Talk:High Definition Compatible Digital

message: From VfD:
Duplicated in HDCD.  My fault.  Mandel 12:52, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
*Do not delete. Readers will search for both of those titles. Instead, one article should be replaced by a redirect to the other one. (I think it should actually be HDCD redirecting to the full name.) Andris 14:27, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
*Keep and redirect HDCD here. -- Grunt (talk) 22:47, 2004 Aug 20 (UTC)
*Keep. Agree, HDCD should be redirected to High Definition Compatible Digital. Nothing to merge that I can see. Andrewa 00:53, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  Ears have a logarithmic, not linear curve, so removing one bit from a 16-bit recording only decreases the sound quality by about 7%.  This decrease is probably not audio unless a CD has really quiet passages; double-blind tests have shown that people can't tell the sound quality of a 14-bit CD from a 16-bit CD. Samboy 22:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Unless I'm missing something, shouldn't replacing the least significent bit with random numers (for the sake of a standard CD player, it is random) loose half the levels in the PCM signal?
I understand the difference wouldn't be obvious, but is loosing half the levels really a 'miniscule' drop?
WikianJim 17:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  Ears have a logarithmic, not linear curve, so removing one bit from a 16-bit recording only decreases the sound quality by about 7%.  This decrease is probably not audio unless a CD has really quiet passages; double-blind tests have shown that people can't tell the sound quality of a 14-bit CD from a 16-bit CD. Samboy 22:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "miniscule" reduction in range on normal CD player

message: :Image:HDCD.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:HDCD.jpg

message: Aren't these really just the same thing?  The article makes them seem like separate features that the mastering engineer can control.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krabapple (talk • contribs) 16:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peak extend vs 'dynamic range extension' feature 

message: According to the main article, WMP 10 and 11 no longer show the HDCD logo when playing. I'm playing an HDCD on WMP 11.0.5721.5260 right now and the HDCD logo is showing in the lower left corner. Perhaps somebody can do some more research on this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lothda (talk • contribs) 02:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows Media Player and HDCD 

message: I also published the source code to my foobar2000 component on my site, which also includes the full source to the HDCD decoder itself. Of course, since I only gave the patent documents a cursory glance, I don't have a full explanation to certain things, such as all the floating point constants. Also, some other aspects, such as LFSR related variables, are not clearly labeled. I'm sure somebody interested in more than just getting the code to work could improve this.
Also, I don't buy this patenting issue when it comes to releasing the source. MP3 and other audio codecs are patented, but there are several patents covering them, and the developers of libraries which encode or decode these formats leave it up to the users of the libraries to deal with licensing the patents. Eh, whatever.
Kode54 (talk) 17:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference source code 

message: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13718604-100-technology-nothing-but-the-music-from-improved-cds/
Above is a link to a New Scientist article from 1993 that talks about a 'new' Dick Hyman recording which uses the HDCD process. What this seems to suggest is that HDCD-encoded discs were available at least as early as 1993 (the album in question, found here on Discogs, has a copyright date of 1992). The article goes on to mention that '[the] developers promise a high-definition player for [1993]' and in another Reference Recordings release from 1993 (found here) the booklet states that players which can decode HDCD are to 'become available in 1993'.
Would this information be sufficient for a change in some of the dates on this page?
James Arthur Sturgess 20:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are interesting finds but I don’t think they trump the majority of sources that put the launch date at 1995, e.g. The Absolute Sound 2007 PAGE 50, “High - Definition Compatible Digital ( 1995 ) HDCD employs extremely clever tricks to overcome the limitations of 44.1kHz…”.  Perhaps use it in the history section?—Aquegg (talk) 06:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible change to initial release date of HDCD albums