The Smiley Smile Message Board

Hi -

I happen to possess all 1990 two-fers and a number of 2001s too. As the latter are HDCD-encoded (seems like an algoritm that 'pretends' to convert 16-bit to 24-bit, I am told) I was wondering about these issues:

- how are the 2001 issues when compared to the 1990 ones when played on a mid-quality CD player without taking into account the HDCD sampling method?
- is it worth the money to purchase a CD-player with an in-built HDCD-chip (from Pacific Microsonics), I mean: is the change that dramatical? There are preciously few HDCD-encoded CDs around, but hey: we're talking the Beach Boys here, which changes everything... (as the Bard Of Avon wrote: 'All Is Fair In Love, War, and The Beach Boys').

Thank you.

As I wrote under "remastered Smiley" :
 "All of the 1990 2fers were remastered in 2001, including Smiley.  The 1990 2fers used noise reduction, but otherwise sound fine.  The 2001 2fers used no noise reduction, but are compressed (loud, with subsequent loss of dynamic range) and EQ'd more harshly (treble boost, fatiguing to the ears).  Some prefer the orignal mastering, others the newer one."

As for HDCD, I don't have an HDCD capable CD player (almost bought one on ebay, but was outbid, just to be able to listen to my BB CD's in HDCD!).  I would love to know what kind of difference the HDCD would make on the sound - for example, it could sound less compressed.  I doubt it would eliminate the trebly EQ though, and might even make it worse.  But if someone has an HDCD player, let's hear from them.

Can't comment fairly on the sound difference, but if HDCD is good enough for Neil Young, then I'm happy to go with it!  Most of the HDCD releases are available at very low prices if you shop around. At least, they have been in the UK.

Thanks for the replies so far. I am somewhat surprised to learn about the 2001 versions being louder, more compressed, and containing more noise. I hadn't expected this. I don't care the slightest bit about the general loudness, but object to compression. I still have nightmares about two LPs I once owned: ELO's 'Eldorado', and Roy Wood and Wizzard's 'Eddie And The Falcons'. They were so compressed that they weren't listenable at all.
Compression, by the way, also kills off many radio stations in Europe. Since the available bandwidth is limited, and frequencies are auctioned off on a yearly basis, and governments want to extract as much money as possible from it all, the average sound is awful because of the number of radio stations allowed.
Are the 1990 versions collectible for the reasons Bicyclerider named?

Well, the "more noise" on the 2001's just means there's some audible hiss at the beginning of some of the tracks - which to my mind is a good thing.  You can't knock out the hiss without sacrificing the higher frequencies of the music - plus when the noise reduction is applied with a strong hand it can cause a 'pumping" kind of sound that is really annoying, and puts a veil over the music.  That's why the noise reduction haters might prefer the 2001's.  But those sensitive to overboosted high frequencies will tend to prefer the 1990's.  I suspect you could buy the 1990 CD's for cheap on ebay, they aren't considered "collectible" but as I"ve said many find them much more listenable.

Several issues here, hopefully I can shed some light from my perspective!

1. Not all the latest reissues were HDCD - i.e. the Capitol albums (up to Friends/20-20) were, but the Warners & CBS ones (1970 onwards) were not. This is hugely frustrating if you think HDCD is a worthwhile improvement, as (obviously) it is precisely at Sunflower that the stereo and audio quality of the recordings, or at least their complexity, so dramatically improves. There is huge benefit, though, with most of these.

2. Some of the post-1970 tracks are available in HDCD on the 'Brian Wilson presents' (better to be known as 'David Leaf presents') compilation which ends with California Feeling. E.g. Surf's Up and the stereo mix of Heroes and Villains.

3. As I remember it, HDCD doesnt 'pretend' to do anything but does ACTUALLY use the available storage area reserved for code information to pack up to 20-bit data on to a CD. This can (only) be decoded by an HDCD-compatible player, as you suggest. But I think 20 rather than 24-bit was the claimed figure. I've owned an HDCD-enabled player by the Britich hifi company Naim since 1999 - a CDX (latterly the CDX2) and I believe their more affordable players also have the HDCD chip. It's falling out of fashion now as I think Pacific Microsonics were bought out by Microsoft (?) and maybe have run down production. Either way, specialist CD related gear (DAC chips, servos, transports etc) has been harder to source recently as things are moving away from CD towards other media. Meantime, if you have enough discs and want to hear them at their best, it's worth the investment.

