[daltonlanny]

Imagine how good modern CD players would sound if the original Redbook CD standards would have been 24 bit/96khz or even 20 bit/96khz, instead of the measly 16 bit/44khz!

Comments?

 

[Jigglybootch]

With the way most CDs are mastered nowadays, I don't think it would really matter.

 

[plaidplatypus]

The problem is at 96/24 CDs could only hold singles not entire albums. I don't think that would have been a bad idea but try selling that to the masses.

 

[sejarzo]

The guy who managed a small group of high-end stores from whom I bought most of my gear from my college days through the mid-80's or so told me a story some years ago. He was invited to a semi-secret demonstration by Sony of a CD player a number of years before they hit the consumer market. He told me what was on top of the table, which appeared to be the complete player, was only a transport, mocked up to appear as a finished consumer player. The Sony rep pulled back the cloth drape around the table on which it sat, and showed the invitees the additional electronics that they needed outside of that case to make it work at redbook resolution!

Remember, too........the requirements of the process to press CD's impressed not only the technical and engineering side of the music labels back then--but the business folks were probably the most interested. They were losing sales of LP's because people would lend them to friends to make cassette copies that sounded about as good as the LP.....and the suits were all thinking "WOW!!! There's no freakin' way anybody will EVER be able to copy a Compact Disc!!!!" Even the best plants weren't doing so great in pressing them at the outset.....in 1984 and 1985, I had to return at least 1/3 of my new CD's due to defects. Thank goodness they don't have that kind of reject rate any more!

It would take later advancements in greater data density on optical discs that allowed the DVD to become a reality before we would have been able to enjoy an hour's worth of hi-rez on a single disc, too. The baby steps had to be taken to learn enough to transform a technical possibility into a commercial reality........like the 78 preceded the LP.

And as Jigglybootch notes, a lot of what's out there barely justifies 16/44.1 resolution.

On the other hand, with every improvement in DAC's, it seems that we have not yet exhausted the capabilities of the lowly redbook format.

 

[clarke68]

Quote:

Originally Posted by daltonlanny /img/forum/go_quote.gif Imagine how good modern CD players would sound if the original Redbook CD standards would have been 24 bit/96khz

Wouldn't they sound just like modern SACD players?

 

[ozz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by clarke68 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Wouldn't they sound just like modern SACD players?

thats what i was going to say and add dvd-a.

 

[sacd lover]

Quote:

Originally Posted by daltonlanny /img/forum/go_quote.gif Imagine how good modern CD players would sound if the original Redbook CD standards would have been 24 bit/96khz or even 20 bit/96khz, instead of the measly 16 bit/44khz! Comments?

Being 51, I remember all the concerns about cd. The standard was nearly 14 bit, which is what Philips wanted. But Sony forced 16 bit. Even 16 bit was stretching the digital capabilities back then and making 16 bit correctly was difficult. I am sure if they had the capability to due higher bit and sampling rates they would have. But they really didnt have the technology and know how to do so.

 

[germanium]

I think the point of the question was what if they could have & did have 20 bit or even 24 bit 96KHz from the outset would the sound be better in general now & I believe the answer is that on well produced recordings yes you would have better sound but not on most of the shlock that passed over on us as music these days. Indeed some may actually sound worse at the higher resolution as it would bring out the defeccts even more.

 

[Herandu]

Let's not forget that some of the earliest players to arrive were 12 bits. Then you had the Marantz 14 bit 4X oversampling, 16 bit, Yamaha 18 bit, etc. The humble CD itself stayed the same 16 bit though.

 

[daltonlanny]

Yeah, I meant what Germanium said:
How would modern cd players sound if the original Redbook CD specs, and the remastering of analog source tapes would have called for a 20 or 24 bit/96khz standard back in 1982, instead of 16 bit/44.1khz standard like it did then, and still does to this very day.
And I also meant how modern players would sound using well recorded 24 bit/96khz cd's, instead of mainstream "junk" recordings, using the latest break-through DAC and cd player technology that is available today.
That would have given cd player manufacturers 25 whole years to perfect 24 bit/96khz! Wow!
I would personally imagine that they would sound very similar to a top-flight dvd-audio disc playing the 2 channel 24 bit/96khz mix that is contained on alot of dvd-audio discs in their set-up menu.
I would also imagine that they would sound different from SACD's, since such cd's would more than likely be using hi-rez PCM instead of DSD.
If this had been the case from the outset, I personally don't think DVD-Audio or SACD, or universal dvd players would have ever been introduced to the market.
I do still believe that dvd players, and high definition dvd/blue ray players would still be here, however.

 

[tourmaline]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jigglybootch /img/forum/go_quote.gif With the way most CDs are mastered nowadays, I don't think it would really matter.

Right. 99% of the new stuff is really crap and almost without an exception driven into distortion. What the hell are those sound engeneers thinking!

 

[tourmaline]

Quote:

Originally Posted by daltonlanny /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yeah, I meant what Germanium said: How would modern cd players sound if the original Redbook CD specs, and the remastering of analog source tapes would have called for a 20 or 24 bit/96khz standard back in 1982, instead of 16 bit/44.1khz standard like it did then, and still does to this very day. And I also meant how modern players would sound using well recorded 24 bit/96khz cd's, instead of mainstream "junk" recordings, using the latest break-through DAC and cd player technology that is available today. That would have given cd player manufacturers 25 whole years to perfect 24 bit/96khz! Wow! I would personally imagine that they would sound very similar to a top-flight dvd-audio disc playing the 2 channel 24 bit/96khz mix that is contained on alot of dvd-audio discs in their set-up menu. I would also imagine that they would sound different from SACD's, since such cd's would more than likely be using hi-rez PCM instead of DSD. If this had been the case from the outset, I personally don't think DVD-Audio or SACD, or universal dvd players would have ever been introduced to the market. I do still believe that dvd players, and high definition dvd/blue ray players would still be here, however.

XRCD's are of a much higher standard and sound much better then their normal 16/44.1 counterparts.

 

[tourmaline]

Quote:

Originally Posted by clarke68 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Wouldn't they sound just like modern SACD players?

A good redbook cdplayers beat most cheaper sacd players concerning musicality.

 

[daltonlanny]

tourmaline,
I do agree with you that xrcd's are on a much better sound quality level than normal cd's.
Imagine though if they were 24 bit/96khz as well!

 

[sejarzo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by daltonlanny /img/forum/go_quote.gif If this had been the case from the outset, I personally don't think DVD-Audio or SACD, or universal dvd players would have ever been introduced to the market.

Correct, because what you describe essentially would be 2 channel DVD-A, as far as I can tell, and there probably wouldn't have been the motivation to develop an alternative format (SACD) that was merely "different" and not demonstrably better, spec-wise.

Regardless of what the "audiophile" community wants, any format has to be proven to be economic for mass distribution first, and is later tweaked by the smaller firms for the lower-volume markets. There wouldn't be special 180 gram pressings on vinyl now unless the LP had been universally popular in the past.

One main "philosophical audiophile objection" to CD's in the early 1980's was that "CD's are not intended to be a hi-fi medium, they are a convenience medium." The makers never denied that ultra-resolution was not the goal at that time.....something more compact and better than a cassette and that "built-in copy protection" were what drove the development of the CD.

That "built-in copy protection" sure lasted a long time, right?