Is the HDCD out?

[guaje]

I am looking to buy a new CD player, and I am not sure what is going on with the HDCD, could you tell me if the HDCD is out or not?. I just have two HDCD, and looking in the Internet it seems like the HDCD is more for classical music and jazz, and I am not listening too much these styles, I am listening to rock, hip-hop, heavy metal, etc. And I have not found many HDCD in this kind of music.

Thanks mates.

:16:

[superpanavision70mm]

You probably won't find much in the rock vein for HDCD's, just like with SACD's. I certainly wouldn't buy a CD player or make my decision solely on the fact that it can or cannot decode HDCD. In the same breath I would say that if you are upgrading and have the chance to have it ...then I would go with it just because there are some excellence discs out there that really benefit from the encoding.

[swestbom]

Dead as a doornail, almost no support. It was a dubious format anyway since PCM had no allowances for encoding anything other than straight PCM.

Don't feel badly SACD and DVD-Audio are slowly going bye bye as well. The major labels produced almost nothing for either format and what they did produce was just old recordings from their catalog. Deutche Grammaphone really tried to pull a fast one, they just took 44.1/16 bit PCM discs and converted them to DSD (no remastering).

If you are into classical or jazz there are lots of recordings out there, mostly from European labels and Telarc for classical and some small domestic labels for Jazz

[superpanavision70mm]

Well, it might seem 'dead' to some, but for audiophiles and audio enthusiasts it's a format that would probably be around like vinyl....just for those that want to enjoy high quality music.

[Geoffcin]

I am looking to buy a new CD player, and I am not sure what is going on with the HDCD, could you tell me if the HDCD is out or not?. I just have two HDCD, and looking in the Internet it seems like the HDCD is more for classical music and jazz, and I am not listening too much these styles, I am listening to rock, hip-hop, heavy metal, etc. And I have not found many HDCD in this kind of music.

Thanks mates.

:16:

But they are better than RBCD's. More dynamic, lower noise floor, ect.
My "best of the B52's" CD is HDCD encoded. Not too many other rock titles that I own, but then there's not much dynamic range in most rock.

[BillyB]

I'm not sure if their are enough HDCD's available to base a choice of player on it.Rotel makes a CDP (not sure what model) that also plays HDCD's, gets great reviews, and is $700. I have always found Rotel products to be very hard to beat at their price point.I just bought an Arcam 73T which is the exact same price and I like it. It doesn't play HDCD's and that wasn't a factor for me.I listened to the Rotel at the same audio dealer and to my ear it was every bit as good as the Arcam. It was almost a coin toss and only time will tell if I made the right choice. It usually takes me quite a while to decide If I really like a component and that certainly didn't make my decision any easier. Good luck with your future purchase.

[Geoffcin]

I'm not sure if their are enough HDCD's available to base a choice of player on it.Rotel makes a CDP (not sure what model) that also plays HDCD's, gets great reviews, and is $700. I have always found Rotel products to be very hard to beat at their price point.I just bought an Arcam 73T which is the exact same price and I like it. It doesn't play HDCD's and that wasn't a factor for me.I listened to the Rotel at the same audio dealer and to my ear it was every bit as good as the Arcam. It was almost a coin toss and only time will tell if I made the right choice. It usually takes me quite a while to decide If I really like a component and that certainly didn't make my decision any easier. Good luck with your future purchase.

Also Musical Fidelity. Even if you have a decent CD player, their X-DAC v3 is a recommended upgrade.

Still, Arcam stands an inch or so higher than most CD players you can get for the same money. The 73t is a good example.

[Fergymunster]

Also Musical Fidelity. Even if you have a decent CD player, their X-DAC v3 is a recommended upgrade.

Still, Arcam stands an inch or so higher than most CD players you can get for the same money. The 73t is a good example.
I'm curiuos about why the X-DACv3 is recommended.I have a decent CD player,the CA azur 640c to be precise and am using the internal DAC.

[superpanavision70mm]

Music Direct typically runs great specials on the X-DACc3

[Fergymunster]

Music Direct typically runs great specials on the X-DACc3
It's funny,I was just there reading about it,Thanks

[Geoffcin]

I'm curiuos about why the X-DACv3 is recommended.I have a decent CD player,the CA azur 640c to be precise and am using the internal DAC.

And measured that way when benched. How much it will add to your CA player is anyones guess, but I'm sure you'll hear a difference. The only other DAC I would consider (and am) is the Benchmark DAC1. A killer product, and probably my next upgrade.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Well, it might seem 'dead' to some, but for audiophiles and audio enthusiasts it's a format that would probably be around like vinyl....just for those that want to enjoy high quality music.

