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
i have a number of xrcds--early and 24 bit versions.

i am not keeen on them and probably would not buy anymore.

here are my observations:

there is a change in frequency response. when comparing an xrcd to an original i have observed greater resolution because the highs are more emphasized.

if you prefer this perspective, thats ok.

i compared many xrcds to their originals, and, especially for classical, on the london label, i preferred the original.

i also compare some xrcd to riverside recordings and didn't feel the increase in price in price was justified.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts MrTennis. I'm going to order a couple of 24-bit XRCDs and give them a shot in my system. I'll keep in mind what you said.
The XRCD of Gustav Holts' 'The Planets' with Zubin Mehta directing is by far the best version of this work I have heard, and I own about 5 different versions of this work on CD. In at least this case the XRCD is superior to anything else out there, except perhaps a live concert!
hi smoothjazz:

do you find the highs a bit more emphasized than on the other 5 versions you have auditioned. i own a number of xrcds, including xrcd2s and find that compared to the commercial version, there is a change in frequency response and a feeling that the sound was a touch hardened. such an effect can reveal low-level detail hidden on a commercial recording, but that doesn't mean the xrcd pressing is superior to the commercial pressing, rather it is different.

of course the holst could be an exception. i would like to hear it for my self. i believe i have a version of mehta's performance on a commercial label--don't rember the label.

perhaps you could explain why you prefer the xrcd to the other 5 versions compared to it.

thanks.
The detail is great, but also the pacing and entire performance is very dynamic-first rate. I would describe it as scintillating. As far as other versions, they seem to be less involving, less dynamic (older recording technology?) and in some cases directed intentionally at a slower pace. The Previn and Karajan versions are very good, but the Mehta XRCD is much better.
The same could be said for other classic works; I loved the Leonard Bernstein version of Dvorak's 9th on SACD, and thought it was the best, and regret that I no longer have an SACD player.
I am hoping that high REZ downloads will eventually replace some of these 'best' recordings.
Of course this is subjective too, if you search these works on Amazon, there are many passionate audiophiles that prefer their favorite versions of the classics.