| FastEddy |
... :bawling: ...
" The 24 bit word is then converted to 16 bits using K2 Super Coding ,which insures true 16 bit dynamic range.The 16 bit signal is then EFM encoded ..." From http://www.xrcd.com/tech/xrcd24d_e.html
None of these folks quite get the message. "All CDs suck ..." - Bob Dylan.
If JVC (or any other producer) is going to enough trouble to obtain 24 bit master recordings, why don't they just produce DVD-A or SACD optical 24 bit discs directly from these master and skip the compression process to 16 bits altogether?
This is just garbage out as far as I can tell.
:mad: |
|
|
| rabbitz |
Lots out there with CD players and a huge market but very few with SACD and DVD-A. Are those formats still a go or are they almost dead?
I take it you like the AD825 by your avatar. Just tried it in a CD player this week and a really nice opamp. |
|
|
| Netlist |
AD825 thread split off to Trading Post.
/Hugo |
|
|
| FastEddy |
" ... Plant at least two trees for each one you chop. ..."
Good thinkin' ... Here in the states we have a problem with disappearing bees = population about decimated (no kidding, less than 10% lbee pop. left in the west).
So I say: "Plant at least twenty flowers for each one you mow down."
(BTW: you are right to stick that blatent commercial punt for Analog in the Trading Post.) :apathic: |
|
|
| Netlist |
I could tell you some about the bees but that requires another topic and preferably another forum.
/Hugo |
|
|
| panomaniac |
Thanks for the link. I read thru the JVC doc. Interesting reading. I don't know too much about the production flow in CD mastering, but it at least sounds like someone is trying to get it right.
Even in "perfect" digital there is so much that can go wrong. I work with digital images and can certainly swear to that.
Did you notice that the mastering console is analog? Wonder why? And what are they doing with the console? Track leveling? EQ? Compression? Then it goes back to 24 bit, then on to the pressing plant. Doesn't really adddress the over compressed, over EQed CD problem, just the signal flow/bit flow problem.
Might be worth some more digging for some real technical details on the process. |
|
|
| Graham Maynard |
| Is 24>16bit not what Sheffield Labs were doing as far back as the '80s ? |
|
|
| FastEddy |
| " ... Is 24>16bit not what Sheffield Labs were doing as far back as the '80s ? ..." ... and what almost all modern recording studios do now ? |
|
|
| trunkmonkey |
| Doubt if SACD is dead - OPPO DVD players are the new rage with buget minded HT people. |
|
|
| DSP_Geek |
| quote: | Originally posted by panomaniac
[...]
Even in "perfect" digital there is so much that can go wrong. I work with digital images and can certainly swear to that.
Did you notice that the mastering console is analog? Wonder why? And what are they doing with the console? Track leveling? EQ? Compression? Then it goes back to 24 bit, then on to the pressing plant. Doesn't really adddress the over compressed, over EQed CD problem, just the signal flow/bit flow problem.
Might be worth some more digging for some real technical details on the process. |
Yup, things can go wrong in digital - if the signal isn't dealt with correctly. I work with an outfit which takes great pains in working with digital audio (can't mention the name, sorry) and it's not quite as obvious as slapping together a pile of filters and hoping everything works. Analog has pretty darn good dynamic range, and its noise floor is non-quantised, whereas you do want to be careful about dithering when you get to the bottom of digital's dynamic range. It's not impossible, of course, but engineers hadn't learned the proper reflexes when the first digital products came out. Things are better now, but you can still tell the rookies. |
|
|
| FastEddy |
" .. Doubt if SACD is dead - OPPO DVD players are the new rage with buget minded HT people. ..."
The Oppo 981 will play all = DVD-A (48k / 96k / 192k and a few others), DVD-Video (48k / 96k / more), SACD (various formats equal to ~96k), CD (44.1k / 48k) ... or so I've been told. :cool:
" ... Analog has pretty darn good dynamic range, and its noise floor is non-quantised ..."
