Hi,

This is to let people know that I've just put up a couple of web pages to
report on what I've found out about HDCD.

http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/HFN/HDCD/Enigma.html

Outlines how the system is claimed to work.

http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/HFN/HDCD/Examined.html

Looks at some of the results I got from some discs.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
Hi,

This is to let people know that I've just put up a couple of web pages to
report on what I've found out about HDCD.

http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/HFN/HDCD/Enigma.html

Outlines how the system is claimed to work.

http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/HFN/HDCD/Examined.html

Looks at some of the results I got from some discs.

The inherent fallacy of the HDCD process was the idea that somehow Red Book
CD was/is sonically inadequate.

If you were so naive as to believe the general applicability of the
Fielder/Dolby findings, then HDCD would seem to have a place.

In article , Arny
Krueger
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
Hi,

This is to let people know that I've just put up a couple of web pages
to report on what I've found out about HDCD.

http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/HFN/HDCD/Enigma.html

Outlines how the system is claimed to work.

http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/HFN/HDCD/Examined.html

Looks at some of the results I got from some discs.

The inherent fallacy of the HDCD process was the idea that somehow Red
Book CD was/is sonically inadequate.

I would be reluctant to argue with that - particularly since HDCD relies on
essentially destroying some of the LSB audio details and presumes this can
be 'hidden' and therefore inaudible! Something of an apparent contradiction
to claim we 'need' a 30dB bigger range than 90dB, but then argue that we
won't notice this tampering. Particularly when played 'as CD' in accord
with the 'compatible' part of the HDCD name! :-)

I was just checking out real examples of HDCD to see how well they do in
terms of the claimed '4 bit' expansion. I'd say some HDCD discs do 'sound
better' when decoded as HDCD. But that may well be a result of them
sounding poorer as normal Audio CDs due to the HDCD tampering with the
data. A plain Audio CD might have sounded essentially as good as decoded
HDCD. But comparing the HDCD played both ways may now illuminate that
because of the peak compressions when played on a non-HDCD player.

I would be interested in the results of the following.

Decode/expand an HDCD to 44.1k/24bit wav. Then dither/noise shape this down
to 44.1k/16bit - i.e. back to CDDA format. Then see if people can hear any
difference between this 'CDDA with HDCD undone' from the '24 bit expanded
by HDCD' version. If they can't hear any difference then the material might
as well be on well-make CD in the first place.

However I only have a few discs, and know what file is. And TBH I would not
claim that others couldn't hear differences that escape me! So such a
listening test would have to be done by someone else.

FWIW I will in due course make a version of the code I'm using available.
This will include the sources in 'C'. (And of course, the foobar code is
already available.) So I'd welcome someone else trying out such tests and
see how they get on.

Personally, I'm happy enough that 'expansion' of one or two of the few
discs I have does produce a better result - if only because it undoes the
peak compression applied to them by HDCD. My feeling is that one example in
particular - the Joni Mitchell 'Don Juan's Reckless Daughter' - has
noticable peak compression in places when played 'as a CD' that vanishes
when played 'as HDCD'. However this may be more a case of the peak
compression being noticable when present than anything to do with HDCD
having an inherently better dynamic range. So possibly caused by
'degrading' the 'as CD' sound below what a well-made CD would have
provided.

Since I bought some discs on the basis that they were 'Audio CDs' only to
find they were actually HDCDs, my other reason was to be able to hear them
without any 'compression' that HDCD had added.

When I can I'll see if I can find discs/tracks that show a bigger
expansion. The ones I've examined so far give results considerably more
modest than the claimed 4bits / 24dB! But I have never set out to buy
HDCDs.

FWIW Nick mentioned that he has a Linn 'sampler' somewhere, and this made
me curious since I also have one or two. I checked yesterday by looking at
two tracks taken at random. One is HDCD encoded, the other isn't. So if
anyone has a Linn sampler 'CD' you may find some tracks are HDCD. That
said, I suspect you won't hear any peak compression as they seem to usually
only use that very sparingly. My feeling at present is that although
Reference Recordings and Linn routinely use HDCD they do so with some care
and judgement. So avoid more than a small amount of peak compression.
Certainly the Linn HDCD/SACD hybrids I have sound OK 'as CD', although in
practice I've tended to more often listen to the SACD layer simply because
it was provided.

Alas, I don't think that may apply more generally to 'rock/pop' CDs where
those making the disc have run it though HDCD. Care and good judgment
don't, alas, seem to be universal in the recording biz. :-/ About the best
you can say here is that at least peak compression due to HDCD that is
audible 'as CD' is potentially correctable by the buyer of the disc! The
shame being that you may not always be able to know what you are getting...

