SACD vs. CD - Unfair competition?

[maxg]

Everyone seems to regard compression as the ultimate evil these days. Not me. I listen to classical CD's in the car a lot - this is very problematic. If they have not compressed the sound sufficiently I spend the entire journey turning the volume up to hear the quiet passages and down to save my ears in the louder passages. (Try it yourself - get a Deutche Grammaphon Dvorak 9th - Karajan. Play from the beginning - for me it is 30 seconds of silence followed by a loan french horn and then on audible music - or 30 seconds of delicacy, a bearable horn and then a ceresendo of kettle drums at around 1 minute in that could blow my eardrums inside out).

Now I am prepared to accept a lesser compression for home use - but nothing like the ranges you guys are talking about. 96 dB range - are you all insane?? My noise floor in my living room is, I guess, something around 35-40 dB (my meter goes down to 50 only - it is below that). when listening, at night, wife and baby asleep, I want something that goes from said level upto around 80 dB MAXIMUM!! - say a 40 dB range. Greater than that and I will never be able to listen to music again. Come to that - 96 db range over a week and I may never be able to listen to anything ever again - except through a hearing aid.

[kexodusc]

Wholy $hit WmAX, I'm some glad you're not my accountant
Man, I just buy CD's and listen to them, I've never actually e-mailed a company.

I should e-mail Pink Floyd, and the Rolling Stones and ask them what the bloody hell THEY are doing compromising their music these days!!!

Excellent post!!!

[N. Abstentia]

It's redbook CD..there have to be compromises. Deal with it, or buy an SACD player.

[WmAx]

It's redbook CD..there have to be compromises. Deal with it, or buy an SACD player.

Please elaborate. This is vague commentary. One can only speculate as to what you specifically mean based on this reply.

-Chris

[N. Abstentia]

Redbook CD does not have as much bandwidth available as SACD, therefore compromises must be made.

That's like getting dial up internet and complaining that it's slower and drops packets as compared to a 512k broadband pipeline. Of course it will, the technology is not as good.

[WmAx]

Redbook CD does not have as much bandwidth available as SACD, therefore compromises must be made.

I do not care to go into detail of this subject in this thread. However, I can not find any audibility research projects(that hold up under scrutiny) that support your assertion that a broader bandwith is needed for purposes of audibility. Your comment seemingly has little to do with the immediate subject of the thread. The main issue is allowance of the signals to clip and/or compressing them severely. These factors discussed in relation to the sample CD in the firt post, for example, were not limitations of the medium, but results of purposeful decisions when mastering the CD. The scope of these effects discussed in not an issue of sample rate(bandwidth), but of wordlength(number of bits). The CD at issue, for example, uses 41dB RMS(calculated not useing the first second or last second, due to the 'fade outs') in one of teh more 'demanding songs' of the 96dB(assuming proper dithering and low noise levels) range available on RBCD. For your reference, every 6dB in ampliltude equal twice the linear value realtive to the last reference. Therfore, 47dB is twice the level of 41dB, 53dB is twice the value of 47dB(53dB is 4x the value of 41dB), 59dB is twice the value of 47db(57dB is 8x the value of 41dB!), etc. etc. etc. The CD in question, for example, used but a tiny fraction of the available dynamic range available. Even if the dynamic range did exceed was is capable on RBCD(thought, this is not feasible, see my reply to Sir Terrence), then proper compression/limiting of the peak signals would have prevented the audibly harsh clipping. However, the file was not even properly compressed to operate in the level range it is operating within. Therfor, their is no valid reason as far as I am concerned, to allow the clipping distortion to exist.

-Chris

[kexodusc]

Yeah good point, not fair to compare purposely poisoned Redbook CD's, to carefully mastered SACD's.
IMO (no science) SACD's sound better, and the difference can be quite noticeable. Not sure how you'd prove that.
But that doesn't matter, higher bandwidth aside, multi-channel capability alone gives a clear and dominant advantage to SACD's over Redbook CD.

I agree with the frustration though. The switch to SACD should be market driven, not manufacturer imposed by purposely compromising competing products.
At the very least, there should be a "new" standard for CD's that exploits it's full potential, before everyone is forced to buy a new player.

[mtrycraft]

Redbook CD does not have as much bandwidth available as SACD, therefore compromises must be made.

That's like getting dial up internet and complaining that it's slower and drops packets as compared to a 512k broadband pipeline. Of course it will, the technology is not as good.

