What is the least compressed signal?

Kosst - If you think the data is false and that it’s been proven false, prove it! Talk is cheap.

From my experience the data in the database jives with listening. The method of assigning relatively low values to dynamic range values would probably account for any small errors in dynamic range calculations. The database is only supposed to be a general guide, it’s not supposed to send a man to the moon. And if multiple dynamic range numbers are submitted for the same recording the average values can be put into the data base. The numbers can also be refined over time.

There are presently more than 133, 000 recordings in the database. If there are errors the system should eventually weed them out. In any case, your speculations about dynamic range of digital and vinyl certainly appear to be demonstrably false.

“You can’t debunk what’s not bunk.” - audiophile axiom

Obviously, if the range of values that represent dynamic range in the database are 1-20, whereas real dynamic range values are from 1 to 130 dB or higher, then the database contains approximate values. That’s what I meant when I said there is some room for error. Follow? I expect not. The database shows trends. That’s it’s value to those who don’t tolerate overly compressed sound. And the trend is not your friend. Besides, you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to know that CDs have been progressively and aggressively compressed for many years. Have you been living in a cave?

Hmmmm, after spending a year listening to these two guys argue on like a daily basis, I just have to wonder if kosst's life is ruled by number / measurements that he sees on devices, lists, documents, etc. 

    Did you ever contemplate the notion that kosst somehow just might benefit by having his life ruled by numbers?

For example, I know kosst's wife numbers all his underpants with the number "1" and all his pants with the number "2" due to some embarrassing episodes he experienced at work.


Food for thought,
       Tim