What is the least compressed signal?

And furthermore, and this is going to sting a little bit, but when the engineer is very careful to preserve dynamic range on the CD the full dynamic range of that CD can never (rpt never) be realized in actual practice for the reasons I’ve been hounding people about. In fact the actual dynamic range of a well recorded CD with excellent dynamic range cannot be reproduced in the home on digital equipment. It’s not even close! Without even going into room acoustics and vibration isolation and rf, the primary culprits are the stray scattered laser light getting into the photodetector and the vibration, wobbling and fluttering of the disc itself. Both of those problems together I estimate to constrain and limit full dynamic range by at least 3 to 6 dB, probably even more. Just for those two problems. Not even counting all the other factors that contribute to compressing dynamic range in the room. And those losses from scattered light and disc vibration are not (rpt not) recoverable. No matter what you do, how good your equipment is, or what tweaks you employ, that 3-6 dB (at least) is gone forever. As Bob Dylan says at the end of all his songs, “good luck to everyone.”

n80
Are you sure quibbling is exactly the right word?


>>>>I was responding to erik_squires, who quipped he didn’t wish to quibble then proceeded to quibble.

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.

kosst_amojan

Bass is this giant, power sucking waveform that would send the needle sailing off the surface and crashing into the record were it physically represented in accurate proportion to the treble. And the treble is cranked WAY up just so the needle can pick it up ... the massive pre-amp connected to the needle that undoes an insane amount of dynamic compression ...

That is a very colorful dramatization of the LP process but it doesn't really mean anything. There's nothing at all insane about the RIAA curve and if you disagree, then you'd have to acknowledge that it's a pretty simple, straightforward process when compared to something such as CD, which relies on things like block-based error correcting codes, filtering, complex servo mechanisms and the like.

The only conclusion I can come to given the facts is that people generally like a dynamic range limited to about 60 or 70 dB, which would explain why some like vinyl with it's limited range so much.

Actually, a 60 to 70 dB dynamic range is quite broad - much more so than you'll find on most CDs. That's the simple fact you're choosing to dismiss. It's rather moot that CD is capable of much greater dynamic range because it's rarely needed musically, and even more rarely actually utilized. If ever.

n80

kosst seems to be missing the point. As Geoff says, what the DR database data shows, correlates almost perfectly with the listening experience.

Exactly! And if kosst actually bothered to consider some of the data and listen for himself, he'd understand that. That doesn't mean that the database is perfect, but it's certainly useful.

What is dynamic compression if it's not equalizing all of the wave forms to have a uniform amplitude? That's EXACTLY what RIAA equalization is designed to undo.

Hi kosst,
Sorry but the RIAA curve does not alter dynamic range, nor does it attempt to reduce all wave forms to a uniform amplitude.

Look at it this way. If I turn the treble down on my amp, I have not altered the dynamic range, at all. The tweeter now just plays 4 dB softer than it did before, but the range, the delta between softest and loudest, remains up to the music. 

Best,

Erik

Without even going into room acoustics and vibration isolation and rf, the primary culprits are the stray scattered laser light getting into the photodetector and the vibration, wobbling and fluttering of the disc itself. Both of those problems together I estimate to constrain and limit full dynamic range by at least 3 to 6 dB, probably even more.

Hahahahhahaah

FTR: I did not quibble. I anti-quibbled.

If "compression" is defined as adjusting the amplitude of all waveforms so that their amplitudes are all as equal as possible across the spectrum,

Without RIAA, you'd loose 20-40dB of dynamic range.

You have it backwards.


Best,
E

erik_squires

Geoffkait: Without even going into room acoustics and vibration isolation and rf, the primary culprits are the stray scattered laser light getting into the photodetector and the vibration, wobbling and fluttering of the disc itself. Both of those problems together I estimate to constrain and limit full dynamic range by at least 3 to 6 dB, probably even more.

