Thread: Chandos X Series

Posts: 65
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 next

Post by hiredfox December 6, 2013 (1 of 65)
OK this is about a RBCD but interesting (to me) nonetheless. A newly acquired disc is a re-master of an old Britten survey By Richard Hickok and the Bournemouth Symphony originally released in the early 90's.

Now I'm pretty sure it was recorded originally in 44/16 with no analogue tapes in sight, yet Chandos have remastered at 96/24 and (still) yet, re-released the disc as a RBCD. Presumably it must have been converted back to 44/16 for disc encoding.

They decided obviously not to use the re-master to produce a SACD yet this newly released RBCD sounds like nothing I've ever heard before. It seems to defy the results of red book rules on dynamic range and frequency response, yet that surely is impossible. The only downside seems to be some loss of precision of detail but overall not a bad sounding disc at all.

What ever is their rationale?

Post by AmonRa December 6, 2013 (2 of 65)
hiredfox said:

It seems to defy the results of red book rules on dynamic range and frequency response, yet that surely is impossible.

I think you just answered your own question.

What makes you think there are frequencies past 22 kHz and dynamic range of over 98 dB on that disk?

Post by rammiepie December 6, 2013 (3 of 65)
In a similar vein, hiredfox, I was playing (rather loudly) one of my Silverline Dolby Digital 5.1 surround albums tonight (Queensryche/Geoff Tate's Face To Face) and I swear it sounded like a full fledged DVD~A 96/24. Never have I heard dullby sound so absolutely stunning.

Yes, some RBCDs sound wonderful and this can be attributed to careful mastering and great source material.

And don't allow "mentalist" AmonRa to BS you with his anti analogue rants or nothing above 22 kHz tirades.

The man still thinks that ALL digital transports are equal.

Post by porpielee December 6, 2013 (4 of 65)
Just speculating here (just like most of us post here anyway). Very good chance that those were recorded in higher sampling rate (say 50kHz ). If so, 24/96 remastering and then back to 16/44.1 bit mapping process might improve the sound. Or they might have simply re-mixed studio master with better results.

Post by hiredfox December 7, 2013 (5 of 65)
AmonRa said:

I think you just answered your own question.

What makes you think there are frequencies past 22 kHz and dynamic range of over 98 dB on that disk?

1.. Well, of course I know the answer, it's the possible loopholes and flaws in conventional thinking that are interesting. I don't know of any but others might especially those blessed with open minds

2... Assumed rhetorical

Post by AmonRa December 7, 2013 (6 of 65)
porpielee said:

Just speculating here (just like most of us post here anyway). Very good chance that those were recorded in higher sampling rate (say 50kHz ). If so, 24/96 remastering and then back to 16/44.1 bit mapping process might improve the sound. Or they might have simply re-mixed studio master with better results.

Further speculation: Well done CD sounds so darn good that it is practically impossible to discern from higher resolution sources. Anybody can test this by (blindly) listening to a good CD on their own system.

Rammipie: transports are just data readers. Any Man knows that.

Post by Claude December 7, 2013 (7 of 65)
Chandos already remastered their Jansons Tchaikovsky cycle (digitally recorded in the mid-1980's), reissued it on CD and as 24/96 downloads. The latter were mostly dismissed as a fake hi-rez product by the fans, and then removed from the download store. So I understand that they do not want to go through the same experience again with upsampled recordings.

Remastering (whatever the reasoning for it) takes place in hi-rez today, even if the original recording is in 16/44. The filters, EQ settings and other changes applied work with greater precision in 24/96 after the recording has been upsampled. But would the end result sound better if released in 24/96? Hardly IMHO. The potential benefit of remastering older digital recordings has little to do with resolution but with the various tweaks applied (which can be good or bad). The benefit of remastering analogue recordings - a new superior transfer to digital from the analogue tape - does not apply here.

Post by rammiepie December 7, 2013 (8 of 65)
AmonRa said:

Further speculation: Well done CD sounds so darn good that it is practically impossible to discern from higher resolution sources. Anybody can test this by (blindly) listening to a good CD on their own system.

Rammipie: transports are just data readers. Any Man knows that.

AmonRa, that is the biggest crock of BS I have heard lately.

It's finally happened........AmonRa had his ears surgically brickwalled. Either that or he's digitally challenged!

How else can one explain such nonsense?

Time to donate the BDP~80 to the Salvation Army.

Post by hiredfox December 7, 2013 (9 of 65)
AmonRa said:

Well done CD sounds so darn good that it is practically impossible to discern from higher resolution sources.

I don't know what you are listening on or what you understand as SQ but the two sound experiences are so totally different as to be unmistakeable on high end stereo gear which is probably far more demanding of the listener than surround.

Post by AmonRa December 7, 2013 (10 of 65)
hiredfox said:

I don't know what you are listening on or what you understand as SQ but the two sound experiences are so totally different as to be unmistakeable on high end stereo gear which is probably far more demanding of the listener than surround.

You can check my gear under the user name details.

Hearing the difference is extremely easy (to write about), but for example in the M&M test nobody was able to hear a difference between SACD and CD, as we all know. 150 listeners, high quality gear. If it is as easy as you say, certainly at least somebody would have noticed a difference between pure DSD SACD (which there were among the disks used) and down sampled 16/44.1. But no.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 next

Closed