Jump to content
IGNORED

K2hd? Xrcd? Hdcd? Mqa?


Recommended Posts

Well, I don't know what you mean by "greater accuracy". Given a digital source, you have a certain amount of information. Adding information (such as in upsampling) might be done in an informed way but you're still making a guess, one that is euphonic, but a guess nonetheless.

 

 

It's hard to characterize the interpolation step(s) of upsampling as a "guess" due to the Sampling Theorem. But it's not there where greater accuracy lies. (Edit: It's in the filters upsampling allows you to use.)

 

Just by plotting more points (samples) along the same curve you originally got from the Sampling Theorem, you're able to more easily and affordably employ filters that produce an eventual analog output with lower distortion (less aliasing, ringing, phase shift, group delay...). Lower distortion by definition results in greater accuracy in reproducing the original analog signal.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
It would have been more forthcoming to indicate this source of potential bias when you first began warning miguelito (and by extension the rest of us) of the potential for demonstrations that were in some sense "rigged."

 

This is not a question of bias. It is a fact that demonstrations can be rigged. Any kind of demonstration. My "bias" against MQA comes from the entire way MQA is being presented and marketed. To me, it looks, feels, and smells like a scam. It's what Meridian has written and done that has caused me to form this opinion. I have no bias against the company or the people involved.

 

Surely you don't object to my suggesting "caveat emptor"?

Link to comment
This is not a question of bias. It is a fact that demonstrations can be rigged. Any kind of demonstration. My "bias" against MQA comes from the entire way MQA is being presented and marketed. To me, it looks, feels, and smells like a scam. It's what Meridian has written and done that has caused me to form this opinion. I have no bias against the company or the people involved.

 

Surely you don't object to my suggesting "caveat emptor"?

 

Surely you see what you're doing? You are suggesting on the one hand that the demo may have met your definition of being "rigged" in large part not because the files were tampered with, but because Meridian may not have been sufficiently forthcoming about contextual information that would allow listeners to make a fair assessment (there may be files that would not sound so wonderful). On the other hand you're saying your own failure to be forthcoming about contextual information (you have motivation to be critical of MQA) is not important to provide the context that would allow readers to make a fair assessment.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
All interesting techniques intended to maximize the audible quality in a 16/44 encoding package.

 

HDCD and MQA require decoding to realize the improvement, but clearly there's so much info that can be packed in 16/44, so there's still some form of "euphonic choice" of what to keep and what to ditch.

 

What's people's take on these?

 

 

I never saw (heard?) much difference in HDCD, and I've never experienced MQA, but I have dozens of XRCDs from both JVC and a British company that uses the process. I can tell you that if every CD ever made used the XRCD process, there would have simply been no reason to invent either SACD or 24-bit, 96/192 KHz LPCM. Whether the CDs are jazz from Rudy Van Gelder or classical from the RCA Victor, or the British Decca or the EMI catalogue, they sound spectacular. I have a number of XRCDs of RCA Red Seal titles from the late 50's and Early 60's, recorded by such greats as Fritz Reiner and the Chicago Symphony and Van Cliburn, and Erich Leinsdorf and the Boston Symphony recorded by the likes of Richard Mohr or Lewis Layton and I also have some of the exact same titles on BMG's hybrid SACD series. In every case, the XRCD puts the SACD to shame sound-quality wise. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that SACD and high-res LPCM are, as formats, in any way a scam or a fraud. I am saying that 16/44.1, done RIGHT can be better than SACD or high-Res LPCM done indifferently. This is the problem with commercial recordings. The master can be so real sounding that it's scary, but by the time the CD/SACD/high-Res download gets to your retailer, that magnificent master recording can sound like warmed-over crap and often does!

 

I've said this before and I'll say it again. My experience, both as the owner of a large recorded library and as a recordist, is that the production process is FAR more important than the format!

