PDA

View Full Version : TC-7520 with 24bit/176.4kHz 24bit/192kHz audio files



Krisbee
07-06-2010, 22:20
Stan's TC-7520 is sold as a 24bit/96kHz device, so what does it do with 24bit/176.4kHz and 24bit/192kHz audio files? Nothing, make a horrible noise, or play them?

Once again, Stan's DAC proves to be a great performer because it just plays them. There must be down sampling going on here somewhere and it doesn't appear to be within the Linux media player, so I suppose the receiver chip is doing this. You're not getting the full resolution but they still sound pretty good and if the high resolution files you're looking for are only available at above 24/96 then you're still in business.


Test Files: 2L38_01_96kHz.flac and 2L38_01_192kHz.flac from http://www.2l.no/hires/index.html

mplayer output:



[chris@home Downloads]$ mplayer -ao alsa:device=plughw=0.1 2L38_01_96kHz.flac
MPlayer UNKNOWN-4.4.1 (C) 2000-2010 MPlayer Team
Can't open joystick device /dev/input/js0: No such file or directory
Can't init input joystick
mplayer: could not connect to socket
mplayer: No such file or directory
Failed to open LIRC support. You will not be able to use your remote control.

Playing 2L38_01_96kHz.flac.
Audio only file format detected.
================================================== ========================
Opening audio decoder: [ffmpeg] FFmpeg/libavcodec audio decoders
AUDIO: 96000 Hz, 2 ch, s32le, 2594.1 kbit/42.22% (ratio: 324263->768000)
Selected audio codec: [ffflac] afm: ffmpeg (FFmpeg FLAC audio)
================================================== ========================
AO: [alsa] 96000Hz 2ch s32le (4 bytes per sample)
Video: no video
Starting playback...
A: 554.6 (09:14.5) of 554.0 (09:14.0) 2.1%

Exiting... (End of file)
[chris@home Downloads]$ mplayer -ao alsa:device=plughw=0.1 2L38_01_192kHz.flac
MPlayer UNKNOWN-4.4.1 (C) 2000-2010 MPlayer Team
Can't open joystick device /dev/input/js0: No such file or directory
Can't init input joystick
mplayer: could not connect to socket
mplayer: No such file or directory
Failed to open LIRC support. You will not be able to use your remote control.

Playing 2L38_01_192kHz.flac.
Audio only file format detected.
================================================== ========================
Opening audio decoder: [ffmpeg] FFmpeg/libavcodec audio decoders
AUDIO: 192000 Hz, 2 ch, s32le, 5111.4 kbit/41.60% (ratio: 638928->1536000)
Selected audio codec: [ffflac] afm: ffmpeg (FFmpeg FLAC audio)
================================================== ========================
AO: [alsa] 192000Hz 2ch s32le (4 bytes per sample)
Video: no video
Starting playback...
A: 554.8 (09:14.7) of 554.0 (09:14.0) 5.1%

Exiting... (End of file)

Test Files: 07_ Taint So, 88_flac.flac and 07_ Taint So, 176_flac.flac from http://www.audiofilemusic.com/MusicDownloadGratis.asp


[chris@home Downloads]$ mplayer -ao alsa:device=plughw=0.1 "07_ Taint So, 88_flac.flac"
MPlayer UNKNOWN-4.4.1 (C) 2000-2010 MPlayer Team
Can't open joystick device /dev/input/js0: No such file or directory
Can't init input joystick
mplayer: could not connect to socket
mplayer: No such file or directory
Failed to open LIRC support. You will not be able to use your remote control.

