[TerryO]

Members of the Pacific Northwest Audio Society recently got to hear some of the new K2 format CDs. Club member, Winston Ma brought a few of his discs and I must say that they were "much" better than the SACD or XRCD 24 formats. And yes, we got to hear the same selections in the different formats. I'm convinced, as were the other members in attendance, that this is a real breakthrough in sound recording and renders other formats obsolete. The best part is; that it works with any player and delivers superior sound.

You can read some endorsements and comments here:
http://www.fimpression.com/fim_news.htm

Best Regards,
TerryO

[Double Ugly]

Hi Terry,

Do you know if the improvements or enhancements made to the K2 CDs will be as evident if the material is copied onto a HDD for computer-based playback?

Thanks.

[brj]

Can one actually order any of the K2 recordings shown on the page, or is there a more extensive catalog somewhere?  The FIM catalog search turns up no matches, despite the listings on the news page.

It would be nice to see an improved format take off, but the price needs to be right, and the studios need to reign in the DRM.

[TerryO]

Hi Terry,

Do you know if the improvements or enhancements made to the K2 CDs will be as evident if the material is copied onto a HDD for computer-based playback?

Thanks.

Hi Double,

I'm not entirely sure, as I'm certainly not an expert, but my understanding is that the "improvements" that the K2 format presents are brought about primarily in the mastering technology itself and would/should allow the data on the disc to be archived onto a HHD. Obviously, the only way to really determine if this is true, is to actually try it. I presently only listen to LPs and CDs (OK, our local FM Classical station as well), so I'm not in a position to actually try it myself.

What I can say is that it's the real deal and I'm working towards an arrangement with Winston Ma that perhaps some of the musical selections that the Judges use for next summer's DIY speaker contest ("The Puget Sound! DIY Speaker Contest") will be in the K2 format.

Best Regards,
TerryO

[TerryO]

Can one actually order any of the K2 recordings shown on the page, or is there a more extensive catalog somewhere?  The FIM catalog search turns up no matches, despite the listings on the news page.

It would be nice to see an improved format take off, but the price needs to be right, and the studios need to reign in the DRM.

I may have a chance to speak with Mr. Ma later this week, and if I do,  I'll ask when they'll be available. The list on the news page is a listing of the selections that will be available in the coming months. I seem to remember that a significant part of the FIM catalog may be released in K2 format.

If you want to try out a sample, at the bottom of the listings on the news page is a button next to "This is K2 Sound!" (FIM K2 HD 078) that allows you to download a 4.09 MB sample track. I hadn't noticed it before, but that might enable anyone interested in hearing, or transferring the file to a HHD to see if it sounds OK to them. I haven't done it myself, but if you do, let me know what it sounds like to you.

Best Regards,
TerryO

[Skipperrik]

K2 discs can be ordered from Acoustic Sounds.

http://store.acousticsounds.com/category.cfm?id=185

[TerryO]

K2 discs can be ordered from Acoustic Sounds.

http://store.acousticsounds.com/category.cfm?id=185

Skip,

I noticed that on your linked page they're taking pre-orders, but that's a source to remember when they are available.

Best Regards,
TerryO

[opaqueice]

Members of the Pacific Northwest Audio Society recently got to hear some of the new K2 format CDs.

as far as I can tell, this is not a new format - K2 CDs are standard redbook CDs, with exactly the same resolution and sample rate as any other CD (otherwise they wouldn't play on a standard CD player).  Instead it seems to be some mastering or mixing technique, although details are very skimpy.  Personally I think that's fine - redbook as a format seems to be good enough, which leaves mastering and recording as the areas that can be improved.

If that's correct, the benefits will certainly carry over to HDD-based playback.

[Daryl]

I found the K2 system on the JVC site with an explaination.

http://www.jvc-victor.co.jp/english/products/others/digitalk2-e.html

It literally does nothing and is a scam.

You can see in the explaination that it removes jitter and noise on the digital line.

The advantage that digital systems have is that they are immune to noise to the point that the noise is so strong that one or zero cannot be distinguished.

So all digital equipment by nature removes any recived noise on the digital line.

All equipment should be buffering and reclocking recieved digital signals if not the design is simply incompetent.

I do understand that a lot (most?) of digital equipment does not reclock and this is a direct indicator to the number of incompetent engineers which landed engineering jobs probably by being 'Team Players' and impressing the HR department.

The idea that JVC has revolutionized digital audio by making a box that filters noise on a digital line and reclocks it is rediculous because a competent piece of equipment does this internally already and if you do it externally what about the noise and jitter picked up between the K2 device and the connected equipment?

[dmckean]

The whole thing just sounds like a fancy dithering.

[Daryl]

Inserting an A/D/A convertor in the chain is not the same as playing a redbook CD. Without having seen the actual paper, it seems that the true result would more likely be that the bandwidth limit and quantization noise of a 16-bit 44.1 kHz signal were not sufficient to enable listeners to statistically distinguish between a signal with and a signal without.

I think a more interesting test might be to digitally alter a high-rate 24-bit signal, and determine at what point listeners *are* able to distinguish the altered signal from the original.

