Why do people bother specifying "Red Book" when listening to music?

The Red Book specifies very simple things like the physical size of a CD, lead in time, lead out time, etc.

So do people mention this just to differentiate listing to music from a physical CD vs. a hard drive ?

If so is that just to indicate that no compression was used?

I agree and wondered the same (who cares if we are listening to music)

it differentiates a normal cd from SACD or LP. When you specify "redbook" everyone knows you're talking about a normal CD.

Whenever I use the term "Redbook CD" it's been to differentiate from other CD mastering formats such as XRCD (and variants) or higher res files burned to a CD or DVD.

So the whole point is to say that you are listening to a plain ole CD, vs something better like an HD Tracks 192kHz 24bit wide audio file.

Is the underlying thought that if I'm enjoying this on a plain ole CD than the music must be good ?

BTW I listen to a lot of 320kbps music files, so technically I guess I'm listening to something a bit less than RedBook, although I can't hear the difference.

RCHeliGuy said:

The Red Book specifies very simple things like the physical size of a CD, lead in time, lead out time, etc.

So do people mention this just to differentiate listing to music from a physical CD vs. a hard drive ?

If so is that just to indicate that no compression was used?

Click to expand...

Specifying Red book helps the reader know what kind of music format or resolution was being listened to and what at best to expect if purchase decision is made. Also helps the reader if he or she is only interested in hi-resolution format to perhaps not purchase the 16bit 44.1 khz cd. Or perhaps not search for SACD title since none may be available. Finally for listeners like me , who only have red book cd player, helps to know that a ordinary resolution format is available in the market place for a given artist album.

Hope this helps.

Have fun listening to music!:music:

FWIW All SACD's are readable by normal players and can be ripped on all computers. However you are hearing the 44.1kHz x 16bit Redbook equivalent without an SACD player.

My opinion after listening to SA/CD's, regular CD's and ripped CD's is that how well it is mastered is MUCH MUCH more important than which format you are using.

Even if you could find a small difference A/B'ing the different formats I seriously doubt that if you sat down to listen to one and were played another that you could tell a difference, with the exception of LP's which obviously sound "different".

RCHeliGuy said:

My opinion after listening to SA/CD's, regular CD's and ripped CD's is that how well it is mastered is MUCH MUCH more important than which format you are using.

Click to expand...

I agree with you.

Though i do not entirely agree with the thought expressed in the first and last sentence.

RCHeliGuy said:

FWIW All SACD's are readable by normal players and can be ripped on all computers. However you are hearing the 44.1kHz x 16bit Redbook equivalent without an SACD player.

My opinion after listening to SA/CD's, regular CD's and ripped CD's is that how well it is mastered is MUCH MUCH more important than which format you are using.

Even if you could find a small difference A/B'ing the different formats I seriously doubt that if you sat down to listen to one and were played another that you could tell a difference, with the exception of LP's which obviously sound "different".

Click to expand...

As long as the SACD is a hybrid it is possible for a redbook standard player to read it. There are SACD only available for purchase.

M15 said:

I agree with you.

Though i do not entirely agree with the thought expressed in the first and last sentence.

Click to expand...

With regard to the first sentence, I don't have every SACD ever produced, but I have a number of SACD's, and I can play them all on any CD player I have. You need an SACD player to get the additional music information but I have ripped my SACD's on my computer and what I end up with is a redbook version of the disk without the extra information. There is some Playstation mod that allows ripping that additional information.

It sounds like all the disks I have are hybrids. Sorry for the misinformation.

My last sentence about what I can hear is obviously entirely my opinion.

RCHeliGuy said:

So the whole point is to say that you are listening to a plain ole CD, vs something better like an HD Tracks 192kHz 24bit wide audio file.

Is the underlying thought that if I'm enjoying this on a plain ole CD than the music must be good ?

BTW I listen to a lot of 320kbps music files, so technically I guess I'm listening to something a bit less than RedBook, although I can't hear the difference.

Click to expand...

Take your favorite redbook CD and rip it at 320kbps and then rip it again in a lossless format. Do some A/B comparisons. You should be able to hear slight differences, depending on the quality of the original CD recording.

Brad225 said:

As long as the SACD is a hybrid it is possible for a redbook standard player to read it. There are SACD only available for purchase.

Click to expand...

Brad is correct, if you can rip an SACD with your computer, you are not ripping the hi-res layer... I have many SACD's which do not contain the redbook layer and cannot be played on a regular CD player or read by a computer. There is a way to rip a SACD, but it's painful... Computer audiophile forum is a great place to learn more about this kinda stuff.

TomDac said:

Brad is correct, if you can rip an SACD with your computer, you are not ripping the hi-res layer... I have many SACD's which do not contain the redbook layer and cannot be played on a regular CD player or read by a computer. There is a way to rip a SACD, but it's painful... Computer audiophile forum is a great place to learn more about this kinda stuff.

Click to expand...

I've noticed a very clear difference between 128kbps and 256kbps.
There is a more incremental improvement from 256 to 320kbps, but it is more subtle and it really depends on the material.

Past that there maybe a very slight bass response difference, but at that point I couldn't say one sounded better than the other.

I'm not worried about getting my Pink Floyd and other SACD's ripped in all their glory. They sound fantastic as I have them ripped.

Now there are some CD's I have that just sound flat and don't seem to be mastered well.

I just say Redbook to identify the format, 16bit, 44.1k. I also identify if I'm listening to vinyl and if it is 33 or 45. No intention made to say one is better than another, but simply an information point.

slowGEEZR said:

I just say Redbook to identify the format, 16bit, 44.1k. I also identify if I'm listening to vinyl and if it is 33 or 45. No intention made to say one is better than another, but simply an information point.

Click to expand...

Exactly.
If I am posting about the sound of music I am listening to I want all to know exactly what I am describing and in what resolution. Why? Because it gives the reader more info and if they were thinking about purchasing it - at least they know exactly what it is I am listening to. Also if I am listening thru a dac - knowing whether I am streaming dsd... Double dsd....192/24 or 44/16 is pertinent info as the DAC may do better with one than another.

And yes I agree about the importance of the mastering and it being a bigger factor....I mean of course it is. But that doesn't make the other info irrelevant either.