HDCD. is it that good?

[SpankingVanillaice]

I allways woundered but is there a difference on sound compairing a cd that is HDCD and a normal cd? Like is the HDCD 10 times more clear and percise?

[RobotCzar]

I'd be interested in the articles, if they can be had online. Thanks!

Sorry, they are hard to get even in a library as they are found in the now defunct "Audio" magazine.

I don't think anyone suggested any improvement over original recording...But what do you mean by more pleasing to the uncritical?

I mean that they are not accurate to the original performance, they are processed to make them sound "better" (i.e., more sweet, dramatic, etc.). This process would be similar to digital keying in video (where color and contrast are "enhanced" to make the scene prettier or more dramatic).

I've never really understood what 20-bit processing was supposed to mean, since they still get re-released as Redbook. I assume that that means the analog material was sampled at 20bit then downconverted to 16? But that doesn't make a lot of sense if you could easily sample at 24 and higher rates and then down convert...what's up?

It makes even less sense to reissue analog recordings done at the equivalent of 12-bits and claim "20-bit" performance. Sampling an analog recording and 20-bits that is performing at significantly less than 16-bits is not going to make them sound like 20 or even 16-bits, despite what the marketing department wants you to believe. The noise shaping process (which trades some noise in more audible frequencies for more noise is less audible frequencies) does nothing to reduce noise that is already in the recording. Active processing by a human or a digial algorithm is the only way to lower the noise of such recordings--and that WILL affect audible frequencies (i.e., increase distortion).

The only thing noise shaping (which is where the quasi "20-bits" come from) can do is to lower noise which can only be heard if the recording is very quiet AND the music is also very quiet (or silent)--hence genre matters. Noise shaping gives the "equivalent"of 18-19 bit noise performance ONLY in the targeted frequency range (noise overall cannot be better than the 16-bits of the playback medium).

To me it just seems silly to expect a live performance to be perfectly replicated...for starters where is the imaginary listener sitting (front row? Mezzanine?). So I guess I figure it's always up to the engineer to decide how the release should sound regardless of what was recorded. Sometimes the second engineer is a better artist, sometimes worse. But s/he does get better technology. What do you mean by showy?

It is not silly, it is the very definition of "high fidelity". You are correct saying that a live performance cannot be perfectly replicated, but the goal is to get as close as possible. The decision of what row you are in IS dependent on the recording engineer (and producer), but an accuate first row or back row is still the goal. A good recording engineer should do what he can to make an accurate recording (given target home audio systems). A recording engineer SHOULD NOT act as an "artist", but in pop music they have to (again, genre matters). What do you mean by a "better artist"? One that makes music that is more pleasing to YOU? Or to me? The point is that "accurate" is potentially objective, "better" is completely subjective.

Showy recordings are like enhanced pictures found in glossy magazines--highly processed and not accurate, but pleasing to many viewers.

From what I understand, you don't get true 16bits from Redbook either. Am I misinformed?

Yes and no. If the recording was not made at the equivalent of 16-bits in terms of noise and dynamic range, then the playback medium won't make it perform at 16-bits. Old analog recordings often did not achieve 16-bit performance (this is why digital recording is better). New recordings are not quaranteed to acheive 16-bit performance either. A lot of mixing of tracks recorded at different relative levels will result in a recording with less than the performance of the recording equipment. (Note therefore that multi-track mixdowns are likely to have less than expected performance so 20-bit recording makes some sense--there is more "headroom" for mix downs.) Again, as no live reference exists for multi-tracked recordings and such recordings are very common in pop-rock but not jazz or classical--genre matters.

Nice talking with you, I strive for civility, but it is hard at times.

[RobotCzar]

Sticking just to *playback* (because 'hi rez' recording has reasonable technical advantages) -- recording 'engineers' usually aren't (engineers, I mean). They don't tend to adhere to scientific standards. I've seen recording and mastering engineers tout some pretty ridiculous products (Shakti stones, anyone?). When you guys have actually published some replicable data from well-done *double blind* comparisons, in, say, the AES journal -- which, curiously, even the *developers* of DSD and DVD-A appear not to have done, why is that? -- *then* it's time to believe. We all know even the the most 'trustworthy' ears can be mislead by normal, inescapable human bias.

