-
HDCD. is it that good?
Is there a big difference between listening to a HDCD on a HDCD cd player compared to listeing to it on a regular cd player not picking up the HDCD coding?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duds
Is there a big difference between listening to a HDCD on a HDCD cd player compared to listeing to it on a regular cd player not picking up the HDCD coding?
No. The best that HDCD can do is slighly lower noise in the high frequencies (at the cost of higher noise in the lower frequencies). At best, you might hear less noise in very quiet passages (with HDCD decoding). This improvement could never happen with older reissues or any popular music.
-
So it really shouldnt deter me from buying a cd player that does not do HDCD?
-
Like THX,if its got it,fine but i wouldnt woory about it. DTS Music Disc,even if its more money soulds wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy better.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobotCzar
No. The best that HDCD can do is slighly lower noise in the high frequencies (at the cost of higher noise in the lower frequencies). At best, you might hear less noise in very quiet passages (with HDCD decoding). This improvement could never happen with older reissues or any popular music.
Duds- All the HDCD's that I have do sound very good on my HDCD player (Denon DCM-370) and I would say noticeably better overall than CD's. However, the HDCD's do also tend to sound very good on non-HDCD players, so I can't say for certain whether it is the HDCD encoding that makes them better or just that more care tends to go into mastering HDCD releases. I have listened carefully to the difference between using the Denon's HDCD DAC providing an analog out (HDCD decoded) to my receiver (Yamaha V800) vs. outputting a digital signal and letting the Yamaha do the DAC (no HDCD decoding). The Yami sounds brittle compared to the Denon. Perhaps, the HDCD decoding is providing a better-resolved sound. That's what I'd like to believe, and is the reason I think HDCD players are superior.
I don't quite understand RobotCzar's comments. HDCD is supposed to provide greater (20bit) dynamic resolution over CD (16bit). I fail to see why a greater dynamic resolution should bias noise at any particular frequency range. Maybe he can explain. Seems to me that if you believe that 24bit is better than 20 is better than 16, then HDCD is likely superior to CD. No one claims DVD-A has more noise at lower frequencies...
I would disagree with shokhead. HDCD is a format and is not like THX, which is a certification standard. I think there is likely an improvement with HDCD being a marginally superior format, whereas THX certification just means everything is functioning like it was designed to.
It can be difficult to find HDCD disks. And since Microsoft acquired HDCD, I expect them to turn it into an inferior, and over protected technology like many of their offerings, but that is a different rant.
-
Mike Oldfield's back catalogue has been remastered to HDCD and if you compare the original recording of tublar bells with the HDCD remaster you will hear the difference quite clearly, the HDCD remaster has more detail and better rendition of the dynamics of the piece. If you have a HDCD capable CD spinner I would recommend using it whenever possible, no arguments this is just my ears telling me this.
-
Did some testing last night
So i am thinking about buying this Rotel RCD-971 from a guy i work with. I brought it home to listen to it last night. I hooked it up with analog cables.
I found some HDCDs in my collection. One was Neil Young's newest greatest hits. The cd sounded great on the rotel, so i wanted to see if it was the HDCD that was doing it. So i popped it into a cheap RCA dvd player I am borrowing which is hooked up digitally to my Marantz SR-7000 receiver. I dont think I could tell any difference between the two if I had to do a blind test.
Now dont get me wrong, this cd sounded 100 times better than Neil Young decade, but I dont think it was because of the HDCD coding.
-
I have encoded a few Gospel projects in HDCD, and in some cases there was an audible improvement, and in others you couldn't tell if the recording or mastering job was more beneficial than the encoding itself. High rez audio should make this encoding moot.
To me HDCD was just another bandaid(along with dither) to help make a inherently flawed format to sound better than it could on its own.
-
I use an audio alchemy DTI32 16-24-bit interpolater/jitter reducer with a DDEV3.0 HDCD D/A with I2S cable and powered Data Steam Transmission co-ax cable with a Rotal RCD-1070 as one source, and HDCD is definitely an improvement.
