Hi guys, I’m making my way through the audiophile stuff. So I went to search for some vinyls to play on my turntable, and found some BSCD2s. I know about laser discs, DVD-A and about SACDS. But I can’t really wrap my head around this BSCD2 concept. It seems that there are 2 iterations, but I don’t understand how they can fit more info on the disc and how higher bitrate in this case means better? Most of the info I found online is contradictory. Some say it’s better and some say it’s the same. And apart from that, some info that I found is from years ago. I know that it all depends on the master, and if it’s good, it’s good no matter the output and the reverse of it (if it’s bad it will sound trash on everything), but is there a general consensus about this BSCD2 technology? (Don’t make me even start on the acronym choice…) Thansk! Some refence links: Blu-spec CD format: What is it and should you even care? What is a Blu Spec CD?
Still just CD resolution 16-bit, 44.1kHz digital. Maybe the pits are "burned" better, but that makes no different so long as the standard CD can be ripped without error as per the video. Doesn't look like the polycarbonate material is any better like SHM-CD. I doubt there's even any difference in jitter despite the advertising graph.
I have 8 BSCD2 albums and 10 BSCD1 albums, and none of them are my best sounding releases for any of the 18 releases, for what that is worth. You'll need to research each album in question to see if it is the best sounding one or not. The ones I could recommend the most highly are Miles Davis Ahgarta and Pangea if you don't want to pay for the 50DP releases.
I got the Bad album by MJ. It sounds good.44100/16 bit. Freqs cut off at 18khz. Will try to compare to older issues of the album.
It's just different material to make the CD. It has no bearing on sound quality whatsoever. If the mastering and source are good, it will sound good. If not, it won't. There were some BS2 CDs that were brickwalled crap, like some of the Scorpions releases. I bought an older Japanese edition of "In Trance" instead that is way less compressed. Case by case like everything else. Sorry no easy blanket answer if that's what you wanted.
The one big error in the video concerns the jitter graph. It is a measure of the jitter level on the disc due to various production tolerances. For the most sensitive 3T signal (of the run-length limited code used in CD) the jitter level must be less than 35 ns. So, both types of disc are within spec. This transmission jitter can be eliminated in the slicing process as the disc is read. In a well-engineered CD player, this type of jitter should be removed and not be allowed to influence the critical master clock used by the DAC -- this is why we often see such excellent measured results by JA at Stereophile when doing the infamous J-Test. (Nothing can be done about the sampling clock jitter which is baked into the recording, and it is jitter levels of tens to hundreds of nanoseconds for the recording that tests have shown is audible, and which the videographer mentions, but this is not the same as the disc jitter.) As has been pointed out numerous times, both discs produce the same WAV/FLAC/etc. files when ripped, and no one has suggested that two identical WAV/FLAC/etc. files played back from hard-disk sound different. If there is an audible difference when played back via a CD player, get a better transport!
Thanks a lot for the reply, guys. It is really helpful. I don't know if I should continue in this thread, since things will get a bit more technical and some info that I knew seem to have disappeared from the internet. Basically, what I recall was that the OG disk was the best (first prints), and the remasters that came after (I have the physical CD of the 2001/2012 remasters) sound like crap (which they do). Now I tried to investigate further on other forums that I've used to read on (gearspace, but I used to know the old name ), that some people prefer the vinyl to the original print of the album, saying that even the first CD pressings were lacking in some aspects. (BAD 25 Remastered vs. older ones? - Gearspace.com here is a thread that was started when the 2012 remaster was released). So continuing with my backtracking, I've remembered this cool site named dr.loudnes-war.info. where some records that are available online/or rare are scanned for their DR and posted online. Now, as far as I can see her, in case of this "Bad" album, the best ones are indeed the first print vinyls, followed by CDs (confirming what people said online): Album list - Dynamic Range Database But at the moment I'm stuck with this question. From my knowledge (or lack of it at this moment), I know that the DR isn't the only important parameter when you talk about audio quality. And I'm not sure at what to look at in this case. Sorry if I deviated from the original subject, but it's been so long since I interacted with audio stuff that I couldn't help myself. If it's needed to be posted in another section, please point me to it.
