I based my choice on the first 42ish seconds of each version.

SimpleM
 
I think I would have been satisfied with the taste test much better if at least peak matching had been done.

 
Based on the playback meters in Windows' sound applet, they were. Not the most scientific T&M in the world, but even if they weren't consciously normalized, the peaks values are extremely close.
 
As to RMS matching, the only meaningful master-to-master comparison requires not modifying the masters, and level-matching modifies them. Consider this - if you match levels based on RMS, then the unmastered version will sound closer in terms of level to a fairly squashed version, but you will not be able to tell what that master will sound like on playback to the listener, which is really all that matters.

I listened to verse chorus and bridge. Because they were "mastered" I picked the one I thought was the best modern mastered sound. 4 sounded like it was mastered for vinyl. Definitely several db less, almost the same as the original. I'm curious to see the results.

I chose #4 which was the quietest because to me I liked it better.
So either I'm more mature than the people who like the louder ones (Yeah right Ron)
Or deaf. Which at 54 years old, is prolly more likely.
 
I can't wait for the result.
Rock on regartless.

For me, I consider the masters to be a finished product and want to compare them without having them level-matched. An important part of the test of LANDR IMHO is what it does to the dynamic variances in a track.

DRanck
For me, I consider the masters to be a finished product and want to compare them without having them level-matched. An important part of the test of LANDR IMHO is what it does to the dynamic variances in a track.

Exactly.

Premaster sounds best.
 
#4 was the best of the masters, it preserves dynamics and feels most natural.
I bet it's LANDR Low intensity; usually mastering engineers don't have guts to leave RMS levels so down. 
 
Unfortunately you can't always use the best sounding master. And even worse, average consumer may still think 'louder is better'.

You need to listen to the entire song at least once just to get a feel for the progression. You need to hear where the transitions are since that is where mastering can have the most audible effect. Not just dynamically but in eq as well. It's the responsibility of the listener to know enough to turn up the volume on the quieter tracks. Level matching. Yes. Otherwise you are not hearing the tracks equally well. As a consumer, you turn up your player to a comfortable level. As a critical listener you should do the same for each individual track.

hueseph
I chose 2 specifically because the louder tracks lost the feel of the original track. If you write a crescendo into a song, how would you feel if it was completely crushed out of the mix in the press? Also, turning up the mix brings back what you think might have been missed as opposed to the louder mixes. This is what the loudness button was for on your stereo. The eq curve changes with amplitude. That is why level matching is essential.

Same here, and for exact same reasons