You must have misunderstood the original post. the issue is not that CD has insufficient dynamic range whereas SACD does not. The issue is that the CD recording is degraded below the CD specs, distorted, clipped on purpose, not because of the limits of CD.

[kingdaddykeith]

"You must have misunderstood the original post. the issue is not that CD has insufficient dynamic range whereas SACD does not. The issue is that the CD recording is degraded below the CD specs, distorted, clipped on purpose, not because of the limits of CD".

Wish I knew how to do quots..


That’s what I got out of it, and I agree to a cretin extent. Although I might be wrong, It has been my understanding that limiting has been going on from the vinyl days, even LP's were compressed because they were used as masters to cut cassette and 8-track tapes from, and they had playback range issues. Also just like recording you own cassette, you want to get as close to saturation as possible, if you don’t or you have a very dynamic source, then the recording level is so low that an unacceptable noise floor is introduced, and on mid-fi playback gear this is annoyingly noticeable. At least that’s my take on those two subjects.

Very interesting reply from Telarc though.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

This would make sense on the surface. Hoewver, it does not make sense, considering that the radio station has compressors/limiters that will make all music play at similar loudness regardless of what the original CD contained. This is according to Bob Katz and other sources I have read. It even seems that some program directors at radio stations may be ignorant as to what their own on-air compression/limiting hardware does to the music.

Chris, you are not correct in your assertions. Compressors and limiters in radio stations only deal with the maximum peaks in loudness. They don't make every CD the same loudness as you assert. Everyone who has every done any recording that is bound for radio stations know that there must be a compressed/limited radio mix, or your mixes are subject to the not so clean sounding brute force compressors or limiters the station utilizes. I personally have done a radio mix, television mix, and unlimited, uncompressed mixes because I didn't want my product(or my clients) subject to the equipment the station would use to limit the volume of my mixes. Any good engineer worth his salt would.

Chris the music industry right now is in the middle of a level war. Everyone is trying to make their product heard louder than the rest. This is an INDUSTRY WIDE problem that the community has basically discussed to death.

Check out this link on a recording forum I visit:

http://www.recording.org/postt18054.html

As you can see, this is what the clients want, and we deliver. Michael was not making his decision in a vaccum. The producer(even if that is himself) has to make decisions that extend beyond just mega-quality for audiophiles. Its a tough balance and tough decision.

disagree. Especially considering Telarc is supposedly a company that specializes in high quality recordings. Besides, I don't buy that the average consumer is quiete that stupid. You should read Bob Katz's take on compression, etc. on http://www.digido.com/

Telarc is not immune to competition just because the specialize in producing high quality recordings. What good is it if they don't sell. The decision to make whatever compromises one has to make are sometimes partially market driven. If Telarc only made recordings that past mustard with you, it would go out of business. Just like in any other business competition drives the music business. If one record company produces mixes that are louder than other record companies, the consumer will thing this record companies mixes are better. I don't consider that average consumer as stupid as much as I consider them uninformed. Remember, when DVD's first came out, there were no pan and scan movies on that format. Also most DVD's soundtracks Dolby Digital 5.1 was encoded at 384kbps as opposed to the now widely used 448kbps. As more and more non videophiles began purchasing DVD's and buying HTIB, and with the emergence of Dts on DVD, DD data rate went up, and pan and scan was introduced to DVD's. This is the way the market is. A great many more time than most will admit, marketing drives the format, and not quality.

Hmm. I agree completeley! But, the heavily compressed music is the plain white packages in my perspective. I am one that believes dynamics of teh music, voices, etc. are what lends a lot of emotional reaction to the audio.

I agree with you here. However the average consumer does NOT agree with us, or we would not be discussing this issue.

It's a result of their willingnes to admit their CDs are compromised on purpose. I'll gladly post letters from any othe company that is willing to admit the same. The purpose here is to possibly get more people to complain to the companies, perhaps help get this rediculous practice changed.

What's unfair, is that I am being forced to by a new format and player because of the ignorance of others ruining the sound quality. Not a fault of the medium, itself.

Do you REALLY think anyone is going to be as honest as Michael and admit they have been pushing levels at the sacrifice of quality? I don't think so. As long as marketing dominates, quality will suffer. This is the state of the music industry currently, whether we like it or not. The clients want it loud, if you want to stay in business you must meet the clents needs. That is what business is all about.

