What cd's are manufactured to higher resolution than Redbook

warnerwh · « **on:** 23 May 2006, 05:58 am »

I just learned that some Chesky cd's are recorded at 24/96. Went through a few Chesky cd's I have and found one.

This got me to thinking that why don't all makers go to the higher rate? Just because the Redbook rule says 16/44 doesn't mean you need to stick to that. With virtually all cd and of course dvd players using 24 bit dacs for at least the past 5-6 years it just seems to make sense to me at least to make music of a higher quality.

One thing I don't know though is that if these 24/96 cd's would be backward compatible on older cd players. If anyone has any info on this I'd appreciate it as I can't seem to find much. Thanks

Dan Driscoll · « **Reply #1 on:** 23 May 2006, 03:14 pm »

If you want to call your disc a Compact Disc and have it play on a standard CD player, then yes, you most definitely do need to have it in the 16 bit, 44.1 KHz PCM format specified by the Redbook. That what defines a CD, if it is anything else it is no longer a CD and will not play on a standard CD player.

But Redbook only specifies what goes on the actual CD, not how it is recorded or mastered. Lots of studios record at 24/96 thoses days, some at 24/192. I believe Chesky has a recorder with a 6 MHz sample rate. But the digital signal is then converted to 16/44.1 PCM for the manufacturing process, to comply with the Redbook specifications. XRCDs are one example of this, Chesky CDs are another. Their specific processes are different, but they both end up with 16 bit, 44.1 KHz PCM actually on the CD, just like a standard mass market CD.

BTW, what you're asking for already exists, it's called SACD and DVD-Audio.

jqp · « **Reply #2 on:** 23 May 2006, 03:26 pm »

The question then becomes, Does 24/96 recording give better playback on a CD player(15/44), and what are there factors that affect this?

My understanding is that when you record in higher resolution, you have more to work with to produce the pressed the CD, so the playback quality is going to be better with proper engineering. How much better and when it is better are questions I would like to see discussed.

(I recall an article by one of the engineers from the Steely Dan Aja production discussing how on one pressing the R and L channels were reversed, or something similar.)

Dan Driscoll · « **Reply #3 on:** 23 May 2006, 03:31 pm »

Quote from: jqp

The question then becomes, Does 24/96 recording give better playback on a CD player(15/44), and what are there factors that affect this?

Buy an XRCD and compare it to a standard CD of the same album. Sam McClain's Give It Up To Love would be a good example. See if you can hear the difference. FWIW, I don't think this will work with Chesky's stuff, there are no 'standard' versions of what he releases, AFAIK.[/i]

jqp · « **Reply #4 on:** 23 May 2006, 06:28 pm »

OK Dan, I give up. Can you tell a difference?

Dan Driscoll · « **Reply #5 on:** 23 May 2006, 10:56 pm »

On some XRCDs, yes I can, on others not so much. As a general rule, the better the mastering of the CD, the less of an improvement you will hear in the XRCD. So if the mastering of the original CD wasn't done very well, the XRCD will sound much better, but if the CD already sounds good it's likely the XRCD won't offer a huge improvement.

I only have a couple of XRCDs, they are pretty expensive, 2-3 times as much as a standard CD and the catalog is very limited. I prefer to buy SACDs or DVD-As. They sound as good as or better than XRCDs, they have multi-channel tracks and they generally cost less than an XRCD.