Sound Quality of PCM vs. Hi-SP?

[Jonny Minidisc]

I'm really curious to know if anyone has noted any difference in sound quality in recordings made with PCM as compared with Hi-SP.

Also, how does Hi-SP sound as compared with MDLP-2?

Thanks!

[dex Otaku]

HiSP is significantly better than LP2, I find.

I can tell HiSP from PCM but it takes close listening. Others here have equated it to 320kbps mp3.

PCM is straight uncompressed audio, the same format as CD uses. For really important things I ony use PCM. For everyday recordings [sonic snapshots] I use HiSP and the recording results are excellent. I haven't done a serious comparison between HiSP and MD's SP but understand that SP is still slightly better.

[Latexxx]

You should remember http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....26976&hl=atrac3

[aeriyn]

Compressed audio is for noobs.

... wait, I'm listening to compressed audio. :sleep:

To me, in portable applications (sharp md-ds8 > sharp hp-md33s) I can't easily tell the difference between ATRAC 4.5 and PCM. For portable applications mind you, before everyone starts getting all shnarly.

In the car, on the streets, walking around, with lots of ambient noise... or in a library, reading a book and not paying much attention to the music I'm listening to... yeah.

I mean, yeah, I can tell the difference between the original CD and the sound the MD is producing. But the difference isn't annoying and it doesn't make listening not enjoyable. With ATRAC 4.5, the most annoying part of compression IMHO, pre-echo on vocals... I can't hear. There's small bits of hissing, sometimes, as a result of compression... maybe some flangey noises, but I can't hear them. The music is still fun to listen to, especially with the DS8.

Also, you have to understand that some CDs are mastered better than others. I have one CD... Aikawa Nanase's "Red" which was mastered in 1995. There's no way it will sound better than another CD I have, BoA's "Valenti" which was mastered in 2003. I can tell the difference between those CDs by themselves, uncompressed and everything. Obviously "Valenti" encodes to ATRAC 4.5 a lot better than "Red" does... since the source is of a higher quality.

Just my two cents... :happy:

[dex Otaku]

Also, you have to understand that some CDs are mastered better than others. I have one CD... Aikawa Nanase's "Red" which was mastered in 1995. There's no way it will sound better than another CD I have, BoA's "Valenti" which was mastered in 2003. I can tell the difference between those CDs by themselves, uncompressed and everything. Obviously "Valenti" encodes to ATRAC 4.5 a lot better than "Red" does... since the source is of a higher quality.

It's interesting that you point this out, actually.

Mastering techniques in general have changed since the 90s. Overall dynamic range has decreased dramatically in the majority of recordings as mastering engineers have started bit-pushing the hell out of the content going onto disc - the object being to have the CD play as loudly as possible. Essentially, they compress the hell out of it - so much so that it makes the compression that used to be used on LPs and cassette tapes look like nothing by comparison.

On one hand, this makes the average recording released now far less faithful to its sources, far louder, more listening-fatigue inducing, etc. Basically, IMHO, the quality of recordings being released has, in general, plummetted to far below what they were even in the 1970s. [Note: I'm referring to the quality of what consumers get, not the quality of the original 1st-generation masters]

On the other hand, the fact that the dynamic range is so incredibly reduced makes it far easier for certain CODECs to handle the transients that in uncompressed versions of the recording would have caused artifacts such as pre-echo. mp3, in general, benefits from this practise.

The end result of bitpushing is quite similar to pushing open reel tape [1/4" half-track at 30ips] to the absolute edge of saturation; you get a louder recording, and there -is- distortion present, but most or a lot of it is masked out. Most people won't notice the difference in terms of distortion, listening fatigue [most people don't listen to music pretty much all day, every day, as I do] etc. - the only difference they'll notice is that it's so much louder, and hey, that must be a good thing, right?

So - chances are extremely high that the reason your CD, "Red" from 1995 doesn't encode as well as your "Valenti" from 2003 is because the one from 1995 is in fact a higher-quality master. I might be wrong, as I'm familiar with neither, but I will say that I prefer CDs from the late 80s and early 90s, when recordings were actually mastered with -some- dynamic range.

