What is the least compressed signal?

But don't get confused here. There are two types of compression being discussed. Both are important.

One type is file compression. It can be lossless or lossy. When it is lossy some of the 1s and 0s are left out. 

Dynamic range is another form of compression where the dynamic range is compressed. There are good links about that above. It is a plague with no purpose and no seeming cure. And the problem is that you don't know on which recordings it is worse. You can certainly hear it. But if you want to avoid it and know what you are buying then go to the DR database linked to above.

There are those (who know far more about audio than I do) who say you can tune your system to compensate for DR compression. But that sounds like putting lipstick on a pig if you ask me. When dynamic range isn't there........it isn't there and nothing you can do can get it back.

" CDs as a rule are not compressed at all. They present the full Red book audio signal in non comprsssed format.
I am sure I added a lot of confusion, sorry about that . . ."

That is correct but it is confusing. The data on the CD is not compressed as such but many if not most CDs in the last 10 years or so are woefully compressed in terms of dynamic range.

Geoff is correct, the site he linked to is very helpful in terms of buying music and as mentioned the DR can vary widely between CD, LP and downloadable files of the same music released at the same time.

For a new audiophile one of the things that can tip you off in terms of dynamic range compression is the volume.

Put in Mark Knopfler's well produced Tracker CD. Set the volume at a moderate comfortable level. Listen to it. Then, pop it out and put in Alabama Shakes Boys and Girls CD. Do not change the volume....but hold your ears....the Alabama Shakes CD is horribly compressed and will be much louder. And even at a lower volume on your system it will make your ears tired. Subtlety is lost. And even a well written, well played album like Boys and Girls is ruined by terrible production.

And yes, as @wolf_garcia  said, judicious use of compression is a necessity and nothing new in the recording world. Done properly it enhances the music. Done with a club and a hammer it ruins the music.

@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,

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 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.

Perhaps.

Exactly. Its just that simple.

I’ve been using the dr-loudness wars database. Is the one you are referring to more accurate or more extensive?

Edit: Never mind. They are one and the same. I am quite familiar with it. Use it to research nearly all my music purchases.

I looked through quite a few albums well known for their quality of production and find that sometimes the vinyl has better DR but especially for stuff done back in the 1980s the CD and the vinyl match up pretty closely. If there is an edge to vinyl it is often very small. In some cases the CD tests better but that is rare.

That’s just looking at the highest quality CDs and vinyl. Especially among CDs there is huge variation. Most CDs that are "remastered" are made considerably worse.

Again, I think we're all talking at cross purposes:

1) Each medium has its own inherent DR limitations. This isn't really much of an issue unless you're really seeking out the limits of SQ. Most of the easily available info on the internet suggests that CDs have a wider DR than vinyl and this was a huge issue for classical music fans and one of the reasons they adopted the CD quickly and abandoned vinyl. My uncle was an audiophile and classical music aficionado. I remember a full wall in his French Quarter home nothing but vinyl when I was a kid. McIntosh components and HUGE Klipsch speakers too.

When I visited him a number of years later all of the vinyl was gone, completely replaced with CDs and there was the CD player, probably the first I ever saw.

I think sever DR compression is found more on CDs than other media simply because of timing. The loudness wars began when CDs were still the primary music media and the renaissance of vinyl was still early or even a ways off.

That anecdote aside, I have no idea which medium has the better DR and don't really care, because:

2) The bigger issue is intentional and extreme DR compression. It crosses all media and if you want to avoid it you have to do the research. There are no guarantees. And sadly, with many if not most new artists it is simply unavoidable whether CD, digital file or vinyl.

Are you sure quibbling is exactly the right word?

Agree with Geoff on the top two paragraphs. kosst seems to be missing the point. As Geoff says, what the DR database data shows, correlates almost perfectly with the listening experience. It is eminently useful in that practical application regardless of technical minutia. And for the end listener that makes it the most valuable and accurate tool available to assess DR compression prior to purchase.

As for Geoff's last paragraph, it seems "quibbling" remains necessary. The severe and even moderate dynamic range compression on so many CDs is due to a dubious practice, not a limitation of the medium itself.

I'm done with Audiogon.