Is HDCD much Better? [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : Is HDCD much Better?



clarity
04-29-2006, 10:07 AM
I have a Marantz 9200 thx receiver which has HDCD technology, with this Im running a marantz 6000ose cd player which isn't HDCD.

Is it worth purchasing a HDCD cd player or is it not a dramatic difference? :confused:

noddin0ff
05-01-2006, 05:51 AM
If your receiver supports HDCD then if you connect any CD player DIGITALLY to the receiver, you will decode HDCD. HDCD is a little extra info encoded into the bitstream. It only needs decoded once. No need to get a HDCD CD player AND a HDCD receiver.

emorphien
05-01-2006, 06:58 AM
As far as whether HDCD is better, most of the examples I've heard sound better than the average CD by a fair bit. How much of that is attributable to the encoding change and how much can be attributed to extra care in mastering the audio is beyond my knowing. A well mastered CD sounds pretty close if you ask me.

I think one of the most important factors is having the right person making the disc, if they know their medium and how to use it then it will sound better (be it CD, SACD, HDCD, DVD-A).

shokhead
05-01-2006, 08:34 AM
If your receiver supports HDCD then if you connect any CD player DIGITALLY to the receiver, you will decode HDCD. HDCD is a little extra info encoded into the bitstream. It only needs decoded once. No need to get a HDCD CD player AND a HDCD receiver.

Your player doesnt have to support HDCD to? I know both has to for DTS.

superpanavision70mm
05-01-2006, 10:36 AM
I have a few HDCD's on hand and all of them sound better than normal CD's to me. The main differences that I notice is certainly a slightly better level of clarity and the recording also seems to be a bit louder and fuller. While the differences might seem minor...isn't that what this is all about? The little differences make up alot of ground sometimes!

Woochifer
05-01-2006, 01:30 PM
Your player doesnt have to support HDCD to? I know both has to for DTS.

In order to gain any perceived performance advantage from the HDCD feature, you need a HDCD decoder on EITHER your CD player or your receiver/processor (using a digital connection). The HDCD signal is encoded onto the CD's bitstream, so you need a HDCD decoder with whatever component you use at the digital end (i.e. the HDCD signal will not decode if you use a regular CD player and output the signal using an analog connection; it will simply output like any other CD player).

As emorphien pointed out, a lot of differences can arise simply from greater care taken during the mastering stage. Unless you have access to the original master source and can do an A/B comparison, any speculation about the actual benefits of HDCD is just that.

stevenv
05-01-2006, 09:35 PM
Peoples, forget about HDCDs what a load of crap! I have heard tried and not convinced! It is all about how the CD is recorded not about how it is been processed… Some well recorded 16bit sound a lot better that so call HDCDs… just enjoy what you like and for get about those marketing geeks 

noddin0ff
05-02-2006, 06:07 AM
Shok-

HDCD is kind of hidden in the redbook CD format. I can copy a HDCD to my hard drive and then burn it to a new CD and the HDCD is intact. So it really doesn't require any special hardware or ability to read a new format. If the player reads redbook CD's it reads HDCD, but to use those extra bits you need the HDCD decoding on the DA conversion.

I own several HDCD disk, and with out exception they all sound terrific, better than average-to-good redbook. Some CD's aren't labled as such, and I've found myself thinking, "Wow, this sounds really good" only to then notice the HDCD indicator light on my CD player. Part of it, I'm sure is because anyone who is going to the effort to produce HDCD probably cares enough to master the CD better anyway.

The only (entirely subjective and non-provable) obvservation about HDCD being superior as a format that I can make might be Beck. Some of his CD's have been HDCD (Midnight Vultures (not sure), Mutations, Sea Change). They sound terrific. His last, Guero, is not HDCD. And, although it is a great album, doesn't sound as good.

But, rationally, as far as I undestand HDCD doesn't doesn't increase the sampling rate, but does increase the dynamic range from 16bit (65536 shades of loud) to 20 bit (1048576). I think TT said this should drop the noise floor. I don't know if a person could really distinguish all the finer shades of loud though.

I'm a believer though.

emorphien
05-02-2006, 08:59 AM
Some CD's aren't labled as such, and I've found myself thinking, "Wow, this sounds really good" only to then notice the HDCD indicator light on my CD player. Part of it, I'm sure is because anyone who is going to the effort to produce HDCD probably cares enough to master the CD better anyway.
I've had the same thing happen many times. I'll have something playing and I'll look at my CDP and the HDCD light will be on for a disc that has no label.

superpanavision70mm
05-02-2006, 09:23 PM
Thank you to noddin0ff and emorphien for both recognizing that there is a difference. I am not the only one that just notices this. I agree that HDCD's are certainly mastered better and do in fact sound better. The proof is in the pudding! Come on over and I'll play the MEET JOE BLACK sdtk or the KENNY WAYNE SHEPHERD LIVE ON HDCD's and you'll quickly see and moreover HEAR the difference!