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 17 Jul, wrote:
In article , Arny Krueger
wrote:

Typo alert!

But comparing the HDCD played both ways may now illuminate
that because of the peak compressions when played on a non-HDCD player.

s/HDCD/HDCD disc/

s/now/not/

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Arny
Krueger
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
Hi,

This is to let people know that I've just put up a couple of web pages
to report on what I've found out about HDCD.

http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/HFN/HDCD/Enigma.html

Outlines how the system is claimed to work.

http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/HFN/HDCD/Examined.html

Looks at some of the results I got from some discs.

The inherent fallacy of the HDCD process was the idea that somehow Red
Book CD was/is sonically inadequate.

I would be reluctant to argue with that - particularly since HDCD relies
on
essentially destroying some of the LSB audio details and presumes this can
be 'hidden' and therefore inaudible! Something of an apparent
contradiction
to claim we 'need' a 30dB bigger range than 90dB, but then argue that we
won't notice this tampering. Particularly when played 'as CD' in accord
with the 'compatible' part of the HDCD name! :-)

Another one of your excellent "why didn't I think of that" points, Jim.


I was just checking out real examples of HDCD to see how well they do in
terms of the claimed '4 bit' expansion. I'd say some HDCD discs do 'sound
better' when decoded as HDCD. But that may well be a result of them
sounding poorer as normal Audio CDs due to the HDCD tampering with the
data. A plain Audio CD might have sounded essentially as good as decoded
HDCD. But comparing the HDCD played both ways may now illuminate that
because of the peak compressions when played on a non-HDCD player.

Another confirmation of my idea that redbook was way more than good enough
without any tampering.

And, if you really want to goose up an audio CD, use shaped quantization and
get your 16 dB that way.

I would be interested in the results of the following.

Decode/expand an HDCD to 44.1k/24bit wav. Then dither/noise shape this
down
to 44.1k/16bit - i.e. back to CDDA format. Then see if people can hear any
difference between this 'CDDA with HDCD undone' from the '24 bit expanded
by HDCD' version. If they can't hear any difference then the material
might
as well be on well-make CD in the first place.

It's already been done with material that was 24 bit all along. Null
results.

However I only have a few discs, and know what file is. And TBH I would
not
claim that others couldn't hear differences that escape me! So such a
listening test would have to be done by someone else.

FWIW I will in due course make a version of the code I'm using available.
This will include the sources in 'C'. (And of course, the foobar code is
already available.) So I'd welcome someone else trying out such tests and
see how they get on.

Personally, I'm happy enough that 'expansion' of one or two of the few
discs I have does produce a better result - if only because it undoes the
peak compression applied to them by HDCD. My feeling is that one example
in
particular - the Joni Mitchell 'Don Juan's Reckless Daughter' - has
noticable peak compression in places when played 'as a CD' that vanishes
when played 'as HDCD'. However this may be more a case of the peak
compression being noticable when present than anything to do with HDCD
having an inherently better dynamic range. So possibly caused by
'degrading' the 'as CD' sound below what a well-made CD would have
provided.

Since I bought some discs on the basis that they were 'Audio CDs' only to
find they were actually HDCDs, my other reason was to be able to hear them
without any 'compression' that HDCD had added.

When I can I'll see if I can find discs/tracks that show a bigger
expansion. The ones I've examined so far give results considerably more
modest than the claimed 4bits / 24dB! But I have never set out to buy
HDCDs.

FWIW Nick mentioned that he has a Linn 'sampler' somewhere, and this made
me curious since I also have one or two. I checked yesterday by looking at
two tracks taken at random. One is HDCD encoded, the other isn't. So if
anyone has a Linn sampler 'CD' you may find some tracks are HDCD. That
said, I suspect you won't hear any peak compression as they seem to
usually
only use that very sparingly. My feeling at present is that although
Reference Recordings and Linn routinely use HDCD they do so with some care
and judgement. So avoid more than a small amount of peak compression.
Certainly the Linn HDCD/SACD hybrids I have sound OK 'as CD', although in
practice I've tended to more often listen to the SACD layer simply because
it was provided.

Alas, I don't think that may apply more generally to 'rock/pop' CDs where
those making the disc have run it though HDCD. Care and good judgment
don't, alas, seem to be universal in the recording biz. :-/ About the best
you can say here is that at least peak compression due to HDCD that is
audible 'as CD' is potentially correctable by the buyer of the disc! The
shame being that you may not always be able to know what you are
getting...