Listen to Blue Man Group "Audio" HDCD
History of Horror- City of Prague Philharmonic orchestra (DD/HDCD recording)
Or any of the The DOORs remastered HDCD's
-
Are you saying HDCD is an improvement over the original recording? If so, i agree, but i couldn't tell the difference between HDCD being played on an HDCD player compared to the same cd being played on a non HDCD player.
-
Because were are told,yes this is the difference and that is the difference so it must be better,it is on paper but how many of these things do we really hear?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevenakamichi
I use an audio alchemy DTI32 16-24-bit interpolater/jitter reducer with a DDEV3.0 HDCD D/A with I2S cable and powered Data Steam Transmission co-ax cable with a Rotal RCD-1070 as one source, and HDCD is definitely an improvement.
Listen to Blue Man Group "Audio" HDCD
History of Horror- City of Prague Philharmonic orchestra (DD/HDCD recording)
Or any of the The DOORs remastered HDCD's
Nice stuff, but I have to ask. Are your sure it is the HDCD encoding, or just good mastering by the mastering engineer? From my experience, the better the live or studio recording and post mastering is, the less difference HDCD made on the end product.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by noddin0ff
I don't quite understand RobotCzar's comments. HDCD is supposed to provide greater (20bit) dynamic resolution over CD (16bit). I fail to see why a greater dynamic resolution should bias noise at any particular frequency range. Maybe he can explain. Seems to me that if you believe that 24bit is better than 20 is better than 16, then HDCD is likely superior to CD. No one claims DVD-A has more noise at lower frequencies...
You cannot provide 20 bit "resolution" with 16 bits regardless of what marketing departments say. The idea is to trade some noise in the frequencies that our ears are less sensitive to (very high freqs) for better noise in the frequencies that our ears are sensitive to (upper middle). Under ideal conditions, processing like HDCD lowers noise in the sensitive band "up to" 18 or 19 bit performance at those frequencies.
Note that this does nothing to improve the quality of what you hear beyond potentially lowering noise. Even this would only apply to high quality jazz and classical recordings that have music that requires such a noise floor and were recorded to be very quiet. Forget about any effect with reissues because they do not have a low enough noise floor to start with (the noise is in the original recording).
It has been shown that recording companies using HDCD have tampered with the sound to make the HDCDs sound "better". That is probably the source of the "improvements" you hear. As to whether or not the remix sounds better, that is up to the listener--but it has nothing to do with the HDCD process regarding simulated "20 bit performance". The same "improvement" can be achieved with a fancy equalizer. In short, the music is processed to sound more applealing that the original recording.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobotCzar
You cannot provide 20 bit "resolution" with 16 bits regardless of what marketing departments say. The idea is to trade some noise in the frequencies that our ears are less sensitive to (very high freqs) for better noise in the frequencies that our ears are sensitive to (upper middle). Under ideal conditions, processing like HDCD lowers noise in the sensitive band "up to" 18 or 19 bit performance at those frequencies.
You can get 20bit performance from a 16bit signal. Dts does with their encode/decode process. By moving the noise from the audible range into the inaudible range, you lower the noise floor within the audible range. By moving approximately 24db worth of noise to an inaudible range, you can squeeze an extra 4bits out of a 16bit signal. So in the end, you are getting 20bit resolution from a 16bit signal. That is just one of the processes in HDCD
Quote:
Note that this does nothing to improve the quality of what you hear beyond potentially lowering noise. Even this would only apply to high quality jazz and classical recordings that have music that requires such a noise floor and were recorded to be very quiet. Forget about any effect with reissues because they do not have a low enough noise floor to start with (the noise is in the original recording).
Actually is does improve the quality of what you hear. The noise whether it is tape hiss, or noise from the console, mikes, pre-amps etc, can change the timbral characteristics of certain acoustical and amped instruments. By pushing that noise up in frequency(much the way SACD does) you can restore the natural timbre back into these kinds of instruments. The genre of music is insignificant.
