What is the least compressed signal?

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.

RtR  master before mixdown 15ips .  

As I mentioned before, you have to do the research because there are plenty of recordings that have the same level of over-compression whether it is the CD, LP or hi-res file.

I also don't know why an engineer would think it was necessary to over-compress a medium because it might be played in the car. I get that the ambient noise in cars makes a broad DR less important but a CD with a broad DR would not detract from listening in the car in any way. The point being, there is no benefit to the compression. And if the listener simply wants more volume.....well, there is a knob for that.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not disputing that this is why an engineer would do it, I'm just saying it makes no sense.

Likewise, the initial premise for compressed DR was that the song would be louder and therefore grab the listener's attention (or whatever) when listening on the radio or MP3. But this reason is pointless as well. The vast majority of MP3 listeners have some version of 'sound check' on by default which equalizes volume across different songs. Radio stations do the same thing.

My point in rehashing this is that DR compression HUGELY detracts from a recordings SQ and yet has absolutely no value, that I can find, and yet they keep doing it, presumably with intent since it requires the engineer to do something. It isn't an accident.

I would simply love to know why? Even engineers/producers who should know better are doing it. Why?