Hahahahhahaah

>>>>The Joker laughs at you. 🤡

     Everyone knows the lovable geoffkait can be quite the quibbler. He's even adept at quibbling about whether or not he's been quibbling.  
     He was even named the 2018 Quintessential Quibbler by Quibbler's Quarterly magazine.
    Few people know geoffkait's hobby is duck quacking imitations in full duck costume.  He was officially cited at their last event for 'quibbling while quacking', which is an impressive and difficult feat to do well while wearing a duck bill, large webbed duck feet and still quibbling convincingly in a Donald Duck voice.  
    A fellow local quacker club member told me that, in the duck quacking gaggles geoffkait travels in, he's considered a quibbler's quibbler.

Tim

I'm done with Audiogon.

n80"I'm done with Audiogon"

Well that will relieve the moderators of this forum from having to remove you're vile, ignorant, prejudiced remarks but you'll be back because you are probably also being deleted on other forums that you use as you're personal platform to attack, criticize, and humiliate.

n80
I’m done with Audiogon.

>>>>>Whoa! You’re a poet and don’t know it.

So last night I listened to "audiophile uncompressed quality" music through my headphones, via my cellphone and YouTube. It didn’t sound any different than normal. Would that be because of the cellphone?

I suspect audiophile uncompressed quality could mean just about anything except MP3. And I actually would not rule out MP3. Most likely a bit of salesmanship in any case.

Here’s a page from the Dynamic Range Database that shows very clearly - at least for this example of Abbey Road - that the dynamic range of vinyl can be as high or even higher than lossless digital or hi bit rate digital. The issue is not black and white. 🦓 Even some SACDs and SHM-CDs and Hi Res downloads are being aggressively compressed. That’s the whole point. Read ‘em and weep! 😢

”Perfect Sound Forever!” 🤗

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=Beatles+&album=Abbey+road

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

Koost
It appears we’re now venturing into the wilderness of "Numbers don’t mean anything", the final refuge of those who’s numbers don’t reflect the magical understandings they’ve embraced. Like it or not, numbers always mean something.

>>>>Actually, we’re entering into the wilderness of ignoring what numbers mean. Know what I mean, jelly bean? You are completely ignoring the fact that numbers in the dynamic range database correlate 100% with what we already know about the Loudness Wars - that sagging sales numbers forced the industry to substitute loudness for dynamic range. It’s as obvious as the noise on your face. 🤥 Which wouldn’t be so bad except it hits audiophiles right where they live. Stones, Beatles, Zeppelin, Dylan, Radiohead. Compressed! Compressed! Compressed! Compressed! It’s not uncommon to see recent recordings flatlined - ALL RED 🌹on the database. Who wants to listen to CDs or LPs that have been suffocated by mastering engineers who are squeezing the life right out of the music? Wake up and smell the coffee? ☕️

geoffkait

... 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 ... The database shows trends.

That sums it up rather nicely. For anyone who has compared some of the database numbers with their own listening, it’s pretty clear that it’s a useful resource. Data needn’t be perfect to be useful, particularly in this kind of example. We’re not using the numbers to calculate a moonshot - the data are just a guide to DR.

Objections to the quality of the data are silly, imo. Of course, kosst is free to discount or ignore the information. But to criticize its value by attacking the methodology is sort of like measuring something with a micrometer, marking it with a grease pencil and then cutting it with a chainsaw. Extreme precision isn't always necessary, or even desired.

Okay then... How about this? a few years ago, my cousin recorded everything The Beatles had ever put out onto CD for me. He recorded it onto CD from a record player. What's says you?

You can not (rpt not) get better dynamic range than the source. If the source is Beatles LPs it’s whatever the LPs are, which varies. Here’s the The Beatles recordings, LPs and CDs, from the dynamic range database. Starts off with p. 1 of 3.

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=The+Beatles&album=

You know, people, just because the industry declared CDs “perfect sound forever” doesn’t mean they really are. And just because CDs have been marketed as having Dynamic Range and Signal to Noise Ratio SNR of 90 dB doesn’t really mean they do. It’s called puffing. You’re not supposed to fall for it hook, line and sinker. 🐠🐡🐟 Maybe this is simply a case of gullibility masquerading as science, who knows? If you don’t think CDs by and large sound compressed perhaps there’s a good ear candling in your future. 🕯

     I agree, if readers here can't even agree that CDs generally have compressed dynamics mainly due to the Loudness Wars, and conscious decisions made by the recording engineers to compromise good dynamics for higher volume, then we either all go in for a group ear exam or we concede the obvious.
     CD as a format is still capable of recording and playing back musical content in high fidelity and with very good dynamics.  However, a sustained pattern of self-inflicted extremely poor executive decisions likely have damaged the general perception of the quality of CDs to such a degree that the whole format may just fade away due to disuse.  I know I've already moved on to 24bit/96KHz direct to digital recorded files that haven't been screwed up..... yet.