Playing 07_ Taint So, 88_flac.flac.
Audio only file format detected.
================================================== ========================
Opening audio decoder: [ffmpeg] FFmpeg/libavcodec audio decoders
AUDIO: 88200 Hz, 2 ch, s32le, 2295.3 kbit/40.66% (ratio: 286908->705600)
Selected audio codec: [ffflac] afm: ffmpeg (FFmpeg FLAC audio)
================================================== ========================
AO: [alsa] 88200Hz 2ch s32le (4 bytes per sample)
Video: no video
Starting playback...
A: 167.1 (02:47.0) of 167.0 (02:47.0) 2.5%

Exiting... (End of file)
[chris@home Downloads]$ mplayer -ao alsa:device=plughw=0.1 "07_ Taint So, 176_flac.flac"
MPlayer UNKNOWN-4.4.1 (C) 2000-2010 MPlayer Team
Can't open joystick device /dev/input/js0: No such file or directory
Can't init input joystick
mplayer: could not connect to socket
mplayer: No such file or directory
Failed to open LIRC support. You will not be able to use your remote control.

Playing 07_ Taint So, 176_flac.flac.
Audio only file format detected.
================================================== ========================
Opening audio decoder: [ffmpeg] FFmpeg/libavcodec audio decoders
AUDIO: 176400 Hz, 2 ch, s32le, 4007.0 kbit/35.49% (ratio: 500879->1411200)
Selected audio codec: [ffflac] afm: ffmpeg (FFmpeg FLAC audio)
================================================== ========================
AO: [alsa] 176400Hz 2ch s32le (4 bytes per sample)
Video: no video
Starting playback...
A: 167.5 (02:47.4) of 167.0 (02:47.0) 3.6%

Exiting... (End of file)

Stratmangler
07-06-2010, 22:32
It'll do anything up to 24/96 - any downsampling will be taking place before it gets to the TC-7520.

StanleyB
08-06-2010, 05:34
I have asked about the general availability of 192KHz sources and audio files, but the response appears to indicate that it is a bit of a slow burner.

Ali Tait
08-06-2010, 07:19
I don't think there is much if any audible difference between 96 and 192 in any case.

Mr. C
08-06-2010, 09:23
I don't think there is much if any audible difference between 96 and 192 in any case.

Ali,

The differiences are substantical, as great as going from 44.1Khz to 24/96Khz.
The amount of information which is actually 'used'

Actual data transfer rates
-----------------

Red book 44.1Khz 1.411Mps

24/96khz 4.608Mps

24/176.4khz 8.467Mps

Note LINN recordings @ 24/96Khz have a much lower bit rate for the same sampling requenices I have 12 Linn high res downsloads all of which range from 2.531Mps to 2.983Mps. Which is a short fall from the industry parameters.
No we can 'identify' a Linn recoding straight away it has a certain style have any of you chaps noticed a differnce in quality?

The Vinyl Adventure
08-06-2010, 09:42
.... the linn recordings i have heard didnt impress as much as some of the other higher rez stuff i have heard... but i just thought it was because i thought the music was gash! :)
im glad you say these comments, no one else seems to belive me how stunning the 24/192 stuff i have heard sounds... when being played at 24/192 and not down sampled!
i think most here think im nuts trying to get a dac that plays 24/192 ... but once i heard how it sounded just through the majik by its self... it really is leagues apart from cd

Krisbee
08-06-2010, 09:43
I make no claims about the SQ of 96 versus 192, I'm simply happy to know I could play such files on my Stan DAC. Certainly, 192 files are not to common at the moment and may have little advantage over 96kHz. But there are some at Linn Records that appeal to me.


It'll do anything up to 24/96 - any downsampling will be taking place before it gets to the TC-7520.

Are you sure about this? Mplayer supports automatic up/down sampling but this is only if the soundcard cannot cope with the sample frequency. Unless my audio card's Envy24HT-S chip is doing something odd at 176.4kHz and 192Khz there is no indication that downsampling has taken place before the data has reached the DAC.

Mplayer used with an explicit resample filter gives a different output, e.g.:


mplayer -ao alsa:device=plughw=1.1 "01_Rimsky-Korsakov Dance of the Tumblers, 176_flac.flac" -af resample=88200:0:0
MPlayer SVN-r31179 (C) 2000-2010 MPlayer Team
Can't open joystick device /dev/input/js0: No such file or directory
Can't init input joystick
mplayer: could not connect to socket
mplayer: No such file or directory
Failed to open LIRC support. You will not be able to use your remote control.

