It is my understanding that, in addition to higher-quality mastering, that precised attention is also paid to the actual manufacture of the XRCD's. I'm very sad to hear that production of the XRCD's is suspended. :-( I own about a half-dozen, and they sound wonderful.
High-Bit CD s JVC XRCD worth if...
...you're already employing an upsampler??
OK- here's the deal. I use a CD player (Sim Audio Eclipse) with external BNC digital out to a DCS Purcell upsampler, then back in to BNC 'in' on the Eclipse to its' 24/96 DACs- fantastic upgrade- I'm a true believer in upsampling for standard 16/44 CD's.
Question: Do you feel its worth it to invest in higher resolution/bit-rate CD's if already upsamping to 24/96 anyways?? For example, the JVC XRCD's are excellent (I'm a jazzhead), and they are 20-bit. Now, all of my older Blue Note stuff is standard 16/44, but, when through the Purcell playing at 24/96, even better (I find the Blue Note label to be excellent original recordings anyway). There does not seem to be much difference b/w the XRCD with either method, which leads me to believe the upsampling is doing its job very well.
I guess the ultimate test would be to acquire the identical CD on reg. recording (i.e. the Riverside recording of 'Sunday at the Village Vanguard' w Bill Evans vs the JVC XRCD of same title (which I have) and compare the upsampled original copy playing at 24/96 with the High-res 20-bit XRCD version, and see if their is a major difference. If the XRCD version IS better, than obviously there is more to the sonic benefits of the XRCD than just the bit-rate/word-length issue- perhaps 'other' aspects of the remastering process are also integral to the increased res.
Any comments on this? Has anyone compared the JVC XRCD's versus upsampled versions of the same disc in its' 'original' recording format? I am about to consider a major purchase of JVC XRCD's, but they are very $$, and wondering if neccesary since already upsampling the orig. versions. Thanks!
OK- here's the deal. I use a CD player (Sim Audio Eclipse) with external BNC digital out to a DCS Purcell upsampler, then back in to BNC 'in' on the Eclipse to its' 24/96 DACs- fantastic upgrade- I'm a true believer in upsampling for standard 16/44 CD's.
Question: Do you feel its worth it to invest in higher resolution/bit-rate CD's if already upsamping to 24/96 anyways?? For example, the JVC XRCD's are excellent (I'm a jazzhead), and they are 20-bit. Now, all of my older Blue Note stuff is standard 16/44, but, when through the Purcell playing at 24/96, even better (I find the Blue Note label to be excellent original recordings anyway). There does not seem to be much difference b/w the XRCD with either method, which leads me to believe the upsampling is doing its job very well.
I guess the ultimate test would be to acquire the identical CD on reg. recording (i.e. the Riverside recording of 'Sunday at the Village Vanguard' w Bill Evans vs the JVC XRCD of same title (which I have) and compare the upsampled original copy playing at 24/96 with the High-res 20-bit XRCD version, and see if their is a major difference. If the XRCD version IS better, than obviously there is more to the sonic benefits of the XRCD than just the bit-rate/word-length issue- perhaps 'other' aspects of the remastering process are also integral to the increased res.
Any comments on this? Has anyone compared the JVC XRCD's versus upsampled versions of the same disc in its' 'original' recording format? I am about to consider a major purchase of JVC XRCD's, but they are very $$, and wondering if neccesary since already upsampling the orig. versions. Thanks!