What is the least compressed signal?

you betcha ddjr  --listen to what you  want to.   As far as radio goes...  need all the ducks in a row for best quality sound that is possible within constraints and that is a difficult and rare dynamic to set up these days considering the state of FM.   Firstly..  a   60's or 70's  high performing tuner---there's  plenty to choose from  (discrete components)  of at least 5 gangs   that has been restored and it is receiving an analog signal via a rooftop rotatable antenna (FM only antenna).  Now the next not so minor issue is living in an area that still has uncompressed analog signal broadcasting.      Not to mention what kind of music is being played and is the station non commercial-- (my preference--some college stations or other )    Being I was in the bay are for the last 40 yrs I listened to a lot of FM and the quality generally reasonably good  and at times causing a double take on my part at the dynamics and resolution.  So,  it is possible but for most not particularly doable to the extent one may prefer for any  number of reasons.     The tuner plays a significant  part in all this.   Although the antenna of course is as significant .  Cant expect to begin to get quality sound without having a really good tuner nor the rooftop antenna to get best quality signal.   Thats what signal and multipath  meters are for.    At any rate,, I moved out of the bay area a year ago  and now listening via internet to my favorite stations.    Of course CD and vinyl play a part as well.   Miss  tuning in via analog.   Actually just set up a tuner here with just a dipole antenna and surprised at quality of sound for local station in Chico, CA .     

geoffkait:
">>>>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."


Hello geoffkait,

     I completely agree with you that compression of dynamics for the sake of increasing average volume level is to be avoided, I want my music dynamic, too.
     However, the compression mentioned in my description of Lossless audio files, such as FLAC files, refers to the codec's ability to compress the size of the file and then decompress it upon playback with zero loss of information, including dynamics.  My understanding is it's the same quality as WAV files without the very large file size.

Thanks,
 Tim 

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.

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. 

Thank you, Tim! 

    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

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?

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.

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. 🤗

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.  

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).

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

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.

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.

     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  

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=

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?

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.

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? ☕️

    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

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. 

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

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.

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?

n80
I’m done with Audiogon.

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

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.

I'm done with Audiogon.

     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

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. 🤡

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

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

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