Playing 01_Rimsky-Korsakov Dance of the Tumblers, 176_flac.flac.
Audio only file format detected.
================================================== ========================
Opening audio decoder: [ffmpeg] FFmpeg/libavcodec audio decoders
AUDIO: 176400 Hz, 2 ch, s32le, 4099.5 kbit/36.31% (ratio: 512438->1411200)
Selected audio codec: [ffflac] afm: ffmpeg (FFmpeg FLAC audio)
================================================== ========================
AO: [alsa] 88200Hz 2ch s16le (2 bytes per sample)
Video: no video
Starting playback...
A: 228.6 (03:48.6) of 228.0 (03:48.0) 3.2%

Exiting... (End of file)

But if it's really the fact that the CS8414 would reject such frequencies then I need to find a little more about the Envy24HT-S.

Stratmangler
08-06-2010, 09:50
Are you sure about this? Mplayer supports automatic up/down sampling but this is only if the soundcard cannot cope with the sample frequency. Unless my audio card's Envy24HT-S chip is doing something odd at 176.4kHz and 192Khz there is no indication that downsampling has taken place before the data has reached the DAC.

See Stan's comment.

Stratmangler
08-06-2010, 10:16
i think most here think im nuts trying to get a dac that plays 24/192 ... but once i heard how it sounded just through the majik by its self... it really is leagues apart from cd

I don't think you're nuts, but I'm very aware of the lack of player/DAC hardware available that can cope with 24/192.

Mr. C
08-06-2010, 11:28
.... the linn recordings i have heard didnt impress as much as some of the other higher rez stuff i have heard... but i just thought it was because i thought the music was gash! :)
im glad you say these comments, no one else seems to belive me how stunning the 24/192 stuff i have heard sounds... when being played at 24/192 and not down sampled!
i think most here think im nuts trying to get a dac that plays 24/192 ... but once i heard how it sounded just through the majik by its self... it really is leagues apart from cd

Hamish,

The differenices are very marked as you have discovered for yourself, the ability to accept native sample rates above 96Khz is very benefical, however as with all new concepts it takes time to filter down to the accessable masses.
Maybe you would like to pop along and hear what is really possible with digital Hamish.

Krisbee
08-06-2010, 11:34
It'll do anything up to 24/96 - any downsampling will be taking place before it gets to the TC-7520.

OK, you are right, the down sampling is taking place before the DAC. It's not happening in Linux, but in my Envy24HT-S audio card. I checked the ICs used on my audio card. The Envy24HT-S is surrounded by two clocks and so really does support 176.4kHz and 192kHz. The Linux audio player output confirms this, hence no need for down sampling by mplayer. But the optical in/out of this card uses a CS8415A-CS chip which is limited to 24bit/96kHz. So it must down sample the spdif out in hardware.

Like a lot of people the bulk of my audio files are in 16bit/44.1kHz format, and I have used the USB connection on my DAC. It was only this weekend I decided to resurrect my old sound card to experiment with some high resolution audio.

As far as 24bit/88.2kHz and 24bit/96kHz are concerned I like what I hear and I can understand why some people want 24bit/192kHz.

Linux, at least, has audio players and compatible sound cards, like the esi juli@ and members of the xonar family, that do real hires over optical out and there is the m2tech hiface device for windows/mac.

Whether there's enough quality hires audio around to make the pursuit of 24/192 worthwhile is open to debate.

All I know is my Stan DAC and cheap audio card perform well enough to keep me happy we the few hires files I might listen to.