Chris, I think your analysis of the technical side of this equation is spot on, however your perspective on the broader picture in somewhat shortsighted and lacking in depth. To get a album sold requires the combination of talented artist+ good performance+good engineering+good marketing+the ability to play well on a wide range of equipement and environments=sales. To meet these goals compromise is necessary, less compromise is optimal.

[WmAx]

Chris, you are not correct in your assertions. Compressors and limiters in radio stations only deal with the maximum peaks in loudness. They don't make every CD the same loudness as you assert. Everyone who has every done any recording that is bound for radio stations know that there must be a compressed/limited radio mix, or your mixes are subject to the not so clean sounding brute force compressors or limiters the station utilizes.

It would appear that it is a misconception to believe that audio content to be distributed to the staton needs to be highly compressed. Perhaps a perpetuated myth of sorts.

Based on the following sources(i have read others, but these two are the most authoritive IMO), I can only conlude that a CD, for example, that has absolute levels pushed to the limits and features high comporession will be reduced by the station processors. A correctly recorded CD will be compressed, and reduced in dynamic range, and overall levels will remain the same as the 'pushed' audio disc when compared. It seems that authorities suggest that the highly compressed audio disc will actually suffer significant degradation since it wil be subjected to another stage of compression before it is transmitted.

Roy Orban(CEO/Cheif Engineer of Orban Electronics(designs and manufactures most of the equipment used to equalize teh levels for radio stations before it is transmitted) stated this in the manual of the Optimod FM 8400 Broadcast Audio Processor:

There is a myth in the record industry that applying 'radio-style' processing to CDs in mastering will cause them to be louder or will reduce the audible effects of on-air processing. In fact, the opposite is true: these CDs will not be louder on air, but they wil be audibly distorted and unpleasant to listen to, lacking punch and clarity. We hope that the record industry will come to it's senses when it hears the consequences of these practices on the air.

Bob Katz(a mastering engineer known for producing high quality works):

Program directors should realize that the sound on their office CD player has little to do with the disc's on-air quality. PD's may think the loudest record they hear is the best, but they forget that when it gets to the air, on-air processors will squash it (drop the volume) more than other records. Producers are afraid that the PD will reject their record if they have to turn up the volume. But by now, hot CDs have put the PD's volume control at the bottom of its travel, so where dowe go from here? Well, let's get the program directors to make decisions on the merits of the music, not on its loudness character. One way to solve that is to install a compressor in the PD's audition system, one that'll squash music as much as his radio station does.

I am open to reading information from other authorities, to possibly change my view of this matter. However, Roy Orban is pretty high up the food chain, considering he makes/designs most of this equipment. I don't automaticly believe anyone, but (1) I am not willing to investigate the equipment and standards in place and calculate the actual effects - i am just not THAT interested (2) It seems that Mr. Orban should be an accurate source of information considering his relation to this matter.

Check out this link on a recording forum I visit:

http://www.recording.org/postt18054.html

As you can see, this is what the clients want, and we deliver. Michael was not making his decision in a vaccum. The producer(even if that is himself) has to make decisions that extend beyond just mega-quality for audiophiles. Its a tough balance and tough decision

Thank you. This was a very interesting thread. I found reading the perspective of various professional to be enlightening.

I agree with you here. However the average consumer does NOT agree with us, or we would not be discussing this issue.

Chris, I think your analysis of the technical side of this equation is spot on, however your perspective on the broader picture in somewhat shortsighted and lacking in depth. To get a album sold requires the combination of talented artist+ good performance+good engineering+good marketing+the ability to play well on a wide range of equipement and environments=sales. To meet these goals compromise is necessary, less compromise is optimal.

I do admit that I am making a good deal of speculation on what I think is fair and unfair. I understand the business pressures, too. However, I was upset that a known audiophile company was found to be doing the same thing as the mainstream pop record companies. This thread is a way of venting, for me. :-)

-Chris

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

It would appear that it is a misconception to believe that audio content to be distributed to the staton needs to be highly compressed. Perhaps a perpetuated myth of sorts.

No, I don't think so. The quality of radio stations compressors/limiters all over the world varies. Most of them do not sound very good, and can really change the flavor(and timbre)of a mix. The harder these limiter/compressors have to work, the worse they sound. So the smart thing to do is to master the CD using GOOD compression/limiting so as to limit the need for limiting/compression at the radio station level. This way you know it what it will pretty much sound like when played over the air.

