It was a compromise between sample rate, disc diameter, and bit depth. 44.1 kHz was selected because 22.05 kHz is just beyond the maximum frequency that humans can hear (Nyquist Theorem). At that point it became a question of bit depth (signal to noise ratio) vs. maximum playing time. The story goes that they wanted the cd to be at least long enough to hold Beethovens 9th, but who knows if that's true or not. The point is that Sony felt 60 minutes wasn't long enough. 16 bits gives you a 96 dB signal to noise ratio, which was perfect for most high end equipment at the time and most listening environments. That is probably why the CD was standardized at 12 cm. That allowed the red book standard to give a cd length of a maximum of 74 minutes (even though in some cases you can get up to 83 minutes into a cd).
my experience is, hdcd played back on an compatible player tend to sound great. However, it was a complicated system, and hard dto say what this is attributable to, and it's hard to do a true apples to apples comparison.
From what I understand, 16 bit bit depth is fine for the end listener, but using a 20 or 24 bit bit depth is useful during the recording and mixing process.
Man my proofing was pretty sloppy, even by web posting standards. The nuns in my grade school are spinning in their graves. One more point. One of digital's greatest challenges it exercising restraint. Whether it's a consumer overdoing the scratch removal or a mastering engineer's compressing a vintage mono hit single, It's so easy to squeeze the life out of a classic recording. Similar to what I've seen people do to their family albums with cheesy Photoshop techniques.
I've never heard of any negative effect of the 16 bit "regular" cd sound from HDCDs. There are a (very) few HDCDs that have some kind of "headroom extension" - that may be what you're talking about. Most HDCDs add resolution below the significant bit which has no effect except perhaps in the oversampling and other trickery that happens inside most DACs. I don't think it really made any difference though.
They added that extra resolution by fiddling with the least significant bit, if memory serves. So there would definitely be some impact to the sound if left unencoded, although I'm not sure if it's particularly audible. The Pacific Microsonics A/D converters were extremely well-regarded even outside of their HDCD capabilities, so it's possible even with that one bit trashed, material created with them might sound better than that created by most other A/D converters of the era.
Peak Extension when decoded gives up to 3 dB more volume to peaks; in order to do this, the encoding process changes the shape of the amplitude waveform above a certain volume level, thereby compressing the peak when not decoded. Obviously the sonic effects of this can vary, but a number of listeners described distortion artifacts in addition to the dynamic compression when played on a non-HDCD player. Many HDCD's did not utilize Peak Extension, and in those cases the "decoded" and undecoded versions often sounded the same.
A good example of a title with peak extension is the HDCD Cars s/t. It's loud & overcompressed if played on a standard CD player, but decoded it's quite nice. I used a utility to decode a rip of the CD and have it as 24/44.1. I can't recall what the difference in dynamic range is, but it's definitely noticeable.
I have a Joni Mitchel Ladies of the Canyon HDCD. It sounds excellent. Of course, so do a number of regular non-encoded CDs. I found a Steve-mastered Steppenwolf's Greatest Hits at Goodwill and it sounds better than my LP ever has. I'm unconvinced that 16/44 is inadequate, even now when it's easy to do more. I also own a Sound Devices 722 CF card recorder. It has 24/192 capability. I used that setting for a while, then lately, after lots of use, I've scaled down to 24/44. I just don't notice an aural benefit to using more. At some point I need to consider environmental real estate and storage. There was a guessing game after CD was introduced to detect why it didn't always sound better: ie live up to its "Perfect Sound Forever" advertising slogan. Bad/old tapes as sources Bad microphone techniques Too trusting engineers and musicians trying to show off the claimed dynamic range. Boring music. ie: The Moody Blues digital recordings versus their analog ones. Flim and the BBs Digital compression/ProTools/No-noise Hard digital filters on early CD players Careless mastering Reviewers eager to make a name by guessing and naming digital's hidden flaw. Commonly called the magic bullet theory. Have I beat the dead horse enough? hahaha
You are NOT beating the horse to death, your posts are so spot on and thought provoking. For many years I have been very happy with the CD medium, and I so agree with you about the REAL reason some CDs are deficient, and you have listed many of the most common reasons. A much more simplistic challenge is to simply purchase some of the Telarc or especially Reference Recordings, or First Impression Music discs, even some of the "better" Mapleshade CDs, and one can hear what a CD done RIGHT sounds like. One of the things I think that really plagued Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs was first on your list, Bad/Old tapes as sources, and many of the others as well, as they would just take the poor product and tried to make it better, which is why so many of their dics just sound flat and non dimensional. NO, I think your posts are right on point, thanks for sharing.
I like Flim & The BBs and think their CDs sound incredible. I was not aware that the Cars S/T was one of the handful of peak extension CDs. I have it right here, along with an HDCD compatible player. Think I'll do some comparisons..........
It doesn't deliver true 20 bit resolution of course. And the peak extension completely degrades the sound for anyone without HDCD decoding capabilities. Crazy idea. Is it a coincidence that Warner embraced HDCD (compromising redbook), and are now embracing MQA (lossy hi-res)? Keep this proprietary stuff out of the picture please . I think both of these were/are geared at generating licensing revenue more than anything else.
Well, at least the Pacific Microsonics A/D converters were well-regarded. MQA doesn't even bring that to the table, so...
I had read that it was a myth, just as much as the president of Sony at the time wanting it. The reason posted by TimB is correct. The decision was purely about math.
I worked in the consumer electronics field for some time and this was common practice. I remember my company (Sharp Electronics) came out with a 4" oled display in the early 90s and we showed it at ces. The guts of the thing took up the entire 4' plinth that the screen was set on top of.
After Napster was shut down, when the record industry was trying to create digital stores for downloads, the labels couldn't agree on anything, and the few that did had competing formats, complete with ridiculous copyright protection schemes. It took Steve Jobs to make it work. But, the consequence was that Apple became the boss. They called the shots and the labels obeyed.
I know, speaking for my ears, that until Meridian came out with its CD player, CD was just to bright and lacked the detail of LPs. For me, the Meridian was the turning point. I tried to get by with LPs, but the baseline noise level and thr frigging crackles were too much for me. A buddy of mine could barely hear it. When the Merdian came out, I bagged LPs and went all in with cds. But I know others for whom,the brightness is no big deal. I think Kevin’s and Lite's point about the skill level catching up is huge. But cds are old news. Streaming and hard drives are the future.
My apologies, PhilBiker. I was searching for examples of 'audiophile' music. I agree it was a poor example.
@Grant I don't have a super system ( in my profile) and cannot see what gear you listen on(in your profile). But if I did have a better system, what would I be listening for to be different between 24/96 and the same mastering file reduced to 16/24? Sorry if you have answered it previously.
I'd be interested in knowing this as well. The spec wasn't finalized until 1996 so I imagine something from around that time period however maybe it's possible that there was a disc released with CD text before it was official?
