I wonder if anyone has ever compared the "same recording" mastered as an
"XRCD" disc, a "Standard CD" disc, an "SACD" disc, and a "DVD-A" disc?

I have read, I do not remember where, that "XRCD" discs sound as good as
"SACD" and "DVD-A" discs. If this indeed true, then why do we need two new
formats?

I would also appreciate if someone could explain the mastering differences
between "XRCD" discs and "Standard CD" discs.

Thank you in advance.

"Peter" wrote in message
news:1U2Db.550091$Fm2.519392@attbi_s04...
I wonder if anyone has ever compared the "same recording" mastered
as an
"XRCD" disc, a "Standard CD" disc, an "SACD" disc, and a "DVD-A"
disc?

No. Nobody's ever done that. They're not likely to either.

I have read, I do not remember where, that "XRCD" discs sound as
good as
"SACD" and "DVD-A" discs. If this indeed true, then why do we need
two new
formats?

WE don't need them; THEY need them, to develop another income stream
that isn't "rippable."

I would also appreciate if someone could explain the mastering
differences
between "XRCD" discs and "Standard CD" discs.

As far as I can tell--and that isn't very far--XRCD is simply a case
of doing a really good job of remastering. Nothing that any company
couldn't do.

Norm Strong

For XRCD, see Norman's response.

SACD vs CD: some improvement in "air" and stereo width.
DVD-A vs SACD: there are no true comparisons available. Put mildly, the
record companies are "not in a hurry" to produce a pair of discs that would
allow for a shootout. Technically, the two formats require different A/D
converters to get the most of them. Two different converters are bound to
sound different. Otherwise, ie. if digital conversion is used, the
comparison will always be skewed one way or the other, however minimally. My
position is that DVD-A is technically better by far. Either the sonic
difference will be zip, or it will be to SACD's disadvantage (specifically
when the noise drives your amplifiers nuts).


"Peter" wrote in message
news:1U2Db.550091$Fm2.519392@attbi_s04...
I wonder if anyone has ever compared the "same recording" mastered as an
"XRCD" disc, a "Standard CD" disc, an "SACD" disc, and a "DVD-A" disc?

I have read, I do not remember where, that "XRCD" discs sound as good as
"SACD" and "DVD-A" discs. If this indeed true, then why do we need two
new
formats?

I would also appreciate if someone could explain the mastering differences
between "XRCD" discs and "Standard CD" discs.

Thank you in advance.

This is how I would go about it, IF I intended to investigate the
issue of SACD v. CDDA (which I do not):

Take the output of a SACD player, which presumably is better than any
possible CDDA player, and call this the original sound. Now feed it
into a 16bit, 44.1k a/d converter, take the digital output and run it
back through a similar rate d/a converter to give you a second signal
identical to the original except for the latency of the 2 conversions
and whatever degradation is caused by the a/d, d/a cycle. You should
be able to compare these 2 signals and tell which one is the original.

What you are testing is not the SACD converter, but the process of
digital recording at 16/44.1k. If you cannot tell the difference,
then CDDA is 100% adequate. Many years ago I had the opportunity to
compare a live mike feed with the signal coming off the confidence
heads of a DAT recorder. In spite of the slight delay between the 2
signals, I was not able to tell one from the other (and back then my
hearing was better.)

Norm Strong




"Bruno Putzeys" wrote in message
...
For XRCD, see Norman's response.

SACD vs CD: some improvement in "air" and stereo width.
DVD-A vs SACD: there are no true comparisons available. Put mildly,
the
record companies are "not in a hurry" to produce a pair of discs
that would
allow for a shootout. Technically, the two formats require different
A/D
converters to get the most of them. Two different converters are
bound to
sound different. Otherwise, ie. if digital conversion is used, the
comparison will always be skewed one way or the other, however
minimally. My
position is that DVD-A is technically better by far. Either the
sonic
difference will be zip, or it will be to SACD's disadvantage
(specifically
when the noise drives your amplifiers nuts).


"Peter" wrote in message
news:1U2Db.550091$Fm2.519392@attbi_s04...
I wonder if anyone has ever compared the "same recording" mastered
as an
"XRCD" disc, a "Standard CD" disc, an "SACD" disc, and a "DVD-A"
disc?

I have read, I do not remember where, that "XRCD" discs sound as
good as
"SACD" and "DVD-A" discs. If this indeed true, then why do we
need two
new
formats?

I would also appreciate if someone could explain the mastering
differences
between "XRCD" discs and "Standard CD" discs.

Thank you in advance.