Based on the following sources(i have read others, but these two are the most authoritive IMO), I can only conlude that a CD, for example, that has absolute levels pushed to the limits and features high comporession will be reduced by the station processors.

If that were the case, then nobody would request that we push the levels. Also doing a mix especially for radio stations will require less use of the stations limiter/compressor. In the long run this makes the product sound better over the air.

A correctly recorded CD will be compressed, and reduced in dynamic range, and overall levels will remain the same as the 'pushed' audio disc when compared. It seems that authorities suggest that the highly compressed audio disc will actually suffer significant degradation since it wil be subjected to another stage of compression before it is transmitted.

A mix that is sent to the station uncompressed will be at the mercy of the stations compressor. As I have previously stated, the quality of these compressors/limiters are all over the map. It may sound fairly decent coming from one station, and like crap from another. If the product sounds like crap, then that equals to lost sales. No recording/mastering house/engineer can afford that to happen too many times.

Roy Orban(CEO/Cheif Engineer of Orban Electronics(designs and manufactures most of the equipment used to equalize teh levels for radio stations before it is transmitted) stated this in the manual of the Optimod FM 8400 Broadcast Audio Processor:

Bob Katz(a mastering engineer known for producing high quality works):

I am VERY familar with Bob Katz, he is very well respected within the industry. Roy Orban's word can only be taken where his products are concerned. There are many products on the market that do what his does. If a station has other products, then all bets are off with his word. One thing you find out pretty quickly in this industry is that everyone has an opinion, and everyone seems to have a rebuttal.

I am open to reading information from other authorities, to possibly change my view of this matter. However, Roy Orban is pretty high up the food chain, considering he makes/designs most of this equipment.

Orban electronix is just one company of many that makes good broadcasting equipment. I would not call myself a formost expert on radio broadcasting equipment.

I don't automaticly believe anyone, but (1) I am not willing to investigate the equipment and standards in place and calculate the actual effects - i am just not THAT interested (2) It seems that Mr. Orban should be an accurate source of information considering his relation to this matter.

I think his opinion is one of many I have heard. Since this is not my area of expertise, his word is just as good as any.

Thank you. This was a very interesting thread. I found reading the perspective of various professional to be enlightening.

No prob. I just wanted you to see how frustrated we engineers get when we have to make compromises to satisfy our clients. We have a tough balancing act between quality and customer satisfaction. I think that is often overlooked by quality conscious consumers like yourself.

I do admit that I am making a good deal of speculation on what I think is fair and unfair. I understand the business pressures, too. However, I was upset that a known audiophile company was found to be doing the same thing as the mainstream pop record companies. This thread is a way of venting, for me. :-)
-Chris

Chris, I really understand your frustration. Put yourself in my shoes, I work really hard to do a high quality mix, then have to make compromises due to the media source its going to, and to please my client. Most of the time the client is happy, but I am not.

[mtrycraft]

It's redbook CD..there have to be compromises. Deal with it, or buy an SACD player.

Red book allows for 96 dB dynamic range. Nothing to deal with but the recording practices.

[Dual-500]

Red book allows for 96 dB dynamic range. Nothing to deal with but the recording practices.

Bullseye!!!!

Let me add - "recording practices" = Engineering.

Poor engineering = poor sound

Good engineering = good sound.

I see compression discussed so many times as an "evil" or negative side effect to the recording process.

Far from the truth.

Compression can be a positive attribute in virtually every case. It's simply the APPLICATION of the process of compression that somethimes could have been better.

When dealing with recorded or LIVE sound, compression is used almost universally - not only to deal with shortcomings in the dynamic range of equipment but to add to the overall output.

Want to hear uncompressed and reinforced live sound? Go to a beer bar or low end club and watch a local garage band playing through a Peavy PA mixing head - when operated properly, fair to good results can be obtained and when operated incorrectly (overloaded) the results are horrible sounding.

Virtually any live reinforced musical "Event" will use a degree of compression somewhere in the overall mix - much the same as the boys in the studio. After all, a reinforcement sound system also has limitations and can be overloaded. Compression is what allows the vocals to cut through the music and not tear your head off.

Compression is a tool and should be considered as an integral part of sound engineering. Any discussion of "Compression" should be a sub part of the larger topic of "Engineering".

With ALL recorded sound and most live sound - what you hear is the as much a result of the engineer as the artist.

[lumiere]

http://www.soundstage.com/editrl/edit89.htm

[hifitommy]

good work. no waste of verbiage.