4. Pet Sounds is a funny one as it was re-released as a non-HDCD remaster by Ron McMaster (a likely name!) in 1999 and then hastily re-remasterd by Linett etc in HDCD in 2000 or 2001, just after the non-HDCDs mentioned in (1) above. Why?

5. Most of Joni Mitchell's wonderful 1970s albums were mastered in HDCD a few years ago but only available as such in the USA. Here in the UK we've only had the crappy 1980s issues. This has necessitated several transatlatic trips to collect them - but well worth it. Hejira in HDCD is something else.

Chris Metcalfe gets it right about HDCD but I would add this: you probably have HDCD right now.  If you have a PC with Windows Media Player 10 or better, HDCD is built right in and works automatically when you play an encoded CD.  Microsoft bought it out some years ago and now they own it.

Other BB and BW HDCD releaes: BWPS, What I Really Want For Christmas,  the Walking Down the Path of Life CD-single, the Good Vibrations 40th Anniversary CD ep.  Not all of them are labeled as such but the decoder light goes on when you play them.  I don't know about the new singles box set because I can't be bothered to buy it.   It will be interesting to see if TLOS is HDCD, though probably it's not because Mark Linett didn't mix or master it.  He did all of these as well as the HDCD issues you already know about.

Thanks to all for the great info! -

it led me to a recollection way in the back of my mind (where else?): could it be true that either Sunflower, or Surf's Up, or both, once were released as quadraphonic (4-channel) LP albums? It is a bit of a theoretical question, because even if I am right, the format died an early death and the needed needles (hah!) won't be available at any rate, nor the special amps.

Sunflower was released in Quadraphonic.
Amazingly, hifi companies in the early 70s brought out quadraphonic headphones, no doubt in the hope that we'd eventually grow an extra pair of ears. Here's some:
http://members.cox.net/quadraphonic/headphones/Zenith%20839-35%20Quad%20headphones%202.JPG

Superb! Cheers!

That's fair enough, but I understand that the quality of the hardware that reads your CDs has a significant impact on the quality of what you hear too, and I would assume that the laser etc. in your laptop or desktop drive is of as low a quality as the manufacturer can get away with, therefore no appreciable gain in having HDCD in Windows Media Player?

Also, I've ust looked at my Technics CD player, and it doesn't have HDCD, but it does have 'MASH - multi-stage noise shaping 24 bit HIGH fs PROCESSING' whatever that is...?

MASH always was held in high esteem, as far as I know. German quality hi-fi mags used inexpensive Technics players as their office players, because they are so damn good - and I am talking people that test high-end equipment here.

I had a 16-bit 4-fold Sony CD deck. Then I got an NAD Monitor 5000 18-bit deck, with a wholly double digital-to-analogue outlay (for free, I was lucky). It changed the way I listen to music. The NAD is certainly not young, but so good it blows many newer and more expensive decks away.

Strongly recommended, if you can find one.

This is off-topic, but the original unremastered Hejira CD (mastered by Stephen Innocenzi) is an amazing disc and blows the HDCD remaster away, in my opinion. (The Same ist true for For The Roses).

Probably the first time Joni is mentioned here. I Love her music. Oh boy, Hejira  and Hissing... blew me away.

Blimey - that's certainly not my experience, but your opinion has as much value as mine!
As I said I've had an HDCD-enabled player for a number of years so this could have a bearing. Generally though, most of the Warners remasters I've heard recently (such as Paul Simon's - not HDCD) sound significantly better than the 1980s versions. But I guess it's subjective.

MASH was Technics' version of 'Bitstream' (or DSD), a 1-bit streaming DAC developed by Philips in the late 1980s. But that's just another way of decoding the 16-bit stream. As I said above, HDCD actually ups the ante to 20-bit.