Amen. I fully support all your comments, but I want to draw particular attention the fact that recording "engineers" do not adhere to scientific standards (well put) and they are often not trained as electrical engineers and cannot be expected to have technical answers to many questions that vex audiophiles. Even well-respected engineers have, for example, backed expensive cable. Worse yet, as I have pointed out, many recording engineers are a vested interest in new formats adopted by their employers.

Bottom line is that the new bit-wasting playback formats have not be shown empricially to be superior in a controlled test and also have zero theoretical reason superior AUDIBLE performance.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Sorry, they are hard to get even in a library as they are found in the now defunct "Audio" magazine.

It figures. And you complain about someone throwing out a claims with no support. You are guilty as charged my friend.

I mean that they are not accurate to the original performance, they are processed to make them sound "better" (i.e., more sweet, dramatic, etc.). This process would be similar to digital keying in video (where color and contrast are "enhanced" to make the scene prettier or more dramatic).

How do you know what the original performance sounds like, were you there? If you have ever heard a live recording tape before post, you would know that they disperately need some tweaking before mastering.

Isn't post production for tailoring the product to fit the medium. So what do you think we should do? Record a live event, and release it with less the perfect levels, instruments not fully fleshed out, balance not quite right, and dynamics that distort the 16bit medium? ALL recordings have to be tweaked to a degree, but of course as a knowledgeable professional audio engineer you already know these things right?

You have never even heard what a original performance sounds on tape(or hard disk) so by what perspective can you even bring to this topic may I ask?

It makes even less sense to reissue analog recordings done at the equivalent of 12-bits and claim "20-bit" performance.

A recording made with 12bits and no dither would be unlistenable.

How do you know what resolution the analog recording is? Have you every personally measured? This is a inflammitory statement made to support and ignorant perspective. Not helpful to the topic at all. No one, NO ONE has ever measure the resolution of an analog source to make a comparison to digital resolution, so where do you get 12bit from, your bum?

Sampling an analog recording and 20-bits that is performing at significantly less than 16-bits is not going to make them sound like 20 or even 16-bits, despite what the marketing department wants you to believe.

Do you have any evidence to support you claims that analog recordings perform at less than 16bits? Or is this just more of your inflammatory posturing just to make a point(you know you are VERY good at this). You have absolutely no scientific evidence to support your claims that analog recordings(expecially quality ones) do not perform at at least at 16bit level. However there is ample evidence that support the notion that analog recordings carry significantly more bandwidth the 16/44.1khz redbook CD. 1",1 3/4" and 2" magnetic tape with NR can outperform the redbook CD format quite easily.

The noise shaping process (which trades some noise in more audible frequencies for more noise is less audible frequencies) does nothing to reduce noise that is already in the recording. Active processing by a human or a digial algorithm is the only way to lower the noise of such recordings--and that WILL affect audible frequencies (i.e., increase distortion).

If you knew the principles of noise shaping, you would understand the purpose is not to remove the noise in the recording, it is to use the psychoacoustical nature of our ears and push the noise to an area were it is not audible to the human ear. It doesn't trade the noise at all, it simply moves it up in frequency. If you shape the noise so that its prominence is out of our most sensitive area of hearing, you are effectively increasing signal performance by lowering the noise floor. That is why they can claim 20bit performance from 16bit recordings. There are not saying you are getting 20bits of signal quality, they are saying you are getting 20bit performance. BIG difference!

The only thing noise shaping (which is where the quasi "20-bits" come from) can do is to lower noise which can only be heard if the recording is very quiet AND the music is also very quiet (or silent)--hence genre matters. Noise shaping gives the "equivalent"of 18-19 bit noise performance ONLY in the targeted frequency range (noise overall cannot be better than the 16-bits of the playback medium).

If you understood how the ear works, you would also understand that it is not necessary to remove noise in a broadband fashion. Noise in the bass region is masked by signal, and by our ears relative insensitivity in the region. Noise in the upper frequencies are not audible to the ears also based out of relative insensitivity. Obviously you wouldn't have a need for 20bit performance on loud rock and roll where there is little dynamic changes, and the level of noise is well below the recorded level. This is probably the only "genre" of music this applies to. But since the recording world doesn't surround itself around this genre of music, then the genre of music does not play a role in this at all. Trying to make this a technique of genre is a side show to the main point. Since gospel, classic, jazz, world, some types of rap, brass choir, string quartets, small wind ensembles, mass choir, jazz ensemble, big band, organ solos and many other types of "genres" have periods of low level signals, they could benefit from this type of processing. To make your point around the genre of music is majoring in minors.