[mtrycraft]

http://www.soundstage.com/editrl/edit89.htm

You need a better source for audio facts than soundstage, a joker.

[mtrycraft]

Bullseye!!!!

Let me add - "recording practices" = Engineering.

Poor engineering = poor sound

Good engineering = good sound.

I see compression discussed so many times as an "evil" or negative side effect to the recording process.

Far from the truth.

Compression can be a positive attribute in virtually every case. It's simply the APPLICATION of the process of compression that somethimes could have been better.

When dealing with recorded or LIVE sound, compression is used almost universally - not only to deal with shortcomings in the dynamic range of equipment but to add to the overall output.

Want to hear uncompressed and reinforced live sound? Go to a beer bar or low end club and watch a local garage band playing through a Peavy PA mixing head - when operated properly, fair to good results can be obtained and when operated incorrectly (overloaded) the results are horrible sounding.

Virtually any live reinforced musical "Event" will use a degree of compression somewhere in the overall mix - much the same as the boys in the studio. After all, a reinforcement sound system also has limitations and can be overloaded. Compression is what allows the vocals to cut through the music and not tear your head off.

Compression is a tool and should be considered as an integral part of sound engineering. Any discussion of "Compression" should be a sub part of the larger topic of "Engineering".

With ALL recorded sound and most live sound - what you hear is the as much a result of the engineer as the artist.

Yet, some classical productions approach 70dB dynamic range on CD. I guess you just need a good recording engineer not producing for a radio station or the average joe.
But, that still doesn't settle the issue of hi res discs as it is not the medium that has a shortcoming.

[Dual-500]

Yet, some classical productions approach 70dB dynamic range on CD. I guess you just need a good recording engineer not producing for a radio station or the average joe.
But, that still doesn't settle the issue of hi res discs as it is not the medium that has a shortcoming.

That is true - my comments were on a side discussion regarding compression in general and it's place/use in the audio chain.

SACD is a more capable medium for audio. All things equal, having SACD offers the engineer more latitude both in terms of resolution and dynamics.

With SACD the engineer has a wider, richer, more dymanic palette to work with.

[WmAx]

Everyone seems to regard compression as the ultimate evil these days. Not me. I listen to classical CD's in the car a lot - this is very problematic. If they have not compressed the sound sufficiently I spend the entire journey turning the volume up to hear the quiet passages and down to save my ears in the louder passages.

I understand. However, their is no reason to ruin the CD. You can purchase automobile CD players that have built in compressors for just this purpose!

Here is one example:

http://www.crutchfield.com/S-dssxsdS...o&i=130DEHP760

Compression and BMX Functions: Using the "COMP" (compression) and "BMX" functions, you can adjust the playback quality of the CD player. Each function may be set to one of two levels or off. The "COMP" function compresses the audio signal to eliminate distortion caused by the imbalances between the loudest and softest sounds when played at high volumes

-Chris

[mtrycraft]

Everyone seems to regard compression as the ultimate evil these days. Not me. I listen to classical CD's in the car a lot - this is very problematic.

Yes, it is. Maybe that problem should be solved with the CD players designed for cars? Such as built in compression?

If they have not compressed the sound sufficiently I spend the entire journey turning the volume up to hear the quiet passages and down to save my ears in the louder passages.

And when you play that CD on ypour expensive system at home, or the audiophile does, what do you think will be the response? Wow, what a great recording?

[(Try it yourself - get a Deutche Grammaphon Dvorak 9th - Karajan. Play from the beginning - for me it is 30 seconds of silence followed by a loan french horn and then on audible music - or 30 seconds of delicacy, a bearable horn and then a ceresendo of kettle drums at around 1 minute in that could blow my eardrums inside out).

No need to try. I know the issue a car offers with a noise floor of about 65dB +/- you will miss a whole lot. Why would I want that compressed CD playing at home? No life in it, nothing resembling the performance. Maybe one should listen to the radio in the car?

Now I am prepared to accept a lesser compression for home use - but nothing like the ranges you guys are talking about. 96 dB range - are you all insane??

Some time in the not too distant past I read where the most dynamic classical recording at the time only had a 70dB +/- . What he ws discussing is that the peaks were clipped, compresses, distorted. Not needed, even if they design it to your 35-40 dB noise floor.