DSJR
08-06-2010, 13:43
Ali,

The differiences are substantical, as great as going from 44.1Khz to 24/96Khz.
The amount of information which is actually 'used'

Actual data transfer rates
-----------------

Red book 44.1Khz 1.411Mps

24/96khz 4.608Mps

24/176.4khz 8.467Mps

Note LINN recordings @ 24/96Khz have a much lower bit rate for the same sampling requenices I have 12 Linn high res downsloads all of which range from 2.531Mps to 2.983Mps. Which is a short fall from the industry parameters.
No we can 'identify' a Linn recoding straight away it has a certain style have any of you chaps noticed a differnce in quality?

I've said it before and I'll say it again - the actual differences between CD and Hi-res transfers are next to nothing, often imaginary IMO and if there is a difference, it's down to the mastering! I read recently that many Audiophile people were buying supposedly "hi-rez" downloads and saying how wonderful they were, yet actually downloaded upsampled CD files. The red faces and outrage was palpable apparently.

I quote from Mr T Farney...

"One of my favorite audiophile sites, The Computer Audio Asylum, now has a subject dominating the page -- 3 or 4 threads, lots of discussion, including show and tell. The gist of the matter is that HDTracks, a hi-res music service headed up by the same folks who run Chesky Records, seems to have sold, possibly unknowingly, quite a bit of music that is not "hi-res" but merely up-sampled from 16/44.1. The outrage level is understandably high. Lots of independent investigation has ensued, with spectral analysis and charts and graphs to discover which HDTracks "hi-res" tracks are not. HDTracks didn't know. The people buying the HDTracks didn't know. The prime movers and shakers in the investigation are, of course, the same guys who have been loudly exclaiming that 16/44 hardly qualifies as hi-fi, that the difference between 16/44 and "hi-res" is immediately apparent to anyone with decent ears and good kit.

Evidently the kit they were talking about was a spectrum analyzer."


Oh alright, I'm deaf, my system isn't good enough to reveal the differences, yet the biggest differences I've heard recently were the few Beatles tracks I was graciously given, and the amount of jiggery-pokery done to the master files beggars belief. the sound is better though I think. Always good to return to the original master tracks with a less intrusive mastering system and only convert down to red-book at the very last stage.

The Vinyl Adventure
08-06-2010, 13:52
I don't think you're nuts, but I'm very aware of the lack of player/DAC hardware available that can cope with 24/192.

you were excluded from that "most people" as it goes :)

The Vinyl Adventure
08-06-2010, 13:56
Hamish,

The differenices are very marked as you have discovered for yourself, the ability to accept native sample rates above 96Khz is very benefical, however as with all new concepts it takes time to filter down to the accessable masses.
Maybe you would like to pop along and hear what is really possible with digital Hamish.

i would like... and will if that is ok... when i have a little more time on my hands at least...

"really possible" ... are you some way saying my linn kit isnt doing much good ;)
i have read with great interest your comments about this subject as it goes... i would be very very interested in seeing your computer audio methods before i throw to much more money at linn!!

Mr. C
08-06-2010, 14:01
I've said it before and I'll say it again - the actual differences between CD and Hi-res transfers are next to nothing, often imaginary IMO and if there is a difference, it's down to the mastering! I read recently that many Audiophile people were buying supposedly "hi-rez" downloads and saying how wonderful they were, yet actually downloaded upsampled CD files. The red faces and outrage was palpable apparently.


Oh alright, I'm deaf, my system isn't good enough to reveal the differences, yet the biggest differences I've heard recently were the few Beatles tracks I was graciously given, and the amount of jiggery-pokery done to the master files beggars belief. the sound is better though I think. Always good to return to the original master tracks with a less intrusive mastering system and only convert down to red-book at the very last stage.

