|
|
Post by drtrey3 on May 19, 2014 8:35:47 GMT -5
Somebody should tell him about the Nyquist theorem. That will set him straight. 8)
Trey
|
|
|
|
Post by moko on May 19, 2014 9:37:56 GMT -5
another pono ?
|
|
|
|
Post by drtrey3 on May 19, 2014 10:56:49 GMT -5
Actually, it is Sony, who killed the sacd basically, touting their high res player. But Herbie makes a compelling case!
Trey
|
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,261
|
Post by KeithL on May 19, 2014 17:29:49 GMT -5
It would be interesting to be able to compare the two copies he's talking about... Then we could figure out what the difference between them was - and whether it was somehow due to the limitations of the CD format - or something else. (Or even whether the CD was more accurate and the other one had been modified in some way he found pleasing.) As someone who's heard a LOT of CDs, and a lot of HD music files, I must admit that the HD tracks usually sound better.... HOWEVER, I'm not sure I can say that they sound better than the very few really superior sounding CDs I've heard.... Which leads me to the conclusion that most CDs aren't as good sounding as they could be (as limited by the format itself). Which leads me to wonder how much of the difference I hear is due to "inherent superiority" of high-def audio files, and how much is due to the fact that many high-def files are simply mastered better (we needn't get into how or why). Somebody should tell him about the Nyquist theorem. That will set him straight. 8) Trey |
|
|
|
Post by jmilton on May 19, 2014 17:47:17 GMT -5
This was a Sony sponsored forum...oh, and on the executive bathroom walls were scrawled the words, "Nyquist lied!"
|
|
|
|
Post by drtrey3 on May 19, 2014 20:29:59 GMT -5
A very cogent question Keith. I was married to a woman who worked for RCA Nashville. They were considering using a higher grade of tape for their cassette releases. Well, they considered it long enough to find out it cost about a penny a cassette more, then they nixed it saying that the people who bought their product didn't care about sound quality, they cared about how many hits were on each release.
Nuff said.
Trey
|
|
|
|
Post by djoel on May 19, 2014 21:11:13 GMT -5
I've seen this before months ago, and the feeling I got was like Herbie is trying to sell me something, which I know is his job here, but still it sounded a little infomercial-ish!
Dan
|
|
|
|
Post by drtrey3 on May 20, 2014 3:27:15 GMT -5
Infomercial-ish, or evangelist-ish? I can't quite decide which. 8)
Trey
|
|
|
|
Post by djoel on May 20, 2014 8:46:44 GMT -5
Infomercial-ish, or evangelist-ish? I can't quite decide which. 8) Trey One wants your money the other wants your soul, so they can get your money! Not much of a difference! Djoel |
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs 
Posts: 18,487
|
Post by DYohn on May 20, 2014 9:17:30 GMT -5
HOWEVER, I'm not sure I can say that they sound better than the very few really superior sounding CDs I've heard.... Which leads me to the conclusion that most CDs aren't as good sounding as they could be (as limited by the format itself). Which leads me to wonder how much of the difference I hear is due to "inherent superiority" of high-def audio files, and how much is due to the fact that many high-def files are simply mastered better (we needn't get into how or why). ^^This. A well-mastered source is far more important than the sample rate and bit depth of the storage method. I've got some 5-bit MiniDisc recordings around here somewhere that sound absolutely perfect... |
|
|
|
Post by cd on May 20, 2014 11:01:17 GMT -5
David wrote: "A well-mastered source is far more important than the sample rate and bit depth of the storage method."
I totally agree. I have some CDs**, and most of them are HDCDs, K2 mastered CDs, XRCDs, or Sony Super BitMap CDs that sound absolutely fantastic. The sound is very "full" and "liquid", the imaging is precise, and the depth of the sound is terrific. I credit the mastering for these qualities. The CD format has plenty of resolution to provide a very, very good 2-channel sound. The problem is that the vast majority of CDs are poorly mastered and thus waste the inherent capability of the format.
If every CD was mastered as well as the ones I mentioned, we would have no need for hi-res, 2-channel formats/files....
** Examples:
The Other Ones - "The Strange Remain" (HDCD)
Santana - "Abraxas" (Super BitMap)
Grateful Dead - "American Beauty" and "Workingman's Dead" (HDCD)
Creedence Clearwater - All their studio releases using the K2 mastering system.