My noise floor in my living room is, I guess, something around 35-40 dB (my meter goes down to 50 only - it is below that). when listening, at night, wife and baby asleep, I want something that goes from said level upto around 80 dB MAXIMUM!! - say a 40 dB range.

And when they are away at grandma, you cannot enjoy the benefits of a more realistic performance I don't have that problem so why should I be limited?

Greater than that and I will never be able to listen to music again. Come to that - 96 db range over a week and I may never be able to listen to anything ever again - except through a hearing aid.

Not so. The the 96 dB would cover the peaks that happen infrequently only. Your average listening level is whatever is comfortable to you. Short peaks would not harm your hearing.

[maxg]

Everyone seems to regard compression as the ultimate evil these days. Not me. I listen to classical CD's in the car a lot - this is very problematic.

Yes, it is. Maybe that problem should be solved with the CD players designed for cars? Such as built in compression?

If they have not compressed the sound sufficiently I spend the entire journey turning the volume up to hear the quiet passages and down to save my ears in the louder passages.

As ever the solution involves me spending yet more money I see. Take the existing system out of the car and replace it with one that compresses. The radio is looking to be a more appealing option.

And when you play that CD on ypour expensive system at home, or the audiophile does, what do you think will be the response? Wow, what a great recording?

Sorry - play a CD on my audiophile system at home? Not me - I have vinyl for that!

[(Try it yourself - get a Deutche Grammaphon Dvorak 9th - Karajan. Play from the beginning - for me it is 30 seconds of silence followed by a loan french horn and then on audible music - or 30 seconds of delicacy, a bearable horn and then a ceresendo of kettle drums at around 1 minute in that could blow my eardrums inside out).

No need to try. I know the issue a car offers with a noise floor of about 65dB +/- you will miss a whole lot. Why would I want that compressed CD playing at home? No life in it, nothing resembling the performance. Maybe one should listen to the radio in the car?

My thoughts too

Now I am prepared to accept a lesser compression for home use - but nothing like the ranges you guys are talking about. 96 dB range - are you all insane??

Some time in the not too distant past I read where the most dynamic classical recording at the time only had a 70dB +/- . What he ws discussing is that the peaks were clipped, compresses, distorted. Not needed, even if they design it to your 35-40 dB noise floor.

Agreed

My noise floor in my living room is, I guess, something around 35-40 dB (my meter goes down to 50 only - it is below that). when listening, at night, wife and baby asleep, I want something that goes from said level upto around 80 dB MAXIMUM!! - say a 40 dB range.

And when they are away at grandma, you cannot enjoy the benefits of a more realistic performance I don't have that problem so why should I be limited?

When they are away at Grandma I do indeed turn the volume up. But even here I never exceed 100 dB peak at my listening position. I am not saying you should be limited - I am saying that I do not regard compression as the evil everyone here seems to think it is (if done well of course). Might be nice if either the limited or non-limited CD recordings would say as much on the packaging. I have an SACD recording from Telarc of the 1812 that is littered with warnings. Kinda nice to have.

Greater than that and I will never be able to listen to music again. Come to that - 96 db range over a week and I may never be able to listen to anything ever again - except through a hearing aid.

Not so. The the 96 dB would cover the peaks that happen infrequently only. Your average listening level is whatever is comfortable to you. Short peaks would not harm your hearing.

[i] As an absolute peak value I understand that. But if I am listening to a recording at, say 80 db average level, quiet bits at 40 - then volumes could regularly go over 110 and that is not good for ones hearing. The odd peak going upto a theorectial 136 is indeed irrelevent (and impossible on my speakers anyway).

[skeptic]

It's interesting that vinyl, the darling of audiophiles compressed much classical music out of necessity due to the limitations of the format. Compression is not what so called audiophiles disdain regardless of what they say, it is lack of compression they don't like. When you listen to classical music with a truely wide dynamic range, you have to sit quietly and be attentive or you will miss much of it. If you are far more preoccupied with your sound system than with the music itself, this can be a real problem.

When I listen to classical music in my car, there is a lot of switchable compression from the Sony/JBL/Ford sound system that came with it. Even on a cruise when I am listening through headphones, I use an old Sony car Discman D 808K which offers three levels of compression. The excellent performance of digital compression at a very affordable price allows you to enjoy the most you can get out of classica music under less than ideal listening conditions. ICs provide this performance for pennies when it used to cost thousands of dollars. And I for one am very grateful for it. For pop music, compression is not necessary. Dynamic range is usually very limited, often to within 10 db or so.