My on hands experience does not equal your uneducated, non hands on experience. You are just plain wrong about 18-19bit performance from HDCD. According to what I measured from my boards HDCD plug in(and this isn't even from the outboard box which is probably of a better quality than the plug in) between 200-8khz the noise level before processing with HDCD was -96db to the noise floor. That is 16bit performance from a 16bit chain of recording and processing.(which was VERY difficult to do cleanly). After encoding with HDCD, the noise floor in the same area was closer to -119db which is indeed 20bit performance. That is why I purchased the plug in, because it performed as advertised. Now according to my last count, over 120 studios have HDCD processing in the inventory of processors in this country alone. Amoung this 120, a list of the most prestigious and prominent grammy award winning mastering engineers(studios) are amoung them. This includes Bernie Grundman Mastering, Gataway mastering, Skywalker sound, 5.1 entertainment group, Dts entertainment group, and about 20 more that I cannot remember. Do you think one company's marketing department is smart enough to convince these mastering experts that they product can do as claimed, without first proving the point to them?

It is not silly, it is the very definition of "high fidelity". You are correct saying that a live performance cannot be perfectly replicated, but the goal is to get as close as possible. The decision of what row you are in IS dependent on the recording engineer (and producer), but an accuate first row or back row is still the goal.

No recording engineer worth their salt worries about a back row, front row perspective while recording. That is a perspective of a man who sits in his chair in his living room and thinks that he knows all there is about digital recording when he hasn't so much as placed a single mike in his life.

Recording engineers have QUALITY first in mind, and pull together the finest microphones, mixing board, and processing boxes he can get his hands on to acheive that end. Since it is impossible to do a back row recording without either placing the mikes there(which would lead to a reverberant field recording with a poor frequency response and no imaging whatsoever) or they would have to add a ton of reverb to the mix in post processing (which would make the recording sound artificial and unnatural). That is not the "accuracy" that you claim is highly desireable.

A good recording engineer should do what he can to make an accurate recording (given target home audio systems). A recording engineer SHOULD NOT act as an "artist", but in pop music they have to (again, genre matters).

But that would require sweetening, and you are totally against this. Did you know that recording engineers do not have to be an artist at all if that was desireable, even with pop music? Haven't you ever heard of a live studio recording? That can be done with just about any genre of music there is. Anita Baker made two of these recordings, and aside from eq, and some compression, these recording contained no artistic additions at all. The artist decides what artistic approaches they want, and when they finish, then the recording is accurate. What is accurate is based on the artist, producer, or engineers perspective, not yours. The recording itself is just a foundation layed, it is up to the artist to build the building.

What do you mean by a "better artist"? One that makes music that is more pleasing to YOU? Or to me? The point is that "accurate" is potentially objective, "better" is completely subjective.

A artist should make music that is pleasing to them first, then it should be pleasing to you. It is their vision after all that you are sharing, and not the other way around. So the point is, what becomes accurate is based soley on the perspective of the artist, and if the artistic vision includes eq, limiting, compression, fancy panning, dogs barking in the background, sounds panned in a circle frantically and all processed in HDCD, then that is an accurate version the artist wants to portray. And guess what, you have no right to judge it otherwise because it is THEIR vision, not yours.

Showy recordings are like enhanced pictures found in glossy magazines--highly processed and not accurate, but pleasing to many viewers.

If this is what the artist wants to portray, then its accurate to them. Enhanced pictures found in glossy magazines are accurately what an editors wants in his magazine. The judgement of what is accurate belongs to the artist, not you. How would you know anyway?

Old analog recordings often did not achieve 16-bit performance (this is why digital recording is better). New recordings are not quaranteed to acheive 16-bit performance either.