The Doors - All their studio releases using the HDCD mastering system.
CD
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,261
|
Post by KeithL on May 20, 2014 12:07:53 GMT -5
Exactly..... And, just to clarify the details for those who aren't familiar with the entire alphabet soup... "K2 mastered CDs", "XRCDs", "Sony Super BitMap CDs", "SHM CDs", and almost all other "special formats of CDs" describe ways of MASTERING the CD. The end result - the CD you actually listen to - is the exact same 16/44.1 CD we all know and love (which complies with the "Red Book" standard). All of those "24 bit mastered" CDs you hear about may have been mastered at 24 bits, but they've been reduced to 16 bits at 44.1k and recorded onto a standard Red Book audio CD for sale to you - otherwise "regular CD players" wouldn't play them. (And, yes, some ways of mastering digital audio DO work better than others, and may sometimes produce better-sounding results; and some, while not inherently superior, do make it easier for inexpert engineers to produce better results with less work. Most editing software these days does use 24 bits - or even 32 bits - but it usually isn't considered as being worthy of mentioning until the marketing department gets involved.  ) The sole exception to that is HDCDs, which can deliver about 4 bits more of dynamic range - if (and only if) you play your HDCD on a player that properly supports HDCD decoding, and if it was encoded with that extra dynamic range to begin with. In fact, here are two interesting bits of trivia about HDCD: 1) The HDCD encoding process is actually a symmetrical compander. The original signal has its dynamic range compressed by about 20 dB before being recorded. The exact information about how the signal was compressed is then embedded into the audio signal in the LSB (least significant bit). The decoder then uses this information to (more or less) exactly reverse the compression process and re-expand the music to its original dynamic range. (Note that a file "tagged" as being HDCD may actually not have been compressed; that is at the discretion of the person running the encoder.) The funny part is that, if you play an HDCD encoded disc on a player that DOESN'T properly decode it, you are actually listening to 15 bit audio - and not 16 bit - because the 16th bit has been "taken" to store the information about how the disc was compressed - with the result that that one bit is audibly equal to random noise. So an HDCD played on a non-HDCD player is actually about 6 dB noisier and has 6 dB LESS dynamic range than an ordinary CD. (So, if that HDCD sounds better on a player that can't decode HDCDs, it is solely because the HDCD encoder is a very good sounding encoder.) 2) There is only one digital converter that is still in widely used by pros that can encode HDCDs. According to quite a bit of "industry chatter" I've read, many still use it because it happens to sound very good as a "regular encoder". In other words, the fact that it can encode HDCD is considered incidental by many who use it... they use it because it works very well. (And, since it was a very expensive piece of equipment when the studio bought it, and still works very well, they see no reason to stop using it.) David wrote: "A well-mastered source is far more important than the sample rate and bit depth of the storage method." I totally agree. I have some CDs**, and most of them are HDCDs, K2 mastered CDs, XRCDs, or Sony Super BitMap CDs that sound absolutely fantastic. The sound is very "full" and "liquid", the imaging is precise, and the depth of the sound is terrific. I credit the mastering for these qualities. The CD format has plenty of resolution to provide a very, very good 2-channel sound. The problem is that the vast majority of CDs are poorly mastered and thus waste the inherent capability of the format. If every CD was mastered as well as the ones I mentioned, we would have no need for hi-res, 2-channel formats/files.... ** Examples: The Other Ones - "The Strange Remain" (HDCD) Santana - "Abraxas" (Super BitMap) Grateful Dead - "American Beauty" and "Workingman's Dead" (HDCD) Creedence Clearwater - All their studio releases using the K2 mastering system. The Doors - All their studio releases using the HDCD mastering system. CD |
|
|
|
Post by cd on May 20, 2014 13:08:11 GMT -5
Keith wrote: "There is only one digital converter that is still in widely used by pros that can encode HDCDs. According to quite a bit of "industry chatter" I've read, many still use it because it happens to sound very good as a "regular encoder"."
