What is the least compressed signal?


Hello everyone.I was wondering what everyone's thoughts might be about what is the least compressed front end signal? A friend of mine recently told me that radio signal is compressed. So I thought maybe a direct connection to a CD player? Or, since CDs are pretty compressed, maybe a record player? Thoughts?
the reason I ask is, my friend recently gave me a fantastic pair of speakers. And I've been listening to the radio through them. He had a disgusted look on his face and told me I was not using these speakers how they were meant to be used, because the radio signal is kind of crappy and compressed. I would love to use the speakers as they were intended. Meadowlark kestrel hot rods hooked up to an Integra receiver w/ kimbers
ddjr
geoffkait:
"That’s why they call it the Loudness Wars. If there are no dynamics it’s not music. Digital is the new wimpy."

Hello geoffkait,

     I agree that the Loudness Wars, via recording mixing decisions, have caused a significant compression of dynamics on many cds released.  But it's my understanding that Redbook cd is fully capable of capturing and playing back the actual large dynamics naturally existing in music heard played live.  In other words, it's a conscious mixing decision to compress dynamics on cds and not a limit of the Redbook cd format itself.

    Is this your understanding as well?

Thanks,
  Tim
My understanding is that Redbook CD is actually limited in dynamic range, compared to live sound. Let’s say Redbook CD can provide up to 90 dB of dynamic range theoretically (and 90 dB of Signal to Noise Ratio). However, the actual dynamic range of CD is also limited by the dynamic range of the recording device, which in the case of tape is probably less than 90 dB. So right away Redbook CD is limited in dynamic range since live performance dynamic range is much higher than 90 dB.

If 90 dB dynamic range couid actually be achieved in a given room that would be great! I would say mission accomplished!! But I would not be surprised at all if CDs that are not overly compressed achieve no more than 75 or 80 dB in an arbitrary room. There are other factors that further limit dynamic range, including but not limited to room anomalies, CD player problems, noise in the system.
geoffkait,

     Everything you stated about Redbook cd makes sense to me but, if you don't mind, I'd like to know if you or any other tread readers have experienced direct to digital recordings of live music converted to,and played back as, 24 Bit/96KHz or higher FLAC or WAV computer audio files.
     I use a laptop running JRiver Media Center software, a NAS and an Oppo BDP-105 for the storage and playback of music files.  The NAS contains mainly 16 Bit/44.1 KHz FLAC files of ripped cds but also several 
 24 Bit/96 KHz FLAC files downloaded from Sound Liaison in Europe.
https://www.soundliaison.com/index.php/about-us
      These downloads are mainly recordings of lesser known small acoustic jazz and rock groups playing live at a high quality studio in Europe and recorded in real time direct to hi-res digital. These analog to digital recordings undergo minimal to no post recording mixing processes and represent the actual digital master.  Purchased downloads in the customer's preferred digital format are, therefore, literal exact copies of the original studio master.
     I've purchased and downloaded several Jennifer Gomes albums from this site that I enjoy and recommend, best described as a small jazz group doing covers of rock songs such as Springsteen's I'm on Fire and Otis Redding's Dock of the Bay.  
     My experience of the sound quality of these 24/96 downloads is that I clearly perceive them as superior when compared to Redbook cd; with a much lower background noise level (much higher signal/noise ratio), increased detail level, a consistently more solid and stable 3D soundstage illusion and definitely a lack of compressed dynamics that greatly increases the sense I'm listening to live music and not a recording.
     The main point I want to convey is that I believe the key factor I've identified in whether I perceive 24/96 recordings as superior to Redbook cds is how the recording was made.  I completely fail to discern any sound quality improvements in the unfortunately common practice of simply transferring the more popular Redbook cd albums from 16 Bit/44.1 KHz resolution to the higher resolution 24 Bit/96 KHz digital file format.  
     It is impossible to improve the sound quality of a Redbook cd by transferring it to a higher resolution format.  It appears that HD Tracks is one of the major offenders in intentionally exploiting this misunderstanding for their own financial gain.  They advertise their hi-res downloads of popular albums as being superior to Redbook cd versions, completely understanding they are just transfers with no sonic improvements and then charge you twice the cost of the original cd for a download nevertheless.  
     Not only is this an HD Tracks scam, it's also discouraging the use of higher resolution formats since HD Tracks customers rightly claim they discern no sound quality gains compared to their same album in Redbook cd format.  The only way they possibly would is if the original group rerecorded the same album utilizing a direct to digital recording method in a higher resolution digital format.


Tim
CDs as a rule are not compressed at all. They present the full Red book audio signal in non comprsssed format.
This statement is false. CDs have the expectation of being played in a car and so dynamic range is compressed. In most cases... Its an industry thing, not a technology thing.
When we master an LP at our facility, we request the master file or tape from the producer, not the one used for CD release. This is to avoid the compression that is usually on the digital release. Because LPs are not expected to be played in a car, they tend to have less compression unless the record label is being cheap about it.