What scientific analysis can you draw from that makes these statements accurate? Most new recording offer much greater performance than 16bit can reproduce. That is why most recordings(especially those headed for SACD and DVD-A release) have to be downsampled to even fit on a 16bit platform. Most new recordings(with wide distribution) are recorded at 24/48khz, 24/96khz, 24/88.2khz, 24/176.4 or DSD format these days. Even small scale studio projects are outputted at 24/96khz or 24/88.2 because the equipment to do this is so cheap now.(computer based DAW come to mind). Almost no one records anything at 16/44.1khz anymore because it leads to too many problems in post processing(no headroom, lack of bits for eq, compression etc). Some of the best sounding digital products come from analog background(early Telarc recordings on Soundstream equipment(which had a frequency response to 50khz, much greater than 16bit 44.1khz can do). Mercury living presence recordings all had information above 20khz in them. Significantly greater bandwidth than 16bit 44.1khz has. Any analog tape above 1" with noise reduction could outperform 16/44.1khz. So you claims come from your head, and not from scientific evidence.

A lot of mixing of tracks recorded at different relative levels will result in a recording with less than the performance of the recording equipment.

This is a convoluted statement if I ever read one. Without a specific sample or bit rate this statement is meaningless. Even if the levels were all different, when summed at the board they would still require more than 16bits to process them, and would required compression and limiting to fit within the 16bit medium.

(Note therefore that multi-track mixdowns are likely to have less than expected performance so 20-bit recording makes some sense--there is more "headroom" for mix downs.) Again, as no live reference exists for multi-tracked recordings and such recordings are very common in pop-rock but not jazz or classical--genre matters.

More convoluted statements, and some plain wrong statements. Your thought process is derived out of the dark ages or not well thought out at all. Classical and jazz are all multitracked these days. What do you think, they only use two microphones for stereo recordings, and five for multichannel?

NO! that is not how it is done. My last recording of big band jazz used 12 microphones. The last large symphony recording I did required 10 microphones(spotlight mikes are necessary in large halls with large orchestras). Now the only way to use minimalist microphone techniques are with small ensembles in small recording spaces. Almost all forms of music require multiple microphones. Now you may only have five that you pull from all of the time, but you definately need more for spotlighting solos or some individual instruments.

Secondly, If I sum all of the outputs of these 10-12 microphones recorded at 24bits, without compression I would be using greater than 24bits of signal. Each microphone input adds DB's to the overall mix. That is why they have invented mixing boards with 64bit floating points.

Nice talking with you, I strive for civility, but it is hard at times.

I am sure it is really difficult, especially when you pretent that you know what you are talking about, and you don't really.

Once again, the HDCD process has a white paper on record with AES. SACD, DVD-A Dolby Digital, and Dts all have white papers on record. The beneifts of SACD and DVD-A have been debated, refuted, and sucessfully rebutted. Dolby digital was completely refuted, and found to perform at 18bits, not the 20bits they claim. Dts and HDCD white papers have not been refuted by the peers of its inventors. There is a reason for this, and that reason is they perform, or have performance characteristics as stated in the white papers submitted. Now you who complains that engineers do not follow scientific methods, are guilty of the same. You have thrown off a bunch of statements that are neither scientific or particularly accurate. What they show is that you have cursory knowledge, but trying to present defined statements.

Have you ever watch an engineer mix audio? The how do you know they don't follow scientific methonds? Or what methods the use in general?
Have you ever recorded or measured any audio? Then how do you know what the resolution of any recording(analog or digtal) is.
Have you ever had the job of placing microphones for a recording? Then how do you know what a correct technique is, or in what instances more than 5 are needed?
Have you ever done a multitrack recording in your life and measured the resolution of your results? Then how do you know the resolution of varying levels of multitracked channels are.

If the answer to these question are what I think they are, then you have just wasted a alot of bandwidth with a bunch of self thought up foolishness.

Lastly, your effort to demonize audio engineers is gross and insulting. Remember, they are sitting behind the mixing boards moving the controls. You are sitting in your rocking chair listening. Why in the heck should I listening to a rocking chair quarterback(who normally doesn't know mixing from a rat turd), rather than listening to the quarterback who really runs the game.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Amen. I fully support all your comments, but I want to draw particular attention the fact that recording "engineers" do not adhere to scientific standards (well put)

Where is the scientific evidence that support this assumption? Do you sit in every studio in the world and watch what engineers do? NO, because you cannot do it. Stick to facts, not your own inexperienced beliefs.

and they are often not trained as electrical engineers and cannot be expected to have technical answers to many questions that vex audiophiles.