Keith, are you referring to the Pacific Microsonics/Euphonix processors? From my reading, the filtering used by the Pacific Microsonics processors provides audible benefits even if the disc player does not support HDCD playback. I can tell you for sure that The Other Ones' disc sounds spectacular no matter what player is used. I noticed this right away when I was riding with my buddy in his car and he popped the disc in. He saw my expression and smiled knowingly.
As it turns out, ALL of the Grateful Dead discs are HDCD encoded. And since most of the guys in The Other Ones are GD band members, they opted for HDCD encoding for their release....
CD
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,261
|
Post by KeithL on May 20, 2014 13:27:45 GMT -5
That would be the one... and, from what I've heard said, everyone agrees that it's still one of the best sounding encoders out there. There is also a lot of confusion around about the HDCD process itself and the available options. According to "sources", and the original "sales blurbs" for HDCD, the original encoding scheme also included the ability to choose different reconstruction filters for playback (the encoder could instruct the decoder which filter to use from a set of several), and to do a second type of peak compression. However (also according to several sources), only the one basic form of compression was ever implemented. For the true HDCD aficionado, you should also know that FooBar and dBPowerAmp can both decode HDCDs in software - and, in fact, dBPowerAmp can RIP HDCDs and save the DECODED audio to a 24 bit digital audio file (like a FLAC) - for proper "decoded" playback from any DAC. Both require a plugin to handle HDCD - and both plugins are free and pretty easy to find if you Google for them. (Since separate DACs just don't decode HDCD, this is useful.) And another final bit of trivia.... guess who now owns the HDCD "technology" (the last time I looked anyway)? Give up? MicroSoft... and the decoding is supposedly implemented in Windows Media Player (even though they don't seem to be doing anything else with it). Keith wrote: "There is only one digital converter that is still in widely used by pros that can encode HDCDs. According to quite a bit of "industry chatter" I've read, many still use it because it happens to sound very good as a "regular encoder"." Keith, are you referring to the Pacific Microsonics/Euphonix processors? From my reading, the filtering used by the Pacific Microsonics processors provides audible benefits even if the disc player does not support HDCD playback. I can tell you for sure that The Other Ones' disc sounds spectacular no matter what player is used. I noticed this right away when I was riding with my buddy in his car and he popped the disc in. He saw my expression and smiled knowingly. As it turns out, ALL of the Grateful Dead discs are HDCD encoded. And since most of the guys in The Other Ones are GD band members, they opted for HDCD encoding for their release.... CD |
|
|
|
Post by jmilton on May 20, 2014 14:02:53 GMT -5
Nearly all master digital studio recordings are made at higher sample rates and bit depths than a CD can handle, even if it’s only 48kHz. For example, Keith Johnson at Reference, records all their materials at 176.4kHz/24 bits and nearly every recording studio is making masters at 96kHz/24 or higher. When a recording engineer is making a master recording of a group, (a copy of a master analog tape etc.) he is naturally going to make that master at the best possible resolution he can. Not at the lowest needed.
So what happens when we want to go make a CD version of that master tape? The original master is down sampled to 44.1kHz/16 bits through a sample rate converter. Depending on what the engineer started with, down sampling clearly loses some of what was in the original recording in the process.
How much of what we recognize as inferior playback of the CD, relative to high rez media, is due to this downsampling process? This practice, I am convinced, is one reason many CD’s sound worse than their high resolution counterparts.- McGown
|
|
|
|
Post by cd on May 20, 2014 14:04:32 GMT -5
Keith wrote: "MicroSoft... and the decoding is supposedly implemented in Windows Media Player
(even though they don't seem to be doing anything else with it)."
Yep, HDCD capability was introduced in Windows Media Player 9. And I did not know about dbPowerAmp's ability to decode HDCD and then output it to a 24 bit file. That is very cool indeed! HDCD capability is another one of the reasons that I always recommend Oppo players whenever someone is looking for a high quality universal player. Oppo have been supporting HDCD ever since they released the DV-970 many moons ago.
I also believe the Emo ERC players are HDCD capable, is this true for all of them??