George

Link to comment
Surely you see what you're doing? You are suggesting on the one hand that the demo may have met your definition of being "rigged" in large part not because the files were tampered with, but because Meridian may not have been sufficiently forthcoming about contextual information that would allow listeners to make a fair assessment (there may be files that would not sound so wonderful). On the other hand you're saying your own failure to be forthcoming about contextual information (you have motivation to be critical of MQA) is not important to provide the context that would allow readers to make a fair assessment.

 

I would assume that readers of this forum are intelligent enough to form their own opinions. If not then perhaps a few learning experiences will help them understand the reality of the marketplace.

 

I read what Meridian has written and what others have reported. I formed my own opinion. If that's not OK with you I could care less. Why are you attacking me by accusing me of bias? What's your bias? Are you a personal friend of Bob Stuart or do you have a covert business relationship? Don't like these questions, then back off.

Link to comment
This is not a question of bias. It is a fact that demonstrations can be rigged. Any kind of demonstration. My "bias" against MQA comes from the entire way MQA is being presented and marketed. To me, it looks, feels, and smells like a scam. It's what Meridian has written and done that has caused me to form this opinion. I have no bias against the company or the people involved.

 

Surely you don't object to my suggesting "caveat emptor"?

 

Tony: I'd have to agree that much of the way in which MQA is being marketed makes one question what is really behind it. There are, however, a couple of possible answers other than "snakeoil." One would be protection of intellectual property -- perhaps if we better understood what they were doing we could all decide to do it ourselves and take away any competitive advantage they sought. I somewhat doubt that is the real reason. The other is that while there is real IP in the entire process from end to end, there is much less if (i) you start with an already recorded piece and (ii) you play it back on something other than Meridian's proprietary DAC. In order for this to work at scale Meridian has to convince the rest of us that there are MQA benefits to all; if they only exist for Meridian recordings played on Meridian equipment, the market will be far to small to support a new format.

 

So if the "Emperor has no clothes" it is probably in the amount of benefit that can be gained using non-Meridian recordings on non-Meridian equipment.

Synology NAS>i7-6700/32GB/NVIDIA QUADRO P4000 Win10>Qobuz+Tidal>Roon>HQPlayer>DSD512> Fiber Switch>Ultrarendu (NAA)>Holo Audio May KTE DAC> Bryston SP3 pre>Levinson No. 432 amps>Magnepan (MG20.1x2, CCR and MMC2x6)

Link to comment
I would assume that readers of this forum are intelligent enough to form their own opinions. If not then perhaps a few learning experiences will help them understand the reality of the marketplace.

 

I read what Meridian has written and what others have reported. I formed my own opinion. If that's not OK with you I could care less. Why are you attacking me by accusing me of bias? What's your bias? Are you a personal friend of Bob Stuart or do you have a covert business relationship? Don't like these questions, then back off.

 

:facepalm:

 

So when authors of papers in academic journals are required to disclose any potential conflicts up front, that's because the journal editors are "attacking" them and "accusing [them] of bias"? This is of course, as I'm sure readers of this forum are intelligent enough to understand, neither any sort of attack on you, nor any accusation of bias against you at all. I have no agenda whatever here:

 

(1) I haven't heard MQA and as I indicated to miguelito, haven't even been sufficiently interested to follow its progress or read much about it. I have no interest in or acquaintance with Meridian products or Bob Stuart beyond that which I have in most other manufacturers/designers, i.e., nothing other than to read about them occasionally in a magazine or on a web site.

 

(2) I agree with what you are saying with regard to demos and caveat emptor, you aggravating person.

 

So why then did I write what I did in my previous couple of messages? For two reasons:

 

(1) The same reason those authors are asked to disclose any potential conflicts: It actually increases your credibility. (Again, aggravation and facepalm - unbelievable I should have to tell you this.) *Up front* you say: "Look, I don't think we need another proprietary hi res format, and frankly MQA smells like a scam to me. That said, I still think you need to be very careful about drawing any conclusions from a demo. Let me tell you about just some of the many ways they can be rigged...." That's what you did say, just in a different order. The way *you* said it, the reader (e.g., me) comes upon this disclosure that you dislike the idea of what Meridian is trying to do with MQA after the discussion of rigging demos, stops, and says to him/herself, "Wait. I didn't know this when I was believing Tony's argument. Should I have believed it? Should I now change my opinion in light of additional information? Why didn't he tell us before?"

