|
|
|
jullepoika said:
Do you really mean 5.1 or just 5.0?
5.1 is a movie sound standard where the low bass is directed to it's own channel (0.1) with 10 dB level boost. The side channels have no bass. That has no place in high fidelity world.
That is incorrect. 5.1 has 5 full range channels with Low Frequency Effects on the .1 channel. It is often on the disc at a 10dB CUT (not boost) but some misuse it and apply the requisite 10dB boost twice. It is simply 5.0 with extra effects on the extra channel. A good example of music 5.1 discs is Telarc.
Kal
|
|
|
|
|
|
I noticed in the FAQ section of this site - 4th dot point under "What is the difference between SA-CD and DVD-Audio?" that the SA-CD format supports up to six channels mostly using 3 - 6. Maybe not all channels are for playback?
|
|
|
|
|
|
jullepoika said:
The digital signal has to be DA converted somewhere. Impossible to say which does the conversion better, player (analog outs)or the reciver (fed digitally via HDMI).
I find HDMI to be best for everything especially with Sony .
|
|
|
|
|
|
Savage Karma said:
I noticed in the FAQ section of this site - 4th dot point under "What is the difference between SA-CD and DVD-Audio?" that the SA-CD format supports up to six channels mostly using 3 - 6. Maybe not all channels are for playback?
If not playback, what would they be used for? The point is that the source material may have any number of channels from 2 to 6 and the SACD format accommodates any of those.
Kal
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thats right, SACD has 6 full-frequency channels. There are various ways in which the 6th channel can be used e.g.
- as an LFE channel, the way it's done with DVD-Video; a quite a few SACDs do so, as Kal rightly refers to.
- a rear center channel; I believe there are no SACDs that do so.
- as a height channel, as is excellently done on Sacred Feast - Gaudeamus
Unfortunately there is no flag defined to let the player know how the disc uses it. I believe this was considered for SACD 2.0 but that standard never materialized.
|
|
|
Post by WKRP January 28, 2010 (16 of 32)
|
|
Savage Karma said:
Which is best - analog or HDMI? My a/v receiver has both (it's a Marantz SR5004).
Disbeliever said:
I find HDMI to be best for everything especially with Sony .
It is not accurate to say either is best. The music on the disc is digital, but it has to be converted to analog to hear it from the speakers. If your SACD player has analog outputs, the D/A conversion takes place in the player. If you are using HDMI, the digital signal will be passed to your receiver, which must perform the D/A conversion.
Therefore, "which is best" depends on which unit's D/A chip gives you the better sound. I bought one of the first Oppo BDP-83 players, which plays both SACD and DVD-A. I recently sent it into the shop to get the "BDP-83SE" upgrade. They upgrade the D/A chip, which affects the analog outs but not the digital HDMI outs. I have heard the SE uses a great chip, so I want my player doing the D/A conversion. I do not care what chip my receiver has, I only care that is has 5.1 analog inputs. Actually, the BDP-83 supports both 5.1/7.1 output.
The Oppo and the Pioneer Kuro monitor were my easy A-V upgrade choices. I am definitely going with Salk Sound speakers too. What's hard is learning what components (receiver vs. separates) go between the source and the speakers, and choosing the right equipment for a 2CH and 5.1/7.1CH combined system.
|
|
|
Post by steviev January 29, 2010 (17 of 32)
|
|
Kal Rubinson said:
That is incorrect. 5.1 has 5 full range channels with Low Frequency Effects on the .1 channel.
I'm not certain this always the case. I have four 2L discs, and they have notably weak bass unless the subwoof is pumping. I'm pretty sure they do a low pass for the LFE channel, and a high pass for the 5.0. LSO Live, however, seems to have full frequency 5.0 combined with a low pass LFE. This makes for muddy bass if all your speakers are fullrange, and I find that turning the subwoof off improves the clarity of LSO recordings without sacrificing bass.
|
|
|
|
|
|
steviev said:
I'm not certain this always the case. I have four 2L discs, and they have notably weak bass unless the subwoof is pumping. I'm pretty sure they do a low pass for the LFE channel, and a high pass for the 5.0. LSO Live, however, seems to have full frequency 5.0 combined with a low pass LFE. This makes for muddy bass if all your speakers are fullrange, and I find that turning the subwoof off improves the clarity of LSO recordings without sacrificing bass.
This is the standard. Any number of recordings are less than perfect and the same can be said for many playback systems.
Kal
|
|
|
|
|
|
steviev said:
I'm not certain this always the case. I have four 2L discs, and they have notably weak bass unless the subwoof is pumping. I'm pretty sure they do a low pass for the LFE channel, and a high pass for the 5.0. LSO Live, however, seems to have full frequency 5.0 combined with a low pass LFE. This makes for muddy bass if all your speakers are fullrange, and I find that turning the subwoof off improves the clarity of LSO recordings without sacrificing bass.
I have two 2L discs and can find absolutely nothing wrong with the bass. However I do have very well designed transmission line speakers and have no need for a sub-woofer. The room acoustics as always define the sound.I am awaiting the new Oppo BDP-80 player so I can try out again the Blu-Ray versions of 2L discs.I find the 2L sound excellent apart from when they want to put you in the middle of the orchestra.
|
|
|
Post by armenian January 30, 2010 (20 of 32)
|
|
Disbeliever said:
However I do have very well designed transmission line speakers and have no need for a sub-woofer.
Call me an idiot, but I must ask, what is “transmission line speaker?
Vahe
|
|
