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
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!” 🤗


Pretty sure I debunked that website and explained why their results aren't worth anything, but I'll explain again if I wasn't clear.

That website is merely a database of user submitted results using any number of methods to gain a measurement. It's been proven that the most popular tools used to measure the dynamic range of vinyl produce false results. Results from other media may be suspect as well. There's no scientific controls being applied there, and the results are, at best, as dubious as the demonstrably flawed methods used to formulate them. 
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

What mechanism exactly "weeds out" systemic flaws in an unscientific compilation of measurements? There are no standards or controls being applied at all. 

And what kind of quantitative assertion is "From my experience the data in the database jives with listening."? The earth looks flat when you walk outside, too, doesn't it? Ultraviolet will burn your skin even though you can't see it or feel it. Or maybe more analogous, does doing 150mph on a motorcycle feel faster than 500mph in a jet? Human senses are lousy tools for making quantitative measurements. 

You asked for proof so here's your proof. 


Debunked. The DRD isn't science or proof of anything other than what bad measurements and uncontrolled analysis produce. 
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?