 

Get it? Same information, different order, different result.

 

(2) The appearance of inconsistency: On the one hand, everyone should watch out, Meridian may not be providing full disclosure. Then, having just sensitized us to the issue, you let drop that little thing about not liking the whole idea of MQA. Oh. Once again: No accusation or attack, just telling you you're potentially undercutting the effectiveness of your own argument (which, once again, I happen to agree with) by the order in which you presented those statements.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
:facepalm:

 

So when authors of papers in academic journals are required to disclose any potential conflicts up front, that's because the journal editors are "attacking" them and "accusing [them] of bias"? This is of course, as I'm sure readers of this forum are intelligent enough to understand, neither any sort of attack on you, nor any accusation of bias against you at all. I have no agenda whatever here:

 

(1) I haven't heard MQA and as I indicated to miguelito, haven't even been sufficiently interested to follow its progress or read much about it. I have no interest in or acquaintance with Meridian products or Bob Stuart beyond that which I have in most other manufacturers/designers, i.e., nothing other than to read about them occasionally in a magazine or on a web site.

 

(2) I agree with what you are saying with regard to demos and caveat emptor, you aggravating person.

 

So why then did I write what I did in my previous couple of messages? For two reasons:

 

(1) The same reason those authors are asked to disclose any potential conflicts: It actually increases your credibility. (Again, aggravation and facepalm - unbelievable I should have to tell you this.) *Up front* you say: "Look, I don't think we need another proprietary hi res format, and frankly MQA smells like a scam to me. That said, I still think you need to be very careful about drawing any conclusions from a demo. Let me tell you about just some of the many ways they can be rigged...." That's what you did say, just in a different order. The way *you* said it, the reader (e.g., me) comes upon this disclosure that you dislike the idea of what Meridian is trying to do with MQA after the discussion of rigging demos, stops, and says to him/herself, "Wait. I didn't know this when I was believing Tony's argument. Should I have believed it? Should I now change my opinion in light of additional information? Why didn't he tell us before?"

 

Get it? Same information, different order, different result.

 

(2) The appearance of inconsistency: On the one hand, everyone should watch out, Meridian may not be providing full disclosure. Then, having just sensitized us to the issue, you let drop that little thing about not liking the whole idea of MQA. Oh. Once again: No accusation or attack, just telling you you're potentially undercutting the effectiveness of your own argument (which, once again, I happen to agree with) by the order in which you presented those statements.

 

A few quotes:

 

Bluster, sputter, question, cavil; but be sure your argument is intricate enough to confound the court.

 

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.

What Do You Care What Other People Think?
Link to comment

The one about a foolish consistency is a favorite of mine as well. :)

 

OK, my apologies for the diversion, back to topic....

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
Is MQA-encoded file after unpacking a bit-perfect copy of the original file (as is the case with FLAC)? From what I heard about the technology, that's not necessarily the case.

 

You are correct. It strickly speaking is not. What Meridian have done however is only apply compression to "inaudable parts". So, in theory you avoid loss of anything that can be heard. Then again, with CD 16/44.1 was supposed to be "all we could hear" as well. And yet, here we are talking 24/192, DSD64, DSD128 etc etc.

 

But if you take a WAV, convert it to MQA and convert it back again to WAV, your "before" and "after" will not reconcile.

