Post by zeus October 8, 2008 (11 of 33)
|
|
Dumfy said:
It's interesting that you find stereo SACD a complete waste of time.
As I mentioned, I am new to SACD and would have thought that with the increased resolution and detail that SACD affords, it would lead to a much improved sound. So are you saying that SACD stereo is not a vast improvement over standard CD?
Disbeliever's views aren't shared by many (most?) here. Everybody has different ears, systems, expectations etc. If you'd never listened to good DSD recordings and relied solely on transfers of pop/rock I can see how you could come to this view though. All I can suggest is that you listen for yourself and make up your own mind.
|
|
|
Post by DSD October 8, 2008 (12 of 33)
|
|
Disbeliever said:
Hi Dumfy,
My experience is ,even with a expensive SACD/CD player Marantz SA-7S1 £5K in the UK. Stereo SACD is a complete waste of time. You must go 5.1 surround sound and then you can use a cheap DVD player like the Pioneer DV-lX50 and get superb results. I sold off the Marantz player a complete waste of money, my 20 year old Marantz CD94 (modified) sounded far more musical. The main problem for a full SACD performance is to find a reasoably priced receiver that can decode DSD to analogue without first going to LPCM
regds Gerald
I find CD to be a complete waste of time! I think you are sabotaging your 2 channel SACD playback. First off forget about ANYTHING digital in the receiver, ANALOG IN AND OUT ONLY!
Did you know most of the megabuck SACD players from high-end companies are 2 channel stereo only such as the new Playback Designs MPS-5 SACD Player? I don't think they considered 2 channel stereo SACD a waste of time. Two channel SACD is a whole new ball game, it should sound nothing whatsoever like a low resolution CD, it should sound more like live music or perhaps 15 IPS analog tape.
If Stereo SACD does not sound analog life-like as opposed to digital like CD something is wrong downstream. Here are some tips from my article "How to get the best from 2 Channel Stereo SACD and 50 recommended recordings." http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue39/sacd.htm
``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Recommendations to get the high resolution from your SACDs in 2 channel stereo
If your SACD player is also a DVD player it should be set to "Audio Direct" which gives the most direct path and bypasses the Video circuitry and the display should be turned off to eliminate LCD noise entering the signal path and to keep you from being distracted from the music by watching your player count time.
Your SACD player should be plugged directly into a pre-amp, integrated-amp or receiver that allows a "pure analog" direct sound path that bypasses all EQ and other signal altering devices. Basically all you want is a direct straight wire with gain path from SACD player to speakers with the widest frequency response possible.
It is my personal belief that the octaves between 20k-40kHz are part of what makes SACD, DVD-Audio and LPs so realistic as these contain the upper overtones for most musical instruments. Muted trumpets' overtones extend to over 100kHz so having flat response to 100kHz is the best. You may ask why as most people do not hear above 20kHz and some cannot hear above 15kHz? According to research by Prof. Johnson at Pacific Microsonics and others even though we cannot hear ultra-sonic frequencies as sound we do respond to frequencies up to 80kHz and notice when they are removed. In other words ultra-sonic frequencies are processed by our brains and effect the frequencies that we do hear. Ultra-sonic research is helping deaf people to "hear" by shifting speech into the ultrasonic region where they can perceive it.
The frequency range of my signal path from SACD to speakers:
Yamaha DVD-Audio/SACD player: over 100kHz (no plus or minus range given).
AMC CVT-1030 tubed preamp with the Direct Mode on is 4kHz-80kHz –3dB.
Adcom GFA555II power amp: 1.7Hz-100kHz
Infinity Kappa 7 speakers: 37Hz-45kHz +/- 3dB
As you can see my limiting factor is my speakers, I could possible add a super tweeter or trade up to one of the newer speaker system that extends to 100kHz, then my limiting factor would be my tubed preamp which extends to 80kHz. It is possible an increase in sonic realism would result due to the overtones above 45kHz but for now I am extremely pleased with the frequency extension of my system playing high resolution formats such as SACD.