CD = ~ +85db
DVD-Video = ~+105db
Vinyl = ~+80 to +100 db (some claim more)
DVD-A @ 192k = +120db with signal to noise (floor) > 120 db
SACD @ equal of 96k = +110db with signal to noise (floor) > 105db |
|
|
| Blues |
| quote: | Originally posted by FastEddy
"
SACD @ equal of 96k = +110db with signal to noise (floor) > 105db |
According to the developers Sony and Philips, SACD uses Direct Stream Digital (DSD) encoding which sample analog signals at 2.8MHz (96kHz for DVD) and represents it using 1-bit streams no matter how long (DVD audio signals are encoded at max 24bits). Claimed dynamic range is 120db with a frequency response of DC to 100kHz. They also say it does away with a lot of filtering during A/D and D/A conversion showing a much simpler block diagram.
Is Blu-ray using DSD for its audio part? |
|
|
| DSP_Geek |
| quote: | Originally posted by FastEddy
" ... Analog has pretty darn good dynamic range, and its noise floor is non-quantised ..."
CD = ~ +85db
DVD-Video = ~+105db
Vinyl = ~+80 to +100 db (some claim more)
DVD-A @ 192k = +120db with signal to noise (floor) > 120 db
SACD @ equal of 96k = +110db with signal to noise (floor) > 105db |
Well, yeah, but my answer was to panomaniac's post about analog mastering consoles. Recursive digital filters tend to have higher noise floors than bit widths would imply, sometimes way higher. Meanwhile analog equalizers don't increase the noise floor nearly as much as single precision digital EQs, especially in the bass range.
Finite word length effects, such as extra quantization noise and limit cycles (low-level tones in the absence of signal, for example), are a dirty little secret of digital audio processing. It's relatively simple to grab a filter cookbook and throw something together; it's a bit tougher to figure out what the hell went wrong when the system comes up with weird noises.
In any event, good call on the Oppo. That'll be my next DVD player, especially since I got an HDMI plug-in card on my flat-screen for it. |
|
|
| sandyK |
DSP_geek
TheOppo DV981HD will also give you remote control of volume via SPDIF into a good DAC, if you set it to output LPCM.
Mainstream releases of DVD-A and SACD are stagnating because of the lack of good quality material Many CDs these days are made by the artists themselves in home studios. Only the top selling artists get a quality production with an established big name producer.
BTW, the occasional CD can sound very good if resampled to 48KHZ 24 bits.
SandyK |
|
|
| FastEddy |
" ... TheOppo DV981HD will also give you remote control of volume via SPDIF into a good DAC, if you set it to output LPCM. ..."
... and it has an interesting array of built in equalization curves ... two or three of which actually improve the playback.
There are several threads here and elsewhere about mods to the Oppo '981 and a few other Oppo players. Adding plastic caps to the analog PS power rails worked out ... others claim good results from moding the diode bridges, etc. . IMOP: Outta the box this player is a real bargin. :cool:
...
" ... but my answer was to panomaniac's post about analog mastering consoles. Recursive digital filters tend to have higher noise floors than bit widths would imply, sometimes way higher. Meanwhile analog equalizers don't increase the noise floor nearly as much as single precision digital EQs, especially in the bass range. ... "
True enough for 16bit ADC / DAC conversion and transport with high "jitter" rates and large latency, although I don't believe that most 24bit DACs have, use or need "recursive digital filters" as such. Multiple recalculations by the analog to digital / digital to analog processors' chains of events are usually implimented by the software & firmware because of data transmission errors ... something that a better transport with "bulk file transfer", asyncronous and isyncronous protocols and true "streaming" resolves. This may appear to "improve" the signal to noise ratio of digital v. analog, but in an almost "jitterless" and latency free environment, a true signal to noise ratio for digital of greater than +110db is common enough and quite "real" ... compared to analog: Vinyl = ~+80 to +100 db (some claim more) and quality tape can be even better. :eek:
(Not to be too touchy on this subject, but this is the impetus behind Claude Shannon's original signal to noise data theorems [information theory] ... a fun read: Fortune's Formula by Poundstone.)
" .... In any event, good call on the Oppo. ..."
Order direct from the factory web site, then check out the various non intrusive firmware tweaks & undocumented features = so's you can play all DVD-Video zones (1 & 2 & other) from this single player, all SACD and all DVD-x and all CD formats = even that ugly oriental CD video stuff. ... They get around Sony's North American zone restrictive patents by using the original Philips' licensed chips (ala Magnavox). ;) ... Rumor has it that next model will have same, same digital, but modest improvements in the DAC and PS = Oppo engineering has been reading these and other DIY blogs ... but the '981 is the best so far and killer deal @ <US$250 ... just add a little :smash: |
|
|
| kstagger |
I own two XRCDs - a Lightnin' Hopkins and Bill Evans - I would rate them in my top of the heap of sound quality - easily comparable to the RB layer (I don't have a SACD yet) in my hybrid MFSL releases. It has a smooth 'analog-like' top-end and really sounds quite good.