Here's an interesting data point - the SACD DSOTM seems to have less dynamic
range than the previous CD version:

http://www.stereophile.com/news/11649/

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Arny
Krueger
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...

snip

Alas, I don't think that may apply more generally to 'rock/pop' CDs where
those making the disc have run it though HDCD. Care and good judgment
don't, alas, seem to be universal in the recording biz. :-/ About the best
you can say here is that at least peak compression due to HDCD that is
audible 'as CD' is potentially correctable by the buyer of the disc! The
shame being that you may not always be able to know what you are
getting...


Here's an interesting data point - the SACD DSOTM seems to have less dynamic
range than the previous CD version:

http://www.stereophile.com/news/11649/

I don't see what you mean: this article compares the DSD and redbook
layers of the 30th Anniversary edition SACD of DSOTM (the latter is
dynamically compressed compared to the former).

Stephen

On 18/07/2012 13:08, Arny Krueger wrote:


Another confirmation of my idea that redbook was way more than good enough
without any tampering.


Such modesty! And yes, I remember you saying 128kbs mp3 was good enough,
for you at least.

Rob

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 08:05:07 -0500, MiNe 109
wrote:

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Here's an interesting data point - the SACD DSOTM seems to have less dynamic
range than the previous CD version:

http://www.stereophile.com/news/11649/

Comparing the waveform pics there with my own CD 0777 7 46001 2 5,
recently backed up to HD, it's comforting to find that the trace of
Money is near identical in overall shape to the SACD layer rather than
the CD layer.

I don't see what you mean: this article compares the DSD and redbook
layers of the 30th Anniversary edition SACD of DSOTM (the latter is
dynamically compressed compared to the former).

Exactly, so this new redbook layer has less dynamic range than the
previous CD version that I have above.

Further proof, if it were needed, that no modern CD can be taken at
face value. The only way you can be sure that what you're getting is
pukka music that has not been f*cked up is to buy it, analyse it, and
then take it back to the shop and complain if it has been adulterated.

I haven't heard this SACD, or indeed any, but I suspect that if you
did a listening test between my CD and this new SACD, no-one over the
age of twenty, and only those under that age with exceptionally good
equipment and exceptionally well-trained ears, would be able to tell
the difference.

After all, a relatively small number of cymbal high frequency peaks
were all that were captured by SACD that couldn't be captured by CD,
because they are above CD's upper frequency limit.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

In article , Java Jive
scribeth thus
On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 08:05:07 -0500, MiNe 109
wrote:

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Here's an interesting data point - the SACD DSOTM seems to have less
dynamic
range than the previous CD version:

http://www.stereophile.com/news/11649/

Comparing the waveform pics there with my own CD 0777 7 46001 2 5,
recently backed up to HD, it's comforting to find that the trace of
Money is near identical in overall shape to the SACD layer rather than
the CD layer.

I don't see what you mean: this article compares the DSD and redbook
layers of the 30th Anniversary edition SACD of DSOTM (the latter is
dynamically compressed compared to the former).

Exactly, so this new redbook layer has less dynamic range than the
previous CD version that I have above.

Further proof, if it were needed, that no modern CD can be taken at
face value. The only way you can be sure that what you're getting is
pukka music that has not been f*cked up is to buy it, analyse it, and
then take it back to the shop and complain if it has been adulterated.

I haven't heard this SACD, or indeed any, but I suspect that if you
did a listening test between my CD and this new SACD, no-one over the
age of twenty, and only those under that age with exceptionally good
equipment and exceptionally well-trained ears, would be able to tell
the difference.


After all, a relatively small number of cymbal high frequency peaks
were all that were captured by SACD that couldn't be captured by CD,
because they are above CD's upper frequency limit.

Anyone know what the original recording was done on?..
--
Tony Sayer

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:

DSOTM

Anyone know what the original recording was done on?..

http://www.philsbook.com/abbey-road-...f-the-moon.htm

The Equipment used.

EMI TG Mark IV Consoles.

16-track Studer A80s . The initial tracks were recorded at 15ips onto 2"
tape, non-Dolby. To make more tracks available, tracks were bounced down
onto a second Studer 16 track, this time with Dolby A.

Bass - Although a Hi-watt amp was set up in the studio area for Roger
Waters, and screened off to help with the spill, a mic wasn't actually
used. Instead the bass was DI'd and compressed through a Fairchild
Limiter. The Fairchild was also used for vocals and sometimes on the mix.

Dave Gilmour used a Hi-Watt DR103 100 watt head through WEM Super
Starfinder 200 cabinets with 4?12 Fane Crescendo speakers. The set up
was mostly closed miced. Other gear included : A Bison Echorec II,
silicon transistor version of the Dallas Arbiter Fuzz Face, a Colorsound
Powerboost and a Univox Uni-Vibe.


All addition recorded delays on the album were done with tape machines