In reply to Frankm1: The term "compression" in audiophile circles is usually used to mean a reduction in dynamic range. That is, differences between loud and soft passages in source materials are reduced or "compressed" so that musical information of different sorts is presented at more or less the same volume level. That is not necessarily bad. This, for instance, compression is often useful for listening to music through car radios. Soft passages, that might be lost or obscured because of road and engine noise, can be heard, and loud passages on source materials are not startling or distracting. Further, music heard at relatively low volume settings seems richer, because much of the information is not lost although its loudness ratios have been altered. Audiophiles, however, often dislike compression when seriously listening to music at home on high-end equipment. Compression re-arranges what is recorded on the source material, and reduction in dynamic range inevitably makes the music sound less lifelike. Unfortunately, however, managers of FM stations tend to see their audiences as consisting of people who listen to car radios and to relatively unsophisticated home radios; audiophiles are considered a minority (if they are considered at all). Furthermore, from the audiophile's perspective, FM broadcasts are already tainted in that federal regulations require truncated signals, where treble and bass are cut off (I forget what the cutoff points are: perhaps someone might supply them here).
Despite these handicaps, I and many others enjoy listening to FM radio on our home systems. All high fi involves compromises of one sort or another, and we would drive ourselves insane if we insisted on perfection at every turn. Thus, for instance, while LPs have certain advantages over CDs (most notably in facilitating longer decays of notes and better hall ambience), CDs have superior dynamics. Compared to CDs, LPs can be said to be compressed (compressed as an artifact of the nature of the medium rather than as a result of human intention). But, as many Audiogoners will attest, listening to LPs can be a wonderful experience. For that matter, I greatly enjoy my car radio, even though it is standard equipment on my car and not up to the calibre of some car stereos. The best way to proceed, I think, is to take pleasure where we can find it, even though we know that sonics are better elsewhere.
Frankm1 lives some sixty miles from Boston and asks what stations I listen to. Since I prefer classical music on FM, I listen mostly to WCRB (99.5), WGBH (89.7),and WHRB (95.3). WCRB sometimes strikes me as compressing a bit on symphonic presentations. That is, the dynamic range seems smaller than what I get when listening to CDs. WHRB, Harvard University's station, doesn't seem to compress or to compress as much, though expected compression occurs through WHRB's great use of LPs. Harvard, moreover, plays pieces that are less frequently played on other stations, thus enhancing one's musical education. Often enough, however, the student announcers seem supercompressed in the articulation of their messages, and they not infrequently stumble in their reading.
I would like to address Elizabeth's post briefly. Your $15 bargain is, I think, really a bargain because you get pleasure out of listening to it. But that, in my opinion, doesn't mean that one ought not to spend more than $15 on FM. I have several FM tuners. One, an HH Scott 350B, was made in the early 1960s. I enjoy listening to each of them. But they differ in quality. The one hooked up to my main system is clearly better than the others, and while I enjoy all of them, I enjoy that one even more because of its ability to present more of the musical information and to so more accurately (it is an Accuphase T-1000, connected through its digital out by a Stealth digital cable to a Reimyo DAC). It costs a lot more than $15, but I don't begrudge one cent of the expenditure.
