Are CDs ever released with 24-bit/96kHz tracks?
Jun 23, 2015 at 10:30 PM Post #4 of 15
rockstar2005 said:

Are CDs ever released with 24-bit/96kHz tracks?

But I thought CDs were ONLY OFFICIALLY SOLD with 16-bit/44.1kHz tracks?
Click to expand...

 
Redbook, ie Sony standard, for CDs was 16/44.1 but audiophile recording companies have released 24/96 CDs.
 
 
 
rockstar2005 said:
 
Is this legit? Should I be worried about buying it? I know the CD is CAPABLE of handling 24/96, but still. 
Click to expand...

 
Well, if you run it and it doesn't show 24/96, file for a refund. As for actual sound quality, well, that still depends on how the mastering was done. I had a Guano Apes SACD and the recording quality still sucked compared to Dream Theater on standard CDs.
 
Jun 23, 2015 at 10:44 PM Post #5 of 15
rockstar2005 said:
  This seller page for a 24-bit/96kHz version of a Gin Blossoms CD indicates the tracks included are in Hi-Res. But I thought CDs were ONLY OFFICIALLY SOLD with 16-bit/44.1kHz tracks?
 
Is this legit? Should I be worried about buying it? I know the CD is CAPABLE of handling 24/96, but still. 
 
Thanks, 
 
RockStar2005
Click to expand...

protegemaniac said:
  Redbook, ie Sony standard, for CDs was 16/44.1 but audiophile recording companies have released 24/96 CDs.
 
Well, if you run it and it doesn't show 24/96, file for a refund. As for actual sound quality, well, that still depends on how the mastering was done. I had a Guano Apes SACD and the recording quality still sucked compared to Dream Theater on standard CDs.
Click to expand...

 
@RockStar2005
 
I have told you countless times before that the file resolution is irrelevant. If the same master is used, it will sound the same regardless of format or resolution. All CDs are 16-bit / 44.1 kHz. They are not "capable of handling" 24/96. SACDs are not standard CDs, and instead are encoded with DSD on the SACD layer...but if the same master is used, they still sound the same. If a CD has ever been released with 24/96, then it is a data disc containing actual 24/96 digital files instead of a standard optical compact disc that does not contain digital files on it.
 
Anyway... If you look at what that link actually says, it says "All tracks 96K/24-bit remastered." This is commonplace. It just means that in the studio, they used 24/96 when remastering it. It's just a normal CD.
 
Jun 23, 2015 at 10:58 PM Post #6 of 15
Maniac, 
 
"Redbook, ie Sony standard, for CDs was 16/44.1 but audiophile recording companies have released 24/96 CDs."
 
I see. Ok. That's what I thought. 
 
"Well, if you run it and it doesn't show 24/96, file for a refund. As for actual sound quality, well, that still depends on how the mastering was done. I had a Guano Apes SACD and the recording quality still sucked compared to Dream Theater on standard CDs."
 
Yeah I've noticed on the DRD site that sometimes what seems like a better version of an album (i.e., Hi-Res vs CD) may not always actually be better in actual comparison. I will definitely file for a refund if it's not 24/96 (b/c I'd worry it wasn't utilizing a good master if he lied about that), or of it doesn't sound at least better than my mp3 version of this album. Typically though, it's been my experience that ALMOST 100% of the time the one you think is better actually is. 
 
The seller of this CD has a very high seller rating, so I think it's gonna be ok. I already put in to buy the album, but the seller has to contact me back to figure out shipping. If it's a lot I will prob pass, but if not more than $10, I'll prob buy it. 
 
Thanks for your input. 
 
RockStar2005
 
Jun 23, 2015 at 11:10 PM Post #7 of 15
rockstar2005 said:
  Maniac, 
 
"Redbook, ie Sony standard, for CDs was 16/44.1 but audiophile recording companies have released 24/96 CDs."
 
I see. Ok. That's what I thought. 
 
"Well, if you run it and it doesn't show 24/96, file for a refund. As for actual sound quality, well, that still depends on how the mastering was done. I had a Guano Apes SACD and the recording quality still sucked compared to Dream Theater on standard CDs."
 
Yeah I've noticed on the DRD site that sometimes what seems like a better version of an album (i.e., Hi-Res vs CD) may not always actually be better in actual comparison. I will definitely file for a refund if it's not 24/96 (b/c I'd worry it wasn't utilizing a good master if he lied about that), or of it doesn't sound at least better than my mp3 version of this album. Typically though, it's been my experience that ALMOST 100% of the time the one you think is better actually is. 
 
The seller of this CD has a very high seller rating, so I think it's gonna be ok. I already put in to buy the album, but the seller has to contact me back to figure out shipping. If it's a lot I will prob pass, but if not more than $10, I'll prob buy it. 
 
Thanks for your input. 
 
RockStar2005
Click to expand...

 
Or you could read my post and see that it is just a normal CD. Also, you generally can't get refunds for items purchased on the used market.
 
Jun 23, 2015 at 11:11 PM Post #8 of 15
Alchemist, 
 
Yeah I know dude, but I was simply asking a technical question regarding whether CDs were ever officially sold by like studios at a resolution higher than Redbook. That is all. Now I know that they sometimes can be based on what ProtegeManiac said regarding audiophile music companies, which I guess are data CDs or else SACDs, which I am familiar with as they were the predecessor to DSD.  
 
