High Definition Compatible Digital (HDCD)
news
Are there HDCD players?
Do they sound better than regular CD's?
Peter Scott
"news" <ne...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:bmNce.471$FE3...@fe12.lga...
> Will these play on a regular cd player?
>
> Are there HDCD players?
>
> Do they sound better than regular CD's?
I've got a Chinese drum HDCD disk that runs on
an ordinary CD player. I assume that they all do. It
sounds wonderful but I don't think I'm getting the
HD part. It's used in Hong Kong by people wanting
to show off or test their audio systems. Would be
good to be able to try it properly.
Peter Scott
Eiron
Yes, yes and no.
Kalman Rubinson
>Will these play on a regular cd player?
Yes
>Are there HDCD players?
Yes
>Do they sound better than regular CD's?
They can.
Kal
Barry Mann
>Are there HDCD players?
There is some reserved, rarely unused space on normal CD's. At one
point it was expected that this space would be used for still or low
frame rate pictures (a musical museum tour) or text (sing along --
follow the bouncing ball, or artist information), however, it was
rarely used and very few players could exploit the information if
present.
HDCD uses this space to supply a few more bits -- for players equipped
to use this information. Regular players ignore this extra information.
As a practical matter I find that many HDCD discs sound better on any
player. I attribute this to better mastering. The HDCD's have been
recently re-mastered on the best equipment by the best crew. Of course,
one would expect that an HDCD disc played on an HDCD player would sound
better than the same disc played on a regular player. Be careful about
the conclusions you draw because HDCD capable players are modern and
probably more carefully designed than regular players. If you compare a
recent HDCD player with an older relic, it is difficult to attribute
the better sound to the HDCD feature, the newer, possibly more careful
design, or a combination of both.
-----------------------------------------------------------
spam: u...@ftc.gov
wordgame:123(abc):<14 9 20 5 2 9 18 4 at 22 15 9 3 5 14 5 20 dot 3 15
13> (Barry Mann)
[sorry about the puzzle, spammers are ruining my mailbox]
-----------------------------------------------------------
Karl Uppiano
> of quantization per sample as compared to the 16 bits of a red book
> CD.
Having more bits in no way guarantees better sound. Some say CD audio is
marginal; I say it's optimal.
http://mysite.verizon.net/karl_uppiano/digitalaudio.html
Dave Platt
Barry Mann <zz...@zzzz.zzz> wrote:
>>Will these play on a regular cd player?
>
>>Are there HDCD players?
>
>>Do they sound better than regular CD's?
>
>There is some reserved, rarely unused space on normal CD's. At one
>point it was expected that this space would be used for still or low
>frame rate pictures (a musical museum tour) or text (sing along --
>follow the bouncing ball, or artist information), however, it was
>rarely used and very few players could exploit the information if
>present.
>
>HDCD uses this space to supply a few more bits -- for players equipped
>to use this information. Regular players ignore this extra information.
As I understand it, this description is not entirely correct.
HDCD doesn't actually use more bits of storage on the CD, and it
doesn't actually provide a bit-exact way of delivering a true 20-bit
signal from a CD. The consumer-oriented description on their web site
implies that this is the case, but the actual description of the
technology in their patent makes it clear that this isn't so. To see
the gory details, go to www.uspto.gov and look up patent 5,479,168.
To sum it up, HDCD a method of encoding a signal having a 20-bit
dynamic range, into an actual data payload of 16 bits per sample. In
effect, it's a fairly sophisticated method of doing signala compression,
with a couple of goals:
- If the compressed data is played back on an HDCD-equipped player,
it'll be decompressed into a waveform very close to that of the
original 20-bit signal.
- If the compressed data is played back on a standard (non-HDCD)
player, it still sounds pretty good.
The compression (they prefer to call it "encoding") technology used in
HDCD examines the audio waveform being encoded, and makes decisions in
real time about what sort of encoding is likely to sound best. The
encoder may switch behaviors, for example, when the music changes from
quiet passages to loud passages, or when the amount of high-frequency
content changes.
The encoder has to be able to tell the decoder (your CD player) when
to make the corresponding changes in its decoding/decompression
behavior, so as to re-create the original signal as accurately as
possible. HDCD does this by "hiding" a control signal in the data, as
part of the dither in the least significant few bits.
