HDCD. is it that good?

[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?

[RobotCzar]

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.

[Duds]

So it really shouldnt deter me from buying a cd player that does not do HDCD?

[shokhead]

Like THX,if its got it,fine but i wouldnt woory about it. DTS Music Disc,even if its more money soulds wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy better.

[noddin0ff]

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.

[Ambient fish]

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.

[Duds]

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.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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.

[RobotCzar]

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.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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

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.

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.

[E-Stat]

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

[RobotCzar]

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.

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.

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.

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.