Dave,

You are entitled to your opinion on any subject and free to express them.
However I do feel you are getting the wrong end of the stick here.
We are not talking 'up sampled red book' we are talking original raw format sample rates.
Being honest even a fairly modest system say around £3000 should be able to genuinely highlight the differences in resolution, clarity and lower noise floor etc.
Please do remember Dave, we have a recording studio at our disposal and we actually record at samples rates well above 24/192khz.
Comparing the original finished 'mastered' songs @ 24/192khz and against the finished mastered red book is a huge difference.
I will go one stage further as well, we have around 50 CD's to which we have the original CD master, comparing them one on one with the hard copy CD via a decent transport vais the same dac/ cables against a HDD sited master is not subtle.
Any one wishing to genuinely hear the more than subtle differenices compared to red book are more than welcome to come along and hear for themselves.
Just drop us a PM or email

leo
08-06-2010, 15:55
I always found things like focus, placements noticeably more solid with decent Hi-res recordings , theres less fuz around instruments etc

Clive
08-06-2010, 16:11
I can appreciate some of what Dave is getting at. The same applies to HD TV / DVD vs BluRay. There are significant gains possible even with non-HD players and TVs where the source material is mastered for Hi Res. You of course get additional gains when using HD playback devices.

I expect the same is true for CD / 24/96 etc.

Ali Tait
08-06-2010, 18:05
Ok,assuming there is a significant difference,there remain a couple of caveats-

1.How many dacs are available that will output 24/192?
2.Where can you buy 24/192 music,and more importanly where would you buy music of this type that you would actually want to listen to?

Has anyone else compared the same album in 24/96 and 24/192?

The Vinyl Adventure
08-06-2010, 18:24
check out me avatar :)

Ali Tait
08-06-2010, 19:34
Aye but they ain't cheap! BTW did the amp turn up?

DSJR
08-06-2010, 20:07
Mr C,

I don't know of any recordings using the 96db s/n of red book, let alone any more. Clarity in the music signal is around 30db down (listen to the "unwanted" channel of a pickup cartridge and you'll find all the extra "detail" is only 25 - 40db down.

Like I said, I'm probably deaf now and my system wouldn't appeal to a purveyor of expensive looking gear such as youself as even mid-fi. So I'll continue in my delusions until it's proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are so easily fooled and it's the mastering that really matters.

I dunno, all those wonderful radio 3 broadcasts supposedly better than any LP and for decades they've been 13 bit PCM transmissions, brickwalled at 15KHz and with a s/n of 75db at very best.

Hi res strikes me *for domastic use* as a nifty way of continuing the £3K plus selling prices of fancy DAC's that appeal to an increasingly shrinking market when the chipsets used are only a few quid..

Stratmangler
08-06-2010, 20:22
Has anyone else compared the same album in 24/96 and 24/192?

I'll have a go with some downsampled 24/192 files played with Foobar/laptop/EMU 0202.

Ali Tait
08-06-2010, 20:42
Okydokey Chris.

dave2010
08-06-2010, 20:43
Please do remember we have a recording studio at our disposal and we actually record at samples rates well above 24/192khz.
I'm amazed that you think it's worth recording at rates above 192 kHz or with a resolution greater than 24 bits. I'm not disputing that with very high quallity equipment that there could be benefits in working with high resolution data, but there must surely come a point when any improvements are going to be masked by noise.

If you do any digital processing, particularly if in offline mode, then I'd guess you'd get better results with either a binary64 or decimal64 floating point calculation, as you should then be able to maintain a true 24 bit representation.

My guess is that having done whatever processing (e.g mixing, filtering etc.) is considered necessary, that the final results could be converted back to true integer 24 bit representation, as I doubt whether any errors in the last bit or two will really make much difference even with high quality D-A converters.

Slightly less fussy studios could probably get almost as good results working with binary32 or decimal32 floading point, though the last bit or two out of 24 bit representations could be compromised.

Given that some studios aren't paying enough attention to other factors, it probably doesn't matter most of the time. For example (I think) the CD Introduction to the Music of George Rochberg on the DTR label clearly has some inbuilt hum. Either it was induced electrical hum, or it was actually some equipment making a noise in the recording studio. It really shouldn't have happened, and it could probably have been easily cleaned up with a bit of digital filtering. I think there are many recordings which have such flaws, and worrying about >24 bit resolution or >192kHz sampling rates seems pointless unless the original recordings can be of assuredly high quality.