Inserting an A/D/A converter is worse than playing a CD because of the extra A/D conversion involved which is a source for lost fidelity so a CD would be better than what was used for this comparison.

The proper way to make this comparison would be to apply a 44.1khz output digital filter to the high resolution data stream and dither the result to 16 bits.

You cannot compare SACD or DVD-A to the same release's redbook version because the studio's make them different to scam the consumer into thinking HD formats are necessary rather than just using the same data and filtering it to 44.1khz and then dithering to 16 bits so that both recordings are identical except for noise floor and bandwidth.

The redbook standard insures that any error will be below -96db or above 20khz so long as the equipment and technique used was up to par.

If the playback level is high enough however your ears can hear below the noise floor of CD's and many people can discern signals higher in frequency than CD can resolve but this is no more than a simple point of fact.

I would not say that Redbook is the same as SACD or DVD-A, but I would say that more resolution than the Redbook standard is completely unnecessary no matter how 'Hi End' you want to go unless you just want to get silly.

 

[Daryl]

The whole thing just sounds like a fancy dithering.

It's not even that.

K2 does not alter the data as dither does, it simply cleans up the digital transmission which is automaticly done when a componet recieves a digital signal

[BrianM]

You cannot compare SACD or DVD-A to the same release's redbook version because the studio's make them different to scam the consumer into thinking HD formats are necessary rather than just using the same data and filtering it to 44.1khz and then dithering to 16 bits so that both recordings are identical except for noise floor and bandwidth.

How exactly do you know this to be true?  It seems to me a given studio could use whatever process they felt like without your knowing about it.  Is every studio in the world in on this "scam"?

[opaqueice]

I found the K2 system on the JVC site with an explaination.

http://www.jvc-victor.co.jp/english/products/others/digitalk2-e.html

It literally does nothing and is a scam.

Hmm...  at least based on that page, you're right.  So much for that.

How exactly do you know this to be true?  It seems to me a given studio could use whatever process they felt like without your knowing about it.  Is every studio in the world in on this "scam"?

I'm not sure I'd call it a scam, but it's standard for the SACD version to be remastered.  For one thing, the audience that buys SACDs is not the same as the general CD audience.  In the paper that kicked off this thread they actually comment on this - they say that many SACDs actually do sound better than the redbook versions, but it's because they're mastered better, not because of the hi-res.

Now if the CD layer on a hybrid SACD is mastered differently, that would be a scam.

[BrianM]

Now if the CD layer on a hybrid SACD is mastered differently, that would be a scam.

It was the hybrid SACDs that I had in mind.

[dmckean]

Now if the CD layer on a hybrid SACD is mastered differently, that would be a scam.

They often times are. I guess they figure if you're listening to the CD layer you're probably doing it in the car where you could use a little added compression. Its annoying having to use a HDMI to DVI + SPDIF breakout box to capture the SACD layer digitally to add to my music server. I'm perfectly happy with the CD layer when they're mastered the same.

[acd483]

This is a pointless debate. We will be soon lamenting the loss of uncompressed audio to mp3 as the beta snobs did with the victory of VHS. How could it be that people didn't appreciate the clear improvement of Beta over VHS? Well, it came down to value. The VHS offered more value with a visual compromise that most would accept. Now we're basking in HD, why? Because the quality came with even cheaper equipment than VHS machines. Perhaps the same will occur in the audio world. Few of us would argue that what they hear from their hi-fi actually sounds like a live performance does. I would not be surprised that if in the future we see an inexpensive approach to sonic reproduction that truly tricks the listener into thinking he's at the event. THAT is hi-def sound, not more bits!

[opaqueice]

Its annoying having to use a HDMI to DVI + SPDIF breakout box to capture the SACD layer digitally to add to my music server.

Could you go into a little more detail on how you do that?

[*Scotty*]

Here is a simple argument for at least a 24bit recording and replay system. See link below. CD dynamic range: 96dB
http://www.cutestudio.net/data/products/audio/CD%20clipping/index.php
The question is what percentage THD is equivalent to -50 to -60 below Zero dB in a 16bit system versus a 24 bit system.
In a digital recording system distortion rises as the signal amplitude decreases. It would be nice if if the lowest level signals didn't have more than 3% THD in a high resolution system.
Scotty

[Daryl]

Here is a simple argument for at least a 24bit recording and replay system. See link below. CD dynamic range: 96dB
http://www.cutestudio.net/data/products/audio/CD%20clipping/index.php
The question is what percentage THD is equivalent to -50 to -60 below Zero dB in a 16bit system versus a 24 bit system.
In a digital recording system distortion rises as the signal amplitude decreases. It would be nice if if the lowest level signals didn't have more than 3% THD in a high resolution system.
Scotty

Hi Scotty,

That information is incorrect, whomever that was will need to delve deeper and dwell longer before he understands what he is attempting to explain to others.

The fact is simply that the total error combined is 96db below the peak level and thanks to dither is well distributed throughout the spectrum and will be well below the noise level in your listening room.

You did not mention that part above regarding sample rate but it was equally in error.