Lastly beware of receivers with DSP. Many stereo and multi-channel receiver/preamplifiers provide stereo and/or multi-channel analog inputs that are routed to analog-to-digital PCM converters for Digital Signal Processing control, often at 44.1kHz. The signals are then passed on to digital-to analog converters for the final output to speakers. This "feature" will cause ALL signals, regardless of source, to be no better quality than that of CD playback. Considering that you are playing an SACD with a sampling rate 64 times that of CD, use a receiver or preamplifier that passes the stereo and/or multi-channel analog signals through entirely in the analog domain. Keeping the signal in analog, without any further digital inter-steps, will insure you will be enjoying the full quality of SACD. All "effects" programs should be disabled, such as "concert hall", "stadium", "nightclub", etc. These ambience programs, which are more suitable for home video use, will destroy the carefully mixed 2 channel stereo and multi-channel surround presentation you will find on SACDs.
Not all SACDs that have both high resolution multi-channel and 2-channel stereo programs sound great in 2-channel as sometimes the high resolution 2-channel program is an afterthought. A few rock issues are believed to have used the CD masters to make the high resolution 2 channel program and only went back to the original analog masters for the multi-channel program.
Telarc is among the companies in which the 2-channel program is NOT an afterthought. Michael Bishop, Telarc's main Recording Engineer has told me "I definitely have stereo-specific and surround-specific microphones employed on our sessions. Believe it or not, a lot more time is spent on the stereo program even still. Most of the session monitoring is of the stereo program and the majority of post-production editing is performed relative to the stereo program. Stereo recording is still more of a trick to get "right." I think surround recording is a bit easier myself, although there is a lot more mic setup work."
Most of the other Classical and Jazz record labels get the 2 channel stereo program right most of the time, but there are exceptions. One helpful source is www.sa-cd.net as their reviews rate both the Stereo and Multi-channel programs. But even when the 2 channel stereo program is compromised the resulting sonics are still far superior to CD, but it is best when they get it right!
|
|
|
Post by RWetmore October 8, 2008 (13 of 33)
|
|
Dumfy said:
It's interesting that you find stereo SACD a complete waste of time.
As I mentioned, I am new to SACD and would have thought that with the increased resolution and detail that SACD affords, it would lead to a much improved sound. So are you saying that SACD stereo is not a vast improvement over standard CD?
I can appreciate what it must be like to use the multi-channel option, but my room and domestic set up won't allow for this.
So, is stereo SACD a waste of time? If it is and as I can't utilise a 5.1 set up, I may as well opt for a standard CD player.
Dumfy
I've been listening to SACD for about 8 years in stereo only. I hear an improvement over regular redbook CD most of the time, especially if the source is analog or it's a DSD recording. I listen mostly to classical and a little jazz, but I've found the higher resolution can benefit any type of music.
IMO, the difference is generally subtle, so don't expect to be blown away, especially if you only have a modest system. SACDs should sound a little smoother, richer and more natural; they should be easier on the ears (less listening fatigue) with little or no digital glare. As with any audio medium, quality will vary depending on how well the music is recorded and mastered. There are many lousy sounding SACDs.
|
|
|
Post by Dumfy October 8, 2008 (14 of 33)
|
|
DSD said:
I find CD to be a complete waste of time! I think you are sabotaging your 2 channel SACD playback. First off forget about ANYTHING digital in the receiver, ANALOG IN AND OUT ONLY!
Recommendations to get the high resolution from your SACDs in 2 channel stereo
If your SACD player is also a DVD player it should be set to "Audio Direct" which gives the most direct path and bypasses the Video circuitry and the display should be turned off to eliminate LCD noise entering the signal path and to keep you from being distracted from the music by watching your player count time.
Your SACD player should be plugged directly into a pre-amp, integrated-amp or receiver that allows a "pure analog" direct sound path that bypasses all EQ and other signal altering devices. Basically all you want is a direct straight wire with gain path from SACD player to speakers with the widest frequency response possible.
