Is the dynamic range of CD sufficient?

[bdiament]

Thanks for that...and generally I am one of those who has not been blown away by the 'random' hi res files I have heard (from time to time) on expensive digital playback. However, I intuitively feel confident that when done right, hi-res will be far superior to the best redbook. However, until there is loads and loads of such quality files, and as you say the right playback equipment, I prefer to keep to redbook which is cheap and widely available...and focus on picking up remasters/masters by good recording engineers (Bob Ludwig, Analogue Productions, FIM, Keith Johnson, and our own members here like Bruce, MA Recordings, etc). In fact, that reminds me, I should look at your websites...and pick up some albums!

Hi LL21,

Thank you. I hope you hear something(s) there that interest you.

Unfortunately, all too much of what is sold as "high res" turns out to be plain old Redbook stuffed into a high-res "package" (i.e. upsampled and the low-order bits padded with zeros). Sometimes, a different mastering, again, all to often, just made louder and/or brighter.

I've found Reference Recordings' HRx discs to provide good insight into what is possible. These, like all the best high res I've heard, are in the form of raw PCM files (for HRx discs, specifically in .wav format) and in my experience, are, like Soundkeeper Recordings' files-on-disc releases) best heard via a good computer-based music server.

In both cases, I've found the CDs made from the high res originals tend to be exemplars of what is possible with Redbook. It isn't high res but it *can* sound quite good.

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com (The Soundkeeper Blog)
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

[LL21]

Hi LL21,

Thank you. I hope you hear something(s) there that interest you.

Unfortunately, all too much of what is sold as "high res" turns out to be plain old Redbook stuffed into a high-res "package" (i.e. upsampled and the low-order bits padded with zeros). Sometimes, a different mastering, again, all to often, just made louder and/or brighter.

...In both cases, I've found the CDs made from the high res originals tend to be exemplars of what is possible with Redbook. It isn't high res but it *can* sound quite good.

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com (The Soundkeeper Blog)
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

Thank you for that...good to know. I have generally enjoyed CDs from certain 24-bit remasters from well known studios, if that is what you mean?

 

[LL21]

And pick up a cassette deck while you are at it! Just kidding Lee.

Ha! Funny you should say that...I probably do have a bunch of tape albums somewhere which I don't have in CD (and thus miss out on hearing it)...and I ought to be replacing them with the CD version for probably a penny each plus shipping from Amazon.

 

[mep]

Ha! Funny you should say that...I probably do have a bunch of tape albums somewhere which I don't have in CD (and thus miss out on hearing it)...and I ought to be replacing them with the CD version for probably a penny each plus shipping from Amazon.

What if Zanden made a 4 box tube cassette deck which included an outboard tube power supply?

 

[LL21]

What if Zanden made a 4 box tube cassette deck which included an outboard tube power supply?

...must...not...give...in...must...R-E-S-I-S-T!!!! I actually promised myself a long long time ago after I started on my first system that I would stick with one source and put all my energy behind it. That source was redbook and its been that way ever since.

 

[zztop7]

What if Zanden made a 4 box tube cassette deck which included an outboard tube power supply?

What color?

zz.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

What do you mean by that?

I mean that most digital audiophiles believe that hi-res files/SACDs, etc., sound better than CD, and would, therefore, put CD at the bottom of the digital food chain.

Tim

 

[mep]

I mean that most digital audiophiles believe that hi-res files/SACDs, etc., sound better than CD, and would, therefore, put CD at the bottom of the digital food chain.

Tim

But you don't include yourself in that group do you Tim?

 

[bdiament]

Thank you for that...good to know. I have generally enjoyed CDs from certain 24-bit remasters from well known studios, if that is what you mean?

Hi LL21,

Actually, what I was referring to was CDs made from original recordings that were done at high resolution, such as a 24-bit, 192k original recording.

