An observation: when you analyze the CD offerings on eBay especially, the highly collectible and or desirable ones, what you will find is that the highly compressed versions sell for considerably less than the uncompressed versions which usually but not always are the original versions. The trend is not your friend. The same thing is true for vinyl. Everybody wants their music dynamic, not wimpy.
What is the least compressed signal?
Hello everyone.I was wondering what everyone's thoughts might be about what is the least compressed front end signal? A friend of mine recently told me that radio signal is compressed. So I thought maybe a direct connection to a CD player? Or, since CDs are pretty compressed, maybe a record player? Thoughts?
the reason I ask is, my friend recently gave me a fantastic pair of speakers. And I've been listening to the radio through them. He had a disgusted look on his face and told me I was not using these speakers how they were meant to be used, because the radio signal is kind of crappy and compressed. I would love to use the speakers as they were intended. Meadowlark kestrel hot rods hooked up to an Integra receiver w/ kimbers
the reason I ask is, my friend recently gave me a fantastic pair of speakers. And I've been listening to the radio through them. He had a disgusted look on his face and told me I was not using these speakers how they were meant to be used, because the radio signal is kind of crappy and compressed. I would love to use the speakers as they were intended. Meadowlark kestrel hot rods hooked up to an Integra receiver w/ kimbers
Showing 27 responses by geoffkait
noble100 Lossless methods can provide high degrees of digital compression, but there is no loss in size or sound quality. >>>>No loss in sound quality except for the compression, I.e., loss of dynamic range. And just to clarify a common misconception, aggressive compression does not (rpt not) provide benefits to resolution or any other audio characteristic, with the exception of loudness, which you could have obtained by turning up the loudness knob. |
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. |
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. 🕯 |
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= |
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? ☕️ |
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? |
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 |
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 |
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. 🤡 |
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. |
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.” |
I suspect the previous post makes some critical errors in logic. First off the bat, attenuation is not the same thing as dynamic range compression. Attenuation actually preserves the dynamic range, just as increasing the gain preserves the dynamic range. Dynamic range is a ratio of levels. Thus when you turn up the volume at home you’re not getting more dynamic range. Second, the Unofficial Dynamic Range Database is valuable because it works, and is a reasonably accurate reflection of *comparative dynamic ranges* of a great many recordings and formats. It’s a tool, a quick reference. The reason the database works is because you can hear just how shitty an overly compressed CD or LP sounds. And you can also hear how good a relatively uncompressed recording sounds, too. So, the database by and large correlates to reality. It’s demonstrably Correct. That’s the value of the database - it allows you to dodge the bullets flying around out there. If someone believes aggressive dynamic range compression yields greater resolution or anything else positive good luck with that. Lastly, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that vinyl has excellent dynamic range compared to digital, no matter how you slice it, but especially during the past 20 years, when CDs suffered increasingly severe compression. That’s kind of the whole point. Just...look 👀 ...at...the ...dynamic ...range ...data ...base. Hel-loo! |
erik_squires As has been noted before, early CDs were severely compressed compared to their vinyl counterparts, so the mastering and the tech both impose the limits we hear. >>>Actually that’s not true, whoever said it. In the early days the dynamic range of LPs and CDs was about the same for the same album. It’s the later CDs that got severely compressed. Hel-loo! That’s the whole point! The link to the Stones’ Sticky Fingers I provided earlier today illustrates those points. It also depends on the artist as some artists’ albums never or rarely get overly compressed. |
Getting back to the real world for a second... Exhibit A - Rolling Stones, Sticky Fingers http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=Rolling+stones&album=Sticky+fingers Other recordings may show different results. This is one data point so to speak. What this data for Sticky Fingers shows is, 1. The CDs with excellent dynamic range from 1986 were released prior to the beginning of the loudness wars. 2. The early vinyl and CD releases have virtually THE SAME dynamic range. 3. CDs became progressively more compressed as time went on. 🏋🏻♂️ 4. Vinyl reissues have greater dynamic range than CD reissues. In fact the recent vinyl release has THE SAME dynamic range as the first 1971 release. 🤗 5. Recent CD reissues have abysmal ALL RED 🥵 dynamic range. We call that flatlined. 6. Recent vinyl dynamic range is far superior to that of recent CDs. |
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! |
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. |
My understanding is that Redbook CD is actually limited in dynamic range, compared to live sound. Let’s say Redbook CD can provide up to 90 dB of dynamic range theoretically (and 90 dB of Signal to Noise Ratio). However, the actual dynamic range of CD is also limited by the dynamic range of the recording device, which in the case of tape is probably less than 90 dB. So right away Redbook CD is limited in dynamic range since live performance dynamic range is much higher than 90 dB. If 90 dB dynamic range couid actually be achieved in a given room that would be great! I would say mission accomplished!! But I would not be surprised at all if CDs that are not overly compressed achieve no more than 75 or 80 dB in an arbitrary room. There are other factors that further limit dynamic range, including but not limited to room anomalies, CD player problems, noise in the system. |
If the engineer compresses the data what do you think appears on the CD? Three guesses. The first two don’t count. There is no evidence of ANY advantage to overly aggressive dynamic range compression other than being able to make the CD louder. There is no correlation between dynamic range and resolution. Dynamic range is simply a ratio. There is no resolution function or ambience function in dynamic range. That’s probably what the recording industry would have you believe. That’s what the whole debate is about. That’s why they call it the Loudness Wars. If there are no dynamics it’s not music. Digital is the new wimpy. |
When I use the word compressed I’m referring to the overly aggressive dynamic range compression that’s become common in the industry for all formats but especially CD. The Unofficial Dynamic Range Database shows this clearly in colors so anyone can understand. For you young uns out there - If the 3 colors (low, high, avg dynamic range) shown in the data base are ALL RED it means the CD has been way, way compressed. Look for the ones that are ALL GREEN. Those are the good ones, kiddies. http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=Rolling+stones&album=Sticky+fingers |