Jay_WJ said:
I did agree that mastering is a factor. And I also observe that most of HDCD-encoded CDs sound better than regular CDs even on non-HDCD-decoding CD player, which I think is possibly due to their different qualities of mastering. But I clearly hear SQ difference between HDCD-decoded playback (on an HDCD-supporting player) and regular playback of the same HDCD-encoded CD. You may say that the cause might be difference of the players. If you want to say that, you may.
Yes, I may, because part of the HDCD spec is the optional inclusion of a dynamic range expansion toggle, that will only operate in an HDCD-decoding deck. And there's also the issue of the way such decks treat 'regular' CDs vs HDCDs....are you aware that the HDCD spec for HDCD players also required that regular CDs be lowered in output level, so that they would not seem 'better' than HDCDs due to the level disparity? (this iteslf acknoeldges a form of known bias -- that people tend to rate a slightly louder of two presentations, as 'sounds better', rather than 'sounds louder')
Now this *should* be a good thing for a comparison, since you really do want to compare things at the same volume -- but it's no guarantee that you are matchign levels closely enough. IIRC, the HDCD spec simply enforced a 6 dB lowering of CD output. You can do better matching by other means, though, if you really want to compare them fairly in this regard (you'll still be dealing with the remastering differences, though).
But as I said, I've tried many different players and DACs, and I have quite a few HDCDs. My observation has been pretty consistent. And I don't want to ignore my experience with many CDs I own. I admit that some of them (non-HDCD) are recorded much better than others. But they simply don't match the quality of HDCD to my ears. How do you explain my consistent experience? Yes, I can use logic. And logic plus empirical observations (though not by scientific standard) led to my conclusion.
Logic also suggests you need to factor in biases associated with sighted comparison into your 'observations'. That itself is enough to explain the consistency. I'ts nothing in the least bit controversial; such psychological effects have been known about for years. It's why you have to do such comparisons 'blind', as one of the controls, to make it fair.
Are you beginnning to see how many issues are involved in what you probably thought was a straightforward observation, that 'HDCDs sounds better than CDs'?
Hardware and software manufacturers of SACD, DVD-A, and HDCD may use physical data to say that their technology improves SQ. But for the same reason I stated before, I don't believe their claims until I really perceive the difference. Do you think that every single Redbook (non-HDCD) CD is poorly (re)mastered without exceptions? You cannot say that. I do have some CDs that sound relatively good. That is, I know the level of SQ that a regular CD can offer in a best case, at least based on my collection of CDs. And it didn't match SQ that HDCD, SACD, or DVD-A can best offer to my ears. That's why I came to a conclusion that a format matters.
1) Your perception -- and mine, and everyone's -- is inhererntly fraught with sources of error. On its own, without careful comparison setup, it's of limited reliability.
2) No, I don't think every single non-HDCD CD (they are ALL redbook) is poorly remastered, without exception.
3) Your conclusion has leapt ahead of your evidence. If you consistenly preferred the HDCD in a *double-blind or ABX comparison* of the same music, with the *same* mastering except for HDCD encoding, output at the *same* level to within ~ 0.5 dB -- *THEN* you'd have a solid case that you preference is due to the HDCD process and not some other factor. Good luck setting -that- test up.
