Without a proper panning, EQ, and balance of different source sounds, the "all goes red" method not worth so much. Especially, when someone digital distorts a material - not analog, or not even at the gain section of the mixer - , what already contains a huge amount of high frequencies, what are not even the most sensitivite ones for the ear. White noise like, full mono recordings, even with a 98% RMS rate can't win over a bassy, panned, and well-equalized mastering... especially listening them on speakeres, even if it's more "noisy", doesn't really matter. Personally, when I master tracks what have this method, I always cut very high frequencies, becase they are take out the place from other, way more audible frequencies. Give a boost for bass, and mid ones. Thougth It's recommended to make loud sounding recordings with EQ by the Fletcher-Munson curve, I need to disagree with this in some cases. For example, if the rooms base frequency is around 120-130 Hz, and that artist's recording is full of feedbacks with EXACTLY this frequencies, it's SOUNDS (in reality not, but the room amplifies it) more loud, than a harsh, mid-high recording. So, it depends a lot of things.
Dynamics are another different thing. Non-stop wall of sound have that thing, that is oppress everything, and have a great "louder than anything" effect.. but a recording with big dynamics is maybe not so hurtful - if you think about the contant sound pressure, what was in the previous situation - but it' have a punch, and effect, that the ear can't acclimate to the sound. So, both methods have pros, and cons. I think it's hard to make a real 'standard' when we talk about mastering - in noise, or any other genre. Personally - thought there are a lot of exceptions, but - I more prefer recordings, what have less dynamics, and more non-stop noise loudness... but this is just my taste.
