16-bit... It really is enough!

[MusicNBeer]

Patsy Cline died in 1963.

Even if HDCD was true high rez (which it isn't really), you're not going to get high resolution audio from somebody who died before digital was even invented.

You're just wasting your time playing with that Extractor when it comes to content that old.

Actually you need the extractor. Without, peaks are distorted.

 

[watchnerd]

Actually you need the extractor. Without, peaks are distorted.

Or.....

Don't bother with an HDCD at all for something that old because it adds nothing and cannot be better than Redbook.

Just listen to the 16bit FLAC/Redbook version.

HDCD is pointless for something made in 1963 or earlier.

 

[ThatM1key]

Patsy Cline died in 1963.

Even if HDCD was true high rez (which it isn't really), you're not going to get high resolution audio from somebody who died before digital was even invented.

You're just wasting your time playing with that Extractor when it comes to content that old.

Sure digital wasn't a thing back then but high quality master tapes were. There was good CDs that came from master tapes like "Buddy Holly - From The Original Master Tapes".

 

[watchnerd]

Sure digital wasn't a thing back then but high quality master tapes were. There was good CDs that came from master tapes like "Buddy Holly - From The Original Master Tapes".

Please watch the video above.

It will explain to you why regular 16 bit audio is sufficient to capture any analog master tape ever made.

P.S. I own several 15 IPS reel to reel tape decks.

 

[MusicNBeer]

Or.....

Don't bother with an HDCD at all for something that old because it adds nothing and cannot be better than Redbook.

Just listen to the 16bit FLAC/Redbook version.

HDCD is pointless for something made in 1963 or earlier.

LOL! I agree and we're going in circles. All I'm saying is if something is HDCD encoded, it needs to be decoded to play back properly. I agree, it should never have been HDCD encoded in the first place. Redbook is perfectly adequate.

 

[watchnerd]

LOL! I agree and we're going in circles. All I'm saying is if something is HDCD encoded, it needs to be decoded to play back properly. I agree, it should never have been HDCD encoded in the first place. Redbook is perfectly adequate.

Yes.

Just replace all HDCD content with regular 16 bit audio and live an easier, less complicated life.

 

[levimax]

Vinyl is the weak link in any replay system from a measurement point of view. If you prefer it then its the artifacts of the process and the theatre of the reproduction and the artifact that you prefer.

I too prefer it, but I totally understand that it's technically inferior.

I would say poorly recorded content and poorly mastered content is the weak link in a replay system and ironically due to it's technical shortcomings vinyl can not be as poorly mastered as digital. Weird how things worked out.

 

[MusicNBeer]

Time to play some vinyl . It sounds better getting all the signal between each sample.

 

[Blumlein 88]

LOL! I agree and we're going in circles. All I'm saying is if something is HDCD encoded, it needs to be decoded to play back properly. I agree, it should never have been HDCD encoded in the first place. Redbook is perfectly adequate.

As I recall, HDCD undecoded will be 14 bits or maybe it was even 15 bits. When decoded it sort of gave you lower than 16 bits in the way MQA claims to work. Anyway, Amir, who owns this forum was the guy who was responsible for HDCD after they acquired Pacific Microsonics at Microsoft. If you search, you can find where he tried to hear the benefit of it in some controlled listening, and failed. Even their own engineers knew it was marketing fluff. To my knowledge HDCD decoding isn't going to do anything to peaks. What is does is all at the low level of recordings.

And please stop with the garbage about vinyl having signal between the samples. You've just shown you are either trying to create controversy or don't understand how digital works. The Monty video a few posts ago will clear it up if you watch it carefully a couple times.

Short explanation for what it does.
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/hdcd-in-practice.12760/post-379442
One line summary of what HDCD aimed was to encode 20 bit content in 16 bit CD format. They took the advantage of the fact that the dynamic range of music is not always 0 to max. So they used a sliding scale to shift the available 16 bit of data up and down (volume expansion). This signal which is a few Kilohertz/second is encoded in the rightmost bits. The decoder extracts these bits and applies the range shifting automatically. Non HDCD decoders just lose the low order bits to noise.

 

[MusicNBeer]

I was joking about the samples! It's Friday night so loosen up a bit.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I was joking about the samples! It's Friday night so loosen up a bit.

Okay, okay. Been a tough Friday for me. About to get the cork extractor and loosen up some.

 

[watchnerd]

And please stop with the garbage about vinyl having signal between the samples. You've just shown you are either trying to create controversy or don't understand how digital works. The Monty video a few posts ago will clear it up if you watch it carefully a couple times.

Yes, no need to stir the extra sample pot.

It's really the extra wow & flutter that makes it sound good.

*duck*

 

[Blumlein 88]

Yes, no need to stir the extra sample pot.

It's really the extra wow & flutter that makes it sound good.

*duck*

I thought it was low end rumble and surface noise?????

 

[watchnerd]

I thought it was low end rumble and surface noise?????

Only on Wagner and Beethoven.

It adds to the sturm in the sturm und drang.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Only on Wagner and Beethoven.

It adds to the sturm in the sturm und drang.

You forgot Mahler................!

 

[watchnerd]

You forgot Mahler................!

Mahler is better for cartridge / tonearm resonance enjoyment, IMHO.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Mahler is better for cartridge / tonearm resonance enjoyment, IMHO.

And possible cartridge mis-tracking though not to the level of Tchaikovsky.

 

[watchnerd]

And possible cartridge mis-tracking though not to the level of Tchaikovsky.

Tchaikovsky makes LP sound like DSD-over-PCM.

 

[Prep74]

Maybe you're right, but who uses CDs anymore? Given the bandwidth movies require, especially in 4k, simply going to 24bit to be on the safe side is a no-brainer.

I do! Well not so much the CD itself but rather the content ripped to my streamer. The reason is that some of my CDs simply sound better than the 24 bit versions, particularly the earlier CD releases that predated the extreme loudness wars. Of course I don't believe that there is any sound difference between 16/44 and hi res if the mastering is identical, level matched etc, but I find many of the earlier CDs are simply more dynamic. A bit like how some LPs ironically have more dynamics than digital releases even though it has a lower dynamic range - the difference is the mastering is not butchered through excessive compression and limiting.

 

[Prep74]

Not to kick a dead horse, but while I totally agree with 44.1 (48) kHz for sampling, I think 24 bit still makes practical sense. While 16bit is perfectly adequate dynamic range for "from below-audible noise floor to the loudest", it does not leave much room for mastering error/sloppiness. While the 24bit dynamic range is much more forgiving... IM-audio-amateur-HO.

Yes, totally agree that 24 bit is superior for production. I can remember when 24 bit recorders and DAWs were becoming the standard in studios during the 1990s. No one called it hi res back then, that came later from the labels' marketing departments.