Kain Posted November 25, 2001 Share Posted November 25, 2001 The Toshiba SD-9200 DVD player has HDCD Precision Filtering and Decoding. What is HDCD? ------------------ Will be getting the following in December. Home Theater: TV: Sony KV-ES38M91 (38" FD Trinitron WEGA) Receiver: Denon AVC-A11SR (230V version of Denon AVR-4802) DVD player: Sony DVP-S9000ES VCR: Sony SLV-ED100 (HiFi VCR) Center: Klipsch RC-7 Mains: Klipsch RF-7 Surrounds: Klipsch RS-7 Subwoofer: SVS CS-Ultra w/Samson S1000 amplifier Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RossVTaylor Posted November 25, 2001 Share Posted November 25, 2001 Kain, My understanding is that HDCD (High Definition CD) uses 20-bit encoding/decoding to provide a wider potential dynamic range, as opposed to the standard 16-bit. A player with HDCD capability means that its DAC chips can accept and decode the 20-bit information. To take advantage of this, you have to use the DACs in your player and run analog stereo interconnects to your receiver/processor. If you want to take advantage of the HDCD's full potential, you can't use the digital (coax or optical) outputs unless your receiver/processor can decode the HDCD signal. Doing so would yield standard 16/44 decoding. Of course, an HDCD disc will play just fine in a non-HDCD player. That said, I've not noticed any real difference between standard CDs and the few HDCDs I've got. True, I've not done any real testing, but it's definitely not a "blow you away" or "make you notice" sort of a difference. I certainly don't think it hurts to have, but I don't believe it's worth paying much extra for (like SACD or DVD-A might be). Ross ------------------ My System's Stuff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krusty46 Posted November 26, 2001 Share Posted November 26, 2001 I also have a Toshiba DVD player that decodes HDCD's, and I can tell you there is a difference. I have original HDCD's and copies burned on a PC and they sound different. From my understanding, the PC is unable to copy the CD at the higher bit rate and the copy will come out at standard CD quality, not HDCD. The HDCD sounds fuller and clearer then the copy. The copy sounds gret too, just not as good. The HDCD was not really a major selling point when I got the player, but I'm happy I have it. I now find myself buying CD's that are HDCD, just because I know they will sound better. Hope my opinion helps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discusman Posted November 26, 2001 Share Posted November 26, 2001 hi kain, as ross outlined you need to use the analog inputs to take advantage of built in HDCD processor from your player. better yet ... on my denon 3801, i'm using the EXT IN - this bypasses all the receivers surround circuitry. Played in this mode, ordinary CD's sounds better and when you play an HDCD disk ... well, it's awesome!!!. sorry ross .. but there really is a big difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forresthump Posted November 26, 2001 Share Posted November 26, 2001 KAin or you could look at another of the newer receivers that have a built in HDCD decoder so you all you need is a digital connection. One is that new Marantz SR9200. Has better sound quality and as Earwax would say "Built" quality than the Denon. ------------------ go forth & hump the world Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Garrison Posted November 26, 2001 Share Posted November 26, 2001 Uh, guys... The HDCD system, which stands for High Definition Compatible Digital, is a proprietary system developed some years ago by the good folks at Pacific Microsonics in an attempt to make CD's sound "better". Most of the info available today on the Web seems to be a bit, well, uninformitive - talks a lot about how HDCD is "better" but doesn't say exactly what it is - at least, I couldn't find anything with a quick search. So take the following as my own interpertation of technical info that was published back in the late 80's / early 90's when Keith Johnson and Pflash Pflaumer (yes, that's his real name) were working on this. Point of interest - Pflash is the guy who invented the old TOPS networking standard, for you old time PC-mavins out there. Remember that? Anywho, when an engineer designs an A/D converter, and tries to capture as much of the original signal as possible in the digital data, there are design compromises that must be made. Do you try to capture as much of the transient information as possible, even if this means that the signal to noise ratio or frequency extension suffers a little bit? Or do you go for maximum frequency extension, perhaps sacrificing a bit of the time resolution and losing a bit of the transient "snap" of live music? Or do you try to push the noise floor as low as possible, perhaps at the expense of something else? Different algorithms are available to A/D converter and CD mastering engineers, and you makes your pick and takes your chances. None of these decisions have any impact on the D/A side of the equation, by the way - you're producing a "Redbook standard" CD - it's the manipulation of the analogue signal prior to generating the digital code that we're talking about. Well, Keith and Pflash came up with a cool idea - suppose you built a CD mastering A/D widget that let you select whichever of SEVERAL different approaches you wanted to use, and let you change that selection WITHIN the recording on the fly, and built a corresponding D/A chip that was optimised for each of these different approaches. You could use a particular algorithm that maximised the amount of transient information you're capturing during a portion of song where the drummer is using a lot of cymbals, then switch to a different algorithm when the singer is highlighted against a quiet acoustic guitar background. If you build that D/A chip that knows WHICH algorithm you used at each point within the song, and provided some sort of flag to tell the D/A chip when to switch from algorithm to algorithm, you could sort of have your cake and eat it too... capture MORE of a recording by using the appropriate algorithm for each PART of the the recording. couple of problems here - 1st, all this has to produce CD's that are compatible with standard D/A chipsets, or nobody's gonna buy your special CD's and secondly, how to you signal the D/A converter which algorithm to use while remaining within the confines of the Redbood standard? The answer to the first question - remaining compatible with non-HDCD players and decoders - is to make sure your system doesn't alter the resulting data so much that it sounds bad on non-HDCD systems - it just won't sound optimal. The second question - how do you tell your special HDCD chips what they're supposed to be doing at each moment - was a challenge. They came up with a really cool idea. In a sixteen bit system, the LSB, or least significant bit, is practically inaudible most of the time - only during the most quiet interludes could you hear the contribution the LSB is making to the sound, and then only on a system with very high resolving power. They decided to use the LSB bit as a flag. Certain bit patterns encoded into the LSB instruct the D/A processor to select a specific HDCD algorithm. Most of the time the LSB is left alone - it's only when the algorithm changes that the special LSB pattern appears, and then only for a fraction of a second. To a non-HDCD player, this pattern at the LSB level is simply a small bit of random noise that you really never hear. To the HDCD compatible player, it's a set of instructions. This, by the way, is why some anti-jitter devices like the original Audio Alchemy DTIPro were "HDCD incompatible" - the resolution enhancement technology they employed modified the LSB datastream, altering the HDCD switching patterns and destroying the HDCD encoding. AA had to alter the code in the DTIPro ROMs to leave the 16th bit alone when reclocking the signal to pass HDCD data. All of this came out long before SACD, DSD or DVD-A, remember. There's no reason why the Pacific Microsonics approach couldn't be used with higher resolution digital data (24/96 and such), but there's some question of whether it would really add anything of value. Ray, the old guy with the encyclopedic memeory of currently useless data. ------------------ Music is art Audio is engineering Ray's Music System Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RossVTaylor Posted November 26, 2001 Share Posted November 26, 2001 Ray, I never cease to be amazed by the depth of your knowledge! I, personally, don't go out of my way to track down HDCD discs anymore, but I appreciate the opportunity to learn more about it. Thanks for the primer. Ross ------------------ My System's Stuff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discusman Posted November 26, 2001 Share Posted November 26, 2001 hey ray ... i second ross' comments ... WOW!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.