The worst part is the price of $30 a pop... |
|
|
| soundcheck |
Hi.
I just stepped over this thread.
My two cents:
I don't think it really matters if we talk 16 or 24 bit.
Most probably 98% of the music lies in the range (far) below 96db.
Only a very few instruments can produce a dynamic range above 96db.
The only thing you might get is some headroom if running 24bit - but that's
about it.
The main problems is IMO that the higher dynamic range is misused by many
labels and/or studios today to add some "extra" gain (modern loudness) to lift up the microdynamics. Many people believe this sounds better. It does of course on poor systems. What you IMO buy is that the instruments resp. dynamics doesn't sound natural any longer. They sound impressive - but not natural. I really got annoyed after a while.
If I could (I need to find somebody to get me a reasonable price ;) ) I would sell off all my XRCDs. The better my system got the less I listened to XRCDs. That's the same with the modern up to 6db gain-lifted so called high-end recordings.
What should be made available to us are untouched master quality files only! See Linn. Any conversion during whatever part of the process will cause losses that's for sure.
Cheers |
|
|
| FastEddy |
" ... I don't think it really matters if we talk 16 or 24 bit. ..."
That's probably because you have never heard the difference. IMOP and that of virtually all music professionals: 24 Bit is vastly superior if you have the proper 24 bit DAC playback equipment. :bigeyes:
(Its all about overly compressed 16 bit v. relatively uncompressed, more dynamic 24 bit.) |
|
|
| elecon |
Hello Fast Eddy and others here:
I am of the opinion that the criticism of JVC XRCD in this thread is unfair, because I am quite convinced that these really sound fantastic and much better than the original issues of the same music on ordinary CD.
I think the purpose of the JVC technology is not to reduce bits from 24 to 16, but rather to create the best possible Red Book compatible (16 bit) CD. It probably helps to read more carefully the description on the JVC site, and also to listen to the actual CDs like myself and my friends have.
I own a SONY SCD-1 SACD/CD player and I want to add that it is not always certain that the newer formats like SACD really consistently sound better. There are many cases where I prefer the ordinary CD to the SACD issue, and I have heard technical explanations why SACD have disadvantages (as well as advantages) in relation to CD. The same can be said for DVD-AUDIO. It is not always "new" is better than "old". I am a long time analog vinyl afficionado, but these days I am also realizing the true potential of the plain vanilla 16 bit CD. I have heard ways of playing back the ordinary CD which makes them sound like among the best music production media I have ever experienced.
I am participating in the OPPO high definition output project:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/show...&highlight=oppo
and we have successfully built the PCB described in that thread. This creates the ability for the OPPO DV-981HD to output (linear PCM version) of SACD and DVD-AUDIO etc discs, in addition to upsampled (2 times or 4 times) ordinary CD. We use an Assemblage 2.7 DAC (somewhat modified), so we can compare all sorts of discs on the same transport and same conditions.
As played on the modified OPPO DV-981HD the JVC XRCD are among the best sounding discs of any disc available (including those with higher bit rates).
I wonder if Fast Eddy also has completed his own OPPO DV-981HD mod now? ;-)
I really recommend everyone here to attempt this modification and use it with a capable DAC.
Champagne and kaviar for the price of a "hot dog".
:D |
|
|
| stoolpigeon |
"None of these folks quite get the message. "All CDs suck ..." - Bob Dylan."
Well why doesn't he do something about the sound of his instead of talking out his a**. |
|
|
| soundcheck |
| quote: | Originally posted by stoolpigeon
"None of these folks quite get the message. "All CDs suck ..." - Bob Dylan."
Well why doesn't he do something about the sound of his instead of talking out his a**. |
:up: :up: :rofl: |
|
|
| FastEddy |
"None of these folks quite get the message. "All CDs suck ..." - Bob Dylan."
"Well why doesn't he do something about the sound of his instead of talking out his a**."
Contract obligations with Sony (owner of Columbia) does not give him control over the "finished", mass produced CD. (This is not uncommon.)