Fact of the matter is that if you can't hear a difference on your system than it's possible one of the three problems:

Your system is not setup well or is inferior in other ways
You are not decoding the true HDCD signal
You have no ears

superpanavision70mm
05-02-2006, 09:25 PM
would you mind telling me some of the titles that you have come across with the HDCD not labelled, but the player recognizes it as such. I only have one that has come up like that, which I can recall. OOhh I know the RONIN sdtk also had HDCD as well as the ALIEN RESURRECTION and both were suppose to be phenominal...wonder if they are still in print.

noddin0ff
05-03-2006, 05:47 AM
The two that come to mind are all smaller release disks

Lavay Smith and Her Red Hot Skillet Lickers: Everybody's Talking 'Bout Miss Thing!
Jacqui Naylor: Live East/West

I think, but can't recall for sure that
Mark Knopfler: Sailing to Philadelphia was also unlabled. I also don't recall seeing HDCD labels on the Beck albums either.

emorphien
05-03-2006, 06:10 AM
would you mind telling me some of the titles that you have come across with the HDCD not labelled, but the player recognizes it as such. I only have one that has come up like that, which I can recall. OOhh I know the RONIN sdtk also had HDCD as well as the ALIEN RESURRECTION and both were suppose to be phenominal...wonder if they are still in print.
I have a couple, one which is (a funky modern classical quartet) and another that isn't labelled. It's Days of the New, the red album. They had three albums all with the same name, differentiated mostly by color of the booklet or the crystal case. The red album sounds very good (all 3 albums are very well mastered) but the Red does sound a slight bit more dynamic I'd say which perhaps is because of the HDCD encode.

It isn't labelled though.

As far as I know of all my CDs those are the only two that have lit up the red HDCD light on my C542.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
05-03-2006, 08:46 AM
There is no way you will be able to tell whether HDCD sounds superior to Redbook unless you have the original master, and you compare the unprocessed output with the processed output under DBT conditions.

My experience has shown that a well mixed and mastered CD can should every bit as good as a HDCD.encoded one.

If you begin with good recording practices, and sufficent bit and sample rate (I always work with 24/96khz as a start) there is no need for HDCD processing at all. IMO with the ability of higher bit and sampling rates that can be used, HDCD is a waste of time.


But, rationally, as far as I undestand HDCD doesn't doesn't increase the sampling rate, but does increase the dynamic range from 16bit (65536 shades of loud) to 20 bit (1048576). I think TT said this should drop the noise floor. I don't know if a person could really distinguish all the finer shades of loud though.

Actually it depends on the music. The difference between 16bit and 20bit is much more audible on highly dynamic music. You would be very surprised how sensitive the ear is to slight volume changes. Especially in the midrange.

emorphien
05-03-2006, 11:07 AM
My experience has shown that a well mixed and mastered CD can should every bit as good as a HDCD.encoded one.
I think that's the most important point that needs to be made. Repeatedly.

Woochifer
05-03-2006, 03:03 PM
There is no way you will be able to tell whether HDCD sounds superior to Redbook unless you have the original master, and you compare the unprocessed output with the processed output under DBT conditions.

I think you nailed it! It's impossible to know what effect the HDCD processing has without a master source to compare it with. Problem with using HDCD-encoded discs to judge the value of the format is that there's no way to compare a HDCD-encoded version with a non-encoded version, unless that CD was previously released without the signal having gone through HDCD processing. And even with a re-release, other changes during the mastering process could have occurred and likely did because remastered CDs typically address problems that occurred with poorly done early transfers.

Also, I read that the HDCD encoding can create distortion when the HDCD discs are played back through a non-HDCD CD player or processor. This further diminishes the comparability of using HDCD-encoded discs to identify any improvements that the format itself is responsible for.

Woochifer
05-03-2006, 03:27 PM
Thank you to noddin0ff and emorphien for both recognizing that there is a difference. I am not the only one that just notices this. I agree that HDCD's are certainly mastered better and do in fact sound better. The proof is in the pudding! Come on over and I'll play the MEET JOE BLACK sdtk or the KENNY WAYNE SHEPHERD LIVE ON HDCD's and you'll quickly see and moreover HEAR the difference!

Fact of the matter is that if you can't hear a difference on your system than it's possible one of the three problems:

Your system is not setup well or is inferior in other ways
You are not decoding the true HDCD signal
You have no ears

Question though is what are you comparing? Is it a case that those HDCD discs reflect better recording and mixing, or better care taken during the mastering process, or the HDCD processing itself? Without a master source or an otherwise identically prepared standard CD to compare with a HDCD-encoded disc, there's no way of isolating the difference that the HDCD process itself makes compared to other factors. Saying that your HDCDs sound good is no "proof in the pudding" that the HDCD processing itself is more responsible than other factors in the production and mastering.

If someone can't hear the difference that HDCD makes, then the reason is pretty simple -- they lack the tools to do a valid listening comparison. Same thing goes for people who say that they can hear the difference.

superpanavision70mm
05-03-2006, 03:51 PM
don't be offended just because you can't hear a difference....it's not my fault. I never said that I know the exact reasons for why they sound better, but the difference is noticeable regardless. you have some serious issues whatever the case may be because you challenge me with just about every statement that I make and you need to find someone else to take out your nonsense against. In the meantime I'll enjoy HDCD's and DTS while you wallow in your patheticness.

Woochifer
05-03-2006, 04:58 PM
don't be offended just because you can't hear a difference....it's not my fault. I never said that I know the exact reasons for why they sound better, but the difference is noticeable regardless. you have some serious issues whatever the case may be because you challenge me with just about every statement that I make and you need to find someone else to take out your nonsense against. In the meantime I'll enjoy HDCD's and DTS while you wallow in your patheticness.