Synology DS214+ with MinimServer --> Ethernet --> Sonore mRendu / SOtM SMS-200 --> Chord Hugo --> Chord interconnects --> Naim NAP 200--> Chord speaker cable --> Focal Aria 948

Link to comment
Tony: I'd have to agree that much of the way in which MQA is being marketed makes one question what is really behind it. There are, however, a couple of possible answers other than "snakeoil." One would be protection of intellectual property -- perhaps if we better understood what they were doing we could all decide to do it ourselves and take away any competitive advantage they sought. I somewhat doubt that is the real reason. The other is that while there is real IP in the entire process from end to end, there is much less if (i) you start with an already recorded piece and (ii) you play it back on something other than Meridian's proprietary DAC. In order for this to work at scale Meridian has to convince the rest of us that there are MQA benefits to all; if they only exist for Meridian recordings played on Meridian equipment, the market will be far to small to support a new format.

 

So if the "Emperor has no clothes" it is probably in the amount of benefit that can be gained using non-Meridian recordings on non-Meridian equipment.

 

My understanding is also that MQA was developed with streaming in mind, much more than with selling of files in mind. MQA does have, from a broadcaster's point of view, a few advantages.

1) On an audible level, it is as good as lossless music, especially when played on all those cheap streaming speakers and other devices. Note, "audible level". MQA is not lossless in the sense that you do not lose bits during compression. You do.

2) It has DRM, so less worry about people recording entire albums losslessly without DRM

3) The added compression means it takes less bandwith than FLAC and not much more than MP3 and AAC. In a world where net neutrality is under threat and where the majority of the planet has slow internet, that is a boon.

 

MQA is not deviced to make other fileformats obsolete. It is there to complement and do something that no other format can do: provide a compressed, protected stream with inaudible loss.

 

Whether people want to use that is entirely their business. But Tidal will switch over to MQA and so will Qobuz likely. And let's face it: analog radio has always broadcast a compressed signal, so we're not worse of.

Synology DS214+ with MinimServer --> Ethernet --> Sonore mRendu / SOtM SMS-200 --> Chord Hugo --> Chord interconnects --> Naim NAP 200--> Chord speaker cable --> Focal Aria 948

Link to comment
Just by plotting more points (samples) along the same curve you originally got from the Sampling Theorem, you're able to more easily and affordably employ filters that produce an eventual analog output with lower distortion (less aliasing, ringing, phase shift, group delay...). Lower distortion by definition results in greater accuracy in reproducing the original analog signal.

Agreed.

NUC10i7 + Roon ROCK > dCS Rossini APEX DAC + dCS Rossini Master Clock 

SME 20/3 + SME V + Dynavector XV-1s or ANUK IO Gold > vdH The Grail or Kondo KSL-SFz + ANK L3 Phono 

Audio Note Kondo Ongaku > Avantgarde Duo Mezzo

Signal cables: Kondo Silver, Crystal Cable phono

Power cables: Kondo, Shunyata, van den Hul

system pics

Link to comment
I never saw (heard?) much difference in HDCD, and I've never experienced MQA, but I have dozens of XRCDs from both JVC and a British company that uses the process. I can tell you that if every CD ever made used the XRCD process, there would have simply been no reason to invent either SACD or 24-bit, 96/192 KHz LPCM. Whether the CDs are jazz from Rudy Van Gelder or classical from the RCA Victor, or the British Decca or the EMI catalogue, they sound spectacular.

I wouldn't go as far as saying that high res would be useless, but I agree that properly mastered CDs can sound spectacular. I do have many, many CDs that sound spectacular that are not XRCDs obviously. The XRCD logo is in a way an indicator of having taken lots of care in such mastering.

NUC10i7 + Roon ROCK > dCS Rossini APEX DAC + dCS Rossini Master Clock 

SME 20/3 + SME V + Dynavector XV-1s or ANUK IO Gold > vdH The Grail or Kondo KSL-SFz + ANK L3 Phono 

Audio Note Kondo Ongaku > Avantgarde Duo Mezzo

Signal cables: Kondo Silver, Crystal Cable phono

Power cables: Kondo, Shunyata, van den Hul

system pics

Link to comment
You are correct. It strickly speaking is not. What Meridian have done however is only apply compression to "inaudable parts". So, in theory you avoid loss of anything that can be heard. Then again, with CD 16/44.1 was supposed to be "all we could hear" as well. And yet, here we are talking 24/192, DSD64, DSD128 etc etc.

