Talk:Extended Resolution Compact Disc

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Em, anon user 194.89.XXX claims to remove garbage but instead add plenty of garbage of his/her own. Owing to the difficulty in understanding some of his/her phrasing ("the purest form of SACD") as well as the obvious factual disparities ("analogue"; "unlike HDCD, XRCD refers purely to the optimal quantization of the source materials" - which is precisely what HDCD does), I have restored much of the article. My advice is if you want to change something, please check out the accuracy via some form of online research. Pls don't introduce vulgarities in the edit summary, especially when one's contributions are considerably worse off than previous editors'. Mandel 08:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


My first edits were somewhat hasty, which I admit, but now I think that the article is extremely well-off. Before my edits, it not only had what I perceive as layman's *opinions* but also a multitude of factual errors. If something is run through a digital-to-analogue converter, the resulting material definitely isn't going to be digital. This claim was what lead me to believe that there is only a slightly poor phrasing there, so I thought I'd correct it quickly. After a while, however, I noticed that there was a LOT to be corrected with the article. Regarding your "precisely what HDCD does" bit, that's not true at all - there is a lot of matters at work with HDCDs. The stream has extra control information studded in the least significant bits and a HDCD decoder will react to it, providing improved dynamics or whatever the mastering engineer has deemed a passage to need. An XRCD on the other hand DOES NOT have any special control information or the like. It will be EXACTLY a regular CD, albeit done as well as possible. Of course, a HDCD will also be according to redbook standard, but its least significant bits will be used for the control data instead of audio quality. I'm trying to understand why you keep reverting when I'm clearly trying to improve the article. Let's work this through. 194.89.2.126 11:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

"Still, XRCDs are optimally the very best the Compact Disc can offer" ... Isn't this a bit of a tautology? Optimally, any CD is the best CD can be. That's what optimal means. --68.41.122.213 11:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)