It is my personal belief that the octaves between 20k-40kHz are part of what makes SACD, DVD-Audio and LPs so realistic as these contain the upper overtones for most musical instruments. Muted trumpets' overtones extend to over 100kHz so having flat response to 100kHz is the best. You may ask why as most people do not hear above 20kHz and some cannot hear above 15kHz? According to research by Prof. Johnson at Pacific Microsonics and others even though we cannot hear ultra-sonic frequencies as sound we do respond to frequencies up to 80kHz and notice when they are removed. In other words ultra-sonic frequencies are processed by our brains and effect the frequencies that we do hear. Ultra-sonic research is helping deaf people to "hear" by shifting speech into the ultrasonic region where they can perceive it.
Lastly beware of receivers with DSP. Many stereo and multi-channel receiver/preamplifiers provide stereo and/or multi-channel analog inputs that are routed to analog-to-digital PCM converters for Digital Signal Processing control, often at 44.1kHz. The signals are then passed on to digital-to analog converters for the final output to speakers. This "feature" will cause ALL signals, regardless of source, to be no better quality than that of CD playback. Considering that you are playing an SACD with a sampling rate 64 times that of CD, use a receiver or preamplifier that passes the stereo and/or multi-channel analog signals through entirely in the analog domain. Keeping the signal in analog, without any further digital inter-steps, will insure you will be enjoying the full quality of SACD. All "effects" programs should be disabled, such as "concert hall", "stadium", "nightclub", etc. These ambience programs, which are more suitable for home video use, will destroy the carefully mixed 2 channel stereo and multi-channel surround presentation you will find on SACDs.
Not all SACDs that have both high resolution multi-channel and 2-channel stereo programs sound great in 2-channel as sometimes the high resolution 2-channel program is an afterthought. A few rock issues are believed to have used the CD masters to make the high resolution 2 channel program and only went back to the original analog masters for the multi-channel program.
Hi DSD,
Many thanks indeed for such an informative reply.
I guess you've hit the nail on the head. My first love is the good ol' vinyl LP and I was hoping that SACD would be more akin to this than the harsher sounding standard CD. After all, I thought that was part of the idea behind SACD - to use the extra data and resolution to improve on CD so that it becomes much more natural/smoother.
In terms of hooking up, I intend to use a dedicated CD/SACD player (no DVD or DVD-A) and connect this to an integrated HiFi amp (no multi-channel AV receiver).
I will be using the analog L-R phono out of the player straight to the analog input on the amp. The amp I'm thinking of will have a "source direct" option on it thereby shutting off display and un-needed circuits. I'll also be using quality interconnects.
Is this the right way to go..?
Thanks again for your time, one and all..
Dumfy
|
|
|
Post by amatala October 8, 2008 (15 of 33)
|
|
RWetmore said:
I've been listening to SACD for about 8 years in stereo only. I hear an improvement over regular redbook CD most of the time, especially if the source is analog or it's a DSD recording. I listen mostly to classical and a little jazz, but I've found the higher resolution can benefit any type of music.
IMO, the difference is generally subtle, so don't expect to be blown away, especially if you only have a modest system. SACDs should sound a little smoother, richer and more natural; they should be easier on the ears (less listening fatigue) with little or no digital glare. As with any audio medium, quality will vary depending on how well the music is recorded and mastered. There are many lousy sounding SACDs.
I think this is a perfectly objective and valid opinion which sums it up pretty nicely.
I think what should play an important role in your decision is the kind of music you are listening to. If you're mostly listening to classical music, then investing in a SACD player makes sense. If you are a jazz listener, it still makes some sense, but less. If you're mostly listening to pop/rock, simply forget about it - there are not enough titles available to justify the investment.
Also, like someone already mentioned here, if you already own a very good and musical CD player, don't change it with a stereo SACD player, unless you are ready to spend many thousand $$$ on the SACD player.