I'm also baffled as to how Microsoft can reap the benefit of this in PC hardware, as most of the associated bits are, as we say here, cheap as chips - and primarily designed to deal with compressed music files such as MP3 - the opposite end of the audio scale from HDCD (and higher resolution formats like 24/96).

Now obviously way off topic but we've all got to listen to this music on ... something!

 *

Mysterious but much appreciated.

Now: I am sad that in the turmoil of recent years, SACD did not make it (looks like it at any rate). To me, the system seems to have no disadvantages at all, only advantages. Hi-resolution, backwards compatible, better sound, and cheap to manufacture. Stupid that DVD-A and later all that silly internet downloading stood in its way.
What do you think?

The original For The Roses and Hejira CDs were mastered at Atlantic Studios, and most original CDs from Atlantic Studios (Crosby Stills Nash, Led Zeppelin, Yes, ELP's Brain Salad Surgery) sound close to perfect.

I have both the 1990s CSN and the 2007 CSN HDCD remaster and the latter is far superior to these ears. There's simply more detail off the master-tape!

As far as SACD is concerned, this was/is pretty much head-to-head with DVD-A in exploiting the increase in bandwidth from the DVD system (compared to CD). Evidently the public had no appetite for a mass change from one digital disc format to another after only (say) 15 years - after all the LP lasted 30 years before CD began to nibble at it. Also, in fact, it had (like 'Dual Disc') the disadvantage that to some ears the CD layer actually sounded worse than on a normal CD - which is understandable, since it's trying to be 2 things at once.

The next phase should be hifi hard-disk and hi-resolution downloads, so all those BB tapes which have been mastered to 24/96 can be heard at that level of resolution.

Mind you, I know nothing....

Hmmm... I am anally retentive. So I don't want to see my good record retailer closing his shop. All this downloading from the web is baloney for me. Of course, everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion, and one can't stop the future. With my general psychological make-up, we'd still be no further than the clay tablet.

I see: I was talking about the orignal 1980s CDs, not the 1990s remasters which are mostly treated with noise reduction; no wonder they have less detail.  The HDCD remaster cuts off part of the last song (the ad-lib at the beginning) and I remember drop-outs on Marrakesh Express and Wooden Ships.

I'll have to give it another listen!
Some other good HDCD discs are the Doors and the Grateful Dead - if you like that sort of thing.

 I have ALL the 1990 two-fers and ALL the 2000 HDCD two-fers --- AND an HDCD-capable player!  So here's my opinion....

1990 Remasters
The 1990 2fers sound great.  Always thought that.  The 2000s sound even better, but it's not a great A-B comparison since there's noise reduction in one, different levels in the other, etc, etc...and it all varies from disc to disc as well.

2000 Remasters
The 2000 Friends/20-20 2fer sounds way, way better with the newer HDCD remastering.  No contest.  As does the Smiley/Honey 2fer.  Today/SDSN sounds cleaner and there's more detail.  They all sound better actually, but sometimes the difference is slight, and I agree, some of the 2000 remasters sound a tad gritty.  The 1990s are very consistent and smooth --  there's nothing wrong at all, especially for early 90s technology -- they're astounding.  But overall, the 2000s are little more edgy, HOT-mastered, and there's more separation between instruments which brings out clarity and detail.  The hot-mastering though can make a few of them sound a little harsh.

HDCD
The HDCD technology is interesting.  Again, since you can't do a straight A-B comparison with the HDCD and non-HDCD discs, it's hard to tell if the improvements are coming from the HDCD-technology or just different (and newer) remastering.

BUT -- my firm opinion on HDCD is that it's awesome.  I've heard that it's 24bit, but I always thought it was 20bit.  I've heard both.  The official Microsoft view is that it's 24bit.  Though I'm positive it used to be 20bit.  Perhaps once Microsoft bought it...they either upped the ante to 24bit or simply just Al-Gored the numbers.  So who knows.

