What is the least compressed signal?

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?

kosst_amojan
Who exactly is mixing and mastering for CD today???? Pretty much nobody. It’s widely expected that a release will be distributed on lossless digital or something working to preserve that standard. Vinyl has lousy dynamic range.

>>>I realize this might make me look rather argumentative but if you examine the Unofficial Dynamic Range Database you should be struck by the plain fact, as plain as the nose on your face, that vinyl frequently has greater dynamic range than its digital brethren, sometimes shockingly so, whether it be CD, SACD, SHM-CD, hi res download or whatever. There are a great many reasons why digital doesn’t live up to its billing of 90 dB Dynamic Range, not the least of which is the concerted effort by the industry to appease teeny boppers by dramatically compressing CD Dynamic Range.

kosst_amojan wrote:

"Who exactly is mixing and mastering for CD today???? Pretty much nobody."

Actually it is closer to everybody than "pretty much nobody". I listen to a lot of new bands. I haven’t run into a single one that does not release an album on CD at the same time as the mp3, hi-res file or vinyl. And I’m not talking about a few CDs in a briefcase on a street corner. I’m talking about Amazon. And the engineering on each of those formats is often very different.

So I really don’t get your point. Yes, the CD format is a relic. Yes, it accounts for the smaller percentage of sales. But it accounts for enough sales that everyone is still producing them and releasing them.

And also said:

"It seems a lot of people here want to confuse the recording process with the technical abilities of a medium. They’re two totally different things."

The only reason there is confusion is that we are discussing, as you said, two different things.....well, three really....at the same time. 1) File compression. 2) DR range compression 3) Absolute DR capability of a medium. And that was pointed out way up the thread.

@geoffkait :"vinyl frequently has greater dynamic range than its digital brethren, sometimes shockingly so"

I have not noticed this ’frequently’. I have noticed it some. Rarely does the CD of any given recording have the best DR. Sometimes the vinyl does, sometimes the hi-res file does. I certainly have not seen enough of a pattern here to suggest one format is better than the other....and let’s be clear here....based on how it was engineered.

I do not think _any_ of the DR compression we are seeing on a regular basis these days has _anything_ to do with limitations of _any_ given medium. The DR, almost across the board on new music releases is so low that it is not even approaching the limitation of the medium. In other words, a dynamic range of 6 on CDs, vinyl and hi-res files is common, almost ubiquitous......and has nothing to do with the capability of any of those media.

I have no idea which medium is capable of providing the widest possible DR. But these days that is not even relevant since no one seems to be pressing that end of the envelope at all.

Wouldn't it be great if everyone's production quality was optimized for the medium! Then discussing the capabilities of the medium might be relevant.

n80
@geoffkait :"vinyl frequently has greater dynamic range than its digital brethren, sometimes shockingly so"

I have not noticed this ’frequently’. I have noticed it some. Rarely does the CD of any given recording have the best DR. Sometimes the vinyl does, sometimes the hi-res file does. I certainly have not seen enough of a pattern here to suggest one format is better than the other....and let’s be clear here....based on how it was engineered. 

>>>>>Go to the Unofficial Dynamic Range Database. All will be revealed. You type in the name of the artist and the recording (optional). Check it out. Vinyl rules!