When I talk about compression/limiting/equalization, I'm speaking mostly of the "mastering" process that takes place with rock/pop/country recordings, NOT classical and acoustic jazz that was recorded with simple mic techniques (and a low mic count) to begin with.
And yes mastering engineers DO complain when producers/engineers use too much compression, because compression applied during trackind and mixing can't be removed. But it's not that they (the mastering engineers) are "purists" who prefer not to compress/limit/equalize. They simply think this type of processing should be done ONLY ONCE, and at the "end of the line"...the mastering stage. Trust me, much of what makes the best sounding rock/pop/country recordings sound so "punchy" and "in your face" is the careful application of processing in the mastering stage! And audiophile labels do it just as much as the "major" record labels!
Yes Mobile Fidelity DID re-equalize/compress/limit their recordings. But then so does EVERYBODY else. And extending bass response (Mo-Fi recordings had not just more bass, but more EXTENDED bass) was a big part of what Mobile Fidelity did, and others do. Remember the masters for most of the old recordings that Mobile Fidelity tackled were made for lps. LPs have some severe limitations when it comes to the amount of bass information they can store. The higher the level of low frequency content, the shorter the playing time with a phonograph record (because records with lots of bass require more extreme excursions of the cutting stylus, which takes up LOTS of extra space), and the less likely it is that inexpensive phono cartridges (the vast majority in use during vinyl's heyday) can play a given record without distortion or mistracking. The result of this is that phonograph records FREQUENTLY were cut with less bass than the producers, engineers, and artists intended. Mobile Fidelitys records obviously weren't likely to be played in cheap equipment, so they really "socked it to" the bass range, God bless 'em! The thing is, their releases were more likely to have represented the intentions of the producers/engineers/artists than were the actual product released by the major labels (for reasons explained above).
As for audiophile recordings simply having more bass and treble, well...changes to frequency response and dynamics are among the easiest and most obvious to hear (major label releases already have low distortion and low noise levels), so these are the things a mastering engineer is most likely to change. Don't be "shocked", however. If a recording has more, fuller bass, crisper highs, and a more punchy "dynamic" sound than the original, and most people prefer this sound, then it IS "better". By it's nature "better" is a subjective term. If the majority of people prefer one sound to another, then by definition it IS better! And the judicious use of equalization, compression, and limiting can and DOES often give new insight into details in a favorite recording!
Note: the decision of DCC to re-master using tube electronics is as much a subjective "enhancement" of the original material as is the decision to apply other forms of processing. Tube electronics IN GENERAL produce sound with more harmonic distortion than solid state, and it is (I believe) this extra "harmonic information" (distortion, actually...but "musical sounding" distortion) that gives tube electronics their particular sound! This is neither right, nor wrong in itself. It it yields better sounding results, then it IS "right". If the sound is worse because of it, then obviously it was "wrong". Since I happen to adore the sound of many DCC re-issues, I believe this decision is "right".
I find it amusing that many high end audiophiles have such purist views about the use of dynamics and frequency processing, when the very recordings they use for forming their opinions were HUGELY processed before release! Not that the audiophiles are wrong to want to accurately play what's "in the grooves" or "the pits" in the case of cd. It's just that their favorite recordings largely sound the way they do because of the use of devices which they would certainly scorn in a "serious" playback system
