HDCD re-encoding
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message


In article , Arny
Krueger wrote:


Given that no commercial recordings have more than about
75 dB dynamic range, the added dynamic range extension
beyond the standard CD formats 96 dB or so, is moot.

Indeed. Also, since we can expect well-recorded examples
to have used some form of noise shaping, the 'vanilla' CD
spec may well provide a better audible performance than
is required even for signals with a wider range.

Well-shaped 16 bits can have the equivalent of nearly 20 bits of resolution
in the range where the ear is most sensitive.

HDCD re-encoding
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message


Since the digital to analog converters in most of the
current generation of digital audio products are not
accurate to 16 bits,

Interesting assertion. :-)

One that is close enough to being false that it would take a detailed market
study to prove or disprove.

For example, the cheapest new home DVD players around (in the $30-40 price
range) often use Crystal Semiconductor converters that are capable of
handling 24/192 signals with 93 dB dynamic range.

HDCD re-encoding
 

On Thu, 18 May 2006 14:27:28 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article , Glenn Richards
wrote:


According to the manual SBM uses "a form of noise shaping to encode an
effective resolution of 24 bits into the 16-bit medium". Whatever the
jargon, it works - analogue recordings made from HDCD do sound more
detailed.

Again, if so, this is 'bad news' for the people at 'HDCD Inc'. It is
quite
easy for people making professional recordings to employ noise shaping.
Indeed, I'd expect this to be quite common. The Sony SBM is essentially
just one proprietary version of this. Hence it indicates that there is no
need for anyone making professional CD recordings to use HDCD - and by
doing so have to pay fees, and degrade the results on most (non-HDCD)
players.

I have had my doubts about HDCD being worthwhile. What you say leads me
to
feel I should avoid any HDCD discs like the plague. :-) Certainly, if I
were a professional CD producer I would do so, given what you say...

One thing to remember is that HDCD isn't particularly new and, at the time
it came out, noise shaping was in its infancy as far a s CD mastering was
concerned. To use HDCD you had to use Pacific Microsonic's own analogue to
digital convertor and, as I understand it, this convertor sounded much
better than just about any other convertor available at the time. That's
one of the reasons why it caught on. Even on a non HDCD player, the discs
sounded better than a disc recorded through an alternative convertor.

Nowadays there are other alternative ADC's that match or exceed Pacific
Microsonic's convertor but some engineers still like its sound.

Cheers

James.

HDCD re-encoding
 

In article , James Perrett
wrote:

One thing to remember is that HDCD isn't particularly new and, at the
time it came out, noise shaping was in its infancy as far a s CD
mastering was concerned. To use HDCD you had to use Pacific
Microsonic's own analogue to digital convertor and, as I understand
it, this convertor sounded much better than just about any other
convertor available at the time. That's one of the reasons why it
caught on. Even on a non HDCD player, the discs sounded better than a
disc recorded through an alternative convertor.

I find the above slightly odd as it implies that the level-compression
involved made the discs "sound better". If so, why not simply level
compress them?

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

HDCD re-encoding
 

On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 17:56:25 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article , James Perrett
wrote:

One thing to remember is that HDCD isn't particularly new and, at the
time it came out, noise shaping was in its infancy as far a s CD
mastering was concerned. To use HDCD you had to use Pacific
Microsonic's own analogue to digital convertor and, as I understand
it, this convertor sounded much better than just about any other
convertor available at the time. That's one of the reasons why it
caught on. Even on a non HDCD player, the discs sounded better than a
disc recorded through an alternative convertor.

I find the above slightly odd as it implies that the level-compression
involved made the discs "sound better". If so, why not simply level
compress them?

I think the HDCD encoding was optional so you could use the encoder as a
straight ADC if you wanted to. The Cranesong HEDD is another device that
was intended for one use but has found itself being used by some mastering
engineers simply for the quality of its ADC's.

Cheers

James.