Due to the fact that the data is being processed through a compressor
of sorts, and due to the need to carry a control signal in the dither,
the HDCD process does cause some degradation in the fidelity of the
signal if you play it back through a non-HDCD player or DAC. The
patent description acknowledges that this "yields a signal with
slightly less dynamic range and only slightly higher background
noise." They then assert "However, the signal will have lower
quantization and slew induced distortions and, hence, the processed
encoded product, when reproduced on non-decoding standard equipment,
will sound equal to or better than an unencoded product."
Now, as to whether HDCD recordings sound better: very controversial
question. I haven't done listening comparisons myself and so can't
give a firsthand opinion. What I've gathered, from reading other
peoples' reviews over the years, is that:
- HDCD-encoded recordings can sound very good indeed when played back
on high-quality HDCD players.
- When played back on non-HDCD players, HDCD-encoded music may sound
fine, or may sound slightly compressed or otherwise altered from
the original.
- In some cases, people seem to feel that the HDCD process
exaggerates certain characteristics of the recording (e.g. reverb
and ambience) as compared to the original master-tape/master-data
recording. The resulting music sounds "realer than real".
- PMI's digital-filter chips (used in HDCD-equipped CD players) seem
to have a reputation for having very good sound, even for playing
back standard CDs. Similarly, their encoders seem to do a very
good job of dithering/noise-shaping, even if the mastering engineer
doesn't turn on the dynamic-range encoding/compression feature of
HDCD.
- Given the habit of most music studios of compressing the >BLEEP<
out of the music being mastered, and squeezing albums down into a
radio-friendly dynamic range of a few dB, HDCD seems to be quite
irrelevant for pop music.
--
Dave Platt <dpl...@radagast.org> AE6EO
Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!
Eiron
> There is some reserved, rarely unused space on normal CD's. At one
> point it was expected that this space would be used for still or low
> frame rate pictures (a musical museum tour) or text (sing along --
> follow the bouncing ball, or artist information), however, it was
> rarely used and very few players could exploit the information if
> present.
>
> HDCD uses this space to supply a few more bits -- for players equipped
> to use this information. Regular players ignore this extra information.
Complete bollocks!
--
Eiron.
Arny Krueger
> Will these play on a regular cd player?
Yes.
> Are there HDCD players?
Yes. I believe that Samsung has one or more. Last time I looked the
Windows Media Player processed HDCD disks properly.
> Do they sound better than regular CD's?
Not due to the format, but possibly due to improved care throughout
the entire production process.
Arny Krueger
IME, CD Audio is even a little on the overkill side. Audible artifacts
start showing up with 32/14 samples. That's 32 KHz sample rate, 14
bits per sample, unshaped quantization.
Codifus
HDCD is a dead format walking. With DVD-A and SACD offering vastly
superior technical capability compared to HDCD, its obsolete even before
it had a chance to flourish.
Like someone mentioned earlier, the beneifts of HDCD probably come not
from its better than redbook technical prowess, but by having good
engineers do a real good job in the mastering process. This is simlar to
the JVC XRCD process, which is arguably the best that Redbook CD has to
offer, and it id very very good. The advantage of XRCD is that it plays
in regualr CD players, no special encoding chip needed to take full
advantage of its capabilities
I have a few XRCDs and one HDCD, but no HDCD player. You should try
Mighty Sam McClain's XRCD;
http://205.231.187.178/shopping/shopexd.asp?ccode=JVCXR-0012
This is one incredibly well mastered, great sounding CD.
Also, for HDCD, I have the God and Monsters movie soundtrack;
http://www.cduniverse.com/search/xx/music/pid/1131972/a/Gods+&+Monsters.htm
Even though I'm not playing it in HDCD mode, it still sounds excellent.
I used to have an HDCD player, the Denon DCM 270. I did not really
notice a difference when playing this CD in HDCD or regular mode. It
sounded great either way.
Lastly, HDCD is now owned by Microsoft. They are using the process to
enhance their Windows Media Player . . . of all things.
CD
dizzy
>Yes they do sound better if the HDCD is decoded.
Wrong.
>HDCD delivers 20 bits of quantization per sample as
>compared to the 16 bits of a red book CD.
More bits don't help. 16 is plenty.