2. digital
  3. 1060452773

XRCD Technology

I have received promotional material for these discs, but I don't really know what they are. What I gather is that they have been mastered using 24 bit digital resolution, and higher sampling rate. But I thought that this has long been true of all mastering equipment. Whatever the precision of the mastering process, the final result has to be truncated (or rounded) to 16 bits for the CD product.

The discs I have seen are performances that have always been recognized as superb examples of the original recording process. I suspect that if these discs really are above average it is probably due to the good work done 40 years ago..not the recent mixdown which, at best, can only avoid screwing things up.

Tell me why I should buy one of these things, instead of another SACD.
eldartford
mrowlands
54 posts
 
One thing overlooked here is the actual manufacturing process. There are numerous examples of bit-for-bit identical CDs coming from the plant that sound much worse. Many of us have even experienced this with our CD burners. This is evidently due to added jitter, which all but the mega-buck players can't adequately reduce to acceptable levels. Sooo, I'm sure the JVC guys recognized this (some folks still don't) and keep tight quality control all the way to the retail product.
buscis2's avatar
buscis2
468 posts
 
Warren hit this nail right on the head. XRCDs do sound more "analog". More than likely, it is the cumulative results of the more tightly controlled manufacturing process, use of higher quality blank discs, and excellent mastering of most of the original recordings used for XRCDs.

You should hear them after being "modified". WOW!

I personally, don't find the levels of high and low frequency extension in XRCDs that I have noticed in some of the MFSLs but, I have also found some of the MFSLs to be somewhat "artificial" sounding, displaying extraneous amounts of sibilance and "digititis".

I do although, find it interesting that the majority of original recordings used for these "audiophile quality" discs, are mostly recordings of yesteryear.

What is that indicative of?
bomarc
501 posts
 
What it's indicative of, Bus, is the median age of purchasers of high-priced audiophile disks.
warrenh's avatar
warrenh
2,299 posts
 
Edster my man. You know why they choose those recordings. Bill Evans with Scott Lafaro and Paul Motion. Those 3 trio recordings are perhaps the best (or at least of the best) ever. Scott Lafaro was a monster. The others? Classics. Great all by themselves, crappy recording and all. With a little XRCD action, you elevate greatness to another level. good to see you on the 'gon. I miss your 2 cents.
peace,
warren
vx700
71 posts
 
I would not tell you not to buy an SACD player, and to only buy XRCD's. As with all media, DVD-A, SACD, XRCD, MF and others you will not find every artist that you might enjoy.

The XRCD's that I own sound very natural with excellent imaging and sound staging. But I have heard some of the same CD's on SACD and the SACD versions do have more dynamic range and with a touch more resoultion.

Also XRCD's cost between $25 to $30 dollars and I have found SACD's form $17.95 to $24.00 through Acoustic Sounds

I wouls also argree with some of the statements above that most XRCD's are of days gone by! Good luck
More to discover