|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
209.97.232.184
In Reply to: Charles you do owe Christine an apology, because you are dead wrong. Christine has it 100% correct. posted by Teresa on December 21, 2005 at 06:51:43:
It would seem that Christine's problem with reading comprehension is contagious.I would agree with you that to correctly play HDCDs *that are encoded with peak extend and/or low level extension* an HDCD decoder is required. I never said otherwise. What I did say were two things. I will say them again in a slightly different way, in hopes they will sink in this time.
1) Contrary to Christine's assertion. There are NOT multiple filters that switch on-the-fly in an HDCD decoder. This means that one of Christine's claims for the benefits of HDCD decoding does not actually exist.
2) If an "HDCD" disc is recorded without the mastering engineer activating the "peak extend" and "low level extension" features, THEN THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO ADVANTAGE TO USING AN HDCD DECODER.
This is because there are only three things added by the HDCD encoder in this situation:
a) Dither during the A/D conversion.
b) Multiple digital filters that are selected on-the-fly.
c) Good sounding circuitry and power supplies designed by Keith Johnson.
Please note that there is NO advantage to using an HDCD decoder in this situation because an HDCD decoder does NOTHING different in this situation than does any other playback circuit.
But here is the kicker. Short of asking the original mastering engineer, I know of no way to know which HDCD discs use "peak extend" and/or "low level extension". This means that THERE IS NO WAY OF KNOWING WHICH "HDCD" DISCS REQUIRE HDCD DECODING FOR CORRECT PLAYBACK.
This is the point that I made to Christine in my first post in this thread. I have no idea what percentage of HDCD discs use "peak extend" and/or "low level extension". It could be 5% or 95% or anywhere in between. The point is that there is not as much benefit to HDCD decoding as one would think, based on the fact that not all so-called "HDCD" discs will benefit from HDCD decoding.
Follow Ups:
Charles Christine and my reading comprehension are fine, it is you that is having trouble grasping the concepts of HDCD. So I will try to help you.You said: If an "HDCD" disc is recorded without the mastering engineer activating the "peak extend" and "low level extension" features, THEN THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO ADVANTAGE TO USING AN HDCD DECODER.
Sorry Charles your statement is very incorrect, see highlighted text below from HDCD.com FAQs:
Q: Why should I listen to HDCD-encoded CDs on a player with HDCD decoding?
A: HDCD recordings will always sound better than conventional CDs when played on any CD player. You hear fuller, richer sound on all types of players, from portables to high-end systems, which is why so many top artists and engineers use HDCD technology. To bring out the full bandwidth and superb fidelity of HDCD recordings, a player with HDCD decoding should be used . HDCD recordings have a dynamic range and resolution and, best of all, the HDCD decoder chip used in consumer products also contains the HDCD high-precision digital filter that improves the sound quality of all types of digital audio recordings. This means that any A/V receiver, CD player, DVD player, and MiniDisc player equipped with HDCD will produce significantly better sound from your entire collection of CDs, DVDs, and MDs.
from Spectral Audio.com
HDCD recordings are made from analog to digital conversions having more bits and faster sampling to provide a large amount of dynamic and resolution information. Digital signal processors then identify corrective actions or fixes to prevent losses and distortions when this information is reduced to the CD format. Some of these fixes are directly coded to the linear PCM data of the compact disc thereby improving performance from all players. Others are converted to a hidden code and sent through a buried information channel to the HDCD process chip in the SDR-2000. Upon processing, the normally lost micro level resolution signals are restored. This improved resolution requires conversion accuracy and jitter performance much better than traditional engineering and design practice. A very carefully and thoroughly executed process system is needed to fully utilize the HDCD filter technology.
Also from Reference Recordings.com:
However, the finest levels of resolution, imaging and spatial information will be revealed when these CDs are reproduced on players with HDCD decoding ...
You also said "Contrary to Christine's assertion. There are NOT multiple filters that switch on-the-fly in an HDCD decoder. This means that one of Christine's claims for the benefits of HDCD decoding does not actually exist.
For this I was unable to find a link, for some reason Microsoft has nixed most of the technical articles on the internet. I guess Bill Gates wants to make sure no one can copy the process? However I can assure you that HDCD does use multiple filters in the encoding process that are hidden in the LSB along with "extra" musical and ambient information. To retrieve it, you need an HDCD decoder to mirror the opposite of what the HDCD encoder did.
If you don't trust yourself to hear the extra 6dB of dynamic range "Peak Extend" affords, Christine has the equipment to measure it. BTW all of Reference Recordings HDCDs use both Peak Extend and low level Extend. But even without those two features you will miss the extra resolution of HDCD by not using an HDCD decoder prior to playback, all HDCDs, especially those from Reference Recordings, Linn Records, First Impression Music and Opus 3 need an HDCD decoder to get the full benefit of the extra resolution the process offers.
HDCD discs SHOULD use HDCD decoding every time to hear the recording as the engineer intended.