This might be wishful thinking at best. From my vantage point, it is dead and was never really used on a widespread basis. Everything begins in the mix, not in the re-encoder.

[Fergymunster]

And measured that way when benched. How much it will add to your CA player is anyones guess, but I'm sure you'll hear a difference. The only other DAC I would consider (and am) is the Benchmark DAC1. A killer product, and probably my next upgrade.
The Benchmark DAC 1 is out because I have a headphone amp.The MF XDAC v3 is $999 at Musicdierect.Even if I noticed a difference with it would it jusify the expenditure.In other words is a $999 Dac that much better than the CA azur 640c's DAC.

[noddin0ff]

This might be wishful thinking at best. From my vantage point, it is dead and was never really used on a widespread basis. Everything begins in the mix, not in the re-encoder.

I agree it's not very wide spread, (especially since Microsoft bought HDCD, imo). But I still occasionally find new material coming out in HDCD. I don't know what you mean by re-encoded, I think the stuff I've found (only a handful of disks really) was intended to be put in HDCD from the start.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I agree it's not very wide spread, (especially since Microsoft bought HDCD, imo). But I still occasionally find new material coming out in HDCD. I don't know what you mean by re-encoded, I think the stuff I've found (only a handful of disks really) was intended to be put in HDCD from the start.

If a signal originates in digital 16/44.1khz, it is re-encoded by the HDCD process. I have never heard of HDCD being used during production, it is usually a post production tool.

[noddin0ff]

I follow now. I can't imagine that there are HDCD's out there that were 'upconverted' from 16/44.1 sources. I assume they are all from higher res masters, maybe I'm wrong. I don't own any HDCD's that were re-releases.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I follow now. I can't imagine that there are HDCD's out there that were 'upconverted' from 16/44.1 sources. I assume they are all from higher res masters, maybe I'm wrong. I don't own any HDCD's that were re-releases.

Actually HDCD is of no benefit to 20 or 24bit bit depths. It takes 16bit signals and re-encodes them to approximate 20bit depth. This practice would be redundant on signals that are originally recorded in 20bits, and a degredation of 24bit signals.

[noddin0ff]

Hmmm. Thanks for the correction. I always assumed that HDCD essentially took 20bit information and found a way to embed it in a 16bit format (a way that also left the 16bit readable). Obviously I don't understand the encode/decode part. To further demonstrate my ignorance... if your are merely taking 16bit source and readjusting it to 20bit...isn't this kind of analogous to adjusting the gain?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Hmmm. Thanks for the correction. I always assumed that HDCD essentially took 20bit information and found a way to embed it in a 16bit format (a way that also left the 16bit readable). Obviously I don't understand the encode/decode part. To further demonstrate my ignorance... if your are merely taking 16bit source and readjusting it to 20bit...isn't this kind of analogous to adjusting the gain?

What it does is encoded 16bit signals with an additional 4bits of word length which lowers the noise floor, and slightly increases dynamic range. So it not really just a gain adjustment, its a little more than that. Just increasing the gain would also raise the noise floor.

[Geoffcin]

The HDCD (High Definition Compatible Digital®) technology makes it possible to get closer to the original sound. This is facilitated through a sophisticated system, where a 20 - 24 bit sound signal is encoded onto an ordinary CD’s 16 bits through dithering. Open picture.
When played on a CD player, DVD player or amplifier with an HDCD decoder the sound signal is then decoded again to 20 -24 bits.

The engraver has an extra 6 dB available (7 dB extra at low level), which gives noticeably reduced distortion levels and an extra enhanced resolution. All parameters of the sound image are enhanced, resulting in an all-improved sound! A dynamic range of up to 115 dB can be obtained.

An HDCD equipped device gives even ordinary CDs a high sound quality. The already high resolution sound of DVD audio improves with the HDCD technology. The HDCD circuit is PDM100 (44.1 / 88.2 kHz) and PDM200 (48 / 96 176.4 / 192 kHz) which even can be used with DTS.

The creators of the HDCD technology are Keith O. Johnson and Pflash Pflaumer. Together they developed the idea of HDCD between 1986 and 1991. In 1996 they started Pacific Microsonics (PMI), an audio technology company based in California. In September 2000, (PMI) was acquired by Microsoft.

Copied from http://www.hitbutiken.com/hdcd/?p=hdcd

[Geoffcin]

http://www.hitbutiken.com/hdcd/index.php?p=base&mine=&news=&revp=580&search=&letter=

From AC-DC, to ZZ-Top!