Inaudible? What exactly does that mean? If there's a signal it is in principle audible - in principle. If you tell me you hide higher frequency information 60dB below a running average of the RMS volume then I would consider those 60dB quieter bits "inaudible" but then when you have a very quiet passage you run out of bandwidth to do that.

 

On top of this, I insist on the example that was played to me: a 192/24 file then it's MQA'd version. Massively different, not even funny, and MQA sounded much better. I need someone to explain to me how that high res MQA-processed file sounded so much better than the original when only "inaudible" info was removed.

 

Now don't get me wrong please: I am all for a format that can be played without decoding, if decoded it sounds even better, and is a great carrier for streaming services - that's quite the accomplishment. Bullshit like "as the musician intended" or "lossless" or the like just makes me lose respect.

NUC10i7 + Roon ROCK > dCS Rossini APEX DAC + dCS Rossini Master Clock 

SME 20/3 + SME V + Dynavector XV-1s or ANUK IO Gold > vdH The Grail or Kondo KSL-SFz + ANK L3 Phono 

Audio Note Kondo Ongaku > Avantgarde Duo Mezzo

Signal cables: Kondo Silver, Crystal Cable phono

Power cables: Kondo, Shunyata, van den Hul

system pics

Link to comment
My understanding is also that MQA was developed with streaming in mind, much more than with selling of files in mind. MQA does have, from a broadcaster's point of view, a few advantages.

1) On an audible level, it is as good as lossless music, especially when played on all those cheap streaming speakers and other devices. Note, "audible level". MQA is not lossless in the sense that you do not lose bits during compression. You do.

2) It has DRM, so less worry about people recording entire albums losslessly without DRM

3) The added compression means it takes less bandwith than FLAC and not much more than MP3 and AAC. In a world where net neutrality is under threat and where the majority of the planet has slow internet, that is a boon.

 

MQA is not deviced to make other fileformats obsolete. It is there to complement and do something that no other format can do: provide a compressed, protected stream with inaudible loss.

 

Whether people want to use that is entirely their business. But Tidal will switch over to MQA and so will Qobuz likely. And let's face it: analog radio has always broadcast a compressed signal, so we're not worse of.

 

DRM alone is sufficient reason to hope that MQA fails, even if it provides a magical improvement sonically over some other format. DRM can only be effective if the entire signal path is captured under a combination of physical protection (proprietary licensed and sealed boxes) and legal protection (reverse engineering outlawed by Intellectual Property laws or Fascist laws such as the US DMCA). What this means is that, to the extent that MQA succeeds, high end audio will become a mono-culture owned and controlled by an audio aristocracy. Don't think this will happen. DRM killed SACD.

Link to comment
I wouldn't go as far as saying that high res would be useless, but I agree that properly mastered CDs can sound spectacular. I do have many, many CDs that sound spectacular that are not XRCDs obviously. The XRCD logo is in a way an indicator of having taken lots of care in such mastering.

 

 

I never said that hi-res was is useless. Far from it, but hi-res was developed in response to many audiophiles' "complaints" that CD wasn't "good enough" for music. My point was merely that if all CDs had sounded, from the get-go, as good as XRCDs sound, that there possibly wouldn't have been as many complaints about the inadequacy of Red-Book CD and the high-res formats wouldn't have resulted from a general feeling by the audiophile that CD was somehow, lacking.

George

Link to comment
I have a number of XRCDs of RCA Red Seal titles from the late 50's and Early 60's, recorded by such greats as Fritz Reiner and the Chicago Symphony and Van Cliburn, and Erich Leinsdorf and the Boston Symphony recorded by the likes of Richard Mohr or Lewis Layton and I also have some of the exact same titles on BMG's hybrid SACD series. In every case, the XRCD puts the SACD to shame sound-quality wise. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that SACD and high-res LPCM are, as formats, in any way a scam or a fraud. I am saying that 16/44.1, done RIGHT can be better than SACD or high-Res LPCM done indifferently.