The suits and ties at Sony are notorious for manipulating the production including the quality or lack of such. Other recording artists have objected, but none have ever been successful ... :bawling:
elecon: " I own a SONY SCD-1 SACD/CD player and I want to add that it is not always certain that the newer formats like SACD really consistently sound better. ..." what he said ... :bawling:
rossi (in another thread): " It is my firm opinion that copy protection and DRM are what have killed the market for Hi-Rez discs. ..." again, Sony is the bad guy ... :bawling: |
|
|
| stoolpigeon |
"Contract obligations with Sony (owner of Columbia) does not give him control over the "finished", mass produced CD. (This is not uncommon.)"
Well what's Neil Young's excuse? |
|
|
| FastEddy |
" "Contract obligations with Sony (owner of Columbia) does not give him control over the "finished", mass produced CD. (This is not uncommon.)"
Well what's Neil Young's excuse? "
Same, same ... contract obligations. :rolleyes: |
|
|
| stoolpigeon |
This all sounds way too convenient. Two artists of the stature of Dylan and Young, both (at their convenience) critics of digital recording and cd, signing contracts giving them no control over the sound of the finished product.
Man, they are hypocrites, liars or stupid, take your pick.
Forgot to add just in it for the money. |
|
|
| FastEddy |
" ... signing contracts giving them no control over the sound of the finished product. ... stupid ... "
Sony (Columbia) has several media outlets and venues to consider. Besides video there is public performance, multiple North American and European audio disc format types, etc. No one has ever said that the suits and ties at publisher / producers like Sony are not manipulative, greedy or particularily smart ... and artists and performers might be stupid only if they didn't have agents who have their eyes on the bottom line reward and not necessarily on audio quality in the CD market. Quite often the publisher/producer will release a CD and video DVD in nearly the same time frame, degrading the CD quality in order to make the video "look good" ... this happens all the time.
A discourse on the state of technology in public performances v. quality in CD mass market releases:
24 bit / 96k digital audio is so good that it is regularily used instead of the performers. "Lip syncing" as used in the 1970's by musicians for TV has come a long way, baby. For really large venues where dozen's of folks may have their immediate jobs on the line, using a canned performance as backup is very common if not automatic. A good example that comes to mind is Roger Waters' "The Wall" concert in which he freely talks about using the recorded rehearsal performance to keep show moving when the audio mixing board failed during the live show ... Sinead O'Connors' entire "live" performance, as broadcast around the world, was entirely a playback of the prerecorded rehearsal. (The DVD "special features" is director Waters' discussion of much of the background info. BTW: this is a very good DVD w/ the original 24bit/96k audio track and much better than the audio CD indicates, Cindi Lauper sounds better on this DVD than any of her audio CDs.)
To the point musicians' best quality performances and recordings are no longer regularily reproduced in mass market CD, what with the engineers, the suits and ties' manipulations of the market, the studio and road show producers and directors, the video producers and directors, etc., etc., etc. ... often the audio CD is only left as a means of promotion on the radio, profits from CD sales often being of secondary consideration when compared to road show and TV / video performance profits. But most of the professional musicians know what's going on: their studio and live work being stored on high resolution digital masters (of late often better than 24bit/96k), thus to be "boiled down" to the various media types, CD, DVD, live performance backup, or whatever ...
Those independant artists like Dylan and Young and others may have complete control over the quality of the audio and video masters, but little else. Even if this results in depressed sales of CDs, as it seems to be doing, the sales of live performances and TV is still quite strong and thus the devil will still extract his due.
In North America and to a much lesser extent in Europe, audio CD quality is secondary to the publishers and producers whims. Recently EMI opened the door to much higher quality digital recordings by allowing their European covers to be purchased on Apple's iTunes. It should be noted that almost immediately, the hottest sales were generated by 24bit/48k and 24bit/96k audio than the 16bit "CD quality" tracks ...
It is up to those of us who know the differences and appreciate the better quality releases to demand such.
This is a perfect opportunity for the DIY community to kick the old CD habit and get with the better quality stuff, even if it means ripping off vinyl and transfering it to 24 bit DVD-A ... ala Deadhead distribution ... :smash: |
|
|
| TerryO |
and have to say they are the real deal.
