Steve, Can you help us (non-studio drones) understand compression better? As I understand it, you *need* some compression, because you don't want a trumpet solo (for example) way louder than everything else. So it's necessary, correct? I get the general idea that compression is like squashing the music -- like my mono Hendrix AYE LP (which I can't stand). Very AM radio. BUT compression can also be *good*, right? Like some of the mono Beatles stuff, and Cream. So is it too much of a good thing, or what? AND, isn't the dynamic range of pop/rock music pretty limited (compared to, e.g., classical), anyway? What's the dynamic range on Slayer's "Reign in Blood"? I find this all very confusing, and the word "compression" is thrown around on this forum all the time. What might be useful is if you could give an example of something with a little compression, then the same thing with a lot. Maybe two examples of the same CD. Or would that violate that "not commenting on other people's work" thing? Is compression the reason that something like, for example, the Byrds' recordings sound so thin? (I have the SACD, and it's still no great shakes.) The reason that an electric bass sounds nothing like an electric bass, and drums sound nothing like drums? (That is, they are lacking oomph and weight, for lack of better terminology.) If it's not compression, then what is the reason that so few rock recordings sound "right" in the bass and drums, in particular? Thanks!