 

I don't disagree with your conclusion that 16/44.1 done right can be better than SACD, but I couldn't disagree more that the XRCD process constitutes an argument for the redundancy of higher resolution formats. The XRCD RCAs and the BMG SACD RCAs are derived from different masters so apart from them being remastered by different personnel and companies using different equipment, the actual source material for each of those series sounds quite different to begin with. The XRCDs are made from the 2 track cutting master tapes used to make the original vinyl LPs whereas the BMG SACDs come directly from the original session masters (mainly the 1/2 inch three track but as you know the earlier ones are two track).

 

It has been pointed out by an engineer who is both in the know and well respected that the SACDs are a much more accurate rendition of the original masters than the XRCDs are. The XRCD sound is a by-product of the particular remastering process used as well as the euphonic distortions inherent in a second generation copy optimised for vinyl cutting.

 

As someone who also owns both XRCD and BMG SACDs versions of a number of these titles, I do agree that some of them do subjectively sound "better", but I don't kid myself that they are more faithful to the original source. It's not an endorsement of the viability of the CD standard, nor the XRCD "standard". I'd venture to suggest that the shortcomings of the DSD standard on an SACD are significantly less comprised than even the very best possible 16 bit CD standard achievable.

 

The only things in favour of the XRCD "standard" are mitigating the various losses and compromises along the entire production chain as much as possible thus maximising the potential of what will always be a flawed and significantly compromised format. There is only so much you can do with such a compromised 16 bit standard, the evil effects of aggressive noise shaping (if employed) and the necessary low-pass filtering that needs to occur so close to the upper limits of the audible spectrum.

Link to comment
I don't disagree with your conclusion that 16/44.1 done right can be better than SACD, but I couldn't disagree more that the XRCD process constitutes an argument for the redundancy of higher resolution formats. The XRCD RCAs and the BMG SACD RCAs are derived from different masters so apart from them being remastered by different personnel and companies using different equipment, the actual source material for each of those series sounds quite different to begin with. The XRCDs are made from the 2 track cutting master tapes used to make the original vinyl LPs whereas the BMG SACDs come directly from the original session masters (mainly the 1/2 inch three track but as you know the earlier ones are two track).

 

Thank you for your comments, and especially for the info about the two sources for the RCA reissues on XRCD and BMG SACD, but my conclusion is not that XRCD "constitutes an argument for the redundancy of higher resolution formats". My conclusion is merely that XRCDs are so well mastered and manufactured that had all CDs ever produced for sale to the public sounded as good as XRCDs tend to sound, that the constant complaints against CD raised almost from day one and continuing to the present time, from both critics and audiophile/consumers, likely wouldn't have been so vociferous. As a result, the call for "something better" might not have been so strident and universal that the recording industry found it almost an imperative to find a better quality alternative. I do not mean to infer, here, that something akin to XRCD would have altogether prevented the development of SACD or various so-called high resolution LPCM formats. Rather, I am saying that if such formats had been developed in the face of Red-Book done right, the impetus for such development would have likely come from some other source (such as the recording side where 24-bit affords more headroom, for instance).

 

While I didn't know that the RCA reissues on BMG SACD and JVC XRCD came form different "masters" I should have figured it out. After all, JVC produced RCA Red Seal records for the Japanese market, much in the same manner that Capitol records in the USA produced EMI "HMV" titles for the US market under their "Angel" label from cutting masters sent from EMI in England. Therefore JVC would have had the cutting masters copies that RCA Victor sent to Japan in their own vaults, while, I'm sure, that BMG would not send their precious master session tapes to Japan so that JVC could produce their XRCD renditions. However, this info does bring-up a question. If, as you assert (and which makes sense), the XRCDs were mastered from disc cutting copies and the BMG SACDs were mastered from the original session masters, wouldn't the fact that the BMG SACDs came from the originals make them better quality (all other things being equal) than the XRCDs (made from copies with LP "mastering moves" executed upon them by RCA Victor)?

