Anyone had any experience with HDCD's especially as regards ripping?
It seems to me as though micro$oft are trying to control other music formats as well as WMA by introducing a proprietary CD format.
More info www.hdcd.com

Good, another format we can ignore. They just keep piling up!

wow. I'm totally naming my kid Pflash Pflaumer.

That is the phfunniest name ever.

Wow, I can buy all my music AGAIN! Oops, I mean license temporarlily again!

What crap.

-Zeke

It'll eventually get cracked like anything else... either by a hobbyist or someone else once/if it gets popular. And Microsoft will make a big stink, and blah blah blah...

In short, history will repeat itself with this format as it has with any other.

Odd, their site seems to be down. Must be running on IIS.

Yeah I hope someone does crack it, I am tired of having to check whether a CD has copy protection etc before I buy it. I am sure this doesn't conform to Phillips Red Book standard for CD specs.
Anyway I thought that if better than 16 bit quality was needed then DVD audio was the way to go at 24 bit. This new micro$oft format is yet another compromise at 20 bit. From what I can find out it works by truncating the 16 bit output to 15 bits too, thereby reducing the original musics quality for those who don't have a special cd player.
It Sucks!

Are you talking about HDCDs? What's to crack? You can already rip them and it's not a new format.

Stu

Right, that answers the question of whether you can still rip them, thanks, there is still the issue of reduced quality though.
I guess the question of "cracking" the format may be useful for someone who wants to extract the extra musical info on their computer without going to the expense of buying a special cd player. I still maintain that it is another example of micro$oft trying to dominate the digital universe!

I am tired of having to check whether a CD has copy protection etc before I buy it.

Don't be. Buy all the CDs you want, and if one dosen't work properly, take it back and get your money back. If the store refuses, exchange it until they get tired of the process. Also let them know you bought a CD out of a CD section of the store, and not a shiny non compatible disc.

The more returns the industry has to deal with, the more likely they are to think it's a bad idea. Not only will people like the RIAA have to deal with consumers, they will also have to deal with larger corporations getting pissed off that their margin is shrinking.

you can see how well this has been adopted by the industry, notice the absence of all of the major manufacturers in the player lists.
Then try to find something that you want to listen to. Half the stuff is back catalog stuff that was recorded in analog anyway.

Another pointless attempt by the empire to take over Sonys position.

Half the stuff is back catalog stuff that was recorded in analog anyway.

Nothing wrong with analog just because it's analog. Sony is using its own DSD technology to archive it's vast library of analog recordings.

Stu

Nothing wrong with analog just because it's analog.

In fact, in this case, it might make more sense. I don't know how digital masters are encoded, but if they're at 16-bit, just like the CDs (or is it 15?), then they can't get any more data out of it than they've already lost.

Earlier digital masters were undoubtedly limited to 16 bits words, but due to limitations of the hardware used, few if any actually achieved the full 16 bits of information. Just rip any number of 80's CDs and normalize them to 100% and you will likely note that there is quite a bit of gain necessary to bring them up to 0dBFS. The further you are from 0dBFS, the lower the effective resolution is.

Another note on analog sources. The A/D conversion process degrades the sound of the analog source. Anything that can be done to lessen this effect is beneficial. HDCD encoded CDs, with their higher resolution, will more faithfully reproduce the original analog master than will a standard CD.

Stu

Just rip any number of 80's CDs and normalize them to 100% and you will likely note that there is quite a bit of gain necessary to bring them up to 0dBFS. The further you are from 0dBFS, the lower the effective resolution is.

I don't think that's the way it works. Gain != resolution. And in my experience, the discs in my CD collection, including the old ones from the 80's, are all within a few percent of 0db. There are exceptions, but they are rare.

Even if the mastering hardware didn't have as much true resolution as 16 bits would tend to indicate, they would still adjust the compression and gain correctly.

I don't think that's the way it works. Gain != resolution.

The theoretical S/N and dynamic range limit of 16 bit audio is 96 dB. Maybe you are confusing analog and digital gain? The further away the peak digital signal is from 0dBFS, the lower the dynamic range. Less dynamic range means the difference between softest and the loudest parts is reduced. This increases noise. As noise increases, details is masked and resolution is reduced. Achieving 16 bits worth of dynamic range will yield more resolution.

Even if the mastering hardware didn't have as much true resolution as 16 bits would tend to indicate, they would still adjust the compression and gain correctly.

Well then, GIGO! If the material in the mastering process doesn't achieve 16 bit of S/N and dynamic range, then what use is there in increasing the gain after the fact? It's not going to remove the added noise or add dynamic range.

And in my experience, the discs in my CD collection, including the old ones from the 80's, are all within a few percent of 0db. There are exceptions, but they are rare.

I must have quite a few "rare" 80s CDs. I believe I read you saying you liked Depeche Mode. Try ripping and normalizing Music for the Masses and see what happens. Another one is NIN Pretty Hate Machine. Of course there are many others from all genres, but you get the idea.

Stu