Quote:
It has been shown that recording companies using HDCD have tampered with the sound to make the HDCDs sound "better". That is probably the source of the "improvements" you hear. As to whether or not the remix sounds better, that is up to the listener--but it has nothing to do with the HDCD process regarding simulated "20 bit performance". The same "improvement" can be achieved with a fancy equalizer. In short, the music is processed to sound more applealing that the original recording.
Sometimes "tampering"(engineers call it a more appropriate sweetening) is necessary to make softer instruments heard over louder instruments, or to bring certain passages forward in a mix. Eq is "tampering" and it is totally necessary in many cases to use. Limiting and compression is "tampering", but it is required to get signals recorded in 24bit through a 16bit pipleline. Eq's cannot acheive this, as they alter the amplitude of everything, not just the noise floor.
HDCD process is valid, tested, and when measured, you can see the process at work. It can definately lower the noise floor, and correct amplitude and spatial errors. On some material the improvements it imparts on the audio signal is audible, and sometimes it is not. What it is not is some marketing scheme as one conspiracy theorist proports. If it doesn't work, they won't sell any liscenses, and that is all there is to it. They appear to be still selling liscenses, so what does that tell you.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
HDCD process is valid, tested, and when measured, you can see the process at work. It can definately lower the noise floor, and correct amplitude and spatial errors. On some material the improvements it imparts on the audio signal is audible, and sometimes it is not. What it is not is some marketing scheme as one conspiracy theorist proports. If it doesn't work, they won't sell any liscenses, and that is all there is to it. They appear to be still selling liscenses, so what does that tell you.
I'll just be happy when there's a common format that can render high frequencies more lifelike than the sterility of redbook.
rw
-
Were those you're thoughts the first time you listened to a cd?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
I'll just be happy when there's a common format that can render high frequencies more lifelike than the sterility of redbook.
rw
SACD and DVD-A are those formats. I have never been happy with the way muted brass, or any instrument rich in high frequency harmonics sounded through redbook CD.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by shokhead
Were those you're thoughts the first time you listened to a cd?
No. My first thoughts back in the early eighties were that CDs sounded absolutely dreadful. The sound was thin, dry and hard as glass. Nothing like the Soundstream master digital tapes I heard during the recording of the ASO's Firebird. The first generation CD player I had (Philips or Magnavox something) was horrible.
Today, however, the hardware has greatly improved and the result is quite good. It took the engineers two decades, however, to really figure out how to make the standard work, within its limitations. The redbook standard is still not "perfect sound forever" unless you hold the bar low. Having said that, "good" sound today can be achieved quite inexpensively..
rw
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
You can get 20bit performance from a 16bit signal. Dts does with their encode/decode process. By moving the noise from the audible range into the inaudible range, you lower the noise floor within the audible range. By moving approximately 24db worth of noise to an inaudible range, you can squeeze an extra 4bits out of a 16bit signal. So in the end, you are getting 20bit resolution from a 16bit signal. That is just one of the processes in HDCD
Are you sure oyu don't work for a marketing department? Nothing I have every read about can "move" 24 db of noise from the audible range to the inaudible. Hell, why not record one bit and move all the noise out of the audible range? Heck, I thought redbook audio has such as narrow range that there is nowhere "inaudbile" to move things to. In short, I stand by my statement that noise is not moved to an inaudible range, but to a less audible one. Also, they never achive 20-bit performance even in the reduction range. If anybody really cares, I will provide references to article that will tell you the real story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
Actually is does improve the quality of what you hear. The noise whether it is tape hiss, or noise from the console, mikes, pre-amps etc, can change the timbral characteristics of certain acoustical and amped instruments. By pushing that noise up in frequency(much the way SACD does) you can restore the natural timbre back into these kinds of instruments. The genre of music is insignificant.
