HDCD: Emmylou Harris
Ken Josenhans
Young's MIRROR BALL. Sometimes I love Neil Young's music, but I'd
never use it to try to evaluate sound quality, ya know?
So now I've had Emmylou Harris' WRECKING BALL for several days. I
love the music; it's some of the tastiest I've heard all year. But I
started noticing that my ears hurt halfway through the album, each
time I played it. Some of it seems to be Harris' voice, which is
recorded to be somewhat harsh on sibilants. Some of it I really can't
grasp.
Any other reactions to the disc?
My stereo is hopelessly mid-fi: an old Magnavox 560 CD player
(non-HDCD-decoding, of course), the original Carver Receiver, ancient
DCM Time Window speakers. But this stuff is all old enough that I
pretty much know how things should sound through it.
-- Ken Josenhans
k...@netsun.cl.msu.edu
Bradley Sanders
>So now I've had Emmylou Harris' WRECKING BALL for several days. I
>love the music; it's some of the tastiest I've heard all year. But I
>started noticing that my ears hurt halfway through the album, each
>time I played it. Some of it seems to be Harris' voice, which is
>recorded to be somewhat harsh on sibilants. Some of it I really can't
>grasp.
I don't yet have "Wrecking Ball," but my friend in SF seems to love it
with his AA DDE3.0 (Guess who, Mark?). Based on what he's told me,
'tho, and based on what I know of Daniel Lanois and his previous
productions, your reaction doesn't surprise me. I also love Emmylou's
previous work, but find CDs less than perfect here. "Cowgirl's
Prayer," for example - beautiful music, and Emmylou's voice isn't so
ragged - but the PRODUCTION! Aye! It's full of those things I can
only describe as "artifacts." "Artifacts" of what I don't know, but
they're there.
It's the same "sound" I hear on Milla's "Divine Comedy:" Many "high
enders" seem to like this, but frankly, much as I LOVE the music, this
drives me nuts. It's so hyperdetailed it's like listening to the
vocalist with your ears pressed to their lips. Now, while I wouldn't
mind at all having Milla's (or Emmylous) lips pressed to my ear, I
would hope it wouldn't be while they were belting out a song...
David Battle
>So now I've had Emmylou Harris' WRECKING BALL for several days. I
>love the music; it's some of the tastiest I've heard all year. But I
>started noticing that my ears hurt halfway through the album, each
>time I played it. Some of it seems to be Harris' voice, which is
>recorded to be somewhat harsh on sibilants. Some of it I really can't
>grasp.
Inexpensive CD players have a bad tendancy to sound a little harsh on
high notes. HDCD discs also have a tendancy to sound a little harsh
on high notes when played through a non-HDCD decoder. My guess is
that the combination of effects is enough to cause you some problems.
Jan P. Andrews
>Has anyone gotten the AA remote volume working reliably? I had to
>take my Intel chip out of the AA DDE 3 to get it working reliably.
While the volume control capability of the PROM-equipped DDE v.3.0 is
convenient, I don't think using it is advisable -- I believe you'll be
truncating one bit for each 6 dB of attenuation you use, and that
won't get the good audiokeeping (or rec.audio.high-end) seal of purist
audio approval. Some of a recordings ambience and depth seem to
disappear when I use the DDE v.3.0 attenuation and compensate by
raising my preamp volume control.
I find that my DTI v.2.0/DDE v.3.0 combo goes into the mute mode
between virtually every cut on every CD. This results in an awkward
sounding fade-in about half a beat into each CD cut. I'm also
particularly frustrated that there appears to be no provision for
flipping the "absolute" polarity from the RW-1 Remote Wand. (At least
not with the version 1.05 PROM.) Polarity flipping would be one
function for which the remote wand would be truly useful.
Jan P. Andrews Project Engineer Audio Enginering Division
National Public Radio Washington DC USA jand...@npr.org
PABeatnik
At the risk of sounding like a reactionary mossback, I can only say
that the British LP of "Wrecking Ball" is little short of magnificent.
CDs I will not vouch for. A guy I know who works at Audio Research as
a listener/tuner bought the LP on hearing about a minute of it and we
were both stunned by it. It isn't as "natural" and unprocessed as
say, "Roses In the Snow" (a Super Disc, IMHO) but it is a lovely thing
and is a neat stylistic departure for the ever-lovely ELH.
Digital may inprove, but analogue (and tubes) still rule the roost!
-Paul Bolin
Ted Matsumura
>Ted Matsumura <te...@rahul.net> wrote, in part:
>>Has anyone gotten the AA remote volume working reliably? I had to
>>take my Intel chip out of the AA DDE 3 to get it working reliably.