Winston Ma of First Impression Music gave a demo of the K2 CD format this evening at the Pacific Northwest Audio Society. I'm quite impressed, as Mr. Ma was kind enough to share some cuts from his latest recordings. JVC once again honored FIM by allowing them to release the first CDs using the K2 format (FIM was also the first to be allowed to release the XRCD and XRCD 24 formats as well, I believe).
There's even more on this, but it's proprietary information AFAIK, so I'll just leave it as is.
DVD-A and SACD are, IMHO, obsolete as of this evening.
Of course, you'll need to listen to these for yourself and not take my word for it, but I think you'll like what you hear.
Best Regards,
TerryO |
|
|
| FastEddy |
https://www.elusivedisc.com/products.asp?dept=859 ... claims to be "the home of XRCD: ... but I can't tell if these need another player mechanism or not.
If any of these scenarios requires a new player mechanism, then I can't see the point. :confused:
If any of these scenarios fail to reproduce 24 bit / 48K or better resolution, then I can't see the point. :confused:
I mean, what are us consumers supposed to do, scrap our DVD video players or our SACD players just so the techies can experiment with "another "new" CD format" or lesser quality and bandwidth than we already get from DVD-A or SACD? :mad: |
|
|
| TerryO |
| quote: | Originally posted by FastEddy
https://www.elusivedisc.com/products.asp?dept=859 ... claims to be "the home of XRCD: ... but I can't tell if these need another player mechanism or not.
If any of these scenarios requires a new player mechanism, then I can't see the point. :confused:
If any of these scenarios fail to reproduce 24 bit / 48K or better resolution, then I can't see the point. :confused:
I mean, what are us consumers supposed to do, scrap our DVD video players or our SACD players just so the techies can experiment with "another "new" CD format" or lesser quality and bandwidth than we already get from DVD-A or SACD? :mad: |
I'm hardly an expert on digital recording, but I've been able to play all my XRCD and XRCD 24 discs on my ordinary CD player.
You mention that if you don't see 24 bit / 48K then what's the point?
I believe that 16 bit can sound very good *IF* all 16 bits are used, which seems has been a common problem with CDs all along. There has existed a gap between the potential and the actual, and substituting a poorly executed 24 bit as a replacement for a poorly executed 16 bit is, I suppose, an improvement of sorts.
Finally, with the exception of SACD, all of these formats will play on your DVD player, so you really aren't in a different position than you were before. Many have given up on expensive "Audiophile" players and just purchase a good, but inexpensive DVD player that contains the latest chipset and are content with that until 6 months or so go by and another even more advanced chipset becomes available. I suppose this satisfies the "upgraditis" that many suffer from, while being quite a bit cheaper than purchasing a costly player that, with the rapid advances in technology, will become hopelessly "obsolete" within a year or so.
As for K2, Winston Ma of FIM has already earmarked a number of selections from his catalog that will be released in the new format. At the Demo last Thursday, he played some of his releases in XRCD and then in K2 format in order that we could evaluate the differences and/or improvements. The contrast, which everyone agreed was not subtle (Audiophile Speak: Subtle=minisqule or nonexistent) and was an improvement in resolution and tonal balance.
I'm not suggesting that anyone sell their LP collection yet, but the differences are getting narrower, and it may be that in the future that the vaunted "superiority" of digital may actually be realized.
K2 is, IMHO, an advance in sound and another step in that direction.
Best Regards,
TerryO |
|
|
| FastEddy |
" ... I've been able to play all my XRCD and XRCD 24 discs on my ordinary CD player. ..."
That's good, but do you get the full 24bits through the standard CD player? ... I don't see how that is possible from a 16bit player.
There is a difference and if you heard a side by side comparison, you would agree. 24bit recordings are superior and that is the opinion of many if not most professional musicians. |
|
|
| sandyK |
"There is a difference and if you heard a side by side comparison, you would agree. 24bit recordings are superior"
Spot on, Fast Eddy. They are just fiddling around the edges with an outdated and inadequate format. Sony had their SBM (Siurface Bit Mapping" and other companies their higher bit rate originals.
At the end of the day, it is still 44.1KHZ 16bit, albeit a more accurate 16 bit than perhaps JVC has used previously. Genuine 48KHZ 24bits, SACD and DVD-A from decent master recordings will always be markedly superior audibly.
SandyK |
|
|
|