Stratmangler
08-06-2010, 22:26
Well I've spent a fair bit of time A/B listening to a track from Hotel California - Pretty Maids All In A Row as it happens, playing the 24/192 file against a 24/96 file I downsampled from the 24/192 rip.

The 24/192 is slightly better sounding to me than the 24/96, but only just slightly better.
There seems to be a marginally darker background from the 24/192. Sounds become apparent a touch earlier because of this darker background, yet it's the same mix, just without the downsample.
Vocal harmonies just seemed that touch more expressive and natural.
There seemed to me to be slightly more timbre, body and drama to the synth pads used extensively on this track.

So my subjective assessment is that 24/192 is slightly better than 24/96, however it is not night and day to my (probably knackered) ears, at least not in my audio system - with kit capable of higher resolution the small differences I heard may be more significant.

Ali Tait
09-06-2010, 06:56
Thanks Chris,pretty much what I expected.Worth having if the amount of music available in it picks up,but otherwise not worth bothering with IMO.

Peter Galbavy
09-06-2010, 08:06
I dunno, all those wonderful radio 3 broadcasts supposedly better than any LP and for decades they've been 13 bit PCM transmissions, brickwalled at 15KHz and with a s/n of 75db at very best.

And very few people notice the quality reduction in HDCD on non HDCD capable players. The lower 2 bits get grabbed for the compressed 10 bit stream and people are happy... It's all in the mind. I think I'll listen to the toaster now...

Ali Tait
09-06-2010, 08:48
Quality of the original recording is more important IMO,but well recorded 24/96 is superior to red book cd to my ears.

Stratmangler
09-06-2010, 12:06
Thanks Chris,pretty much what I expected.Worth having if the amount of music available in it picks up,but otherwise not worth bothering with IMO.

That sums it up for me too.


Quality of the original recording is more important IMO,but well recorded 24/96 is superior to red book cd to my ears.

24/44.1 stuff extracted from HDCD sounds better than the plain old 16/44.1 off a CD.
Good production work will always shine through, but if the title concerned is HDCD then extracting that additional data only enhances the listening experience.

Ali Tait
09-06-2010, 12:35
Yes agreed.That Keb Mo album sounds great.

Stratmangler
09-06-2010, 16:01
The Claire Martin sounds great too.
Ironically enough, I have bought 2 copies of that.
The first time was my first ever downloaded music purchase. I stupidly took the advice of the site, some nonsense about "we cannot detect a flac compatable player on your system" and downloaded the WMA lossless files.
This was just prior to getting Squeezebox.

Some time after I also bought the hybrid SACD/HDCD disc, because I could rip the HDCD content, and wondered how much extra information was on the HDCD.
Answer to that question is "quite a lot more".

Then, bugger me if Linn have started selling the 24/96 files for download.:doh:
Linn can sod off !
I'm not going to buy the album for a third time:rolleyes:

Ali Tait
09-06-2010, 17:04
Yes the Claire Martin is great too.Hopefully 24/96 will become more common.

magiccarpetride
14-06-2010, 16:53
Dave,

You are entitled to your opinion on any subject and free to express them.
However I do feel you are getting the wrong end of the stick here.
We are not talking 'up sampled red book' we are talking original raw format sample rates.
Being honest even a fairly modest system say around £3000 should be able to genuinely highlight the differences in resolution, clarity and lower noise floor etc.
Please do remember Dave, we have a recording studio at our disposal and we actually record at samples rates well above 24/192khz.
Comparing the original finished 'mastered' songs @ 24/192khz and against the finished mastered red book is a huge difference.
I will go one stage further as well, we have around 50 CD's to which we have the original CD master, comparing them one on one with the hard copy CD via a decent transport vais the same dac/ cables against a HDD sited master is not subtle.
Any one wishing to genuinely hear the more than subtle differenices compared to red book are more than welcome to come along and hear for themselves.
Just drop us a PM or email

I think before people sit down and engage in evaluating the differences between the hi-rez and the red book formats, they should be given a simple litmus test: see if they can detect the difference between a red book format and a lowly mp3 (say, 128 Kbps). The thing is, many people can't (same as many people can't really detect the difference between DVDs and Blu rays, Coke and Pepsi, etc.)