Wow! All this hostility just because someone wants to inject a reality check into the very broad and unsustantiated generalizations that you've made on this thread. Must be something in the sun exposure this time of year in your particular latitude, because the skin you're showing on this thread looks awfully thin!

If I'm making factual errors or you have substantive issues with the points I bring up, then by all means challenge them. But, your response certainly does nothing to validate the statements that you've made, and these personal attacks merely illustrate that you have nothing substantive to add that refutes my points. If you don't like being challenged for making generalizations that can't stand up to even the most rudimentary degree of scrutiny, don't make them in the first place. This is after all a public forum and we're all experts in our own mind, right?

I'm not challenging your assertions that these HDCDs sound good to your ears, since that comes down to preference. But when you start listing off reasons why people might not hear the difference that HDCD makes, and reason #3 is "You have no ears," that's just pointless exaggeration, since you have no way of knowing the actual difference that HDCD creates without a baseline to compare it with.

Even here, you're saying that "the difference is noticeable regardless." I'll simply ask again, compared to what? Do you have a HDCD title, an identically prepared CD of the same title, or the master source that you've compared? Obviously not.

By making this kind of generalization you're basically asserting that HDCD is inherently superior to CD, yet you have nothing to compare it with other than different CD titles that have a myriad of other variables in play. In my book, that's an apples to oranges comparison, and hardly sufficient to start presuming things about a format and other people's systems or hearing ability. Sir Terrence works as a professional recording engineer and I'm more inclined to believe his conclusions about the value of HDCD relative to other production and mastering variables, since he actually has access to the high res master sources needed to actually compare a standard CD with a HDCD.

Like I've said many times over the years on this board, making blanket statements about formats is pointless without knowing what you're actually comparing. If you want to believe that something sounds great just because of the format imprinted on the label, that's fine. But, that does not make it true, and certainly doesn't warrant launching into a whining hissyfit when someone doesn't take you at your word ("I hear it, therefore everything I believe about the causal effect is true!").

I mean, I buy high res SACD and 96/24 discs, but the only conclusion that I will draw from listening is which specific titles I prefer to versions of the same title found on other formats. Without knowing anything about how the transfers were originally done, I have zero basis for concluding that any perceived superiority in the listening is due to the format and not other production and mastering factors. The difference between the points that you make and the ones I've made on other threads is that I will readily acknowledge the limitations of what conclusions I can draw from my listenings. You seem to believe more in the infallibility and extensibility of what your listenings tell you. After all, you're concluding that people who hear things differently than you do have inferior equipment and "no ears."

emorphien
05-03-2006, 06:33 PM
I'm not saying there's definitely a difference. As others have said there's no real easy way to find that out without going beyond our means. I will just say that of the HDCDs I've heard (more than the few I own), they're all as good as the best CDs I've heard and certainly above average. If they're better it may not be that easy to tell without an a/b comparison and that's assuming all things were done to the nth degree in producing the redbook and the HDCD encode.

superpanavision70mm
05-03-2006, 06:34 PM
First, I do have an example of a regular CD compared to an HDCD.....actually two. The first is the regular CD of Radiohead's HAIL TO THE THEIF vs. the HDCD version released in Japan. There is a definite difference, similar to the difference between the reg. version of CD's compared to the Gold editions that were issued by Mobile Fidelity or DCC. I can name hundreds of examples of those. I also have a HDCD of Queen's Greatest hits that sounds better than the regular CD, but does not sound better than the DVD-audio of the tracks that are on both. I am not comparing apples to oranges, but rather red delicious apples to not-so-great apples. That's a fact. My ears hear a difference as do all the people that I have played for over the years.

I am not concerned with proving anything to you though because I know what it sounds like here and that's all that matters. You can believe whatever you wish and don't even get me started about your system or my system. The original question opened up on this thread was....Do HDCD's make a difference? I gave my opinion based on what I own and what I have heard....your opinion in this is a joke since you have no reference like others do on the matter. You just like to get involved in business that doesn't even belong in your direction considering you have no reference point. However, you also feel that everyone is entitled to your opinion and think that you are right about anything and everything....wrong again. I make comments sometimes in more of a joking manner, like many do on this site, which apparently go over your head. I said that people have 'no ears' in a joking way that means that they can't hear the difference because they have poor hearing. As people get older your hearing is diminished ...and you are older than I am my friend.... I would easily challenge you to a hearing test anytime anywhere!

superpanavision70mm
05-03-2006, 06:35 PM
And one more thing...your DVD collection is a joke and not even worth posting on here with the laughable 'neverending' phrase.

Woochifer
05-03-2006, 07:22 PM
First, I do have an example of a regular CD compared to an HDCD.....actually two. The first is the regular CD of Radiohead's HAIL TO THE THEIF vs. the HDCD version released in Japan. There is a definite difference, similar to the difference between the reg. version of CD's compared to the Gold editions that were issued by Mobile Fidelity or DCC. I can name hundreds of examples of those. I also have a HDCD of Queen's Greatest hits that sounds better than the regular CD, but does not sound better than the DVD-audio of the tracks that are on both. I am not comparing apples to oranges, but rather red delicious apples to not-so-great apples. That's a fact. My ears hear a difference as do all the people that I have played for over the years.

But, again they were not identically prepared, now were they? If that HDCD version of that Radiohead disc sounds that much better, fine. But, unless you know that the standard CD was prepared under otherwise identical conditions (i.e. same settings, levels, master source, and studio playback equipment), any number of other unknown factors outside of the HDCD encoding could just as easily explain what you're hearing. Try again. :cornut:

I can tell you that Mobile Fidelity's mastering rig makes a noticeable difference on their hybrid discs compared to other transfers (including Classic Records' 96/24 PCM transfers) because the CD and SACD layers sound more similar to each other than they do to other versions. This simply affirms the presence of other factors that can create differences in how something sounds.

Again, you lack the means by which to make any kind of definitive conclusion about whether the format itself is the causal factor. No reason to get all testy just because someone points out the obvious. I'm not telling you that there are no differences between different disc versions, simply that you can't conclude that HDCD is the causal factor.


I am not concerned with proving anything to you though because I know what it sounds like here and that's all that matters. You can believe whatever you wish and don't even get me started about your system or my system. The original question opened up on this thread was....Do HDCD's make a difference? I gave my opinion based on what I own and what I have heard....your opinion in this is a joke since you have no reference like others do on the matter. You just like to get involved in business that doesn't even belong in your direction considering you have no reference point. However, you also feel that everyone is entitled to your opinion and think that you are right about anything and everything....wrong again. I make comments sometimes in more of a joking manner, like many do on this site, which apparently go over your head. I said that people have 'no ears' in a joking way that means that they can't hear the difference because they have poor hearing. As people get older your hearing is diminished ...and you are older than I am my friend.... I would easily challenge you to a hearing test anytime anywhere!

If my opinion is a joke, then I don't know what to make of yours, since you lack the necessary reference as well.

Joking manner? Mmmm hmmm, that would explain the combativeness and defensive posturing whenever I point out problems with your generalities. Oh right, you were just joking when you said that people who disagree with you have "no ears." Glad to know that you've clarified yourself -- that's right, people who disagree with you simply have poor hearing! THANK YOU! :rolleyes:

And all this inneuendo about my system and my hearing, what does that have to do with anything that I've written or corrected you on? I thought so, just bunch of hot air in the absence of substance.


And one more thing...your DVD collection is a joke and not even worth posting on here with the laughable 'neverending' phrase.

OH! That hurts! You're calling my DVD collection a joke! That's just ssssoooooooo wrong! :lol:

Is that the best you got, or are you committed to going off-topic just to avoid having to answer for all the B.S. that you're getting called out on? I mean if you're going to resort to personal attacks, at least come up with something original that hasn't already been tried on any number of other threads on this board over the years. :idea:

musicman1999
05-03-2006, 07:25 PM
Super
Just one question.What player do you use for hdcd playback?

bill

emorphien
05-03-2006, 07:53 PM
And one more thing...your DVD collection is a joke and not even worth posting on here with the laughable 'neverending' phrase.
gggrrrreeeeaaaaattttt

superpanavision70mm
05-03-2006, 08:37 PM
I have a Denon DVM-3700 as well as my Toshiba DVD player, which was modified to do just about anything...HDCD, SACD, etc as well as PAL to NTSC and All region as well.

superpanavision70mm
05-03-2006, 08:45 PM
You talk the talk, but you need to walk the walk sometimes too. I don't need to prove anything to you on this site. Anyone is welcome over to my place anytime to hear what I can hear. I don't make assumptions on what you have unless you are stating something that is totally opposite of what I have discovered with what I have. If I notice the difference that HDCD's make over reg. CD's and you do not...well there must be something wrong. I can only speculate that it's either a difference in system, hearing, or just opinion. You also feel strongly towards Dolby instead of DTS and once again I disagree, but you act like I am someone who has little knowledge of home theater or music. I don't claim to know-it-all, nor do I claim to be as experienced as others on this site...however, if a person starts a thread about HDCD's Vs. CD I am entitled to post my opinion since I have experience with both without having you attack my feedback, which doesn't hold water. Just because you don't like what I have to say on the matter doesn't give you the right to attack me in any thread. I also don't need scientific facts as this forum states in it's doctrine. This site is not about facts of science, since there is so much relativity. Finally, it's also not my fault that you 'get off' by inserted your unncessary BS in this forum and get enjoyment out of trying to prove others wrong. Find another hobby instead of polluting this area with your trash if you can't be civil. I am only defending my position.

shokhead
05-04-2006, 05:52 AM
I think you nailed it! It's impossible to know what effect the HDCD processing has without a master source to compare it with. Problem with using HDCD-encoded discs to judge the value of the format is that there's no way to compare a HDCD-encoded version with a non-encoded version, unless that CD was previously released without the signal having gone through HDCD processing. And even with a re-release, other changes during the mastering process could have occurred and likely did because remastered CDs typically address problems that occurred with poorly done early transfers.

Also, I read that the HDCD encoding can create distortion when the HDCD discs are played back through a non-HDCD CD player or processor. This further diminishes the comparability of using HDCD-encoded discs to identify any improvements that the format itself is responsible for.

I'm not comparing it to a master,i'm comparing it to sounding good just like DTS which i like better then DD. Why? Because it sounds better to me.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
05-04-2006, 05:55 AM
I cannot believe how emotional people get when their position is challenged. Let's take a breather here.

You really cannot take a HDCD encoded disc and compare it with a reissued unencoded disc without background information on both. The HDCD encoded disc could have come from a completely different master tape than the unencoded one. If they came from the same source, it is not unusual they would have different eq, or mastered on different equipment. This has a profound effect on the sound itself, and our perception on which is better sounding to our ears. Reissues rarely come from the same source as the original product. The rarely have the same EQ, and are even more rarely mastered on the same equipment as the original. So any comparison between a coded and unecoded disc becomes impossible without equal treatment to both, control of all variables, and a double blind listening test. Just listening to a single source without the original source as a comparison is a pretty useless exercise.

While I agree Dts does sound better that DD, I didn't come to that conclusion by listening to consumer DVD's. I had access to the original tapes, used both formats professional encoders and decoders, encoded them both at their highest bitrates with identical sample and bit depths, and listened to the feeds of both formats decoder outputs in real time. There were losses produced by both formats when compared to the original, but Dts was able to reproduce far less degredation than DD, and preserve much more of the orignal characteristics of the original source. This is something that you cannot learn from just listening to a single source.

I once tried to compare soundtracks of both formats on a commercial DVD. Once verifying that both came from the same source, I found that each had slightly different EQ, one had the phase of the channels reversed, and the LFE of each had slightly different measuring characteristics. This denotes that somebody messed up during encoding, and somebody had been tweaking the outputs of both. This goes to show that making comparisons of each format is alot more difficult when you do not have control of the original source, the encoding process, and all of the variables in between, it just too tough.

I think all of ones observation on which is better should be prefaced with the words "In my opinion" or "too these ears, and on my system" and it should be completely understood that this is just one person opinion and not fact. It should also be completely understood that their opinion is not science.

noddin0ff
05-04-2006, 06:46 AM
This 'can you really tell the difference' argument kind of goes round and round. We get all these formats, each technically better than redbook CD. They're supposed to be better, so we buy them and want them to sound better. Then we argue about whether a person should really be able to hear a difference...

On HDCD, every HDCD disk I have (about a dozen) sounds as good as or better than my better mastered or re-mastered CDs. Often if I find one that sounds surprisingly good (another that comes to mind is Lucinda Williams: Essence) I'll notice the HDCD light is on. I think to myself 'Wow, HDCD really sounds good!"

BUT, I know that it's a CORRELATION, based on my (potentially biased) observation that HDCD accompanies great sound. And I'm fine with that. If TT for instance says there's really no audible difference with the format -all things controlled- I would take his word as truth. I'll change my perception to "Wow, those people that make HDCD disks really know what their doing!"

If I see a CD with the HDCD logo, I'm quite confident that it will sound great. I'm happy to attribute the difference to better mastering. There's such a huge range of quality on CD's anyway, I can comfortable fit HDCD quality in that spectrum. So I use HDCD as an indicator of quality. If the HDCD logo was instead a big Mr. Yuck sticker, I'd buy the CD's with Mr. Yuck logos.

shokhead
05-04-2006, 07:30 AM
I cannot believe how emotional people get when their position is challenged. Let's take a breather here.

You really cannot take a HDCD encoded disc and compare it with a reissued unencoded disc without background information on both. The HDCD encoded disc could have come from a completely different master tape than the unencoded one. If they came from the same source, it is not unusual they would have different eq, or mastered on different equipment. This has a profound effect on the sound itself, and our perception on which is better sounding to our ears. Reissues rarely come from the same source as the original product. The rarely have the same EQ, and are even more rarely mastered on the same equipment as the original. So any comparison between a coded and unecoded disc becomes impossible without equal treatment to both, control of all variables, and a double blind listening test. Just listening to a single source without the original source as a comparison is a pretty useless exercise.

While I agree Dts does sound better that DD, I didn't come to that conclusion by listening to consumer DVD's. I had access to the original tapes, used both formats professional encoders and decoders, encoded them both at their highest bitrates with identical sample and bit depths, and listened to the feeds of both formats decoder outputs in real time. There were losses produced by both formats when compared to the original, but Dts was able to reproduce far less degredation than DD, and preserve much more of the orignal characteristics of the original source. This is something that you cannot learn from just listening to a single source.

I once tried to compare soundtracks of both formats on a commercial DVD. Once verifying that both came from the same source, I found that each had slightly different EQ, one had the phase of the channels reversed, and the LFE of each had slightly different measuring characteristics. This denotes that somebody messed up during encoding, and somebody had been tweaking the outputs of both. This goes to show that making comparisons of each format is alot more difficult when you do not have control of the original source, the encoding process, and all of the variables in between, it just too tough.

I think all of ones observation on which is better should be prefaced with the words "In my opinion" or "too these ears, and on my system" and it should be completely understood that this is just one person opinion and not fact. It should also be completely understood that their opinion is not science.

I dont care what machine it was mastered on,who did it,DD is suppose to be better because of this spec or that spec. If i sit in my chair and this disc sounds better then that disc,that all that other stuff means zero. What do youy do if you have a remastered disc by steve hoffman,it has to be great,we all know that. You happen to have the same disc fron 1975 but it sounds better. It shouldnt,no way so what do you say?

Sir Terrence the Terrible
05-04-2006, 08:11 AM
I dont care what machine it was mastered on,who did it,DD is suppose to be better because of this spec or that spec. If i sit in my chair and this disc sounds better then that disc,that all that other stuff means zero. What do youy do if you have a remastered disc by steve hoffman,it has to be great,we all know that. You happen to have the same disc fron 1975 but it sounds better. It shouldnt,no way so what do you say?

First, it is a big mistake to think a disc done today will be better than one cut in 1975. Quality has no time line. Once again the variables are too numerous to make it a apple to apple comparison.

