Didn't Dave Coleman state that lower compression spools turbo faster? Could have sworn he did. My 9.3 compression motor spooled slower on the dyno though. By 2-300rpm compared to the 8.5:1.
Has anyone actually tested it? I have enough power in 1st gear out of boost to chirp the tires when snapping the throttle open.
A higher compression ratio also means a higher expansion ratio. That is, on the power stroke, there is a greater difference in volume between top dead center and the point, somewhere near the bottom, when the exhaust valve opens and power production stops. This higher expansion ratio extracts more energy from your burning fuel (which is why high compression is actually more efficient), and actually leaves less energy in the exhaust to spool your turbo.
The only reason, then, that higher compression usually reduces lag, is that the engine makes more power off-boost, and can therefore accelerate to a boost-producing speed more quickly.
Ultimately, if you want good boost response, good power, and an engine that won't blow up, you're better off with a modern, efficient turbo sized for reasonable power goals, and low compression that's easy to tune.
For most, the rule of thumb is 3-4% more power for every full point of compression being run. But how much faster is a car with 5whp more in the rpm range of 1-3000rpm? I think going to 9:1 is the right step. But it depends on the amount of boost you want to run. Higher compression, less boost, more revs, and bigger turbo. I think that is the best way to get an efficient setup. If you want big boost, big torque, small turbo, using a lower compression will be more forgiving. Either way, at 8.5 to 9.5 you are really splitting hairs. The difference is hardly noticeable, at least in my experience.
I think the dynamic compression is overlooked many times over the static compression.