gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
680598 Posts in 27600 Topics by 4068 Members - Latest Member: Dae Lims March 28, 2024, 05:31:02 PM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Go Down Print
Author Topic: HDCD-encoded versions - how are they?  (Read 9628 times)
The Heartical Don
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4761



View Profile
« on: August 18, 2008, 07:06:06 AM »

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.
Logged

80% Of Success Is Showing Up
Bicyclerider
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2132


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: August 18, 2008, 08:03:01 AM »

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.
Logged
The Shift
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Gender: Male
Posts: 7427


Biding time


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: August 18, 2008, 08:03:33 AM »

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.
Logged

“We live in divisive times.”
The Heartical Don
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4761



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: August 18, 2008, 08:12:10 AM »

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?
Logged

80% Of Success Is Showing Up
Bicyclerider
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2132


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: August 18, 2008, 12:22:27 PM »

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.
Logged
chris.metcalfe
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 340



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: August 18, 2008, 01:41:32 PM »

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.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2008, 01:45:51 PM by chris.metcalfe » Logged
Dr. Tim
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 383

"Would you put a loud count on it for us please?"


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: August 18, 2008, 03:00:04 PM »

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.
Logged

Hey kids! Remember:
mono mixes suck donkey dick
The Heartical Don
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4761



View Profile
« Reply #7 on: August 19, 2008, 01:08:38 AM »

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.
Logged

80% Of Success Is Showing Up
chris.metcalfe
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 340



View Profile
« Reply #8 on: August 19, 2008, 02:34:56 AM »

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
Logged
The Heartical Don
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4761



View Profile
« Reply #9 on: August 19, 2008, 03:21:50 AM »

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!
Logged

80% Of Success Is Showing Up
brother john
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 604



View Profile WWW
« Reply #10 on: August 19, 2008, 06:54:16 AM »

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.

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...?
« Last Edit: August 19, 2008, 06:57:01 AM by brother john » Logged

Religion is a privilege, not a right.
The Heartical Don
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4761



View Profile
« Reply #11 on: August 19, 2008, 07:13:30 AM »

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.

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.
Logged

80% Of Success Is Showing Up
Andreas
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 226


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: August 19, 2008, 02:23:34 PM »

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.
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).
Logged
dogear
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 299


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: August 19, 2008, 02:37:06 PM »

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

Watson, did you hear this?
chris.metcalfe
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 340



View Profile
« Reply #14 on: August 20, 2008, 01:39:43 AM »

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.
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).
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!
« Last Edit: August 20, 2008, 01:43:00 AM by chris.metcalfe » Logged
chris.metcalfe
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 340



View Profile
« Reply #15 on: August 20, 2008, 01:41:38 AM »

 *
Logged
The Heartical Don
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4761



View Profile
« Reply #16 on: August 20, 2008, 02:11:42 AM »

*

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?
Logged

80% Of Success Is Showing Up
Andreas
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 226


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: August 20, 2008, 06:20:00 AM »

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.
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.
Logged
chris.metcalfe
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 340



View Profile
« Reply #18 on: August 20, 2008, 06:27:36 AM »

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....
« Last Edit: August 20, 2008, 06:29:12 AM by chris.metcalfe » Logged
The Heartical Don
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4761



View Profile
« Reply #19 on: August 20, 2008, 06:51:02 AM »

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.
Logged

80% Of Success Is Showing Up
Andreas
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 226


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: August 20, 2008, 08:01:11 AM »

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!
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.
Logged
chris.metcalfe
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 340



View Profile
« Reply #21 on: August 21, 2008, 01:29:55 AM »

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.
Logged
Bean Bag
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1177


Right?


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: August 21, 2008, 08:36:13 AM »

 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.

Logged

409.
John
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 801


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: August 21, 2008, 09:04:40 AM »

Can anyone give a list of the "Easter Egg" hidden tracks on the 2000 remasters?
Logged
Andreas
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 226


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: August 21, 2008, 10:15:57 AM »

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.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2008, 10:21:15 AM by Andreas » Logged
gfx
Pages: [1] 2 Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 2.014 seconds with 22 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!