What is the least compressed signal?

Sorry to be disagreeable the data on the CD is compressed. That’s why they sound compressed. That’s what compression means, that it’s dynamic range is compressed, squeezed down, suffocated, strangled, flatlined.

Sorry to be disagreeable the data on the CD is compressed.

You aren't disagreeable, just generally wrong.


There is no data compression on the audio data for Redbook CDs. HDCD is, of course, an exception.


Dynamic range compression and level shifting is up to the engineer who makes the master. This varies a great deal depending on genre and era.  In addition, plenty of evidence of reduced L to R separation and significantly different EQ being used, not just from medium to medium but even from release to release on the same medium.


Also, while I dislike the loudness wars, the opposite, excessive dynamic range is also a bad thing. Like watching a movie when you have to turn up the volume to hear the dialogue, but then the action scenes are deafening.


Some compression is probably a good thing, and brings out more details and more room ambiance than otherwise, so treating any medium as absolutely more or less compressed ignores all of the complexities that occur when it lands on your stereo.

If the engineer compresses the data what do you think appears on the CD? Three guesses. The first two don’t count. There is no evidence of ANY advantage to overly aggressive dynamic range compression other than being able to make the CD louder. There is no correlation between dynamic range and resolution. Dynamic range is simply a ratio. There is no resolution function or ambience function in dynamic range. That’s probably what the recording industry would have you believe. That’s what the whole debate is about. That’s why they call it the Loudness Wars. If there are no dynamics it’s not music. Digital is the new wimpy.

I assumed when you guys say LP you are referring to Long play vinyl records? Which is good to hear, if I am right, because I have an excellent record collection😄

@erik_squires : "Some compression is probably a good thing, and brings out more details and more room ambiance than otherwise, so treating any medium as absolutely more or less compressed ignores all of the complexities that occur when it lands on your stereo."

Of course, but I don’t think anyone here is saying that all DR compression is bad. It has a role in making a good recording, especially with classical music which, during the course of a symphony, for example, can have a huge dynamic range which if uncompressed would lead to the need for constant volume adjustment by the listener. But even that is a compromise.

But that’s not what any of us are talking about. We’re talking about the trend in recording to utterly compress the dynamic range simply to make the recording louder. For instance, on the scale used by DR database, a really excellent recording will have a DR in the 12-16 range. Many, many current recordings by exceptional artists have a DR of 3-4.

As Geoff said, there is nothing good about that. But even artists who are involved in the recording production are letting this happen. Some of Knopfler’s CDs are marginal. Likewise, I see artists like JD McPherson go to the trouble of recording at night in RCA Studio B in Nashville, which is a historic all analog/tube studio that is a museum during the day just to get the right sound.....and still allow their music to be dynamic range compressed at the end. His stuff isn’t terrible but the point is that some idiot engineer has to make an effort to do it. In other words, it isn’t an accident, it is not a product of sloppy production, it is not a necessary compromise. It is an intentional step in the process.

And there seems to be no apparent reason for it.

Boggles the mind.

@ddjr: Yes, we are referring to vinyl. But modern vinyl is not immune. A great deal of new vinyl is made from a digital and often DR compressed source. In my little bit of research it seems that vinyl generally fares better than CDs, but not by much and not always,