Tim  

noble100

... if readers here can't even agree that CDs generally have compressed dynamics mainly due to the Loudness Wars, and conscious decisions made by the recording engineers to compromise good dynamics for higher volume, then we either all go in for a group ear exam or we concede the obvious ...

That won't be necessary - there's only one person here who insists:

CDs do have better dynamic range and that's just a fact.

I'm not sure why he's so confused and refuses to look at the extensive evidence to the contrary. But that's no cause for alarm.

CD as a format is still capable of recording and playing back musical content in high fidelity and with very good dynamics.

Agreed! That's why the present state of affairs with CD is kinda sad. It just isn't necessary. Hence, LP and hi-res seem to flourish.

Looks like this calls for a team of experienced deprogrammers. Out Satan, out!! All you youngins out there, this is an excellent example of the Backfire Effect - no matter how much evidence is presented that contradicts closely held beliefs, the person clings to those beliefs even harder than before. There’s nothing that can be done. Well, short of an intervention or exorcism. Maybe there’s a Recovery Centers of America nearby.

kosst_amojan

What extensive evidence? The evidence you and Geoff keep citing I debunked? That miserably flawed, unscientific evidence ...

Kosst, I’d ask why you are so angry and argumentative, but you’ve already answered the question. I feel badly for you and wish you peace.

kosst_amojan06-14-2019 4:05am

Kosst doesn’t have a wife. Kosst went through two. One went to prison for attempted murder. The other died a year and half ago of a heroin overdose. Kosst is a single dad of a 15 year old daughter and wouldn’t get married again

gawd, that explains so much, lol.  and I have to further wonder if kosst = geoffkait and he's just been messing with all of us for the last two years,   especially with geoffkait's 15 thousand post count (this is a thought that I've had for the last few months).

This is why vinyl does not make sense to me.  Too many variables.  How much detail can you really get from a stylus making contact with a groove.   Bet you CD’s contain so much more information.  Information equals detail.  Now factor in the noise with vinyl.  

costco_emoji, I will not be totally happy unless milk squirts out of your friend’s nose. I assume your friend is also a high school drop out. You should have listened to your mommy when she told you to finish school. 🤗

kosst_amojan06-14-2019 4:05am

Kosst doesn’t have a wife. Kosst went through two. One went to prison for attempted murder. The other died a year and half ago of a heroin overdose. Kosst is a single dad of a 15 year old daughter and wouldn’t get married again

Is that what Americans call "Trailer Trash"? It sounds like it and it is hard to fund audio purchases if you're on Public Assistance.

Enough! No need to insult anyone. I'm just asking opinions about audio, not looking for anyone's disdain for anyone else. Let's get back on track...
      So to get a hi quality audio source, you need to purchase a high quality source, be it vinyl, CD, or mp3. Correct?

    ddjr,

    MP3 is considered a Lossy audio codec.  This is a compression technique that does not decompress audio files to their original data amount. Lossy methods provide high degrees of digital compression, which results in smaller files but also results in some sound waves being  removed. This negatively affects the quality of sound in an audio file. 
     For high quality audio the preferred codecs are:   

1. Lossless audio: This is a compression technique that decompresses audio files back to their original data amount. Lossless methods can provide high degrees of digital compression, but there is no loss in size or sound quality.  Lossless compression music formats include FLAC, ALAC and WMA Lossless.

2. Uncompressed audio: This is an audio file that has no compression applied to it. The sound in uncompressed audio files remains the same as when it was recorded but are larger files than FLAC, ALAC and WMA Lossless.. Examples include PCM, AIFF and WAV formats.

Tim