Why do HDDAP remaster existing albums?

Quite simply, on this site there are examples (shortened versions so as not to compromise IPR) of the genuine differences between the released versions of albums and the demastered-remastered versions that we have created.

Most released albums suffer from too much dynamic compression.

If released material is aimed at a targeted market, such as a SMART speaker or ear buds, why do other purchasers of the music have to suffer the same constraints? Why can't we purchase a Hi-Dynamic Range audiophile version, especially in the format of a Hi-Definition/Hi-Resolution release?

We contest that there is a genuine desire for this format, to satisfy the needs of the audiophile that requires a less direct and more transparent sound.

Pulling the Wool over our ears!

Even Hi-Resolution albums suffer from the dynamic range issue, just check out, Michael Jackson - Bad.

This site below, lists nearly all the different versions of Bad and the Dynamic Range for each one: https://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list/2?artist=michael%20jackson&album=bad

You can see the early versions of Bad had a Dynamic Range of 14-15, whilst the Acoustic Sounds Hi-Res download from 2012, has a Dynamic Range (DR) of 8. That's an amazing amount of detail gone missing. Particularly that Bruce Swedien, the sound engineer for the album, went to great lengths to create the maximum DR. He even recorded each and all of the multi-tracks for this and Thriller, in stereo.

Unfortunately this scenario is all too common, in fact Cnet.com came up with ten reasons as to why modern music is compressed, they can be found here:

https://www.cnet.com/tech/home-entertainment/the-top-10-reasons-why-music-is-compressed/

A couple of these stand out:

"No. 1: Audiophiles like to complain about compressed music, but they actually prefer it."

"No. 2: People mistake compression for dynamics; when all the sounds are loud and "punchy," it's called "dynamic." Naturally dynamic music lacks the kick of a compressed mix."

"No. 8: Most music is listened to in the background to accompany some other activity like working, reading exercising, driving, or cooking. When you're doing something else, uncompressed music's constantly shifting volume level would be an annoyance."

"No. 10: Compression is part of the sound of contemporary music. Completely uncompressed music would sound lifeless and boring to most listeners. They crave more energy than unprocessed sound offers."

Our sentiments...

I would suggest that with point No. 1, we just disagree, or it could be that some "audiophiles" do not appreciate traditional Hi-Fi sound?

No. 2 - We would suggest that this sounds confused, as compression makes music sound louder but loses dynamic range. However, it is possible to be dynamic and retain the "sound" of mild compression.

No.8 - We agree with this, unfortunately we are back to a one size fits all approach to sound. Should we all settle for the lowest common denominator?

In the quiet of a room dedicated to play music, the soundscape is changed and music is to the fore; meaning sound is to the fore too. Why would you want to play music designed for ear-buds and in a noisy area, in this environment?

No. 10 - we think that this is a matter of taste; the issue is that we are not being given a choice, in the correct environment, many people have not heard the difference. We deliver that choice or preference.