Third, have you the 'experience' that more accurate loudspeakers
(I
have just replaced B&W 802d2's with d3's) render such speakers a
virtual necessity where discernment of instruments and voices in
orchestral and ensemble music is sought
I argue their accuracy, but there are a number of speakers which accentuate details in the treble region which enhance the experience. Dali, Golden Ear, Dynaudio, Focal. You should absolutely buy the brand that brings you the greatest joy. If B&W is your happy pill, take 2! Amps also make a difference. Going to a Luxman made me recover a lot of this information you are talking about. Room acoustics as well. For B&W make sure you listen on the mid axis instead of the treble. Again, there are a number of great DACs out which make the difference between high resolution and Redbook disappear. The last DAC I owned that begged for high resolution files was the ARC DAC 8. The Mytek line, along with top end modern Schiit DACs and others are going to shock you with their Redbook playback. |
|
Smaller speakers but not smaller sound is my goal. :) The LM-1 kit I posted is a reference quality monitor but specifically designed for a bookshelf or desktop. By making a "true bookshelf" it has a lot of advantages for sounding great, sounding loud and being out of the way.
Best,
Erik
|
|
There is a software solution, ffmpeg, that should be able to tell you whether a track is redbook, HDCD tagged but not used, and real HDCD. It's not that useful unless you want to conserve disk space though. :) I mean, it's kind of academic.
Best,
E
|
It’s quite possible some real HDCD disks also never did the labelling. :)
I could check my recordings, I suppose, but meh, it’s all automated.
That Patricia Barber CD with the HDCD label really IS HDCD though. :)
Sorry I think there’s some misunderstanding, let me be as verbose as I am not sober. :)
So, HDCD has a special data tag that digitally marks a CD track as being HDCD enabled BUT, that tag could get added unintentionally, without the engineers actually using any of the HDCD features, in which case it’s no different musically than plain old redbook.
HDCD requires manual intervention during the mastering, there's no "set and forget" about it.
|
All the evidence I see so far points to:
- PM gear in mastering process turns HDCD flag on.
- Engineers don't use any features
- CD's get mastered with HDCD "data tag" but no features used.
- Label gets printed without HDCD because it's not real.
- Some one on the internet starts making list of all HDCD disks, whether real or just tagged.
|
Hi @ptss Well thank you kindly. I was very fortunate to be able to observe a true master, Dr. Marshall Leach Jr. when I was very young. That exposure sparked a life-long interest. My humble memorial to him is here. Later on I was able to work in circuit board and industrial design for motion picture sound systems, before digital sound for film existed. While I have an interest in many things, my main focus right now is achieving high-end movie and music sound for apartment living. Meaning small and affordable but not quality limited. Best, Erik |
@dtc
I'm sure the mistakes were honest. :) I only meant to point out that many think they've discovered unmarked HDCD disks (like a bonus track on an album) when in fact they are plain-Jane Redbook CD's. This is probalby why they don't have HDCD branded on the covers.
Best,
Erik
|
The SACD versio is only half that. :) Either way I'd rather have a download.
|
Hi @djohnson54
I think you are right, it was only 4 bits more. However, since that's an odd bit size, it gets spit out as a 44/24 file.
Your approach is cool, but since I am on Linux only and don't have the MS approved HDCD decoder, I can't use it. Instead I convert all of my files, but I only have to do this one time. I think OS X people would have the same issues.
Thanks for the heads up on the level shifting. I'll have to compare a few files first. This is something quite easy to do with ffmpeg.
Best,
Erik
|
@mahler123
Well, there is more to this than just converting music files. I have been bed ridden on and off for a while, so brushing up my scripting skills is a plus. :)
Like a lot of things, the setup time is the most brutal part of this effort.
It turns out I don't need to level shift. I do however need to copy the metadata and cover art separately as that does not make it through the HDCD decoding.
I'm actually just really happy I found OS HDCD code to let me do this. Mostly because I've wanted to listen to HDCD since it came out, and this is the first time I can.
Best,
Erik
|
Hi Alan,
Funny, I am having the opposite experience. :)
Best,
Erik
|
Hey @jafant
Start a new thread in the digital section. :)
The quick answer is, you use a laptop or PC as a music server, and use USB or S/PDIF output to your DAC. This is most convenient.
Of course, you can also burn a CD-R but I don't ever do that so I can't help you
Best,
Erik
|
Oppo 103 also has HDCD playback! Who knew??
I keep forgetting. I didn't think anything this new still had HDCD built in.
|
@daveyf Yep, I am really liking my transcoded tracks, but I liked them a lot before. PM did nice things. :)
Yeah, the HDCD "license" holders actually had to buy little DIP chips with HDCD printed on them. I'm sure it's all in software now.
|
Wow, you packed a lot in that first sentence, @georgelofi Not sure what you meant.
AFAIK, the HDCD chip, was purely digital domain. The DAC implementation was left up to the licensees.
Interesting about Reference Recordings. I wonder if they are using any of the bit-compression or just the transient filters.
As far as I knew, there were no longer any HDCD ADC's available, so you had to use vintage gear, although I soppose you could do it purely in software, but then what's the point??
|
So I've poked around Reference Recordings. I've not heard them, so I have no idea what they sound like, but I must say that their site is VERY light on technology. Big on adjectives.
Again, it may be fantastic, but I personally would love to understand which set of HDCD features they are taking advantage of.
Best,
Erik
|
I'm not questioning HDCD. I like it. I just was hoping they'd have something more specific about which features they used for RR.
|
Thanks George!
When I scanned all of my library I assumed only 44/16 would be HDCD encoded. Now maybe I will look through my hi rez files too.
Best,
Erik
|
|
Following on the link, above, I found a very interesting section. It is true that PM equipment was pretty popular in recording and mastering studios. I quoteth the results: Much of the time, the engineers turned all HDCD features off, but the HDCD control packets were still inserted into the discs anyway. For these discs, there is absolutely no benefit in decoding HDCD. This explains why so many disks may be identified as HDCD even if not labeled as such. Chances are good the mastering engineers had no idea it was on, and therefore did not utilize any of it’s features. Meaning, HDCD is irrelevant for those disks. Though I imagine there’s probably a byte or two at the start of each track which gets the hidden HDCD markers removed. Otherwise they might as well be RedBook. It's also interesting how they describe it as a scam, originally marketed with grandiose claims and very little information. I can think of at least one digital format that seems like that. Grandiose, unsubstantiated (to my ears) claims, but a ton of data about it. Not all scams are lacking in data. Some like the perpetual dark energy scams have tons of explanations. They're just not true. Erik |
@georgelofi
I certainly can't find any evidence to the contrary! :)
Erik
|
Yeah, MQA reminds me of dark energy, a lot. :)
In addition to the unproven sound quality enhancements, I really like the data compression part of MQA. If I could losslessly compress my flac files to 1/8th the current size I would love it. However, it's not lossless. No remaining value.
Best,
Erik
|
And.... Patricia has it on Vinyl at her store for $70. :)
|