No. You cannot "improve" the sound "quality" beyond the original recording. You can process it to sound more pleasing (usually to the uncritical). The removal of any noise or tape hiss from the original recording WILL effect the fidelity of the music. You may like it better, there is no accounting for taste. The reviews I have read found distinct distortion (another name for "improvements") of the music in reprocessed releases (I will try to find the references).
Duh, of course, the genre of the music matters. Pop/rock has a very limited dynamic range so it does not need a large dynamic range, such music also has a distinct lack of very quiet or silent sections in comparison to classical (i.e., you can't hear a lowering of noise in most pop/rock music). You do listen to music? Has this fact escaped your notice? Do you think that the dynamic range of the music doesn't matter in regard to the dynamic range of the playback medium? Don't just contradict me, try to come up with some kind of explanation or better yet a reference or evidence.
Oh, and in case you didn't notice, we are not talking SACD here we are talking HDCD processed Redbook.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
Sometimes "tampering"(engineers call it a more appropriate sweetening) is necessary to make softer instruments heard over louder instruments, or to bring certain passages forward in a mix. Eq is "tampering" and it is totally necessary in many cases to use. Limiting and compression is "tampering", but it is required to get signals recorded in 24bit through a 16bit pipleline. Eq's cannot acheive this, as they alter the amplitude of everything, not just the noise floor.
Yeah, they do a lot of "sweetening" of re-releases to make it appear that pseudo "20-bit" processing is actually doing something. Once again, there is no accounting for taste. Some people like colorized B&W movies. Why is the new engineer's take more valid than the original engineer's? At least the performer is more likely to be involved in the original mix. Sonic analysis of such processed recordings indicates that the results are very often not subtle, they are often showy so as to make an impression on the unsophisticated listener. It seems to be working.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
HDCD process is valid, tested, and when measured, you can see the process at work. It can definately lower the noise floor, and correct amplitude and spatial errors. On some material the improvements it imparts on the audio signal is audible, and sometimes it is not. What it is not is some marketing scheme as one conspiracy theorist proports. If it doesn't work, they won't sell any liscenses, and that is all there is to it. They appear to be still selling liscenses, so what does that tell you.
I never implied that the process doesn't work. I have suggested that it does not get even 20-bit quieting under ideal conditions. I have also suggested that what people hear as differences has nothing to do with noise shaping and everything to do will remixing and processing (i.e., filtering and equalizing) the sound to make it flashier and more dramatic--NOT "sonic improvement". Further, if the noise level of the original recording is not 20-bit then noise shaping isn't going to make the recording quieter, gain riding and filtering will. It is deceptive to imply that this type of processing is some kind of "20-bit" processing, it isn't and the part of the process that does work will not make music sound "better".
Selling licences tells me they have good marketing, what does it tell you? That you can be 20-bit performance from 16-bits? Processing music and claiming audible differences are due to a "20-bit" process is a lie and a scam. No matter how many people you fool.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobotCzar
Are you sure oyu don't work for a marketing department? Nothing I have every read about can "move" 24 db of noise from the audible range to the inaudible. Hell, why not record one bit and move all the noise out of the audible range? Heck, I thought redbook audio has such as narrow range that there is nowhere "inaudbile" to move things to. In short, I stand by my statement that noise is not moved to an inaudible range, but to a less audible one. Also, they never achive 20-bit performance even in the reduction range. If anybody really cares, I will provide references to article that will tell you the real story.
I'd be interested in the articles, if they can be had online. Thanks!
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobotCzar
No. You cannot "improve" the sound "quality" beyond the original recording. You can process it to sound more pleasing (usually to the uncritical).
I don't think anyone suggested any improvement over original recording...But what do you mean by more pleasing to the uncritical?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobotCzar
Duh, of course, the genre of the music matters. Pop/rock has a very limited dynamic range so it does not need a large dynamic range, such music also has a distinct lack of very quiet or silent sections in comparison to classical (i.e., you can't hear a lowering of noise in most pop/rock music). You do listen to music? Has this fact escaped your notice? Do you think that the dynamic range of the music doesn't matter in regard to the dynamic range of the playback medium? Don't just contradict me, try to come up with some kind of explanation or better yet a reference or evidence.
