Post by lkypeter December 30, 2009 (11 of 26)
|
|
I have a Marantz SA11S2 SACD player and the only way to get the output is via analogue. The digital and coaxial is only useful for red book CDs or playing the red book tracks of a hybrid CDs
Some high end SACD player that come with a 5 figure amount like DCS and Esoteric have capability to output the SACD output to their own DAC on mostly IEEE-1394, HDMI or their proprietary links.
I have been around SACD for a few years and this is my third SACD player and I must say that on most of the SACD hybrid recordings, the SACD track is more airy than the red book track regardless whether I use the internal DAC or the outboard Benchmark DAC.
My view is that law of physics apply as red book is 16bits/44.1 Khz whereas SACD is 1 bit by 2882 Khz and if you do the maths, it would contain more details. As to the red book camp that anything beyond 20 Khz is not audible to us and I do agree that as a single tone it is not but when blended with the audible range, it seems to provide better harmonics.
BTW, I only play stereo SACD as I am a stereo fan and not into multi channels stuff as of now and about 90% of my music is classical music.
Cheers,,,, Pete
|
|
|
|
|
|
SACD sounds far more realistic in multi-channel
|
|
|
Post by Myrantz December 30, 2009 (13 of 26)
|
|
Disbeliever said:
SACD sounds far more realistic in multi-channel
Sorry, but I have to disagree. While multi-channel can sound very good, it is by no means realistic except on some classical & jazz recordings where the surrounds are used for ambient details. On most rock recordings it's basically novelty value - great fun maybe, but novelty all the same.
Whether you listen to SACD, CD, LP's etc, stereo sound is far superior imho, but it takes reasonably good quality gear at a minimum to appreciate this, as well as correctly set up equipment and room tuning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Myrantz said:
Sorry, but I have to disagree. While multi-channel can sound very good, it is by no means realistic except on some classical & jazz recordings where the surrounds are used for ambient details. On most rock recordings it's basically novelty value - great fun maybe, but novelty all the same.
Whether you listen to SACD, CD, LP's etc, stereo sound is far superior imho, but it takes reasonably good quality gear at a minimum to appreciate this, as well as correctly set up equipment and room tuning.
For me Rock is total rubbish. However Classical & Jazz sounds far more realistic in MCH & I agree you must have the correct set for both MCH SACD & Stereo from CD & LP. My speakers are room matched & voiced most people do not have the opportunity to obtain a good match. They are stuck with the speakers as purchased which can sound vastly different according to the rooms in which they are used.
|
|
|
Post by Kutyatest December 31, 2009 (15 of 26)
|
|
This surely highlights one of the main advantages of SACD (or DVD-A) over the humble CD? Having a choice of audio options is a wonderful thing, and all of the SACDs I own that have a MCH option also have a stereo option. This is also nearly 100% true also of my ever-growing DVD-A collection. Out of about 60 DVD-As I own, only three albums that have a MCH option, don't have an alternative audio mix.
Happy New Year to all!
|
|
|
Post by raffells December 31, 2009 (16 of 26)
|
|
Steve,
Have you considered digitally downmixing your own stereo version from these three ? It is legal and you can blend in and out whatever you want.
PS Im curious what these three are.
you can email me direct if you want.
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
|
Myrantz said:
Sorry, but I have to disagree. While multi-channel can sound very good, it is by no means realistic except on some classical & jazz recordings where the surrounds are used for ambient details.
... which makes up probably 90% of the SACD catalogue, if not more.
> On most rock recordings it's basically novelty value - great fun maybe, but novelty all the same.
On those (rock) recordings where multi-channel is not used for ambience and natural reproduction of an acoustic performance arguably the stereo mix is just as artificial as a surround mix. Personally I love the soundscapes that have becomne possible with SACD. I take it for rock music you prefer mono over the novel gimmick that is stereo?
|
|
|
|
|
|
raffells said:
Steve,
Have you considered digitally downmixing your own stereo version from these three ? It is legal and you can blend in and out whatever you want.
PS Im curious what these three are.
you can email me direct if you want.
Dave
Hello Dave,
Happy New Year!
I have to admit, that I'm not really sure what is meant by digitally downmixing my own stereo version. I have an awful lot of holes in my technical knowledge, and so far tend to listen to what albums I have - and then decide what I think of them. I also have a "problem" with combining a computer with my appreciation of music. I suppose what I mean by this is, when I sit at a computer (as I'm doing now), it sort of reminds me of work. As lovely as it can be communicating with people on these forums - and sharing views and knowledge - I tend to see the computer as a work tool. Perhaps I might think differently if I didin't spend every working day in front of a computer. Now on the opposite side of things, if I go into my living room and look at my Arcam DV137 and AVR350, I associate these with the pleasure of listening to music.