The term "24-bit mastering" (or "24-bit remastering") is more than a little bit misleading because it implies something unusual, whereas most masters today are 24-bit. So, in fact, this is rather common. Most multitracks I've seen nowadays tend to be 24/44.

Beware of hype touting the number of bits or the sample rate of "mastering" (or "remastering"). I've seen somesilly claims, such as "32-bit 100k mastering" - no doubt rounding up a 96k audio chain. I've got 80-bit data paths in my some of my gear and I like to work at 192k (even when the target is a CD) but I'd never say "80-bit, 200k mastered" on a CD I did. Yes, the higher resolution intermediate processing yields a better CD, however, one can call it anything they want but at the end of the day, that CD still carries no more than 16-bits at 44.1k.

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com (The Soundkeeper Blog)
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

[bdiament]

I mean that most digital audiophiles believe that hi-res files/SACDs, etc., sound better than CD, and would, therefore, put CD at the bottom of the digital food chain.

Tim

Hi Tim,

There is room below the "cassette". Don't forget 8-tracks!
We need something to liken data-reduced digital formats to. ;-}

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com (The Soundkeeper Blog)
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

P.S. Let us not forget the *real* digital cassette, CD's "partner", DAT.
(Well, I might bring DAT in just below CD in view of the fact that after about 6 months, a typical DAT tape might well start sounding like a fax transmission.)

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Hi Tim,

There is room below the "cassette". Don't forget 8-tracks!
We need something to liken data-reduced digital formats to. ;-}

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com (The Soundkeeper Blog)
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

P.S. Let us not forget the *real* digital cassette, CD's "partner", DAT.
(Well, I might bring DAT in just below CD in view of the fact that after about 6 months, a typical DAT tape might well start sounding like a fax transmission.)

I had forgotten 8-track and DAT. Willfully, happily forgotten. I would happily forget cassette too, but internet audiophiles keep bringing it up and looking back at it all misty-eyed.

Tim

 

[LL21]

Hi LL21,

Actually, what I was referring to was CDs made from original recordings that were done at high resolution, such as a 24-bit, 192k original recording.

The term "24-bit mastering" (or "24-bit remastering") is more than a little bit misleading because it implies something unusual, whereas most masters today are 24-bit. So, in fact, this is rather common. Most multitracks I've seen nowadays tend to be 24/44.

Beware of hype touting the number of bits or the sample rate of "mastering" (or "remastering"). I've seen somesilly claims, such as "32-bit 100k mastering" - no doubt rounding up a 96k audio chain. I've got 80-bit data paths in my some of my gear and I like to work at 192k (even when the target is a CD) but I'd never say "80-bit, 200k mastered" on a CD I did. Yes, the higher resolution intermediate processing yields a better CD, however, one can call it anything they want but at the end of the day, that CD still carries no more than 16-bits at 44.1k.

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com (The Soundkeeper Blog)
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

Thanks...that makes sense, I and I have generally looked at it as a marketing term. I have seen some questionable labels with '24 bit remasterings' and I still ignore them. OTOTH, when I have heard and compared remastered editions (including '24 bit remastered' editions of jazz, blues and classical music where I have a CD from the 90's...with good labels, I have found a significant improvement in many cases.

 

[bdiament]

Thanks...that makes sense, I and I have generally looked at it as a marketing term. I have seen some questionable labels with '24 bit remasterings' and I still ignore them. OTOTH, when I have heard and compared remastered editions (including '24 bit remastered' editions of jazz, blues and classical music where I have a CD from the 90's...with good labels, I have found a significant improvement in many cases.

Hi LL21,

Understood.
In my opinion, that is the mastering, not the word length.

Again, doing all intermediate processing at longer word length than the target is just good audio engineering practice.
But in my experience, the engineer always makes a bigger difference than the hardware or software. That is why some remasterings that are merely 16-bit (some of the early remasterings) also sound significantly better than the originals -- they were better engineered (using essentially the same gear as the original release).

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com (The Soundkeeper Blog)
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

[LL21]

Thanks for the clarification, Barry. As usual in audio, its the implementation/execution more than the theory that matters.