[bjsilva]

Interesting you say that, Dex. I listening mostly to Classical, and mostly piano, and some of newer recordings have a somewhat annoying sound - "overdone", the piano doesn't sound very natural. My most favourite piano recording is from the late 60's - it's really quite extraordinary.

[aeriyn]

I believe you are right, dex.

With my equipment, it's somewhat hard to tell the uncompressed tracks on both CDs apart. The older CD sounds a little fuzzed, but not terribly so, and it actually has a rather nice sound to it.

My newer CDs sound good enough with my equipment, which is arguably not the best.

I'm just wondering... why do they bit-push so much to get the volume of the recordings up? That makes no sense, when you can just turn the pot on your amp up and increase power...?

Also, I do listen to music all day (not literally, but close!). I love music; I don't even own a TV. :happy: So fatiguing sound, sound that is very loud, is something I tend to stay away from. My music is usually slightly dark as well; with my hearing issues anything bright is rapidly fatiguing...

[jadeclaw]

I believe you are right, dex.

I'm just wondering... why do they bit-push so much to get the volume of the recordings up? That makes no sense, when you can just turn the pot on your amp up and increase power...?

It's simple. It has to do with money.

Infact, by sounding as loud as possible, the song stands out more and is more likely to be remembered.

Commercial radio stations, especially the Top40 stations, use compressors like the well hated Optimod to push up their loudness for the same reason, while maintaining the limits set forth by the FCC.

Luckily, the classic radio stations here on the public network are refusing to use any form of compression...

[classicalnut]

I record classical pipe organ all the time and found that PCM is much better than Hi-SP. Hi-SP lacks the high and low frequincies that I get with PCM. PCM is much better for me.

[vova]

I do notice better quality on PCM vs Hi-SP such as better stereo separation and a somewhat smoother sound overall. But PCM makes a difference if the original recording is high quality

[MrToad]

Having just acquired a NZ- NH700 I have conducted a number of A/B test to determine which compression I should use. I have compared the NZ-700, with my old MZ-E909 player using for reference the original CD playing through my domestic Cyrus 8 amp, Cyrus 6 CD player, connected to the amp via a high quality audio interconnect, and Wharfdale Pacific Evo 30 speakers. (Not sure if this equipment is sold in the US so for reference this combination came highly recommended by a number of UK HiFi mags, auditioned very well and cost the equivalent of $3500 so is a half decent reference system). I also have had for a number of years a Sony MXD D3 CD/MD player recorder which is connected to the amp with inexpensive phono cables. The NZ 700 & E909 were connected to the aux input of the MXD D3 which was used to equalize the volumes. The sound was set to normal on both units (there is no tone control or equalization on the Cyrus) and I compared Atrac3 and Atrac 3 plus and concluded that Atrac3 plus 64K was a very acceptable compromise so started to transfer my CD collection to my hard drive using SS 2.0 initially and the last few days 2.2. However reading this debate and others I have seen this week I began to have doubts about my choice of HIMD LP so I have just retested everything. And guess what I have come to the same conclusion. In fact, in my opinion, having been around when we were having a similar debate about vinyl and CDs, the difference between HIMD SP and the original is almost impossible to define or detect consistently in blind A/B tests. There is a small lack of gloss and dynamic and a slight softening using HIMD LP but it is only small. At this point I was using a standard Maxell XL-II 80 Pro MD. However when I ran the same comparison using the HIMD 1GB disc that came with the NH700 the difference between the original CD and the HIMD LP was reduced and although just noticeable, when switching back and forth between the two, when listening to a track played randomly from either the CD or the MD it was impossible to tell which was which. I think this is remarkable considering the MD is fed via the Sony MXD D3 and cheap interconnects.

I am using my MESH PC’s Sony CD/DVD RW DW-U10A drive to transfer the CDs to my hard drive so the fact that it is Sony and therefore perhaps totally compatible might help the quality. I have found I can burn music on non audio CD-Rs via this drive using SS2.2 or Magix 2005 and play them back on the CD player of my Sony MXD D3. These CD’s are not playable on any other CD player I have tried. My PC CD drive (ATAIP 52 RW) is not able to burn music to non audio CD-rs nor is it compatible with SonicStage V2.0 or 2.2.

Finally, unlike some (most?), I have found SS completely reliable and user friendly and ideal for transferring CD’s and creating MD’s.