Anyway, I'm not getting any closer to answering your question! The DVD-As that I have (and I've just realised it's more than just three) where there is a MCH hi-res audio option but not a stereo hi-res option are as follows:-
Dvorak "Symphony No.9 & The Water Goblin" - Teldec
Wagner "Overtures & Preludes" - Arts
Emerson Lake & Palmer "Brain Salad Surgery"
Various Artists "British are Coming" - Silverline
In fact, in addition to the above, i'ts quite possible that I could have more examples like this, as I've recently added about another 13 DVD-As (and 13 SACDs) to my hi-res music collection which I've not yet got around to unwrapping and investigating. Interestingly enough, the case and sleeve notes of the top three examples all mention a stereo option, but it doesn't exist. I'm perfectly happy with what I have on the discs however, and don't feel as if I'm missing anything. The only thing that would have been of particular interest to me, would have been to be able to listen to a stereo version of "Brain Salad Surgery", as the version on the DVD-A sounds very slightly different to the CD (which I also own), and I believe also the original LP. I haven't got the original LP anymore (or the means by which to play it), but feek confident in saying that the LP version sounds like the CD. I am not referring in any way to audio quality here, but rather the recorded variations. I hope this makes sense.
On a bit of an aside now however, I do like the MCH version of "Brain Salad Surgery", and I also liked the stereo version on the LP and CD. All versions, however, stretched the imagination into accepting what was "natural" or "normal" though. ELP were no different from a number of other (particularly prog rock) bands, in as much that they appeared to "experiment" with stereo a lot, and have sound going sometimes wildly from left to right, right to left, and back again - over and over again. In this way at least, the MCH version just continues this trend/approach.
|
|
|
Post by raffells January 1, 2010 (19 of 26)
|
|
Hi Steve.
Whilst this is wandering off from the original thread.
Basically if you have a dvd burner in your PC your set.
You will require the free version of dvdaexplorer link posted.
Once unzipped and installed this will extract DVDA surround files and convert them into a basic stereo mix as a .wav file.From memory it doesnt correct the recording level of surround layers ie these are normally -6db so any mix with a low output on the rears or no centre channel will be slightly down on level.
It doesnt remove copyright protection.
You then use any DVD audio burning software to produce your own stereo dvda or dad.
If this mix isnt to your liking,you can save all the files as wave after that it gets more complicated and time consuming.eg I spent over a week on Alison Krauss Live DVDA.Wasnt worth the effort.?
http://www.mediafire.com/?3mkuy1ihogd
|
|
|
|
|
|
raffells said:
Hi Steve.
Whilst this is wandering off from the original thread.
Basically if you have a dvd burner in your PC your set.
You will require the free version of dvdaexplorer link posted.
Once unzipped and installed this will extract DVDA surround files and convert them into a basic stereo mix as a .wav file.From memory it doesnt correct the recording level of surround layers ie these are normally -6db so any mix with a low output on the rears or no centre channel will be slightly down on level.
It doesnt remove copyright protection.
You then use any DVD audio burning software to produce your own stereo dvda or dad.
If this mix isnt to your liking,you can save all the files as wave after that it gets more complicated and time consuming.eg I spent over a week on Alison Krauss Live DVDA.Wasnt worth the effort.?
http://www.mediafire.com/?3mkuy1ihogd
Thanks Dave,
I find the technology side of these things quite fascinating. Funnily enough, since my earlier post, I've discovered another one of my DVD-As that don't have a stereo option. It's my Elvis "30 #1 Hits" album. Strange, for me it would have been logical to have released it either as stereo only (as in the case of my Alan Parsons Project DVD-As), or with a stereo option additional to 5.1. Anyway, I don't have any knowledge of how the music industry operates, so I could be overlooking something. My Beach Boys "Pet Sounds" DVD-A offers 3 hi-res options: The origianlly released mono version, the originally recorded stereo version, and an all new (Brian Wilson supervised) 5.1 version. My wife and I tend to have a preference for the stereo mixes (as with my The Doors "Perception" box set), but again, this is one of the plus points of SACD or DVD-A - (often) having a choice.
Before I drag this thread any more off topic, I wonder whether we have assisted the OP?
|
|