>While the volume control capability of the PROM-equipped DDE v.3.0 is
>convenient, I don't think using it is advisable -- I believe you'll be
>truncating one bit for each 6 dB of attenuation you use, and that
>won't get the good audiokeeping (or rec.audio.high-end) seal of purist
Thanks for this info. Even when I was using the remote, I was keping
volume flat, it was the artifacts you mention below that made me
completely undo the remote.
>I find that my DTI v.2.0/DDE v.3.0 combo goes into the mute mode
>between virtually every cut on every CD. This results in an awkward
>sounding fade-in about half a beat into each CD cut. I'm also
Exact symptoms I have. Mark Schifter of AA has been meaning to follow up
with me and debug this, but I guess he's been busy. I've called him and
left him voice mail and email.
>particularly frustrated that there appears to be no provision for
>flipping the "absolute" polarity from the RW-1 Remote Wand. (At least
>not with the version 1.05 PROM.) Polarity flipping would be one
>function for which the remote wand would be truly useful.
I've never heard a difference between the polarity, but I know they must
both be at "0" or "red" for HDCD data to be retained when recording to
DAT and playing DAT back through HDCD DAC.
Thanks.
Ted
Daniel Baker
: "Jan P. Andrews" <jand...@npr.org> writes:
:> While the volume control capability of the PROM-equipped DDE v.3.0
:> is convenient, I don't think using it is advisable -- I believe
:> you'll be truncating one bit for each 6 dB of attenuation you use,
:> and that won't get the good audiokeeping (or rec.audio.high-end)
:> seal of purist audio approval....
As I understand it (I don't own the unit and could be wrong, but I
think I'm right on this), the benefit of the digital volume control
comes about because it means you can run the system without a preamp.
Once you get all the circuitry of the preamp out of the way, you will
have a shorter signal path between your source and your speakers.
In order to live without a preamp, the DDE v.3.0 allows you to change
its analog output level to one of several fixed values. Supposedly,
you find the correct output level to drive your system to about the
maximum level you would typically listen. Then you use the digital
volume control for "fine tuning," but rarely using more than 6dB of
digital attenuation. As Brad Sanders followed up, you should not lose
any of your original 16 bit resolution if you stay about within that
range (or even a little wider range, but personally I would try not to
go more than 6-12 dB).
So this is why the remote volume control upgrade for the DDE 3.0 is an
upgrade; it allows you to get rid of your preamp and not lose any
resolution in a relatively narrow but still usable level control
range. What you DON'T want to do is boost your preamp and use digital
attenuation at the same time to get a desired level. You could be
running into an area where you *are* losing digital resolution (I
don't know how liberally you're using the control) and you are also
making your preamp's noise floor more audible (again, I don't know how
significantly) by raising the volume knob (in a situation where you
don't want to be using your preamp at all). Maybe in your system to
your ears, it still won't sound as good even after you get rid of your
preamp as it does conventionally. I haven't listened at great length
to the DDE 3.0, much less fooled around with all the flexibility of
the unit. It's worth trying the configuration for which it is
intended, though.
: But we also (usually) have an oversampling stage. Doubling the
: sample rate buys another 6db "resolution." 8x oversampling is 2^3,
: so add another 18db. Go to 16x OS and we make it 24db.
This I'm not sure of. The oversampling stage does create more
samples, but I didn't think it allowed greater math resolution like a
DAC that can deal with longer word lengths than the 16 bit standard.
I agree with the previous part where, if you have a 20 bit DAC then
you can theoretically get 24 dB of digital attenuation with no loss of
original resolution. But does the oversampling filter also give you
greater usable resolution for level control in this way? I didn't
think it did; I'd appreciate if someone could expand on this or
elaborate (and that someone could very well be Brad Sanders, and he
could very well be right in what he says; but again, that isn't what
my rudimentary knowledge of digital theory tells me).
--Daniel Baker
Bradley Sanders
rate buys another 6db "resolution." 8x oversampling is 2^3, so add
another 18db. Go to 16x OS and we make it 24db.
dba...@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Daniel Baker) writes:
>This I'm not sure of. The oversampling stage does create more
>samples, but I didn't think it allowed greater math resolution like a
>DAC that can deal with longer word lengths than the 16 bit standard.
>I agree with the previous part where, if you have a 20 bit DAC then
>you can theoretically get 24 dB of digital attenuation with no loss of
>original resolution. But does the oversampling filter also give you
>greater usable resolution for level control in this way?
Yep. Dithering helps in other ways as well, but the basic math is a
pretty simple proof: Quantization noise will have a given power at a
given number of bits; Double the bandwidth (as an oversampling stage
does) and (so long as there's no truncation performed) you have the
exact same noise energy, but twice the bandwidth.
1/2 is .5, and 1/4 is .25. Simple as that.
Well, sorta...
| Brad Sanders, CEO, International Moustache Wax |
| http://www.geopages.com/SunsetStrip/1303/ |
| These opinions are my own; |
| Pay no attention to that man behind the scream... |