Personally, my unsolicited advice to you is that your main challenge as an audiophile is not technology it is people. People that use the wrong tapes, don’t align the tape deck well, that can’t help themselves from squashing DR or boosting bass and treble, or even changing the mixes on subsequent releases! The early Bad CDs have way more changes than just DR. Read this thread:How Can You Identify the Original Michael Jackson "Bad" CD, With Original Mixes? One comment there: “ later issues of the Bad album feature different versions of: 'The Way You Make Me Feel' = "vocal fade out" added 'Smooth Criminal = heavy breathing taken off on the intro and the 45 versions of the following three were added: 'Bad' = which has less trumpets throughout first half of the song 'I Just Can't Stop Loving You' = which is minus the spoken introduction 'Dirty Diana' = which was edited early before final "crowd screams" “
Not impressed, well mastered Redbook is as good or better. XRCD by JVC is the superior format due to different mastering and pressing technology.
I know I was impressed with the Blu-spec CDs I ordered and listened to a few years back. I remember one really impressive one was Paul Simon. I have to check how many I really have and have opened.
I have a few Blu-Spec CD's, all bought from Japan as an alternative to the some of my early U.S. versions which were horrid sounding - Spyro Gyra's Morning Dance and Catching the sun comes to mind when referring to bad early US CD releases. Also some Weather Report - Mr. Gone and Heavy Weather. While the Blu-Spec CD's sound good, they can't touch the dynamic range of the JVC's XRCD's
Nothing can be done if you expect results to show on standard player. 16/44.1 format is the limitation. Now if you plan to use non-standard players - options are much wider: from HDCD of the past (improve dynamic range by a bit or two in some cases), to MQA of the present (where you trade two bits of dynamic range to frequency extension). But all of them will sound worse on standard player, or do not produce sound at all (like surround sound encoded on DTS-CD).
I own about 15 Blu-Spec and Blu-Spec 2's. One problem is that we're not always comparing apples to apples, some of the the Blu-Specs have been remastered in Japan. Some of mine are flat transfers and some are remasters. The Japanese like detail, so the remasters have good dynamic range but tend to sound more analytical. I have a set of Jeff Beck Blu-Spec 2 remasters and prefer the original US recordings, they're more musical.
Yeah, but those changes were because Michael and/or the engineers were unhappy with the mix? As far as I've researched, almost every re-release had some mix changes lol. That's why I was trying to get more info regarding the technical details.
I have 3 Hendrix Blu-Spec 2 CDs and they sound good but I have only had the MCAs. For the extra money I get nicer packaging at least. I’ll buy Japanese for that alone.
So I did my homework regarding the releases of the Bad album by Michael Jackson since I got this BSCD2 and the conclusions are the following. In terms of Dynamic Range: OG Vinyl pressing (1987) > OG CD pressing (1987) >>>> Special Edition (2001) > BSCD2 (2016) > BAD 25th Anniversary Release (2012). Here are some pictures with the DR values for each: Vinyl: vinyl — Postimages OG CD: OG — Postimages SE: SE — Postimages BSCD2: BSCD — Postimages BAD25: B25 — Postimages Here is a graph comparison between the audio sources: I've also uploaded some samples for who might be interested: 74.25 MB folder on MEGA Relevant info also here: Album list - Dynamic Range Database
I still think within the 16/44 format the sony super bit (noise shaping) was about as good has it got.
So what kind of answer would you expect on a forum like this? Of coarse it’s “always” going to be about the mastering.The mastering-only.Did I mention only the mastering matters ?
Although the DR doesn't tell the whole story about how a remaster will sound, this is surprising. The SHM-CD has superior DR specs, mastered by Bob Ludwig: Album details - Dynamic Range DB There are many remasters of this album with decent DR, including the 2000 Warner release: Album details - Dynamic Range DB It's still possible the XRCD may sound excellent depending on the skill of the mastering engineer. But even without an audition, I would go for the Bob Ludwig version.
That loudness test means zero to me. I have a few XRCDs including the one listed there and it, and I find absolutely nothing "truly horrid" about them. Anyway, I don't concern myself with charts and plots, I concern myself with whether the sound quality sounds right when hearing music. I'm not looking for the science, I'm looking for the enjoyment. That's me. And yeah, like all things in life there are always going to be a myriad of opinions.
