Originally Posted by Emaych
Dogs were not same species. Dogs were not in same space. Dogs were not recorded the same. Dogs were not mixed the same. Dogs were not in the same movie, or did I make that clear? And the sound was not equivalent either. One sounded real to my ear, the other did not. As I've suggested, make of that anecdote what you will.
Then if you acknowledge that your anecdote does not represent sufficient similarity for reasonable comparison for the premise, that I will surmise as such, "A hot mix reproduces more 'realistic' audio cues than a more dynamic lower volume mix." then what was the purpose of bringing it up?
... You say above that compressed tracks sound exciting, but then it seems you want to backtrack on that and impose a whole set of standards that will, if you are not careful, deprive you of that excitement, or being able to appreciate the excitement for what it is.
Perhaps I should have phrased 'exciting' as "physiological shock response from over stimulation of the auditory senses which often skews the listeners perception of what constitutes quality dynamic audio," but for the sake of brevity I used exciting instead.
It is no different than if one attempts to listen to different audio equipment and demo is not level matched if comparing two different speaker systems. The louder one is going to sound better even if in fact it is not as good.
Case in point Bose systems are often demoed in a manner where it is difficult for the average listener to discern the lack of fidelity the cubes systems produce. Since they are always played at a louder volume than other systems they fool many people into believing those tiny speakers are high fidelity systems.
Anther comparison to draw from is a calibrated display versus one set to torch mode, some prefer torch mode over the less 'exciting' but accurate and consistent high fidelity visuals of a calibrated setting.
My listening criteria is quality over quantity and if distortion is all too prominent and audible then I am going to turn off that garbage. My time and system requires better.
I realize some folks simply prefer and enjoy certain aspects more than others. Such as several here will slog through various films with terrible narratives but have compelling visuals and audio.
Myself I desire a balance of all those aspects in a film but I cannot subject myself to really dumb movies just for eye and ear candy. YMMV.
I think I generally tend to choose to be content when I'm excited about a track, and I have all kinds of varieties to amuse myself...
That is fine and your prerogative, enjoy what pleases you.
My earlier post was not specifically directed towards you but rather in the broader sense that I have found that other posters share similar preferences as you, in that favoring loud mixes over true dynamic mixes. I hate overly compressed mixes and it is annoying to read positive reviews for mixes that I then discover to sound rather unimpressive and lacking in the aspects of quality high fidelity mixes.
Louder is not necessarily better.
Oblivion was a great mix and refreshingly engaging audio experience, in light of many other mixes, that has great dynamics and some excellent bass. I personally feel the mix could have used a smidge less compression for the top end but overall it was well done. Also found Chappie to be a pretty nice mix for dynamics and bass for a recent title.
I simply would appreciate better distinction and clarity between compressed mixes versus dynamic mixes.