A lot of the concepts in this article appear to be deliberately simplified and terminology deliberately abused, and I would argue too much so. Take this paragraph for instance:

> As you look at the waveform, the problem should become apparent. Sound is a 3-dimensional construct, but we can only represent 2 dimensions on a textbook or a monitor. In the waveform representation, we see Time on the x-axis plotted against Volume on the y-axis.

The two axes in most waveform plots are sound pressure and time, not volume and time. The fact that the waveform depicted is nearly symmetrical reflected across the x axis should hint that this is the case.

I think that the first use of "dynamic range" is clumsily worded.

> Dynamic range is the range of frequencies and volumes that are audible to the human ear

But reading on, it looks like it is used in the correct sense albeit it a specialised one. The article discusses dynamic ranges per frequency. Talking about multi-band compression confirms that.