is made in Britain). It certainly is one of the lowest I ever heard...

[QUINNY]

Just to add as a P.S. I'm frankly amazed that there are any territorial differences. I doubt if the records are released simultaneously in the USA and UK so why wouldn't the originator send a CD or Exabyte clone of the original copy master to the second territory? If it's all reassembled from DAT safety copies and re-mastered each time that seems like a real waste of effort (and money) to some extent.
You know, the U.K record industry has always had a BAD name for not taking enough time or effort over the mastering stage, so much so that American mastering houses really look down their noses at the Brits. This makes your comments really surprising.