 

[Bodhi]

I don't know if 16/44 resolution is sufficient...how about a 32-bit 352.8kHz 24k Gold CD?

 

[JackD201]

I don't know if 16/44 resolution is sufficient...how about a 32-bit 352.8kHz 24k Gold CD?

The labeling of this is very confusing. I hope someone can ask Winston what this disc really is. Is it a CD from a DXD source/process? A DXD disc? Are there even any DXD capable transport/players?

 

[LL21]

The labeling of this is very confusing. I hope someone can ask Winston what this disc really is. Is it a CD from a DXD source/process? A DXD disc? Are there even any DXD capable transport/players?

Hi Jack...I think you are right...CD from such a source. Here is the description from that site:

Super High Definition format: Digital eXtreme Definition 24-bit 352.8kHz 24k GoldCD! Playable on all CD players!

Experience 12 of the greatest cuts from the Golden String Audiophile Catalog all on one DXD CD! Jazz lovers take notice, this makes an awesome sampler!

Collector's Edition UD:
UD means the "Ultimate Disc", which is a combination of a 24K gold disc with Resonance Control Coating (RCC), directly burnt from the master disc/hard drive one at a time, then, washed by de-ionized water and finally dynamically balanced and tested and certified to be under 10 Averaged Block Error Rate (Industry standard is 220).

DXD Digital eXtreme Definition:
Digital eXtreme Definition (DXD) is an audio encoding scheme that was developed for editing high-resolution recordings because DSD, the audio standard used on Super Audio CD is not ideally suited for editing. DXD is a PCM-like signal with 24-bit resolution sampled at 352.8 kHz - eight times 44.1 kHz, the sampling frequency of Red Book CD. The data rate is 11.2896 Mbit/s - four times that of DSD!

 

[Bodhi]

The labeling of this is very confusing. I hope someone can ask Winston what this disc really is. Is it a CD from a DXD source/process? A DXD disc? Are there even any DXD capable transport/players?

Hi Jack,

DXD cd's can be played on normal rbcd players. From ED's website - "Digital eXtreme Definition (DXD) is an audio encoding scheme that was developed for editing high-resolution recordings because DSD, the audio standard used on Super Audio CD is not ideally suited for editing. DXD is a PCM-like signal with 24-bit (up to 32-bit) resolution sampled at 352.8 kHz - eight times 44.1 kHz, the sampling frequency of Red Book CD. The data rate is 11.2896 Mbit/s - four times that of DSD!"

Clear as mud? This particular release is really cool as it uses a 24k gold disc with an RCC (resonance control) coating for a low error rate & longer life.

 

[JackD201]

Ummmm I don't think so Bodhi. CD players play CDs. Some might be able to play the odd 24/96 (DVD-A) but not all. As far as I know DXD can be played by numerous DACs on the market now but the DACs have to be fed via a server with the DXD files on them. Maybe Bruce B will chime in as he does a lot of work on DXD and has done a lot of work for Winston/FIM.

My gut feel is that that is a CD made from DXD source material. My main point is that the labeling is quite ambiguous.

 

[Bodhi]

The way to look at both XRCD24's which we know can be played on normal rbcd players & DXD's is, we are talking about a high resolution recording process which your rbcd player will down-convert to native resolution, not straight DXD playback at 32 bit/352.8 kHz sampling rate which in reality only a small number of dacs are optimized to process. This of course is a superior option to playback of a DXD, XRCD24, K2HD, DXD, SHM Platinum CD or, Blue-spec CD2 on an rbcd player. But many of us (myself included) still like to own the media and spin shiny discs.

Re: labeling, i'd argue that you'll get grey hair waiting for any of the labels using the above formats to lift their game with marketing or labeling of those formats. The market is too small to justify the expenditure. That said, my next player will be capable of decoding DXD at full native resolution & will have an awesome USB card to connect an external HDD. Just more choices really