We are talking about mixing audio, you don't need an electrical engineering degree to do this. Most engineers do have extensive knowledge of the principles of digital audio, and how to effective use the tools they have at their disposal. Do you?

Even well-respected engineers have, for example, backed expensive cable.

Yes, and so have some electrical engineers too!!

Worse yet, as I have pointed out, many recording engineers are a vested interest in new formats adopted by their employers.

Sorry, but 90% of all working engineers are independent. The main engineers pushing these high rez formats are independents. Jack Renner and Michael Bishop(biggest supporters of SACD) work for Telarc, not Sony. Tony Brown, Chuck Ainley, Eliott Schneider(major supporters of DVD-A) all own their own studios. Most of the recordings that Warner(DVD-A) and Sony/BMG(SACD) release come from independent engineers. They are not employed by any studio, and are not obligated in any way to support either format. If these engineers support these products, they do based on their own experience, not pressure from Sony or Warner. A audio engineer can do quite well without every releasing anything on both of these labels. They could also do quite well without openly supporting either high rez format. So when you want to point something out next time, be at least factual. Otherwise you are just another bloke spewing out a bunch of mindless uneducated words.

Bottom line is that the new bit-wasting playback formats have not be shown empricially to be superior in a controlled test and also have zero theoretical reason superior AUDIBLE performance.

DCs has done a controlled double blinded comparison, and they published their results.

http://www.dcsltd.co.uk/technical_papers/effects.pdf

It compares 16/44.1khz with 24/96khz, 24/192khz, and DSD. If you notice, there are no comments in the CD box. That is because the comments in the other boxes are observations that are derived from the comparison. In other words the comments are derived from the differences found between the different sample rates and DSD as compared with the reference (CD)

This comparison was done in 1998 back when the editing tools for DVD-A and SACD were limited and of lower quality than those used presently. Now these tools are of better quality, and are in most studios that frequently use both of the high rez formats, so I know for a fact the quality of both of these formats have improved greatly.

[RobotCzar]

It figures. And you complain about someone throwing out a claims with no support. You are guilty as charged my friend.

1) You did notice he said he wanted the reference IF is was online. I still offter to look up the reference if anyone wants it, but as I said, you may have difficulty accessing old Audio magazines. The article is called "20-Bits from a 16-Bit box?" (or something like that) and it appeared within the last two years of Audio.

2) I haven't been "charged" with anything by anybody but you.

3) You are acting weird, which tends to discredit your arguments (if they can possible be more discredited).

[E-Stat]

Bottom line is that the new bit-wasting playback formats have not be shown empricially to be superior in a controlled test and also have zero theoretical reason superior AUDIBLE performance.

According to whom? Do you think hi-rez digital is some corporate conspiracy where all the engineers, both in design and in recording, are blindly chasing rainbows?

Right.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

1) You did notice he said he wanted the reference IF is was online. I still offter to look up the reference if anyone wants it, but as I said, you may have difficulty accessing old Audio magazines. The article is called "20-Bits from a 16-Bit box?" (or something like that) and it appeared within the last two years of Audio.

2) I haven't been "charged" with anything by anybody but you.

3) You are acting weird, which tends to discredit your arguments (if they can possible be more discredited).

How can you say I am acting weird, you don't even know me!!! You have this tendancy to make statements that have no basis in reality.

You made a claim about HDCD, and you have absolutely nothing to support that claim. You made a judgement on my character, and you don't even know me. You are creating a pattern of making unsubstantiated claims. What's up with that????

Since you never responded to my post, then actually it would be your credibility that is in question. You couldn't answer the questions, so you attack the person. Really mature of ya!

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

According to whom? Do you think hi-rez digital is some corporate conspiracy where all the engineers, both in design and in recording, are blindly chasing rainbows?

Right.

rw

And don't forget, the marketing departments from the record companies are actually creating the rainbows for us all to chase!!

[noddin0ff]

so where do you get 12bit from, your bum?

Why in the heck should I listening to a rocking chair quarterback(who normally doesn't know mixing from a rat turd), rather than listening to the quarterback who really runs the game.

I think I called RC out for civility, I'll do the same here, TT. And reiterate that I am very much appreciating both your comments.