I've been enjoying both sides of this discourse! Really! I'd hate to see it moderated from the forum for deteriorating to uncivil namecalling. Can everyone try to make nice?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobotCzar
Yeah, they do a lot of "sweetening" of re-releases to make it appear that pseudo "20-bit" processing is actually doing something. Once again, there is no accounting for taste. Some people like colorized B&W movies. Why is the new engineer's take more valid than the original engineer's? At least the performer is more likely to be involved in the original mix. Sonic analysis of such processed recordings indicates that the results are very often not subtle, they are often showy so as to make an impression on the unsophisticated listener. It seems to be working.
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?
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobotCzar
I never implied that the process doesn't work. I have suggested that it does not get even 20-bit quieting under ideal conditions.
From what I understand, you don't get true 16bits from Redbook either. Am I misinformed?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobotCzar
Are you sure oyu don't work for a marketing department? Nothing I have every read about can "move" 24 db of noise from the audible range to the inaudible. Hell, why not record one bit and move all the noise out of the audible range? Heck, I thought redbook audio has such as narrow range that there is nowhere "inaudbile" to move things to. In short, I stand by my statement that noise is not moved to an inaudible range, but to a less audible one. Also, they never achive 20-bit performance even in the reduction range. If anybody really cares, I will provide references to article that will tell you the real story.
I work for myself, and not for anyone else thanks. It seems apparent to me that you know nothing about oversampling, something used in the D/A conversion in CD players for years. HDCD uses an oversampling technique, and 24bit word lengths for their process. They reduce the dynamic range using compression and limiting algorythms during downconversion, then add high frequency dither that is filtered based on the oversampled signal(88.2khz). Since oversampling is utilized in the process(88.2khz becomes the sample rate) the filters only need to cutoff at 44.1khz which is an entire octave higher than redbook cutoff of 22.050khz. The dither is added around the 44.1khz filter to smoothen out and linearize the D/A conversion. So, in essence the dither(noise) is located well above 22.050khz which is out of the range of audibility. The object of the system is to get the noise floor at 20bit performance(-120db below full scale) with a 16bit signal(noise floor is -96db below full scale). You cannot get this kind of performance without moving noise somewhere where it cannot be heard.
I would like to see the articles that tell the "real" story. Please provide.
Quote:
No. You cannot "improve" the sound "quality" beyond the original recording. You can process it to sound more pleasing (usually to the uncritical). The removal of any noise or tape hiss from the original recording WILL effect the fidelity of the music. You may like it better, there is no accounting for taste. The reviews I have read found distinct distortion (another name for "improvements") of the music in reprocessed releases (I will try to find the references).
Actually you can improve the sound quality. You can oversample which allows you to use filters that are less agressive which improves sound quality. You can move noise from audible frequencies to above human hearing(like SACD does). Are you can use data reduction techniques like Dts's coherent acoustic codec. All of these steps can make make audible improvements to a signal.
Sonic Solutions has a tape di-hisser that can remove tape hiss without effecting the signal quality of the original analog audio . It is used quite a bit these days with excellent results.
Lastly, how do you know the distortion is brought on by HDCD's process?. It could have been there BEFORE being processed in HDCD. Since you do NOT know what processes where used in the recording and process chain before encoding, your claims against HDCD are unfounded without direct evidence.
Quote:
Duh, of course, the genre of the music matters. Pop/rock has a very limited dynamic range so it does not need a large dynamic range, such music also has a distinct lack of very quiet or silent sections in comparison to classical (i.e., you can't hear a lowering of noise in most pop/rock music). You do listen to music? Has this fact escaped your notice? Do you think that the dynamic range of the music doesn't matter in regard to the dynamic range of the playback medium? Don't just contradict me, try to come up with some kind of explanation or better yet a reference or evidence.