[bobsticks]

...and everything that's been said notwithstanding, HDCD encryption does not necessarily equate to a better sounding cd. Take "Sailing To Philadelphia" for example. It is a disc that has largely had the life sucked out of it, and in terms of external noise and imaging pales in comparison to some of Knopfler's non-HDCD releases. Another example of GIGO.
At the end of the day, though, I gotta get me some enhanced "Straight Outta Compton"...

Cheers

[noddin0ff]

Hmmm, I actually thought Sailing was a very well recorded disk. Very delicate. But I don't have a deep Knopfler repetoir to compare to.

[bobsticks]

...IMO Knopfler's stuff raises the bar compared to most rock/pop rbcds. Give a listen to One Take Radio Sessions or Ragpicker's Dream and you may see what I mean. To my ear Sailing sounds a bit flat comparatively, at least the 2-channel cd (haven't listened to the 5.1 yet and perhaps it was the focus of attention). Also sounds a bit bass-heavy, although I have wondered whether the change from Fender/Suhr guitars to Gibson may have contributed to this as well as activities on the board...

Cheers

[superpanavision70mm]

Ok....let's get the facts straight.

Fact #1 NOT ALL CD's ARE CREATED EQUAL
Fact # 2 NOT ALL RECORDINGS ARE EQUAL

Take fact #1 and fact #2 into consideration and we can make a few presumptions. For example...reference points are always going to be skewed. If we took two CD's and compared them side by side there is no reference point as to which one sounds more or less like the original mix. We also are not able to tell if it's necessarily a poor mix or just a poor CD. When someone says ...wow that CD sounds great...what are they comparing that to? Does it sound great in contrast with other CD's or does it sound great in comparison with other recordings?

Ok, so why then can I listen to a CD for a few minutes and know whether it's of good quality? Well, it's all personal preference. Back to HDCD for a minute...

Whether or not the HDCD sounds better than normal CD or not...one thing is for certain...if it sounds good and you like it...what does it matter? Who cares? If you personally think it's a great mix or a great recording etc ....then why does the point of reference even need to exist?

We can go round and round through these forums on this argument and we already have proven that we can go the distance with this debate....it's probably never going to end, but regardless of such....let's all at least agree on certain things. For instance, since we are all coming from various backgrounds, we all have preset notions, we all have preset interpretations, styles, preference, and since we are all of different ages with different hearing capabilities.....there is no real way to fully tell if one person is right or wrong. I suppose it would be great if some flawless machine was able to calculate these findings and truly give us some answer, but we would all debate the machine as well ...so that's a pointless avenue. In the end it would be best to not mix personal taste with absolute truth.

[noddin0ff]

Well, I commented on Knopfler because 1) I thought it sounded good, and 2) if bobsticks is a Knopfler fan he might have some good recommendations, which he did. I'm also curious about what people subjectively define as good. I thought StoP was nice because it had a lot of subtlely that was very clear. Bobsticks I think thought it lacked dymanmics. I'll probably pick up Ragpicker's Dream based on his comments. I think there's two kinds of comments on this thread, informational ones that discuss the limits and capabilities of HDCD and the subjective ones. The subjective ones can go round and round but it's all for the sake of friendly discourse. I think comparisons within an artist can be valid because I expect an artist tends to keep fairly uniform production streams. But I'm just rambling, really. I'm always interested in good recordings and good recommendations. I'm not really looking for absolute subjective truth. The best you can do with subjective is listen to all sides of an argument and see who gives the strongest arguments. To throw your hands up in the air and say 'there is no absolute truth, so therefore it is silly to seek any further knowledge" is defeatist and an obstacle to learning, IMO. Frankly, if a discussion seems pointless, frustrating, or uninteresting to me, I stop reading it. It's better for the blood pressure.

[bobsticks]

s7, my take on noddO's post was that it was a statement of opinion and an implied query, not an accusation or implication of contradictory fact. If anything, I was more concerned that I sounded as if I was making absolutist statements, so some clarification was in order. More importantly, I saw it as an opportunity to share what I consider some superior titles and give whoever might be reading options.
I agree that so much of this is subjective that there will never be definitive answers. And, even if there were, you wouldn't be getting them from me--remember, I'm the guy with like two hundred posts on "what's spinning?" and three silly questions:) I'm not techno-guru-guy, just a fellow with a lot of music.