I'm a bit confused on dynamic range vs signal to noise vs bits. I'm not sure how to ask this... 16 bit vs 24 bit gives you a larger numeric range obviously. And compared to cassette tape, all things as equal as I can make them, CD seems louder and is more dynamic. 24bit should be more so. Why louder? Is a bit a unit of loudness? Why doesn't 24 bit give you the same range as 16 with more resolution? I tend to think in Photoshop terms. You have black (silence) and white (loudest) as absolutes and higher bit resolution gives more shades of grey between. With audio more bits seems to give whiter white instead of more shades of grey. Is this just my perception?

Also I thought that 'noise' was a harmonic thing due to the sampling frequency and not the bit resolution. I must be wrong there, because HDCD is the same freq.

Thanks,

RC: If you have the actual magazines, I can receive scans. Don't worry if not possible.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I think I called RC out for civility, I'll do the same here, TT. And reiterate that I am very much appreciating both your comments.

Civility is a non issue here, no one called anyone names or disrespected anyone else.

I'm a bit confused on dynamic range vs signal to noise vs bits. I'm not sure how to ask this... 16 bit vs 24 bit gives you a larger numeric range obviously. And compared to cassette tape, all things as equal as I can make them, CD seems louder and is more dynamic.

Actually cassettes aren't necessarily more or less dynamic than CD, the music on them is heavily compressed. While the dynamic range of cassette(about 66dbs with Dolby B) is rather limited compared to CD, other noise reduction circuits such as Dolby S can bring the cassette alot closer in terms of dynamic range

24bit should be more so. Why louder? Is a bit a unit of loudness? Why doesn't 24 bit give you the same range as 16 with more resolution? I tend to think in Photoshop terms. You have black (silence) and white (loudest) as absolutes and higher bit resolution gives more shades of grey between. With audio more bits seems to give whiter white instead of more shades of grey. Is this just my perception?

I think it is your perception. 24bit is not necessarily louder than 16bit. Digital 0db reference is the same for both. What 24bit does is lower the noise floor which can make soft sounds easier to hear over the noise floor which is -144dbs. That is what accounts for the greater dynamic range of 24bit. 16bit has a noise floor of -96db, and studies have shown that during soft passages of some material, the noise floor can be heard over the signal.

But as you put it well, it also has more shades of grays. 16bit has 65,536 different levels of resolution(grays as you put it) and 24bit has 16,777,216. This means more pictures will be taken of the analog signal which leads to better resolution.

Also I thought that 'noise' was a harmonic thing due to the sampling frequency and not the bit resolution. I must be wrong there, because HDCD is the same freq.

No noise is not a harmonic thing or acoustical musical instruments would make an awful lot of noise.

[shokhead]

OK. So little old me is skipping over to BB to buy a cd of wonderfull music. I have a nice,mid priced HT. Whats the best recording on a cd thats going to sound its best? HDCD? DTS 5.1?24 bits?Remastered? What do i look for for the best recorded cd?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

OK. So little old me is skipping over to BB to buy a cd of wonderfull music. I have a nice,mid priced HT. Whats the best recording on a cd thats going to sound its best? HDCD? DTS 5.1?24 bits?Remastered? What do i look for for the best recorded cd?

Me being a multichannel guy, I would go for Dts music myself. Keep in mind, its the recording quality that largely determines how good it sounds. It is not always the higher bits or sample rate.

[shokhead]

DTS music discs are my fav,just not much to choose from.

[krabapple]

I do not know any recording engineer who peddles shakti stones,

I said *endorse*, not peddle. Here's one:

http://www.shakti-innovations.com/hallograph.htm

Also, apparently the guys who set up and run Pink Floyd's de-eluxe houseboat/studio (The Astoria) use Shakti stones too:

http://www.tapeop.com/magazine/bonus...philtaylor.pdf

and most of the engineers I know around Los Angeles do not even recommend using them. I don't know where you get your information from. And you cannot make a blanket statement that audio engineers do not adhere to scientific standards, many of them do and have done their own blind comparison before investing in new audio formats.

I didn't say *none* of them do. Please read more carefully. But certainly the number of claims of difference I've read on the webpages and on forums frequented by RE's, *far* outnumber the stories about careful controlled comparison. Not everyone is Bob Katz , alas.

