96Hz 24 Bit Remastered on CD - Decca

[hifiashok]

Swamiji, from my explanation and given that the CDPs have the suggested relevant DACs capable of processing 24 Bit/96kHz, the Decca CDs mastered at this rate WILL have better results than regular 16 Bit/44 kHz CDs.

 

[hifiashok]

Also, if you notice on the Decca CDs in question, pl. make a note of AAD, ADD and/or DDD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARS_Code

http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/compact-disc/the-aad,-add,-ddd-code-for-audio-cds.html

 

[hifiashok]

Dear hifiashok, i agree on this oppo vfm ! But the point remeins the same as you mentioned, "after 2007 all the cdp can play HDCD "..........till today there are hardly any mass CD Player which can play HDCD !
Regards

One of the reasons I had mentioned 'almost'.

 

[IndianEars]

hifiashok said :

Look for any CDPs with the Burr-Brown PCM-1732 or 1796 DAC. Like the Rotel RCD-1070/1072, RCD 951, Arcam Diva CD-92, Cayin CD15, Sheng Ya CD-S10, Original CD-2008F, Raysonic CD128, etc. My own CEC3300R CDP also has the Burr-Brown PCM-1796 24 Bit DAC (comes back to the definition requirement of the 'what is mass produced'?).

Sorry, Sir !

NO CD Player .... unless its a DVD player ( a Universal palyer is a CD Player + A DVD Player ) will read a 24/96 file.

Many CDPs will UP SAMPLE / Over sample 16/44 to 24/96.... That is Quite dirrerent from reading the original 24/96 file.

Even for argument sake, let us assume that SELECT players will read 24/96 (!) then the 24/95 CD will have to say on the label :

"This CD will play only on "with the Burr-Brown PCM-1732 or 1796 DAC. Like the Rotel RCD-1070/1072, RCD 951, Arcam Diva CD-92, Cayin CD15, Sheng Ya CD-S10, Original CD-2008F, Raysonic CD128, etc."

Wouldn't that be a marketing nightmare ?

Even the SACD and DVD-A discs that were pushed, simply failed because the SACD / DVD-A quality could not be extracted by a standard CD player.


Swami said :

So, am I right in understanding that these 96/24 recordings in question are merely a specification of the master(/remastered) source and does not relate to the end product (CDDA) sold to the music CD customer like me?

You are 100% Correct.

 

[swami]

Thanks Indianears, for putting up your view. It takes two to put up a useful debate; thanks for coming in [I am no more than someone in doubt].

Swami

 

[hifiashok]

Re: 96kHz 24 Bit Remastered on CD - Decca

Further support, if you would like re-iteration:-

What is HDCD?

High Definition Compatible Digital - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Amazon.com: Harman Kardon CDR 2 CD Player/Recorder: Electronics

Guess you would need to come to your own conclusions from these various inputs. Compiling some more inputs.

 

[IndianEars]

hifiashok, I appreciate the links that you are posting.

However, if you find athoritative metion against my emphatic statement:

NO CD Player .... unless its a DVD player ( a Universal palyer is a CD Player + A DVD Player ) will read a 24/96 file.

Do post the content.


Guys, do keep in mind that HDCD has Nothing to do with 24/96

 

[swami]

Guys, do keep in mind that HDCD has Nothing to do with 24/96

I agree. Well, this is what was bothering me all this while when I was reading reply-posts with informative links to HDCD!

 

[hifiashok]

I would urge you guys to peruse the links I have posted through this thread to understand the connection between HDCD and 96/24. At no point am I saying HDCD is 96/24.

 

[smedhavi]

Hi HifiAshok,

>>...I have posted through this thread to understand the connection between HDCD and 96/24

I don't think any of us has still understood this connection. It would would be great if you could explicitly state it here.

Thanks,
Sharad

 

[swami]

I have to agree with Sharad, on this. Still clueless about what Ashok is conveying. And not very sure on the main topic of this thread, I stand where I started, I guess

 

[IndianEars]

swami said:

And not very sure on the main topic of this thread, I stand where I started, I guess

Many of these CDs mentioned Remastered - 96HZ 24 Bit. I would like to understand what this really means.

*1 Are these regular RB CDs? (wiki : RB CD = 44.1Hz/16Bit)
*2 Are these non-standard CDs which should be played on a CDP having a decoder but are backward compatible to old CD players (much like HDCD or maybe DTS 5.1 CDs)?
*3 The same recording if available in 44.1/16 would sound audibly inferior?
*4 If I have a DVD-A or SACD with the same stereo track and with specification 96/24, will it have the same quality as the one on these CDs?
*5 Is there anyway to rip/burn these discs using CD-R and CD Writing ODD?

Please provide your answers to the above mentioned. Whatever you know about these queries, I would greatly prefer your point-wise replies.

Let me try Pointwise replies...

1. *1 Are these regular RB CDs? (wiki : RB CD = 44.1Hz/16Bit)

YES. These are Standard Red Book CDs. The Studio Master File is 24/96. This is then Down sampled to 16/44 and stamped into commercial Audio CDs.

The CDs are standard Redbook 16/44

*2 Are these non-standard CDs which should be played on a CDP having a decoder but are backward compatible to old CD players (much like HDCD or maybe DTS 5.1 CDs)?