 

 

It has been pointed out by an engineer who is both in the know and well respected that the SACDs are a much more accurate rendition of the original masters than the XRCDs are. The XRCD sound is a by-product of the particular remastering process used as well as the euphonic distortions inherent in a second generation copy optimised for vinyl cutting.

 

I suppose that's possible. One of the problems with the "record business" is that there is "plenty of slip twixt the cup and the lip" as they say. Meaning that there are so many places in the process for things to go awry that it's a wonder that we ever get decent sounding recordings, ever! And if what you say is true (I have no information with which to dispute that assertion), then give me the euphonic colorations of JVC's XRCD process. Also, the RCA Red Seals are but one label that has had the XRCD treatment. I also have a number of XRCD reissues of British Decca (London Records) titles, as well as EMIs from the British Hi-Q XRCD label. They are likewise also excellent! I also have a number of Riverside, Impulse, and other small jazz label titles recorded originally by Rudy Van Gelder in the early 1960's that have been given the XRCD treatment. And they all likewise sound far better than other reissues of the same material by other labels in other formats including vinyl.

 

As someone who also owns both XRCD and BMG SACDs versions of a number of these titles, I do agree that some of them do subjectively sound "better", but I don't kid myself that they are more faithful to the original source.

 

I never said that they were. Since I don't have access to the originals (and I daresay, neither do you) I really have no idea what the originals sound like. But I do know what the various reissues both on XRCD and SACD as well as earlier CD remasterings sound like and I do know which sounds more to me like a real orchestra playing in a real concert hall. Now many of the EMI Hi-Qs and Decca-sourced JVCs (such as the Zubin Mehta Holst Planet with the L.A. Philharmonic) were recorded in the multi-track/multi-mike crazy '70's, and sound about as much like a real orchestra playing in a real space as does a kazoo, still the XRCDs sound much better than do the CD issues of the same material from the original companies' releases (nothing can be done about the poor decision by the original producers to use a forest of microphones or 48+ tracks, however).

 

It's not an endorsement of the viability of the CD standard, nor the XRCD "standard". I'd venture to suggest that the shortcomings of the DSD standard on an SACD are significantly less comprised than even the very best possible 16 bit CD standard achievable.

 

I don't think that other than theoretically, there's any real evidence of that. The end product is so variable that no real conclusions about the viability of any format or medium over another is really possible by simply listening to the commercial result. Obviously, in theory, both 24-bit LPCM and DSD is far better than 16-bit/44.1 as a capture medium. But what happens to the files after that is a crap-shoot. Some Red-Book CDs sound better than some high-res downloads or DSD files or SACDs or DVD-As, and in other cases the verdict is completely reversed.

 

The only things in favour of the XRCD "standard" are mitigating the various losses and compromises along the entire production chain as much as possible thus maximising the potential of what will always be a flawed and significantly compromised format.

 

No argument there, but then, I don't think that's ever been in contention.

 

 

There is only so much you can do with such a compromised 16 bit standard, the evil effects of aggressive noise shaping (if employed) and the necessary low-pass filtering that needs to occur so close to the upper limits of the audible spectrum.

 

Again, none of that's important. What's important is the listening experience. It's either good or bad. If it's good, how it got good is of no no interest to the listener (nor should it be). But if the listener spends a premium to buy music in a format that promises to offer better SQ than Red-Book and it doesn't deliver (and in my estimation, most don't deliver), then it's time to question just what the hell the audiophile is actually paying for!

George

Link to comment
My conclusion is merely that XRCDs are so well mastered and manufactured that had all CDs ever produced for sale to the public sounded as good as XRCDs tend to sound, that the constant complaints against CD raised almost from day one and continuing to the present time, from both critics and audiophile/consumers, likely wouldn't have been so vociferous.

 

Fair enough. I agree with this as well.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...