I do own a DVD-Audio player and several discs -- so I know 24bit sound, and there's no comparison with 16bit, that's for sure.  There's a roundness, a full-ness to the sound in 24bit that's utterly addicting.  16bit sounds sooooo flat and lifeless by comparison.  So, knowing that, I do detect a fullness and richness in the HDCD remasters that's not there in the 1990 versions.  I'm not imagining it or thinking it.  On the sparser productions like Friends, the HDCD disc sounds damn-near DVD-Audio.  The only thing missing is the higher-sampling rate (44k as opposed to 48k, 88k, or 96k.)

On the denser, wall-o'-sound material -- like Today -- you get better instrument separation.  By that I mean, on a 16bit disc, when you got 30 instruments all banging it out -- it's hard to tell what is what.  With higher bit rates, there's simply more data there.  You can tell if something is a couple of saxes, or a guitar/organ/piano combo, etc.  You can hear the different parts.  But, as I was saying, a cleaner, brighter, less noise-reduced and more compressed remaster could certainly elevate those details too.  So, it's hard to tell if the HDCD is making the difference.


Conclusion
Find a new CD/DVD player that processes HDCD that fits your budget and freakin' buy it.  Oppo's go for around 150 - 300 US dollores.  Do it for you....and do it for the Beach Boys.  I keep my 1990s in the garage and the 2000s in the house, to use with the hi-fi system. 

 :pirate

As for using Microsoft windows media player for HDCD, yes...you can.  You may have to run it out of the analog outs and not the digital outs (SPDIF, Optical).  This is the case with my home cd-player as well.  The HDCD doesn't decode through the digital outs--though the newer Oppos do.  But it's no biggie either way.  The problem with computers is that sound cards tend to be pretty lame.  So, while you may be decoding higher-end audio data, remember you're probably pumping it through a bush-league sound card.

Can anyone give a list of the "Easter Egg" hidden tracks on the 2000 remasters?

A HDCD still uses 16 bits for each of its samples.

A HDCD decoder will use the least-significant-bit information to recreate the 20 bit source, but based on only 16 bits of information. If you like the sound of a HDCD, it is most certainly because you like the mastering.

The reason why Friends in particular sounds better on the HDCD than on the 1990s CD is because it was mastered from the absolute master tape which had better stereo separation and simply more information than the dub used before. Interestingly, the Pastmasters CD from 1989 has the same stereo separation as the HDCD.

Nothing is more important than the mastering, that's for sure...


A good source is at least as important or more than the mastering...


Yes, but it encodes the "equivalent of 20 bits worth of data in a 16-bit digital audio signal"


Yes...the least significant bit is set aside for this extra data.  However, it would not be based on 16bits of information -- it would be based on the quality of the source.  And I would assume they transfered the master tapes to hi-res (at least 24bit, 196k) for mastering. OR -- just mastered directly from the master tape.  So...it's source would not be 16 bit...it would be the master tape, or the lossless hi-res copy of it.



But I do agree, above all else - the source and the quality of the mastering are where you have to start.  The last car in the train (other than your stereo equipment) is the format; LP, CD, SACD, DVD-Audio or HDCD....the last three of which best redbook CDs to varying degrees of betterment. 

That is mathematically not possible.

I know I am in the minority on this one, but I think HDCD offers no advantage over regular redbook. If the peak extension feature is used, it's actually a degradation of the signal if you play it on a non-HDCD player.

Well, it might be possible if one of those 16 bits has a compressed algorithm of sorts -- that is then decoded by the HDCD capable player.  The decoded information is then added as the remaining bits and the whole thing is read as 20 bit.


But it is only to a minute degree, so they say.  The bulk of the mastering data, as processed by the HDCD chip during mastering, is comparable to any other high-quality mastering system.  So, with any degradation--it still probably on par with the best systems.

As I wrote above, mathematically not possible. It will be an approximation of the 20 bit source with the accuracy of 16 bits.

This isn't the way I read it.

The Wikipedia entry:

HDCD encodes the equivalent of 20 bits worth of data in a 16-bit digital audio signal by utilizing custom dithering, audio filters, and some reversible amplitude and gain encoding; Peak Extend, which is a reversible soft limiter and Low Level Range Extend, which is a reversible gain on low-level signals.[1][2][3][4]

HDCD encoding places a control signal in the least significant bit of a small subset of the 16-bit Red Book audio samples (a technique known as in-band signaling). The HDCD decoder in the consumer's CD or DVD player, if present, responds to the signal. If no decoder is present, the disc will be played as a regular CD.