Also, I am not here to impress upon you the benefits of any format. You can either recognized that they it sounds better than redbook CD, or you don't. That is your business not mine.

You can either *believe* that, or not. 'Recognize' implies that something has actually entered the realm of fact. It hasn't. Otherwise, you could say the same thing about Shakti Stones, couldn't you?

Lastly, double blind testing may be great for ending arguements, but it is not always the best way to distinguish between what is good, and what is better. They are VERY stressful, and can put you in a state that doesn't allow you to distinguish anything.

Whereas sighted comparison can put you in a state where you convince yourself of something that simply isn't real.

Industry uses blind tests every day to find out which products consumers find 'good ' versus 'better', btw. But in the case of the sheer volume of potential nonsense propounded in audio, I'm more concerned with first getting some good data on what sounds *different* -- we can worry about 'better' later.

You can't be biased if you don't have an opinion one way or the other anyway.

You might want to do some reading in perceptual psychology or psychoacoustics before you make statements like that. 'Bias' needn't be conscious. Simple differences in level, for example, often lead listeners to find the louder presentation to sound 'better' -- not louder.

You post may play well with the naysayers, but most people don't sit in the naysayers or yeasayers camp. They sit somewhere in between.

Most people aren't really well-informed about perceptual illusions or the scientific method.
Maybe that's why.

[krabapple]

DTS music discs are my fav,just not much to choose from.

The answer's going to depend FAR more on how well it was mixed (in the case of a remix) and mastered, than on whether it's HDCD or SACD or DTS or whatever. And while subjectively it's going to come down to taste, the tendency since the early 90's or so has been to remaster stuff LOUDER than before, sometimes with ridiculous amounts of peak limiting and dynamic range compression....so it's no longer a safe bet that a 'remaster' will actually be of higher sonic quality than the previous issue (if it ever was).

[shokhead]

Maybe but i've never got a remastered that wasnt better then the previous issue. Some just do it better then others also.

[krabapple]

Maybe but i've never got a remastered that wasnt better then the previous issue. Some just do it better then others also.

Well, given that psychoacousticaly, 'louder' tends to be interpreted as 'better', I suppose that's not too surprising. But I have some remasters that are just absurdly loud and dynamically compressed, compared to their previous issues. Some of those alas are also HDCD encoded.

[shokhead]

Louder wasnt in my thinking of remastered being better.

[noddin0ff]

Well, given that psychoacousticaly, 'louder' tends to be interpreted as 'better', I suppose that's not too surprising. But I have some remasters that are just absurdly loud and dynamically compressed, compared to their previous issues. Some of those alas are also HDCD encoded.

How do you know they are dynamically compressed? What would something dynamically compressed sound like? Also, while I also tend to think remasters sound louder, couldn't a lower noise floor be perceived as louder? I don't know, I'm just wondering out loud, ignorantly. Maybe a possible frame of reference would be the remaster of Kind of Blue? It sounds cleaner to me, more dynamic. I definately hear more detail. I can't say if it sounds or is louder, however, than the original issue. What's an example of a remaster you think is compressed?

[noddin0ff]

No noise is not a harmonic thing or acoustical musical instruments would make an awful lot of noise.

I guess I phrased that wrong. I know about musical instrument harmonics. From poor memory, I thougt that one of the reasons for increasing the sampling frequency higher than redbook 44.1 was that this lower sampling frequency supported/introduced(?) artificial potentially audible harmonic noise (that detract from music). Maybe I have it backward and that higher sample frequencies allowed retention of higher harmonic frequencies that are part of the music. A 44.1kHz rate supports a 22kHz wave...

[noddin0ff]

the tendency since the early 90's or so has been to remaster stuff LOUDER than before,

Another question I have (for TT too) is that if the limit for one end of the digital signal range is 0dB (maximal volume), then dynamic range is really greater extension toward silence, right? So are remaster's really mixed louder? Or is the peak tone on a track actually set at some -dB?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I said *endorse*, not peddle. Here's one:

http://www.shakti-innovations.com/hallograph.htm

Also, apparently the guys who set up and run Pink Floyd's de-eluxe houseboat/studio (The Astoria) use Shakti stones too:

http://www.tapeop.com/magazine/bonus...philtaylor.pdf

First, this is not a shakti stone. It is a form of hemholtz resonator this is used as a diffusor. And yes, they actually work because it is based on sound scientific acoustical knowledge. Hemholtz resonators can be found in any audio, television, or film studio all over the world. I have two in my hometheater presently. If this is the basis of your argument, then you are on sand.

