Now you're talking. Have you graphed that? ;)
Can you provide a link? I do not recall ever saying that.
I do apologise Kal. It was this post - but I copied and pasted the wrong part - Harrison's original to which you replied. What I meant to quote was this:
"And that is what makes me leery of it. If the quieter notes are more EQ-ed to sound as if they are less quiet while the louder notes are less EQ-ed, that is a musical distortion, imho. Linking the correction to overall level setting makes more sense even if there is the capability to do "dynamic" EQ."
I will go back and edit my post, striking through the error and substituting what you actually said. Again, my apologies.
It seems blindingly obvious to me from Roger's graphs that there is compression. There is compression with the 'fixed loudness boost' and even more compression with the 'dynamic loudness correction'.
Playing with the English language to try to ascribe new words to describe what is happening is pointless - we don't need to call it 'restore' - we already have a word and that word is compression. As you said earlier, when the lines at one end of the graph are closer together than they are at the other end, it is ****ing well compressed. That's what compressed means.
I agree that in this case the compression is fairly benign but it is still compression.