Hope this helps,
Teresa
The first half of your post comprises the repetition of meaningless marketing claims. I will not bother to rebut these.You claim you were unable to find a link to any evidence that supported Christine's claims. I will try to help you here. I already posted that www.archive.org keeps copies of old web pages. Apparently that wasn't enough information for you, so I will be more explicit.
The archived pages that contain technical information concerning the HDCD process can be found at:
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.hdcd.com/partners/proaudio/articles.html
A specific archived web page from October 2004 that contains the now-deleted documents can be found at:
http://web.archive.org/web/20041012195600/http://www.hdcd.com/partners/proaudio/articles.html
The most relevant document that explains the HDCD decoding process can be found at:
http://web.archive.org/web/20020124175704/www.hdcd.com/partners/proaudio/DecoderFAQ.pdf
Additional technical information can be found in the AES pre-print at:
http://web.archive.org/web/20020124220637/www.hdcd.com/partners/proaudio/AES_Paper.pdf
Please read these documents (or any others you care to), and you will find that Christine's claim is untrue. Please remember that Pacific Microsonics was pretty good with misleading marketing claims, so you will need to read carefully to make sure you are not inferring something that isn't actually said. I think that is actually the source of Christine's confusion on this point.
If one adds a qualifier to your closing statement to instead read, "HDCD discs [utilizing "peak extend" and/or "low level extension"] SHOULD use HDCD decoding every time to hear the recording as the engineer intended", then this is accurate. However, HDCD discs recorded without these features enabled receive NO benefit by being played back via an HDCD decoder. All that it will do differently from any other playback circuit is light up the front panel indicator light. As far as I know, short of interviewing the mastering engineer, there is no way for one to know which HDCD discs will benefit from HDCD decoding.
I wonder why Microsoft deleted all the web pages that explain HDCD technology from www.hdcd.com and why they are no longer available on other "active" sites?The first set of articles are ones original appearing when Microsonics owned the technology. I am glad someone archived all of these links. I am sorry I missed the mention of these sites in one of the many of your previous posts in this very long thread. But I will read them all in time. Thanks!
So Pacific Microsonics has made claims that are untrue? It is often hard to seperate advertising from science.
Anyway I am quite pleased with HDCD recordings that originate from HDCD masters especially the Reference Recordings. Though the resolution is lower than DVD-Audio or SACD many are quite enjoyable and spectacular when decoded.
Teresa wrote, "So Pacific Microsonics has made claims that are untrue?"I wouldn't say "untrue" as I don't know of any flat-out lies they made, but I would say definitely misleading. The most egregious example of this was when they released their sampler that allegedly compared non-HDCD against HDCD. What they negelected to tell you was that the non-HDCD track was made using the (atrocious sounding) Sony 1630 A/D converter and the HDCD track was made with the (excellent sounding) Keith Johnson A/D converter. This was an unfair, depceptive "comparison".
They could have chosen to make a valid comparison by simply turning the HDCD features on and off when using the Keith Johnson A/D converter. But they instead chose to sell by misleading the public.
Teresa wrote, "It is often hard to seperate advertising from science."
Agreed, which is what I've been attempting to do in this thread.
Teresa wrote, "Anyway I am quite pleased with HDCD recordings that originate from HDCD masters."
Also agreed. When first introduced, the HDCD A/D converter was head and shoulders above anything else on the market. It is still one of the best converters out there. (It was discontinued a couple of years ago, but is still used by many mastering houses.) The only thing I was trying to clarify was *why* HDCD recordings sound good in general.
Specifically, the primary sonic advantage of HDCD discs is due to the high performance of Keith Johnsons's circuitry. The compansion scheme optionally used on the encode side (and that is the *sole* basis of HDCD decoding) only provides an arguable sonic improvement, and one that is clearly smaller than KJ's circuitry. Finally, there is an unknown percentage of "HDCD" discs that are encoded without any compansion features enabled, and that there is no benefit *whatsoever* to playing back these discs on an HDCD-equipped playback machine.
Are you not man enough?I've quoted you the HDCD patent number. Based on this, you can download the patent yourself from the US Patents Office, which clearly describes the mechanism for dynamic filter selection that you don't believe exists.
In addition, it describes other mechanisms (such as low level gain manipulation, and waveform synthesis) which absolutely do show that an HDCD decoder is required for optimal HDCD playback, regardless of whether Peak Extend is present or not.
Really Charles, how arrogant or obtuse can you get? Calling out someone as being wrong when it is clear you do not know what you are talking about, and accusing myself and Teresa of having "reading comprehension issues" when it is clear you are the pot calling the kettle black ...
Charles, do yourself a favour and if you do not want to apologise, stop responding because your reputation on this forum is rapidly declining. You even have one of your customers (racerguy) basically telling you much of what you said is wrong. Are you willing to risk alienating your customers further?
Just because they patented a feature does not mean that it was implemented in the production version of the product. Please provide one written example where it is clearly stated that production HDCD decoders provide dynamic filter selection during *playback*.I don't think you can because I don't think such a document exists. I can hardly blame you for your perceptions, as much of the HDCD literature was written to be deliberately misleading. It's not surprising that you (and many others) have gained the wrong impression from their misleading claims.