Secondly, if this is how you make a distinction of what sound better than what, then you are only interested in hearing your own voice. If you come to a forum where others hear differently from you, other have a higher standard of what is good, have a different system with varying degrees of acoustical control, this form of judgement falls on its face.

There is a huge difference is saying "man this sounds good" and "man this sounds better than this". One requires science to prove, the other only requires only a opinion.

Woochifer
05-04-2006, 08:21 AM
You talk the talk, but you need to walk the walk sometimes too. I don't need to prove anything to you on this site. Anyone is welcome over to my place anytime to hear what I can hear. I don't make assumptions on what you have unless you are stating something that is totally opposite of what I have discovered with what I have. If I notice the difference that HDCD's make over reg. CD's and you do not...well there must be something wrong. I can only speculate that it's either a difference in system, hearing, or just opinion. You also feel strongly towards Dolby instead of DTS and once again I disagree, but you act like I am someone who has little knowledge of home theater or music. I don't claim to know-it-all, nor do I claim to be as experienced as others on this site...however, if a person starts a thread about HDCD's Vs. CD I am entitled to post my opinion since I have experience with both without having you attack my feedback, which doesn't hold water. Just because you don't like what I have to say on the matter doesn't give you the right to attack me in any thread. I also don't need scientific facts as this forum states in it's doctrine. This site is not about facts of science, since there is so much relativity. Finally, it's also not my fault that you 'get off' by inserted your unncessary BS in this forum and get enjoyment out of trying to prove others wrong. Find another hobby instead of polluting this area with your trash if you can't be civil. I am only defending my position.

Check this board sometime. I've posted plenty of listening impressions over the years. The difference is that I acknowledge the limitations of how much those listening impressions can be generalized. Noddin0ff and emorphien understand that other variables are in play anytime you do a format comparison based only on what's available to consumers. Whenever I write about SACD or 96/24 PCM, I will point out that the transfer was likely done under very different conditions, therefore the format itself might not be the biggest factor, if at all, in any sound quality improvements. All you have to do is compare one of Mobile Fidelity's hybrid SACD/CDs with a version of that same title done by somebody else -- the CD and SACD layers will sound more similar to each other than to the other transfer (one comparison I've done was to a 96/24 PCM disc, so resolution alone could not adequately account for all the sound differences).

Why you persist in mischaracterizing my posts just so that you can persist in these personal attacks is beyond me. Where do I ever say that I prefer Dolby over DTS? I have never stated that. And how does pointing out flaws in your broad generalizations constitute an attack or uncivil behavior? Are you expecting people to just accept your conclusions at face value? I simply question the avenue by which you reach your conclusions and the scope of your generalizations. Nothing scientific, just a simple dose of reality about how many other changes can occur whenever a CD gets remastered or transferred to a different format. Rather than acknowledging the limitations of what you have available to draw these conclusions, you've decided instead to hurl verbal jabs at the messenger. Doesn't make your position any less tenable.

There's a difference between defending your points and being defensive. From what I've seen, your responses do little in the way of substantive defending, if the best you can do is attack the size of someone's DVD collection and call their hearing into question.

GMichael
05-04-2006, 08:55 AM
Both sides are right in their own way. They may sound better to one who doesn't care why. Just does. Others more technically inclined see that there may be other factors contributing to the "better" sound. They are not disputing that they sound better. Only that basing your purchases on just one of the many factors involved may not yield better sound on all occasions. It's worth understanding that it may not work out each time. On the other hand, there is a chance that HDCD's may get special attention and be made from better masters etc most of the time.

Oh well, please continue. It's been a great read.

superpanavision70mm
05-04-2006, 09:49 AM
Ok, to avoid personal attacks I'll just make a statement that certain individuals that posted in this thread can't see the forest through the trees. I am done guarding my position on this matter, which to me is a dead end. Is there a conclusion? Not really aside from the fact that we have gone round and round about this with nothing to show other than a few pages of thread. Is it safe to say that the majority of the people that come to this forum would argue that HDCD's are preferred over CD? Maybe, maybe not. I, for one, and I know that I am not the ONLY one who knows that when I do see the HDCD logo...I can expect a certain level of quality not always associated with CD. I know the same thing going into something that has the DTS logo, MLP logo, SACD logo etc. This is not to say that all of them are fantastic. Some of them are so-so, but still...probably ahead of something similarly mastered. Do all DTS soundtracks sound incredible? Certainly not. Do all HDCD's sound incredible? Certainly not. However, as a member of the free world in which I live...I'll take those odds anyday considering I have had far too many great experiences versus not-so-good. I don't care what the scientitic proof states of whether it's compared to the original master or if my HDCD sounds worse than if Kenny Wayne Shepherd was in my living room playing live for me. I don't always need a reference point nor do I always care to have one. If I pop in STAR TREK NEMESIS in DTS and it sounds great (which it does btw) I clearly am not sitting there wondering if it sounds as good as it does in the movie theater because they are two different things. I am also not wondering if it sounds exactly like what the sound engineers and recording mixers had in mind precisely. My only concern is whether it sounds great in my living space...it meets my standards of excellence and that's that. End-o-discussion.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
05-04-2006, 10:27 AM
Ok, to avoid personal attacks I'll just make a statement that certain individuals that posted in this thread can't see the forest through the trees. I am done guarding my position on this matter, which to me is a dead end. Is there a conclusion? Not really aside from the fact that we have gone round and round about this with nothing to show other than a few pages of thread. Is it safe to say that the majority of the people that come to this forum would argue that HDCD's are preferred over CD? Maybe, maybe not. I, for one, and I know that I am not the ONLY one who knows that when I do see the HDCD logo...I can expect a certain level of quality not always associated with CD. I know the same thing going into something that has the DTS logo, MLP logo, SACD logo etc. This is not to say that all of them are fantastic. Some of them are so-so, but still...probably ahead of something similarly mastered. Do all DTS soundtracks sound incredible? Certainly not. Do all HDCD's sound incredible? Certainly not. However, as a member of the free world in which I live...I'll take those odds anyday considering I have had far too many great experiences versus not-so-good. I don't care what the scientitic proof states of whether it's compared to the original master or if my HDCD sounds worse than if Kenny Wayne Shepherd was in my living room playing live for me. I don't always need a reference point nor do I always care to have one. If I pop in STAR TREK NEMESIS in DTS and it sounds great (which it does btw) I clearly am not sitting there wondering if it sounds as good as it does in the movie theater because they are two different things. I am also not wondering if it sounds exactly like what the sound engineers and recording mixers had in mind precisely. My only concern is whether it sounds great in my living space...it meets my standards of excellence and that's that. End-o-discussion.

So based on what you say here you cannot really bring a HDCD vs CD argument to this, or any forum. If it all about your personal standards and your living space (of which none of us share) there can be no global argument either way. Opinions cannot really be argued, right?

superpanavision70mm
05-04-2006, 02:18 PM
I suppose somewhat, but really what it boils down to is that certain people take the entire fun out of a discussion by giving their input as if they are 100% right and everyone else is wrong. All of my posts are clearly my opinion based on my experience...if you want to get down to the really nitty gritty...then how can you prove that a 'tree' is a real tree. Well, you have to do scientific testing to prove that it's a tree, but if I see something that resembles a tree I am going to call it a tree, even though underneath that bark and leaves it might be some decoy tree that is really made out of plastic and rubber. My opinion on HDCD was challenged and I gave my insights and thoughts and this forum should be about having fun, learning new things, and helping each other out with things that we know a little bit about. This shouldn't be a pegging session for the 'high and mighty' to come down on the little people who apparently don't know diddly.

shokhead
05-04-2006, 03:55 PM
I dont know diddly,never meant him.

Woochifer
05-04-2006, 04:38 PM
I suppose somewhat, but really what it boils down to is that certain people take the entire fun out of a discussion by giving their input as if they are 100% right and everyone else is wrong. All of my posts are clearly my opinion based on my experience...if you want to get down to the really nitty gritty...then how can you prove that a 'tree' is a real tree. Well, you have to do scientific testing to prove that it's a tree, but if I see something that resembles a tree I am going to call it a tree, even though underneath that bark and leaves it might be some decoy tree that is really made out of plastic and rubber. My opinion on HDCD was challenged and I gave my insights and thoughts and this forum should be about having fun, learning new things, and helping each other out with things that we know a little bit about. This shouldn't be a pegging session for the 'high and mighty' to come down on the little people who apparently don't know diddly.

Whine! Whine! Whine! With a heaping dose of cheese on top ... you sure know how to have fun! :rolleyes:

superpanavision70mm
05-05-2006, 12:12 AM
Hmmm, coming from someone who's TV is elevated about 8 inches off the ground I wouldn't exactly be going around correcting people on things.

noddin0ff
05-05-2006, 06:14 AM
So, assuming identical mastering...what makes a greater contribution to the quality of digital sound? Bits (16, 20, 24) or sampling rate (44.1, 96, 192)?

Sir Terrence the Terrible
05-05-2006, 08:21 AM
So, assuming identical mastering...what makes a greater contribution to the quality of digital sound? Bits (16, 20, 24) or sampling rate (44.1, 96, 192)?

Higher bit and sample rates help, but in the end its the quality of the mixing and mastering that are IMO the biggest determination of the quality of the digital audio. HDCD cannot cover for poor mixing and mastering. Poor microphone placement, noisy electronics, poor mastering and poor mxing all can occur before HDCD encoding.

Well recorded 20bit and 24bit recordings well not benefit from HDCD encoding no matter the sample rate. HDCD only really benefits recordings in 16bits This is independent of the sample rate.

I place a much higher value on production and mastering quality than I do on the bit rate and sample rate. As a practice I use 24/96khz as my basic recording standard for DVD based mediums, and 24/88.2khz for CD based audio, and make sure I keep my production values very high. I cannot speak for the engineering community as a whole, but most follow this standard as well.

Woochifer
05-05-2006, 08:36 AM
Hmmm, coming from someone who's TV is elevated about 8 inches off the ground I wouldn't exactly be going around correcting people on things.

Wow, are you now saying that the height of someone's TV has something to do with how they hear things? No wonder why you claim to do so well on these hearing tests! :rolleyes:

shokhead
05-05-2006, 08:50 AM
Higher bit and sample rates help, but in the end its the quality of the mixing and mastering that are IMO the biggest determination of the quality of the digital audio. HDCD cannot cover for poor mixing and mastering. Poor microphone placement, noisy electronics, poor mastering and poor mxing all can occur before HDCD encoding.

Well recorded 20bit and 24bit recordings well not benefit from HDCD encoding no matter the sample rate. HDCD only really benefits recordings in 16bits This is independent of the sample rate.

I place a much higher value on production and mastering quality than I do on the bit rate and sample rate. As a practice I use 24/96khz as my basic recording standard for DVD based mediums, and 24/88.2khz for CD based audio, and make sure I keep my production values very high. I cannot speak for the engineering community as a whole, but most follow this standard as well.

So a cd from the first year or two that has a good mix on it will sound better that a new,24bit cd with a poor mix?

superpanavision70mm
05-05-2006, 09:28 AM
Yeah you nailed it....I am saying that you TV has everything to do with your sound system. Maybe you play everything through your TV's speakers. Way to figure me out on that one. Because in my statement I really made it clear that I was talking about sound and your TV at the same time. Nice comeback.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
05-05-2006, 09:32 AM
So a cd from the first year or two that has a good mix on it will sound better that a new,24bit cd with a poor mix?

Definately!

emorphien
05-05-2006, 03:42 PM
Yeah you nailed it....I am saying that you TV has everything to do with your sound system. Maybe you play everything through your TV's speakers. Way to figure me out on that one. Because in my statement I really made it clear that I was talking about sound and your TV at the same time. Nice comeback.
Why do you insist on attacking people for their systems?

guaje
05-11-2006, 11:38 PM
I can name hundreds of examples of those. I also have a HDCD of Queen's Greatest hits that sounds better than the regular CD, Superpanvision 70 mm dixit.

Hello mate, I'm going to update my CD player, I have given an eye to Rotel's RCD-02 and RCD-06. The first one handles HDCD, but is older and more expensive than the new model (about 100 bucks more). Do you think it worth this estra money. I also have an AVR that handles HDCD, but I think that it needs a CD player with HDCD too, but I have read here that anyh CD player with digital output could do it. What does it mean? My old Rotel 930 AX, conected by analog coaxial (2-chanel) couldn't.

And other question, you have said that you have lots of HDCD. Would you like to give a list of them? Or, would you tell me where could I find them?

Thanks a lot.

El guaje. :16:

superpanavision70mm
05-12-2006, 12:23 AM
Sure, check out the following sites...

http://www.amusicdirect.com/
http://store.acousticsounds.com/

I would go with the player that does handle HDCD just for the fact that it's most likely a better player altogether. I did not compare specs back to back, but maybe you have had the chance to listen to both. From what I understand both are really great players, but I doubt that the extra $100 is going JUST for the HDCD decoder...I have a feeling it is probably a better player by a bit. From what I understand it's very comparable to the Denon 2910, which I just got a few weeks ago or even the Denon 3910. What type of AVR are you using and are you using any type of amps? I know a few people are not particularly fans of the Rotel sound when it comes to certain CD players. My other question is ...are you completely torn between these two OR are you open to other suggestions on players??? Marantz just dropped the price on one of their universal players and I have heard really great things about it's HDCD playback, as well as other things.

progfan
05-12-2006, 04:24 AM
Honestly, I can't tell the difference. I used to have a Harman Kardon CD player with HDCD and a Yamaha receiver. When I began to upgrade my system, I had it in my head that I had to have HDCD decoding or I was going to be missing something. Now, I have HDCD in my pre/processor, but I don't even bother with it.

superpanavision70mm
05-12-2006, 05:01 AM
Ok, thanks for your insight.

shokhead
05-12-2006, 05:34 AM
I would worry more about having DTS for music the HDCD myself.

guaje
05-12-2006, 07:05 AM
Hey mate, I am looking to the Rotel RCDs because the one I have got till now is one of them, and it sounds great with my AVR Harman Kardon 5500, that enhances HDCD (although I am just trying to probe it but I could not: neither through the Xbox console or Samsung DVD player, both conected digitally to the AVR, and playing direct stereo with a Mermen's HDCD but it doesn't light on the HDCD symbol in the AVR ?).
Anyway could you tell me what Marantz are you talking about?
About the price, the retailer told me that new equipement are cheaper (if they have not any innovation ?, I am not sure at that point, what do you think?

Thanks again.


:16:

guaje
05-21-2006, 12:07 PM
I'm not sure about that since the technical dept. from Harman Kardon has told me that my AVR 5500 that is prepared for HDCD ONLY could perform it if the player is HDCD too. That means that it doesn't work only with the digital imput from any player...

guaje
05-21-2006, 12:10 PM
If your receiver supports HDCD then if you connect any CD player DIGITALLY to the receiver, you will decode HDCD. HDCD is a little extra info encoded into the bitstream. It only needs decoded once. No need to get a HDCD CD player AND a HDCD receiver.


The previous post is an answer to this one...

:16: and the band played on

noddin0ff
05-21-2006, 01:11 PM
I still believe that my statement is correct. But obviously, I'm just some anonymous dude on a web forum so if you want to be safe, by all means listen to tech support. It would be easy to test though. Take any ol' CD player with a digital out an hook it up to the HDCD capable receiver...

IMO, the bit stream is the bitstream, the HDCD info is embeded into the 16bit info. The same bits are read regardless. The HDCD is a decoding issue not a playback issue.

I suspect the tech support guy doesn't understand how HDCD works. And to back up that suspicion I'd point out that if you own a CD player that decodes HDCD, you don't need to have a HDCD decoding receiver! So what is the point of making a HDCD decoding receiver then? The obvious answer, to me, is so you can decode digital outputs from a non-HDCD capable player.