Post by gfv July 9, 2007 (1 of 7)
|
|
Hi, I am checking specs and reviews of DVD/SACD players to try and find which price range of machines would give me the maximum improvement in sound quality over normal audio CDs. There seems not to be any audio only, multi channel SACD players available?
Because of the SACD's DSD encoding, the frequency bandwith of players are 20 Hz to 100kHz. Does this mean that I have to upgrade my amplifier (with 20 Hz to 20Khz frequency response) as well, to get maximum sound quality from SACD discs? I have a Rotel RSX-1055 multi-channel amplifier with six Boston speakers.
Any advice would be appreciated.
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Claude July 9, 2007 (2 of 7)
|
|
Hi, welcome to the site.
I think that with your home theatre purpose amp and speakers and with a budget SACD/DVD player, the main benefit you'll get from SACD is multichannel sound. Don't worry about bandwith, it's irrelevant. An amplifier that sounds great with LP and CD will also sound great with SACD. Except for multichannel capabilities (if wanted), there is no special amplifier requirement for SACD.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Claude said:
Hi, welcome to the site.
Except for multichannel capabilities (if wanted), there is no special amplifier requirement for SACD.
Actually there is no particular requirement for the amp even if you want multi-channel. I am currently using 3 stereo amps for 5 channels. The center channel speakers are fed by a stereo amp that is in turn fed by a Y connection from my multi-channel preamp. OK, now it dawns on me! ... if you want Multi-channel you WILL want a multi-channel preamp whether it is part of an integrated mch amp or a separate item leaving you to choose among multi-channel amps, stereoamps and monoblocks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
gfv said:
There seems not to be any audio only, multi channel SACD players available?
There are, such as the Sony SCD-XA9000ES. See this thread for a similar discussion that took place last week:
/showthread/22110//y?page=first
As for ampifier requirements, you'll want to make sure it doesn't internally convert to 16-bit 44.1/48 kHz PCM, which some low-end AV Receivers do for easier signal processing.
|
|
|
Post by gfv July 10, 2007 (5 of 7)
|
|
Thanks for the responses.
The 100Khz upper frequency spec of a SACD decoded DSD signal is then maybe of theoretical relevance only, I guess, also because the human ear's response does not reach there.
That brings me to my final problem: Is the step in sound quality from a Denon DVD1930 to a DVD2930 or Marantz DV7001, worth the doubling in price tag? Assuming my amplifier and speakers would not present any limitations, does anybody maybe have any experience with any of these models?
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by tream July 10, 2007 (6 of 7)
|
|
The 100Khz upper frequency spec of a SACD decoded DSD signal is then maybe of theoretical relevance only, I guess, also because the human ear's response does not reach there.
This is a debatable assumption. Why bother with SACD at all unless you believe (as most of us seem to) that the extra headroom results in a sweeter, less clipped sound than RBCD, where the upper frequencies are also beyond the theorectical limitations of the human ear. Of course, multichannel does have its own benefits, but even in 2 channel SACD sounds better than RDCD, ceteris paribus, as economists like to say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
gfv said:
The 100Khz upper frequency spec of a SACD decoded DSD signal is then maybe of theoretical relevance only, I guess, also because the human ear's response does not reach there.
I believe the response to 100K is a byproduct of the very high sampling rate of DSD which, btw, incurs a cost of heavy duty noise shaping. IT eliminates a brick wall filter that seems to be the cause of rbcd stridency. I think somewhere (maybe even on this forum) someone claims that at a sampling rate of in the neighborhood of 380 Kilosamples per second, the problem goes away. DSD uses 2.8 million samples per second. RBCD is 44.1k and most DVD is 96k to 192K samples per second. Having equipment with an audio response to 100K to match the DSD response is not at all necessary.
|
|