But the thing that is puzzling to me is that when I point out the true facts, for some reason you take this personally and stoop to personal insults. You question my manliness and call me shameful, pathetic, and self-serving. I would instead suggest trying to find some factual evidence that supports your claims.
Charles, so far you've accused me of somehow "missing a point", being wrong, have reading comprehension issues, "confused" and who knows what else. So who's stooping to insults?Your suggestion that what's documented in a patent has not implemented is rather fanciful and contrived. Perhaps it is you who need to prove this assertion? Or is it simply because you can't bring yourself to admit you were wrong?
*** I would instead suggest trying to find some factual evidence that supports your claims. ***
W would have us believe that anyone who makes a valid inquiry as to his course of actions is unpatriotic. Similarly, Christine would have us believe that pointing out facts or questioning her assertions in somehow personally insulting.
Well, at least you have two things in common in W: a belief that you are always right, even when its proven you are not. And the ability to make assertions (eg. WMD) on absolutely no basis whatsoever.
We apparently share a distaste of W.(Although you have certainly not "proven" I am wrong, and your assertion that my assertions have no basis has no basis.)
*** your assertion that my assertions have no basis has no basis ***Only according to you. Not according to your customer, racerguy. And also not according to a patent filed with the US Patent Office.
Not true. I have provide many bases for my assertions. You may disagree with my conclusion, but that doesn't negate the bases themselves.
No, your "bases" are irrelevant or wrong. They are irrelevant because they are essentially your unsubstantiated guesses relating to one specific implementation of HDCD. And you have made quite a few statements that are just flat out wrong.
Christine wrote, "your unsubstantiated guesses".You are wrong again. I have substantiated my reasoning in great detail in this thread. I will not bother to repeat myself here.
As far as "one specific implementation" goes, guess what? There have only ever been two ways to make an HDCD disc -- the Pacific Microsonics Model One and Model Two. The main difference between these two units is that the Model Two supports sample rates above 44.1 kHz. (I don't think there are any other substantive differences between these. If you know of any, please feel free to point them out.)
Everything I've posted pertains to these two units, and therefore to every HDCD disc ever made (unless there are some Reference Recordings discs made with a prototype encoder).
As far as your claims regarding Pacific Microsonics' patent, let me ask you a couple of questions.
a) Do you think that there have ever been patents granted that weren't turned into commercial products?
b) Do you think there were ever patents granted that were turned into commercial products, but in a slightly different form?
*** You are wrong again. I have substantiated my reasoning in great detail in this thread. I will not bother to repeat myself here. ***Well, at least you are consistent in that whenever you call me wrong, you are wrong.
You have definitely not substantiated your reasoning in the same way as I have - by referencing a patent that describes the invention, and actual graphs from an implementation by the current owner of the patent. Instead, you have a set of wild guesses, dubious inferences, incorrect interpretations and assertions that are not substantiated and many of them have been shown to be incorrect.
PS - I have no idea why you say the WMP implementation is not following the spec. Again, perhaps you have reading comprehension issues? According to my reading, it does.
*** As far as "one specific implementation" goes, guess what? There have only ever been two ways to make an HDCD disc ***
You definitely have a reading comprehension issue. We are talking about HDCD playback, not HDCD content creation. Even if there is only ONE way to make HDCD discs, so what? There are definitely multiple ways of HDCD playback - so your ramblings and guesses about the inner workings of the PMD 100 (which is a playback device by the way) are completely irrelevant.
Also we are talking about what HDCD is or isn't. That is purely defined by the patent, not the implementation. So when you say HDCD is this and HDCD is not this, you are basically flat wrong, regardless of what you think the implementation is or isn't.
*** As far as your claims regarding Pacific Microsonics' patent, let me ask you a couple of questions. ***
These questions are irrelevant. Actually, you don't need to have any commercial products for a patent to be valid (witness the case between NTP and RIM over wireless email). So, regardless of whether an invention is ever realised in a practical form, it is still described by the patent.
In the case of HDCD, however, there appears to be no evidence that what was implemented isn't EXACTLY what is documented in the patent. Again, if you have evidence to the contrary, I would like to see it.
...into something that would be beyond impolite to state.Christine wrote, "In the case of HDCD, however, there appears to be no evidence that what was implemented isn't EXACTLY what is documented in the patent. Again, if you have evidence to the contrary, I would like to see it."
I have already given this evidence many times in this thread. Since it didn't sink in any of the other many times I have said it, I won't bother to say it again.
Let's face it, you can't. You just end up repeating the same incorrect and irrelevant phrases with no substantiation again and again, but somehow in your mind that constitutes "evidence". You yourself have admitted that much of what you say is suggestive rather than a definitive proof.Incidentally, it takes two to tango. Perhaps before you start referring to me with adjectives such as "obstinence" and "something that would be beyond impolite to state" - perhaps you could look at yourself in the mirror. So far you have not apologised for quite a number of things I said that you have called out as "wrong" but which you have later acknowledged are correct. Given the ferocity of your rebuttals, surely you could find some magnamity in you to acknowledge your mistakes?
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: