In Reply to: This is just silly posted by Charles Hansen on December 22, 2005 at 09:08:41:
Regardless of how you choose to interpret one statement in an FAQ, the facts are these: an invention ("HDCD") is legally described by the patent, not by the implementation. The patent clearly spells out the mechanism for playback filter switching. Whether or not this is implemented is immaterial, and you have absolutely no proof (other than a distrust of Pacific Microsonics) that what was described in the patent has not been implemented.*** Regarding the signal level issue, you are simply wrong. If you understood the compansion process used in HDCD a little better, you would realize your error. I will try to explain this to you. ***
I think it is you that doesn't understand. The Microsoft implementation of HDCD automatically attenuates the digital signal by 1 bit (or approximately 6dB). If Peak Extend is engaged, the top 3 dB in the digital signal is expanded to 9dB. If Peak Extend is not engaged, no expansion occurs, therefore the result does not exceed -6dB.
Therefore, if the digital samples stored on the CD has signals between 0 and -3dB, and if on the output of WMP these signals are reproduced as -6 to -9 dB, then clearly that particular album/track does NOT have Peak Extend. Otherwise these signals will be expanded to 0 to -9 dB. Understand?
*** A DSP chip that decodes HDCD is also not a "low cost" item. ***
Not to you, perhaps. But to a large manufacturer, a DSP *is* a low cost item. Last time I checked, the pricing of these things in bulk is quite reasonable.
No one is forcing you to support HDCD. But your comments on what it is and isn't are wrong. Please don't mislead potential customers from thinking they are getting optimal performance listening to HDCDs on non-HDCD players, because they are not.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Who is being silly? - Christine Tham 11:49:06 12/22/05 (16)
- That would be you - Charles Hansen 20:27:20 12/22/05 (15)
- Re: That would be you - Christine Tham 15:23:38 12/23/05 (14)
- Re: That would be you - Charles Hansen 20:14:53 12/23/05 (13)
- Re: That would be you - Christine Tham 00:01:07 12/24/05 (12)
- Figure 3: Digital rip of an HDCD without Peak Extend - Christine Tham 00:09:39 12/24/05 (9)
- Figure 4: Output of WMP (no Peak Extend) - Christine Tham 00:11:08 12/24/05 (8)
- By the way, here are some stats on the non decoded vs decoded outputs - Christine Tham 00:28:38 12/24/05 (7)
- Thanks for posting these graphs - Charles Hansen 10:51:35 12/24/05 (6)
- Re: Thanks for posting these graphs - Christine Tham 12:12:00 12/24/05 (5)
- This is just silly - Charles Hansen 14:46:22 12/24/05 (4)
- HDCD is defined by the patent, not the implementation - Christine Tham 22:38:00 12/24/05 (3)
- Oh, that's right... - Charles Hansen 13:06:23 12/25/05 (2)
- And your point is? - Christine Tham 15:31:48 01/03/06 (1)
- Yep, yep, and yep. - Charles Hansen 19:43:56 01/03/06 (0)
- Figure 1: Digital rip of an HDCD with Peak Extend - Christine Tham 00:04:18 12/24/05 (1)
- Figure 2: WMP decoded output of the track - Christine Tham 00:06:28 12/24/05 (0)