The type of music being played back is irrelevant. Encoding audio at 16/44.1khz is the same no matter what music is being encoded. Digital formats do not adjust themselves just because the dynamic range of the sample is limited. The format specifications are fixed regardless of the music that is encoded. If a recording is done digitally, you won't here noise pumping, it remains a constant -96db with 16bit encoding. Analog is the only format that has noise floor pumping as a result of gain riding in the recording process, or noise reduction is used.
Quote:
Oh, and in case you didn't notice, we are not talking SACD here we are talking HDCD processed Redbook.
This is a rather obvious point. HDCD processed redbook does do some of the things that SACD does(noise shaping) hence the reference.
Quote:
Yeah, they do a lot of "sweetening" of re-releases to make it appear that pseudo "20-bit" processing is actually doing something.
Do you have any proof of this, or is this more conspiracy rantings?
Quote:
Once again, there is no accounting for taste. Some people like colorized B&W movies. Why is the new engineer's take more valid than the original engineer's? At least the performer is more likely to be involved in the original mix. Sonic analysis of such processed recordings indicates that the results are very often not subtle, they are often showy so as to make an impression on the unsophisticated listener. It seems to be working.
Not going to address this, it nothing but more conspiracy rantings. Can we stick with facts, and not your personal theories(which are VERY often wrong)
Quote:
I never implied that the process doesn't work. I have suggested that it does not get even 20-bit quieting under ideal conditions.
Have you personally measured a bitstream after HDCD processing or is this more of your theories? I have measured after processing, and HDCD does as claimed, the noise floor is -120db which is 20bit performance. There is no way I would buy the plug in to my console if it didn't perform as advertised.
Quote:
I have also suggested that what people hear as differences has nothing to do with noise shaping and everything to do will remixing and processing (i.e., filtering and equalizing) the sound to make it flashier and more dramatic--NOT "sonic improvement".
How can you suggest what differences anyone else hears? Are in in control of their ears and brain. It might sound flashy to you, but better to someone else. Please be careful you are not drawing conclusion for everybody, but just for yourself.
Quote:
Further, if the noise level of the original recording is not 20-bit then noise shaping isn't going to make the recording quieter, gain riding and filtering will. It is deceptive to imply that this type of processing is some kind of "20-bit" processing, it isn't and the part of the process that does work will not make music sound "better".
Gain riding will cause the noise to rise and fall along with the amplitude. It doesn't make recordings quieter. Gain riding raises the amplitude of both the audio, and the noise. Noise shaping DOES improve performance(and sound quality) by moving noise out of the audible band
http://members.chello.nl/~m.heijlige...l#noiseshaping
Quote:
Selling licences tells me they have good marketing, what does it tell you? That you can be 20-bit performance from 16-bits? Processing music and claiming audible differences are due to a "20-bit" process is a lie and a scam. No matter how many people you fool.
HDCD submitted their white paper to AES in 1996. It has been peer reviewed and not challenged or rebutted. With that said, the white paper says that its system provides 20bit performance with 16bit signals. No one has challenge that assertion except some guy named robotczar on audioreview. Now there are plenty of qualified people in AES who could test the HDCD encoding and publish their findings. No one has. That is because plenty of folks have tested the system(myself included) and have found it performs as specificed by the white paper. You have claimed the system introduces distortion, yet no sound engineer has reported this, and the five gospel albums I have recorded and encoded in HDCD had no distortion after decoding. You have not mentioned the CD that has post decoding errors, or the recording and playback chain's integrety(could it be introducing distortions?), ou have not produced a peer reviewed white paper challenging HDCD claims of 20bit performance. Dts has published a white paper claiming that their codec can get 20bit performance out of 16bit signals. It was tested and verfied true. Dolby also wrote a white paper stated that Dolby digital can get 20bit performance out of 16bit signals. That paper was disproven by another AES member who found that it could really only get 18bit performance. If this was done to Dolby, it can happen to HDCD. It hasn't.