In itself, the use of the first bit in the dithered least significant bit stream does not degrade the sound quality on a non-HDCD player; it only decreases the signal-to-noise ratio by a minuscule amount. HDCD Peak Extension, if chosen in HDCD mastering, will apply compression to the peaks which will be audible in playback on a non-HDCD system which does not apply the approriate expansion curve.

HDCD provides several digital features, which the audio mastering engineer controls at his/her own discretion. They include:

    * Dynamic range compression and expansion, with which virtually 4 more bits of dynamic range can be added to the musical signal.[citation needed]
    * Precision digital interpolation filtering with multiple modes of operation, which can reduce alias distortion and temporal smearing, resulting in a more natural, open, and accurate sound reproduction.[citation needed]

So if you already have a heavily compressed (loud) mastering, and it's HDCD peak extension encoded, it will sound even MORE compressed on a non HDCD player.  That could explain why the 2001 remasters sound so much more compressed and less dynamic than the 1990 remasters.  Or it could be that without the HDCD peak extension, the mastering wouldn't sound so compressed.  The problem with excessive compression of course is that dynamic range is limited.

there's a california girls sessions snippet at the end of the party!  cd.  Don't remember any others though.

I agree with Bean Bag that if you're going to listen to HDCD discs on your computer using the decoder in Windows Media Player, use the analog outputs ot you won't hear the benefit.  The Y-connectors one uses to hook an MP3 player into a stereo via the headphone mini-jack will do fine.  The other correspondents are of course right that a good set of D/A circuits can play a big role in how good the analog playback sounds, HDCD or not.  Some computer sound cards are better than others, but the more recent they are, the better they are.  After all, they expect people to WATCH BIG EXPLODING MOVIES on these laptops, etc.  so they can't sound too bad anymore. 

That said, I also agree the best option for good sound is to pick up an HDCD  D/A converter and hook it up to the S/PDIF digital output of  your best CD player.  Audio Alchemy made some good ones pre-Microsoft and they can be found on eBay fairly readily.

That's not right.  Here's the quote...


This refers to "peaks" not audible in 16bit.  Since that format does not apply the appropriate curve to this extended data--it's lost in space.  If this "peak extension" feature is chosen during HDCD mastering--this plug-in will compress this data and it will become audible even on non-HDCD systems.  Otherwise -- you don't get them, and/or they're not in their proper context.  So, this is good.  It's extending the peaks for you by essentially cramming this otherwise lost data into the limited space of the 1980s-technological wonder of 16bits.

On a HDCD-capable player, however, you get them in their proper context.  This is even better.

Well it is possible.  Think of a 100mb file -- zipped or compressed, if you will -- down to 80mb.  It's smaller and it's only 80mb.  But I'll swear to you that there is still, somehow, 100mb of data crammed in there.  No only that, but it is also not compromised.

What they're doing is finding similar information across the spectrum and throwing it out.  Think of this posting; and let's throw out every letter "e."  If there's 20 letter "e's" we'll call it e20.  Rather than use all the space required to create 20 separate e's -- we'll make one "e" and just tell the "decoder" to stick this one identical "e" wherever we tell it.  This negates the need to store 20 freekin' e's.

So all that is mathematically possible...if you believe....in tomorrow.  Sorry.  It's Friday.   :smokin


Now you might say -- "yes, Mr Bag...but am I listening to the compressed 80mb file, sans-"e" with a non-HDCD capable player?"  Well, yes you are.  But what it's throwing out are not all important "e's."  It's tossing things you would not be able to hear anyway and beyond 16bit definition.  But if chosen, don't forget -- the peak extension feature will allow this to be heard by compressing it into the 16bit source.  So it's not compressing the bulk of the signal (a la "dynamic range compression") but rather just those things with which we're not audible to you in the first place.  And on an HDCD player...they're decompressed and returned to their original position in the signal and therefore  E X T E N D I N G  back to 20 bit glory.

double post...