The Marantz CD-94 player was mentioned here - being the proud owner of two vintage extremely musical Marantz CDA-94 DACs, I know I would never invest in a stereo SACD player today.
|
|
|
Post by trntbl October 8, 2008 (16 of 33)
|
|
Yes, I agree with two previous posters. If you want "gigantic" or "night/day" improvement, you have to go all the way to multichannel system. Difference between stereo SACD and CD are in the same category as difference between a good cd player and a little bit better cd player.
ps. I have a vintage Philips cd-player from early eighties, built like a tank. I intend to mod it this winter, going for non-upsampling 14 bit (original TAD1540 mono-DACs) mode and discrete FET or tube output stage. As the sound of the player is enjoyable in stock form, it´ll be interesting to listen how close to SACD performance can I get. This hifi-marketing crap that everything brand new is *always* better than old makes me sometimes sick.
kristian
|
|
|
|
|
|
amatala said:
If you're mostly listening to pop/rock, simply forget about it - there are not enough titles available to justify the investment.
Also this is entirely personal. I mostly listen to pop/rock (I've got a few dozen titles; see /library/2804) and am definitely going to replace my SACD player when it breaks down. Probably by a universal SACD/DVD-A player, perhaps one that also plays BD (if the Oppo or others are out by that time).
|
|
|
|
|
|
DSD said:
First off forget about ANYTHING digital in the receiver, ANALOG IN AND OUT ONLY!
Either analog or DSD in, I would say (funny that the above remark should come from 'DSD' :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Most people Hi-Fi mags included do not know how to set up a multi-channel sound system. The rear speakers can be very small I use B& W M.1's which are very unobtrusive on excellent stands . The volume should be set low all you need is the ambience, they should not be at the same volume as the front speakers. The multi-channel sound is so much better than stereo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
RWetmore said:
I've been listening to SACD for about 8 years in stereo only. I hear an improvement over regular redbook CD most of the time, especially if the source is analog or it's a DSD recording. I listen mostly to classical and a little jazz, but I've found the higher resolution can benefit any type of music.
I couldn’t agree more with what Rwhetmore has just said, regarding SACD benefiting all types of music. When I first discovered hi-res music (DVD-A just under 4 years ago), I had the general feeling and thoughts that it wouldn’t bring much benefit to pop/rock, and benefit mainly classical orchestral music. I didn’t have a hi-res player back then, just a simple Sony DVD video player - so my thoughts were completely without foundation. Needless to say, all of my DVD-As were played like DVD-Vs, i.e. in compressed lossy mode. I was overjoyed with the sound quality improvement over CDs though. My hi-res journey had only just begun. Since late 2006/early 2007, I have the Arcam DV137 player and AVR350 multi-channel amplifier, and my original thoughts have been modified - and I am experiencing the joys of SACD and (proper) DVD-A.
Not only have I modified my original thoughts, but my listening pleasure has been revolutionised. The other thought that I’ve recently modified, is the way I view non-MCH discs. My preference is still for multi-channel music wherever possible (particularly with classical), but I won’t discount a stereo/mono mix for other genre if that is all that is available. In fact, my very first non-MCH SACD was Kojiki by Kitaro. This is so well recorded, that I find it hard sometimes to believe that it is only stereo. One other good example of pop/rock, is my Little Richard SACD, which is a mono-only disc. I still find it amazing sometimes how much information the DV137 seems to be able to extract from CDs, let alone hi-res formats. The difference between the CD layer of the Little Richard album and the SACD layer however is very noticeable to me. I consider this music to be fairly “basic, primitive and raw”, not at all complex. All of this, and I’m only operating my system with speakers that are derided by many hi-fi addicts - the Bose AM15 system. These are well overdue for replacement, but finances do not allow for this at the moment.
And as The Seventh Taylor, in my opinion quite rightly points out, it’s all down to personal choice whether one believes (perceives?) there to be enough choice in pop/rock SACDs. I have a small collection of such musical genre (in both DVD-A and SACD), and they provide me with plenty of entertainment. There are plenty of (far too many) gaps with these musical genre, but there are still a lot I could, and will, spend my money on.
|
|