Not applicable, since these are red book CDs.


*3 The same recording if available in 44.1/16 would sound audibly inferior?

The higher resiolution of the Studio's master recording will have a benificial effect on the final quality of the Redbook stnadard 16/44 on the CD. I believe that is the Inmplied message on the CD cover.




*4 If I have a DVD-A or SACD with the same stereo track and with specification 96/24, will it have the same quality as the one on these CDs?

No.

The DVD-A and SACDs will sound superior. ( assuming that the rest of your reproduction chain is upto it. )


*5 Is there anyway to rip/burn these discs using CD-R and CD Writing ODD?

As indicated in point 1 above, these are regular CDs. You can copy and rip them as you would any other audio CD.

I hope this clarifies ( atleast my perspective ) your queries.


ADDITIONAL INFO

You can down load 24/96 files ( illegal and legal downloads abound on the net ).

If your CD burning program does make an Audio CD out of them ( Not burning them as Data files ! ) then you can be assured that the CD Burning program has (on its own) down sampled all the music files to 16/44 before burning it on the Audio CD.

 

[swami]

I hope this clarifies ( atleast my perspective ) your queries.

Thanks a lot, you gave exactly what I asked for

Of course this is your perspective, but then that's what I am looking for!

If anyone else attached to this thread wants to (dis/)agree with this post, now is the time!

Regards,
Swami

 

[hifiashok]

Re: 96kHz 24 Bit Remastered on CD - Decca

Assuming this points to me I would like to convey that I have already suggested all to draw their own conclusions using (or excluding/setting aside) inputs made.

As far as further inputs are concerned, I am still compiling these, since 'IndianEars' mentioned the need for an 'authoritative' reference. I had assumed that the Stereophile: HDCD Spreads Further into the Audio Kingdom would have been it, but guess it isn't.

This link was also intended to explain the connection between HDCD and 96/24.

 

[hifiashok]

Re: 96kHz 24 Bit Remastered on CD - Decca

some more grist 'Digital eXtreme Definition 24-bit 352.8kHz CD! Playable on all CD players!'

 

[swami]

Re: 96kHz 24 Bit Remastered on CD - Decca

some more grist 'Digital eXtreme Definition 24-bit 352.8kHz CD! Playable on all CD players!'

Thanks for bringing this out to our attention ... will go through the details!

 

[smedhavi]

I have been looking at these DXD adds for the last few days. I wonder if it again means an ordinary Redbook CD mastered from DXD, otherwise a CD would hold only a few minutes of 24-bit data sampled at 352.8 kHz, and not play on CD players.

Someone should stop this misleading practice.

Thanks,
Sharad

 

[swami]

I have been looking at these DXD adds for the last few days. I wonder if it again means an ordinary Redbook CD mastered from DXD, otherwise a CD would hold only a few minutes of 24-bit data sampled at 352.8 kHz, and not play on CD players.

Someone should stop this misleading practice.

Thanks,
Sharad

What I understood out of my reading on this was - this is a new technique which will change how recording and mastering is done and doesn't touch the end listener in how he plays and enjoys his media. Of course, the quality of reproducion being superior or not, is another discussion.

I do have some more to write on this whole thread, hopefully will post in the late evening...

Regards,
Swami

 

[smedhavi]

this is a new technique which will change how recording and mastering is done and doesn't touch the end listener in how he plays and enjoys his media

You are right. This is what I meant.
I strongly feel that these guys should not call it a DXD CD. They should be forced to call it "Audio CD mastered using DXD". There are already too many regular Audio CDs carrying the DSD logo, then we had the 96Hz 24 Bit CDs, and now DXD! This is surely confusing the customers, and hence this thread.

I would be more than keen to buy a real DXD CD (and a compatible DAC), if they sell one. They should try Audio-only Blu-ray disks with the highest possible resolution. Blu-ray Profile 3.0 is meant for that, but no company is biting the bullet yet.

Thanks,
Sharad

 

[swami]

I have this question for all, quite related to the intent of this thread -

When it comes to recording/mastering, there is 96/24, DSD, and now DXD and a lot more than these I am sure. People have told me that a CD specifying 96/24 will sound considerably better than a regular CD of same track just because the source was at a higher sample of 96KHz. Sounds logical and yes I agree with them.

We, however, have grown up listening to tape and LPs as well => ANALOG.

If 44.1KHz (CD) is lesser than 96KHz is lesser than 352.8KHz is lesser than Blue Ray 3.0 (what Smedhavi has written above) just because of the sample rates, it tells me that analog media is most accurately close to the original. Oh yes! all of you know that, there is nothing new to it. Even I am lost about what I really wanted to ask ...

Nevertheless, here is my query - Consider a song recorded on LP, and BR and DXD and DSD in the studio (as in AAD, ADD, DDD etc. stuff). Now, if these are transferred to audio CD (of course 44.1KHz/16bit) with similar equipment and accuracy, which version of the song will sound better/fuller/closer to original artist the way he sang in studio? Am I correct in saying that it should be "LP to CD" which wins this test?

Do I make any sense here?

A lot more of doubts here, but not before I get the above mentioned clarified.

Thanks and Regards,
Swami