Ahem...I know about compression algorithms (Ph.D. in mathematics). You are of course right that you can fit certain information in less space with a clever lossless data compression algorithm. FLAC can reach a 1:2 lossless compression ratio, but it does so by encoding the entire information. In the case of HDCD, the claim is that 4 additional bits of information can be encoded in 1 bit of the redbook scheme, and that 1 bit (least significan bit) is, per the wikipedia article you referenced, not even used all the time. That is why I say it is mathematically not possible.

I have not found any real description of the HDCD algorithm since it is not open source; otherwise I could explain at which step they are losing information.

:lol 

You're right,...that's why I say...If you believe.  We don't know exactly what they're doing.  But if they're doing what I understand they're telling us ...it is more or less possible.

So with that...I then move to my ears.  HDCDs tend to sound more spacious and full.  There's a resemblance to DVD-Audio in the taught-ness and accuracy of the natural timbre.

The Beach Boy 2-fers, as I said, are not a good example of A-B'ing the technology.  What was done in 1990 is not what was done in 2000, even excluding the HDCD process.  There's different sources, different levels, noise reduction, etc etc...and who knows what else.

If I may (temporarily) interrupt a most interesting discussion -

thanks guys! This is more than I'd hoped would be posted... and be sure that this is one of the few threads that I will print out.

Now go on!

Quote
HDCD Peak Extension, if chosen in HDCD mastering, will apply compression to the peaks which will be audible in playback on a non-HDCD system which does not apply the approriate expansion curve.


This refers to "peaks" not audible in 16bit.  Since that format does not apply the appropriate curve to this extended data--it's lost in space.

This doesn't make sense to me.  The quote says that if HDCD peak extension is chosen in mastering (and was it chosen for the Beach Boys 2001 2fers) the compression "will be audible in palyback on a non HDCD system."  My non HDCD does not have an "appropriate expansion curve" whatever that is so yes, the added compression IS audible on non HDCD players.  If the peaks are not audible in 16 bit why does the quote say they will be audible?

The problem with that quote is that it is a tad too brief, it doesn't properly explain its own terms and is prone to be taken in other ways.  If you add 'then' -- it all makes easier sense.

"HDCD Peak Extension will apply compression to the peaks which will then be made audible in playback on a non-HDCD system, which does not apply the appropriate expansion curve."


So the peaks will be made audible not more compression as we think of it.

Wait. So are you saying "peak extension" gets used specifically for the benefit of playback in a non-HDCD environment, so as not to interfere with the original 16-bit dynamic range? If this is the case, then why is it even an optional feature in the HDCD encoding process? Why would it not be "built-in" to the original design? To save money? 

Frankly, I don't know why Peak Extension is an "option" either.  As Andreas said...few people know "exactly" what's going on here anyway.  I'm just taking them for their word.  And their word on this (as is Microsoft's, who bought the technology) is really vague.  I would guess, the more options left to the mastering engineer, the better. ?

But Peak Extension, as they explain it, is for the benefit of both HDCD and non-HDCD players.  It sounds like what they're doing with this feature is  a) for non-HDCD players, it allows for expanded ranges or peaks to be encoded or approximated or compressed or dithered down (something any good later-day mastering units would do) and, b) for HDCD players it allows those peaks to be restored to full, non-dithered 20-bit glory via the "Zipped-up" info stored in the "unused" bit.

 :ahh

Also...for what it's worth, everything depends on how it gets down-sampled.  If it's a CD -- it's all going to be 16-bit.  It's just that with HDCD, they're claiming that they're able to "restore" to 20-bit (or 24), by un-zipping that remaining data stored on that least used bit, with a HDCD-player.

I think they're doing some of that.  I have quite a few HDCDs most of which don't have the logo on the covers.  In almost all circumstances I can tell.  It will sound a little fuller and richer, and sure enough, when I look down...the little HDCD light will be on.

That's not correct. Peak extension is only for the benefit of HDCD players, because additional dynamic range in the top level area will be uncovered (in the form of "extended peaks"). If played back on a non-HDCD player, the effect will be audbile as very harsh digital compression, which is not a benefit.

Most HDCDs do not use peak extension because it really degrades the signal if not decoded.