I didn't say *none* of them do. Please read more carefully. But certainly the number of claims of difference I've read on the webpages and on forums frequented by RE's, *far* outnumber the stories about careful controlled comparison. Not everyone is Bob Katz , alas.

I cannot speak for all webpages or audio boards, I can speak for the ones I frequent. None of the ones I frequent do you see outrageous claims not being rebutted with science. Now you may frequent the ones full of amateur wanna bee recording engineers that get away with this, but not on the ones frequent.

You can either *believe* that, or not. 'Recognize' implies that something has actually entered the realm of fact. It hasn't. Otherwise, you could say the same thing about Shakti Stones, couldn't you?

You have the option of interpreting whatever you desire, that is your right. However I have only conveyed my experience on this board. I have never portrayed my experience as word, just an opinion of one. For me, and based on my experience, some things have become "fact" for me, and me alone. Once again, you can choose to believe whatsoever you desire.

Whereas sighted comparison can put you in a state where you convince yourself of something that simply isn't real.

And blinded comparisons can put you under such stress that everything sounds exactly alike, even when it doesn't.

Industry uses blind tests every day to find out which products consumers find 'good ' versus 'better', btw. But in the case of the sheer volume of potential nonsense propounded in audio, I'm more concerned with first getting some good data on what sounds *different* -- we can worry about 'better' later.

That is your opinion, and what you desire. Other are different, and have other methodolgies for coming to their conclusions. Different strokes for differnt folks. I personally never asked for your concern.

You might want to do some reading in perceptual psychology or psychoacoustics before you make statements like that. 'Bias' needn't be conscious. Simple differences in level, for example, often lead listeners to find the louder presentation to sound 'better' -- not louder.

Please, do not tell me to read anything. You do not know what I have read, or what I have not. Everything mentioned in this paragraph I have learned, forgotten, and relearned several times over. Please do not waste my time with information that is as widely available as water. Sometimes a louder presentation is just louder, and not better at all.

Most people aren't really well-informed about perceptual illusions or the scientific method.
Maybe that's why.

How do you know, have you asked most people? Are you suggesting that everyone should be a naysayer or a yasayer. Some people choose neither, even when armed with information about perceptual illusions and scientfic methodology.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

The answer's going to depend FAR more on how well it was mixed (in the case of a remix) and mastered, than on whether it's HDCD or SACD or DTS or whatever. And while subjectively it's going to come down to taste, the tendency since the early 90's or so has been to remaster stuff LOUDER than before, sometimes with ridiculous amounts of peak limiting and dynamic range compression....so it's no longer a safe bet that a 'remaster' will actually be of higher sonic quality than the previous issue (if it ever was).

I think equal weight should be placed on both the format, and the mix. I case you didn't know this, a great mix can be ruined by the format. For example a well done 5.1 mix, mixed down to two channel.

Not all music genres are dogged with peak limiting, and compression artifacts. This kind of volume pushing is usually relegated to pop, and some forms of jazz. And most often on PCM based recordings.

As I have elluded to earlier, sometimes louder is just louder, and not perceived as better at all. I think it is a assumption on you part to believe that anyone believes that louder is better. In some cases yes, but not in all cases.

Each mix must be taken on its own merit. You cannot assume anything, or make any negative claims about any mix until it is heard, or analyzed.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Another question I have (for TT too) is that if the limit for one end of the digital signal range is 0dB (maximal volume), then dynamic range is really greater extension toward silence, right? So are remaster's really mixed louder? Or is the peak tone on a track actually set at some -dB?

The loudness of recordings are all over the place. Since the music industry has no standards for mixing and playback volumes, you can find recording mixed very hot, or not hot enough to overcome the noise floor.

As a guidline for myself, I try and keep my peaks about 4-6db below 0 to keep from introducing clipping to the signal during peaks. However it has been heard and measured that some albums are recording alot louder, with less dynamic range, and with audible and measureable clipping distortion. This occurs mostly in pop, rock, and some jazz, and mostly with PCM based formats, with the CD being the most guilty.