Well how do you know it's not just a data CD containing 24/96? Maybe I should ask the seller that question. Either way, if it's a better master, it will be worth having. I don't care that it's 24/96, but I do care that typically, it's the Hi-Res versions of albums that tend to always have the best sound, digitally anyway (I don't own a record player, nor do I really want to.) 
 
 
RockStar2005
 
Jun 23, 2015 at 11:13 PM Post #9 of 15
Alchemist,
 
I just responded to your post. It came after his. 
 
The CD I put in to purchase was labeled as brand new and in mint condition, so I don't see there being an issue. Even if there is, I'll just sell it on eBay. Whatever. 
 
 
RockStar2005
 
Jun 23, 2015 at 11:29 PM Post #10 of 15
Note also what Music Alchemist said about it being remastered at high resolution digital format. It could be the case, but the actual consumer CD release is still at 16/44.1. The website blurb might not make that clear but once you get your hands on it you'll see a sticker with a big "24bit/96khz" on it with "Remastered (in)" in smaller font above the numbers. 
 
Jun 23, 2015 at 11:32 PM Post #11 of 15

 
Alchemist, 
 
Yeah I know dude, but I was simply asking a technical question regarding whether CDs were ever officially sold by like studios at a resolution higher than Redbook. That is all.
Click to expand...

 
The answer is no, in the context of audio CDs.
 
You can read about various types of CDs here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_disc
 
Now I know that they sometimes can be based on what ProtegeManiac said regarding audiophile music companies, which I guess are data CDs or else SACDs, which I am familiar with as they were the predecessor to DSD.
Click to expand...

 
SACDs were not the predecessor to DSD; they are encoded with DSD.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Direct_Stream_Digital
 
DSD is not 24/96, and data discs are quite uncommon, even among audiophile labels.
 
Well how do you know it's not just a data CD containing 24/96? Maybe I should ask the seller that question. Either way, if it's a better master, it will be worth having. I don't care that it's 24/96, but I do care that typically, it's the Hi-Res versions of albums that tend to always have the best sound, digitally anyway (I don't own a record player, nor do I really want to.) 
Click to expand...

 
Research, knowledge of the industry, and common sense. Data CDs are very rare. There's almost no likelihood that you will ever buy a data CD in the context of music. (Enhanced CDs don't count.) If you were to, it would be very obviously labeled in the marketing as a data disc.
 
At any rate, I looked it up for you to attain background info on the release, just for the sake of being thorough.
 
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#safe=off&q=%22069+493+406-2%22
 
It is indeed just a normal music CD. Don't worry about it.
 
rockstar2005 said:
  Alchemist,
 
I just responded to your post. It came after his. 
 
The CD I put in to purchase was labeled as brand new and in mint condition, so I don't see there being an issue. Even if there is, I'll just sell it on eBay. Whatever. 
 
RockStar2005
Click to expand...

 
Consider using the multi quote button, like I just did.
 
You are purchasing from a third party individual, not a company or store. There are no rules requiring refunds, and even if you bought it new from a store, stores generally do not give refunds for opened merchandise, at least not CDs.
 
Jun 23, 2015 at 11:46 PM Post #12 of 15
Maniac, 
 
Yeah I took note of that. It's basically what I suspected all along anyway. It appears to be an official release, so I wasn't expecting a data CD. 
 
If it sounds better than my mp3s, I'll be keeping. So, I'll prob be keeping it. lol
 
 
RockStar2005
 
Jun 23, 2015 at 11:57 PM Post #13 of 15
Ok. 
 
Ok thanks for double-checking. Since the master was a 24/96, and they usually do their best work in the studio on masters like these, it will prob sound great. 
 
I return opened stuff to Amazon all the time. lol You're prob right, but I don't think I'll be returning it anyway. The guy still has to get back to me about shipping anyway before it even gets sent out. 
 
 
RockStar2005
 
Jun 24, 2015 at 2:16 AM Post #14 of 15
rockstar2005 said:
  Ok. 
 
Ok thanks for double-checking. Since the master was a 24/96, and they usually do their best work in the studio on masters like these, it will prob sound great. 
 
I return opened stuff to Amazon all the time. lol You're prob right, but I don't think I'll be returning it anyway. The guy still has to get back to me about shipping anyway before it even gets sent out. 
 
 
RockStar2005
Click to expand...

 
Lots of producers and engineers record and mix in 24/96. It's an extra revenue stream.
 
Over on the engineering forums, I remember a guy recording an orchestra 384k with a DAD interface (http://www.digitalaudio.dk/page1503.aspx), saying he could hear the difference. Of course everyone was interested at the time because it was such a high sample rate. But with blind testing and much arguing in 20,000+ reply thread, no one could tell the difference from the 44k version and the actual recording sounded like crap because the engineer over processed it.  
 
  At the end of the day, the quality of every recording comes back to the skill of the engineering, and that's it. Period.
 
Jun 24, 2015 at 11:05 AM Post #15 of 15
inthere, 
 
Yeah, they charge more for the higher resolution. Makes sense. Almost 100% of those "Hi-Res" releases do in fact sound better, but we all know it's b/c of the superior master being utilized and not the higher resolution. 
 
Yes, it's all about the source and who oversaw its processing. 
 
 
Thanks, 
 
RockStar2005
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top