CD
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,261
|
Post by KeithL on May 20, 2014 15:46:43 GMT -5
Yes. (At least I know it is for the ERC-2 and the ERC-3; I'm pretty sure it is also true for the ERC-1.) Keith wrote: "MicroSoft... and the decoding is supposedly implemented in Windows Media Player (even though they don't seem to be doing anything else with it)." Yep, HDCD capability was introduced in Windows Media Player 9. And I did not know about dbPowerAmp's ability to decode HDCD and then output it to a 24 bit file. That is very cool indeed! HDCD capability is another one of the reasons that I always recommend Oppo players whenever someone is looking for a high quality universal player. Oppo have been supporting HDCD ever since they released the DV-970 many moons ago. I also believe the Emo ERC players are HDCD capable, is this true for all of them?? CD |
|
HDSapper
Emo VIPs
"Any problem on earth can be solved with the careful application of high explosives."
Posts: 833
|
Post by HDSapper on May 20, 2014 15:54:38 GMT -5
Yes. (At least I know it is for the ERC-2 and the ERC-3; I'm pretty sure it is also true for the ERC-1.) Yes, the ERC-1 also does HDCD. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,261
|
Post by KeithL on May 20, 2014 16:02:54 GMT -5
But you're still not addressing the "basic question"..... Yes, if you start with a 24/96 original, and need to put it on a CD (16/44.1), you're going to have to down-sample it, and doing so will require you to discard some information. However, the question remains whether the missing information that MUST be discarded will be audible by its absence or not. In other words, does it sound different because, even with a "perfect downsampling", we can hear what's missing... or does it sound different because the downsampling is NOT quite perfect and we can hear the "damage" caused by its flaws? Are you hearing a difference between 24/96 and 16/44.1 or are you JUST hearing the damage caused by the conversion process? If the latter, then the "problem" lies not with the limitations of the CD medium, but with the particular downsampling process used. (And, if so, it's reasonable to assume that another CD version, also at 16/44.1, but created with a better downsampling process, might sound far better.) That's why it would be very helpful to be able to compare the CD and HD versions that Herbie heard such a difference between.... and determine if there were differences beyond those necessitated by a theoretically perfect downconversion - and, if so, what those differences were. (The only change required by the downconversion to 44.1k itself would be to limit the frequency response to about 21 kHz. If we started with a 24 bit HD file, then reducing that to 16 bits would also reduce the S/N from about 130 dB to about 96 dB.) Nearly all master digital studio recordings are made at higher sample rates and bit depths than a CD can handle, even if it’s only 48kHz. For example, Keith Johnson at Reference, records all their materials at 176.4kHz/24 bits and nearly every recording studio is making masters at 96kHz/24 or higher. When a recording engineer is making a master recording of a group, (a copy of a master analog tape etc.) he is naturally going to make that master at the best possible resolution he can. Not at the lowest needed. So what happens when we want to go make a CD version of that master tape? The original master is down sampled to 44.1kHz/16 bits through a sample rate converter. Depending on what the engineer started with, down sampling clearly loses some of what was in the original recording in the process. How much of what we recognize as inferior playback of the CD, relative to high rez media, is due to this downsampling process? This practice, I am convinced, is one reason many CD’s sound worse than their high resolution counterparts.- McGown
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,487
|
Post by DYohn on May 20, 2014 17:06:42 GMT -5
And then of course there is the question of needing anything beyond 16 bits. 16 bit sampling gets you 96.3db of dynamic range. A typical rock concert might attain high dbSPL levels, but the dynamic range (softest to loudest) is likely only about 40db or less. A CD is capable of 96db dynamic range, so the only recording that might become compromised at 16bit is a live symphony which can attain around 100-120db dynamic range. An LP is only capable of 64db dynamic range or else the needle will jump out of the groove, by the way. Recording at 24 bits is 144dB and 32 bits is 192dB dynamic range, both of which are beyond the capability of human hearing and neither of which are possible in music, but similar to the idea of amplifier headroom if you can do it then why not even if you can't possibly use it all?  Also, beware of anything that is "up-sampled" from 16bit to 20 or 24bit. The process of up-sampling often means simply adding enough zeroes to the end of each sample to increase the data word size. In many cases it does not really change the original at all. |
|
)
Also, beware of anything that is "up-sampled" from 16bit to 20 or 24bit. The process of up-sampling often means simply adding enough zeroes to the end of each sample to increase the data word size. In many cases it does not really change the original at all.