24/96 Format

The question as I see it might be regarding CDs that say recorded or remastered using 24/96. These are CDs and not DVDs ....right? So, is the 24/96 format that is being used, for example, by RCA in their HP releases decodable by anything at all including a DVD player? In answer to Ferrari, I find HDCD to be incredible. Although it is pretty much a "dead" format, it is still wonderful to hear. There are some great recordings on the classical side by a label called "Reference Recordings". This could possibly be the same path that SACD might take.

HDCD is a propietary system for recording more than 16/44 onto a regular CD. HDCD discs can be played back on an ordinary player and the effect is a bit like analog compression. Played back on an HDCD compatible player, the effect on well produced CDs (like Ref classicals) is startling. However, many HDCD encoded discs (like lots of the Rock stuff, e.g. Mirror Ball?) sound so processed anyway that the HDCD process almost seems irrelevant.

Answering JTINN's question regarding whether 24/96 "CDs" that have been recorded using 24/96 format are decodable in 24/96 using anything, including DVD player, it is my understanding that these are still CDs and not DADs and cannot be decoded at all regardless of digital processor used.

"The Complete Guide to Highend Audio". Of course there are CD's that were made from downsampled 24 bit, 96, or 192 kHz digital recordings. For example, Reference Recordings' recent titles. I saw the question with regard to FORMAT. All the current 24/96 format discs use the DVD Video specification (which allowed for a two channel, 24/96 linear PCM encoded disc, like the Classic Records and Chesky ones). This spec was finalized like 4 years ago. The DVD- "AUDIO" specification discs are yet to be on the market, and promise surround sound (linear discrete, or data compressed), and possibly 24/192 linear PCM two channel formats. THERE'S NO RUSH TO BUY INTO ALL OF THIS YET, PEOPLE. Whichever format wins market share will be around for the next 30 years, or so, unless something "non-disc" related beats these in the next 5 or 10 years...Which could happen, it seems to me. Especially since there won't be a large catalog of titles available in SACD, or DVD Audio formats, for more than 5 years from now (at this rate). GET INTO VINYL, GUYS. IT'S EXTREMELY FUN, SOUNDS EXTREMELY GOOD, AND IS NO MORE EXPENSIVE THAN A GOOD DIGITAL FRONT END. The only people who shouldn't be into vinyl are the people that want to read the newspaper, or cook, WHILE they listen, AND NEVER LISTEN IN A "LINEAR" FASHION...IN THE SWEET SPOT; i.e., they want to use CD changers, that decide at random what they are going to be hearing "throughout" their house, etc. I KNOW ALL OF YOU GUYS ARE REAL AUDIOPHILES, SO WHAT EXCUSE DO YOU HAVE? Come, join the good side of the Force, before the Empire sweeps it away with one swift stroke...heh heh.

With respect to Carl's comment regarding vinyl, I have heard from many audiophiles about the superior sound quality of vinyl. While I almost believe it, the problem I have is that I primarily listen to recently released classical music recordings, which do not appear to be available on records. Some of the these recordings only sell at most 2000 copies worldwide. Klemperer or Toscanni is not a problem. Could ypu further clarify your statement that "CD's that were made from downsampled 24 bit, 96, or 192 kHz digital recordings." I will get my hands on a copy of "The Complete Guide to Highend Audio." If I buy a sony 24 bit cd do I still hear 16 bit when I play it?