Is HDCD much Better?

[superpanavision70mm]

I have a Denon DVM-3700 as well as my Toshiba DVD player, which was modified to do just about anything...HDCD, SACD, etc as well as PAL to NTSC and All region as well.

[superpanavision70mm]

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

[shokhead]

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

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

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

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I cannot believe how emotional people get when their position is challenged. Let's take a breather here.

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

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

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

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

[noddin0ff]

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

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

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

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

[shokhead]

I cannot believe how emotional people get when their position is challenged. Let's take a breather here.

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

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

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

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

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

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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

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

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

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

[Woochifer]

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

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

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

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

[GMichael]

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

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

[superpanavision70mm]

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

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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

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

[superpanavision70mm]

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

[shokhead]

I dont know diddly,never meant him.

[Woochifer]

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

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

[superpanavision70mm]

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

[noddin0ff]

So, assuming identical mastering...what makes a greater contribution to the quality of digital sound? Bits (16, 20, 24) or sampling rate (44.1, 96, 192)?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

So, assuming identical mastering...what makes a greater contribution to the quality of digital sound? Bits (16, 20, 24) or sampling rate (44.1, 96, 192)?

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

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

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

[Woochifer]

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

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

[shokhead]

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

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

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

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

[superpanavision70mm]

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

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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

Definately!

[emorphien]

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

Why do you insist on attacking people for their systems?

[guaje]

I can name hundreds of examples of those. I also have a HDCD of Queen's Greatest hits that sounds better than the regular CD, Superpanvision 70 mm dixit.

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

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

Thanks a lot.

El guaje.

[superpanavision70mm]

Sure, check out the following sites...

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

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

[progfan]

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