Cheers to ya

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Well, I commented on Knopfler because 1) I thought it sounded good, and 2) if bobsticks is a Knopfler fan he might have some good recommendations, which he did. I'm also curious about what people subjectively define as good. I thought StoP was nice because it had a lot of subtlely that was very clear. Bobsticks I think thought it lacked dymanmics. I'll probably pick up Ragpicker's Dream based on his comments. I think there's two kinds of comments on this thread, informational ones that discuss the limits and capabilities of HDCD and the subjective ones. The subjective ones can go round and round but it's all for the sake of friendly discourse. I think comparisons within an artist can be valid because I expect an artist tends to keep fairly uniform production streams. But I'm just rambling, really. I'm always interested in good recordings and good recommendations. I'm not really looking for absolute subjective truth. The best you can do with subjective is listen to all sides of an argument and see who gives the strongest arguments. To throw your hands up in the air and say 'there is no absolute truth, so therefore it is silly to seek any further knowledge" is defeatist and an obstacle to learning, IMO. Frankly, if a discussion seems pointless, frustrating, or uninteresting to me, I stop reading it. It's better for the blood pressure.

Actually production values will vary from production to production. It all boils down to the budget allocated for each production. Higher budgets have a good chance of producing better results, lower budgets go all over the place.

When making objective comparison, you must have a reference point to compare sources, and a DBT to get some sort of idea of what is good quality to more than one.
Subjective comparison are only helpful and valid to a single listener (usually yourself) and cannot be quantified for a larger group.

I happen to think the soundtrack of Polar Express is state of the art. I have found others who really didn't think it was all that hot. This is an example of subjective listening, and why it is not helpful for a broad bunch of people. Objective listening with DBT can make an opinion much more palatable for a larger group of people. . One person roof is another floor, that is why subjective listening is not particularly helpful on forums such as this.

[GMichael]

I happen to think the soundtrack of Polar Express is state of the art. I have found others who really didn't think it was all that hot. .

Ooh ooh, Was it an old printer that said that? Let me quess. The dialog was too low.

[noddin0ff]

When making objective comparison, you must have a reference point to compare sources, and a DBT to get some sort of idea of what is good quality to more than one.
Subjective comparison are only helpful and valid to a single listener (usually yourself) and cannot be quantified for a larger group.

While I agree with your point, I think it's possible to glean 'truth' from others subjective opinions. We don’t have a lot of choice really, since most of us can’t go around double blind testing music purchases or have access to masters for everything. Presumably every person who purchases the same CD title owns exactly the same bits as everyone else. If I own Sailing to Philadelphia and Ragpicker's Dream I should be able to discuss comparisons with everyone else who owns the same. People might have subjective preferences, but if you talk with each other and establish a common language, I think you can get somewhere regarding what sounds well done vs. what sounds poorly done. It doesn’t take a savant who was at the recording session to tell that the 20-bit remaster of “Kind of Blue’ reissue is superior to the first release. I think people can generally arrive at determining what is well produced by talking about what they hear and what they like and what they listen for. In the aggregate you might sense trends that support the superiority of a format for certain qualities. If you say Polar Express is terrific, I’ve read enough of your posts to have a feel for what you think is terrific. Not strictly objective but close enough, and informative, for those of us in the real world.

I don’t agree that you have to have a studio master in hand to have a productive discussion. I personally find a lot that is useful about others subjectively opinions, especially after I’ve read enough of their posts to get an idea what to listen for. Sure a lot is circular, but a lot is not.

I do enjoy the absolute mechanical science of it all too; I’m a geek. For me, to determine if HDCD is superior, I want to know what are the limits of its capabilities, how it is implemented, whether those limits outperform redbook on paper, how those increases in capabilities fall in the range of perception, and what they should sound like. Specifically for HDCD, my conclusion is that the improvement technologically is nominal to imperceptible over redbook. But that doesn’t alter the general subjective fact that HDCD’s tend to be superior sounding.

"Is X better than Y?" is not a dumb question and, IMO, I find stating that quality is production dependent doesn’t really helps answer the question. Sure, learning about the production process is very interesting to me (and I get much out of TT’s insights). But, I know production values vary-- they vary for every format. They always have, yet we still have ‘superior’ formats coming out. There doesn’t seem to be any doubt to most of you all that SACD is superior but I don’t hear requests for objective double blinds as a prerequisite for that conclusion. If the only useful posts allowed were those that adhered to strict objectivity, we’d maybe have 2 or 3 posts total on this forum.

I get a little tired on the speaker forum, the cable forum, the amp forum, hearing all the smack-down posts saying there's no point in describing how something ‘sounds’ since it’s all subjective and you are not me, and he is not she, so there’s no way your comments could possible have any bearing on he, she, or it’s purchases. If descriptive posts fail to be useful, it’s only because people aren’t trying to understand each other. Or aren't making the effort to arrive at a common language.

2 cents…well maybe 3 cents.