What is helpful to the discussion of audio is that you bring facts to the table, not conspiracy rantings and theories. It is rather obvious by this post, and several others I have read you have a real problem with this record industry as a whole. That makes you way less than objective in your evaluation of audio technology benefits and drawbacks. It would be very helpful to this discussion if you could provide supporting evidence along with your claims so everyone can distinguish fact from your rantings and theory.
-
Pacific Microsonics used to require that HDCD players lower the level of plain-CD playback to match playback of HDCD encoded CDs (which is about 6 dB lower). I don't know if Microsoft still requires that or not.. That might be the tampering that RobotCzar is referring to.
IIRC some HDCD-decoding units offered the option of restoring conventional CDs to full-gain playback.
As with SACD, DVD-A, 20-bit remastereing, etc, it's premature to claim HDCD-endoded discs sound better *because of* HDCD, given that they're all remasters too, and different mastering choices all by themselves will impart audible differences likely to vastly outweigh other factors. Unless you can eliminate that variable -- compare the *same* mastering chain with and without HDCD processing , preferably blind, with levels matched etc -- then comparisons are invalid.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple
Pacific Microsonics used to require that HDCD players lower the level of plain-CD playback to match playback of HDCD encoded CDs (which is about 6 dB lower). I don't know if Microsoft still requires that or not.. That might be the tampering that RobotCzar is referring to.
IIRC some HDCD-decoding units offered the option of restoring conventional CDs to full-gain playback.
I wouldn't call this tampering because it is reverseable. If it was not reverseable, then I could see his point.
Quote:
As with SACD, DVD-A, 20-bit remastereing, etc, it's premature to claim HDCD-endoded discs sound better *because of* HDCD, given that they're all remasters too, and different mastering choices all by themselves will impart audible differences likely to vastly outweigh other factors. Unless you can eliminate that variable -- compare the *same* mastering chain with and without HDCD processing , preferably blind, with levels matched etc -- then comparisons are invalid.
What about those of us who have already A/B'ed HDCD(and SACD for that matter) and found that is does have audible improvement on SOME sources(SACD was a audible improvement over all the CD sources I compared it to). Is it too early for us to make up our minds?
What about all of the engineers who have A/B'd SACD against CD under studio condition, and have thrown their support behind SACD. Is it too soon to make up their minds? HDCD, SACD, and DVD-A have been around long enough for people to make up their minds whether they sound better than redbook CD. Not buying the "too soon" arguement anymore.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
I wouldn't call this tampering because it is reverseable. If it was not reverseable, then I could see his point.
What about those of us who have already A/B'ed HDCD(and SACD for that matter) and found that is does have audible improvement on SOME sources(SACD was a audible improvement over all the CD sources I compared it to). Is it too early for us to make up our minds?
What about all of the engineers who have A/B'd SACD against CD under studio condition, and have thrown their support behind SACD. Is it too soon to make up their minds? HDCD, SACD, and DVD-A have been around long enough for people to make up their minds whether they sound better than redbook CD. Not buying the "too soon" arguement anymore.
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple
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.
I do not know any recording engineer who peddles shakti stones, 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.
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.
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.
You can't be biased if you don't have an opinion one way or the other anyway.
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.
-
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? :confused:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by noddin0ff
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by noddin0ff
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).
Quote:
Originally Posted by noddin0ff
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).
Quote:
Originally Posted by noddin0ff
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by noddin0ff
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobotCzar
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.
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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!
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
(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.
Quote:
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobotCzar
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.
Quote:
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?
Quote:
Even well-respected engineers have, for example, backed expensive cable.
Yes, and so have some electrical engineers too!!
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
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).
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobotCzar
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
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobotCzar
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!
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
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!!
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by noddin0ff
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.
Quote:
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
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
-
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?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?
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.
-
DTS music discs are my fav,just not much to choose from.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
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
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
|