So if they can't hear any difference between these two formats, what's the point in asking them to detect the differences between the red book and the hi-rez?

Codifus
14-06-2010, 17:18
Given this discussion of hi-rez, I think it would be shame to leave out the very best that 16/44 CD has to offer. IMO, that's JVC's XRCD.

It's a regular CD that sounds phenomenal. The manufacturing process contributes to their high quality;

http://www.elusivedisc.com/xrcdprocess.pdf


CD

Stratmangler
14-06-2010, 19:36
I've heard that the XRCD discs are very good indeed.
Just a shame about the catalogue they have.;)

Codifus
15-06-2010, 12:25
I've heard that the XRCD discs are very good indeed.
Just a shame about the catalogue they have.;)

That's the tragedy of XRCD. Great process, but all the well establisehd artists are "trapped" in contracts with record labels who have no interest in seeing XRCD succeed.

On a side note, this shows why Sony's blu ray won the HD war. Technically bluray and HD-DVD are great HD formats, neither one being significantly superior to the other, but Sony's marketing savvy to line up all that movie content behind it was what won that war.

Sadly, JVC's not much for marketing, and hence not many will see what CD could really do with the XRCD process.

CD

Stratmangler
15-06-2010, 13:02
That's the tragedy of XRCD. Great process, but all the well establisehd artists are "trapped" in contracts with record labels who have no interest in seeing XRCD succeed.

It is a real shame.
Something I wish the majors would do is release the remastered CD's that they seem to be continually churning out as HDCD - they're spending all that money remastering, so why not release the stuff n higher than red book resolution ?


On a side note, this shows why Sony's blu ray won the HD war. Technically bluray and HD-DVD are great HD formats, neither one being significantly superior to the other, but Sony's marketing savvy to line up all that movie content behind it was what won that war.

Sadly, JVC's not much for marketing, and hence not many will see what CD could really do with the XRCD process.

CD

I seem to remember a couple of decades or so ago that VHS won out in the video wars, and Sony's superior Betamax system lost out. Sony's Betamax was based heavily on their professional U-matic system, a system which was widely used in the television industry for quite some time.

Sony's marketing savvy had a lot to do with not forgetting how heavily they got burned in the video wars;)

Codifus
16-06-2010, 01:30
It is a real shame.
Something I wish the majors would do is release the remastered CD's that they seem to be continually churning out as HDCD - they're spending all that money remastering, so why not release the stuff n higher than red book resolution ?

True. Even the XRCD process starts off with a hi-rez master. It would have been nice to see perhaps an XRCD master published straight to DVD-A, SACD or downloadable hi-rez file. Unfortunately that is never going to happen.



I seem to remember a couple of decades or so ago that VHS won out in the video wars, and Sony's superior Betamax system lost out. Sony's Betamax was based heavily on their professional U-matic system, a system which was widely used in the television industry for quite some time.

Sony's marketing savvy had a lot to do with not forgetting how heavily they got burned in the video wars;)

JVC won with VHS, and that was then. But after that? Sony went gangbusters with the Walkman, joint venture with Phillips on the CD, created mini-disc, DAT etc. Where was JVC?

JVC strikes me as a company with a bunch of great engineers who know how to invent great stuff, but have not a clue how to market it. They got lucky with VHS.

We live in a world where marketing dominates the success of a company/product, much more so than the product's actual capabilities.

Interestingly, Apple's iPod IS the evolution of Sony's Walkman. Sony must be kicking themselves so hard in the arse for Apple to have created and cornered that market. I give much credit to Apple for making iTunes the foundation of the iPod universe.

SoundJam ring a bell to anyone?;)

CD

Peter Galbavy
16-06-2010, 08:47
There is a saying: In the consumer industry it's a race to see who fails last.