Post by simplyme December 11, 2010 (31 of 87)
|
|
I signed up just now just so that I could reply to this thread. The original question was a simple one. Is SACD a better sounding format then CD? Answer, YES. Willing to spend some cash, is it worth doing to get the right equipment to make it all happen? Answer. If you really love listening to music, then by all means why not. I haven't upgraded my equipment in years. I have an eight year old Sony DVD player that plays SACD. I use the 6 channel coax outputs because my even older Yamaha receiver has no digital inputs, but did come with 6 channel inputs. I have a set of Energy book shelf speakers with the matching center channel that are about as old as the receiver, and a pair of Advent book shelf speakers I use for rear that I could not even guess how old.
The dvd player came with a SACD sampler. I had a friend over when I played it for the first time. One trac we listened to was of Miles Davis - Kind of Blue. Sounded great. But my friend remembered he had that same cd in the car. so he grabbed it and we played it. To say the CD sound quality was lacking is to say the Pacific Ocean is damp! We couldn't even listen to it anymore, and put the SACD back in. I almost cried. My wife came out of the room wondering who was playing the horn. We told her it was the SACD disc and she couldn't believe it.
The quality from one recording to another can very, but overall, I would say worth the money.
|
|
|
Post by hiredfox December 12, 2010 (32 of 87)
|
|
Surely the DSD format was adopted by Sony as a response to and in clear recognition of the well known limitations of RB PCM and their belief in the very obvious superiority of a digital coding that resembled analogue in form with all sorts of other benefits that could be simply processed onto a standard sized disc.
DSD and SACD was clearly conceived from outset as a means of improving ultimate sound quality from disc in the belief that the historical huge demand from audiophiles for ever improving sound quality would continue unabated.
It is equally logical to me to have expected that DSD was not intended to be a Mch format. Wouldn't that have come about later after the initial euphoria had died down, with the realisation of the hugely increased data storage possibilities of the SACD and the unpalatable truth that convenience of MP3 players and downloading would in all probability sound the death knell of high quality sound?
So you've got this new format in which you've sunk a few year's of R & D budget, suddenly the future may not be quite as rosy as you at first believed so looking for other ways of exploiting the new toy was not exactly rocket science.
What continues to amaze me on here is that so many people still deny themselves the opportunity to hear the full potential of DSD and SACD by never having heard it on equipment that could be even remotely described as high end. Worse still so many of these people now seem to be in a state of permanent denial that such superiority could indeed exist to the extent that more often than not many are prepared to indulge derogatory opinions on DSD's high end sound capabilities without any relevant experience to support their beliefs.
I know we cannot all be blessed with very high quality - often eye-wateringly expensive - hi-fi equipment but that is no excuse to fall into the trap of constantly opining the demerits of DSD and rubbishing the experience of those who have been more fortunate or more resolute.
|
|
|
Post by Iain December 12, 2010 (33 of 87)
|
|
ghostie said:
hi all, i am a newbie in this forum so pardon my entry level questions.
i recently bought a marantz nr1501 entry level, slim line AV receiver and while i was digging through my cd collection, i found a couple of SACD. i played them using my xbox360 over my nr1501 and thought i would get get a great difference in listening pleasure but sadly, i hardly felt it.
i knew then that my xbox360 could read the HD level from the disc and further investigation, i realized that not only i need a player that must support DSD but also a receiver that must accept DSD format.
now that i have already owned the nr1501 (with NO DSD support), is there any great difference in sound quality if i have a SACD player? in other words, should i invest in a SACD player or am i going to stuck with a normal CD player?
your advice is greatly appreciated.
First post, but I've been lurking here for the past 18 months.
Like yours, my receiver (Denon 2310) will not decode DSD bitstream so I've been using my Pioneer DV-610 DVD player to convert to PCM (88.2 kHz/24 bit). Can't afford Denon 4310 right now as I'm saving for a quality servo-based subwoofer.
Over the past couple of months though, I've been doing research for my first Blue-Ray player. Rumour surfaced in September that the new Sony BDP-S770 player will convert DSD bitstream to 176.4 kHz/24 bit PCM. This sparked extreme interest in this player and I finally found the first professional review here that verified that PCM sample rate:
http://www.digitaltrends.com/blu-ray-and-dvd-player-reviews/sony-bdp-s1700es-review/
Review is of BDP-S1700ES player, but core functionality is identical to BDP-S770. Minor input enhancements and a 5-year US warranty are only differences.
My new BDP-S770 finally arrived this past week. Installed and integrated it into my system and the Denon AVR verified the higher PCM sample rate. The most overt differences noticed are enhanced soundstage, ease of reproduction of individual instruments and wider dynamic range as compared to the Pioneer DV-610 output.
Point of this post is that you should consider this new Sony player in lieu of a new, expensive DSD capable receiver.
Just my 2p.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Iain said:
Over the past couple of months though, I've been doing research for my first Blue-Ray player. Rumour surfaced in September that the new Sony BDP-S770 player will convert DSD bitstream to 176.4 kHz/24 bit PCM.
So will the S570 and the Yamaha BD-A1000. Of course, so will the XA5400ES.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kal Rubinson said:
So will the S570 and the Yamaha BD-A1000. Of course, so will the XA5400ES.
So, what are the sonic advantages? Enquiring minds and ears need to know!
I think this is a tricky issue that depends on a lot of details. We all have a sort of spring-loaded positive reaction to the thought of 176K vs. 88K. But, who is to say our processors (AVR's and AVP's) do not already do that internally if fed bitstreamed DSD? Most processors today are using 192K PCM DAC's on their final outputs. So, it all depends on what the DSD-PCM conversion process does internally: 88k or 176K.
Then, we have the controversial HDMI jitter issue. I do believe HDMI has high measured jitter. But, I tend to believe the theory that says bitstreaming avoids HDMI jitter issues, since the zipped data transmitted under bitstreaming does not contain a clock. The clock in the signal is generated inside the processor as the incoming data stream is unzipped. On, the other hand, unzipped PCM, no matter how high or low the resolution, may be more harmed by the inherent jitter in HDMI.
So, is this conversion to 176K a distinction without a difference(the only memorable thing George Wallace ever said)? And, is conversion to PCM in the player the best way to go anyway? Personally, I think not and think bitstreaming is the way to go. If so, a player's ability to convert to 176K vs. 88K is immaterial. But, in any case, I think we are probably talking about miniscule differences. Your thoughts?
|
|
|
|
|
|
I do not wish to get into a detailed discussion about this for a number of reasons. However, you do raise a number of valid points.
The major practical issue is that DSD-over-HDMI capability is a disappearing feature in high-end equipment and, imho, that may occur in the rest of the product market soon enough. As a result, I have been using PCM in many setups but not experienced any noticeable corruption or problems.
Jitter is a major bugaboo in audio but I think it is more often invoked as a possible cause rather than a proven correlate of an effect.
The difference between 88.2 and 176.4 is tough to gauge since, perforce, one is also listening to two different players.
Kal
|
|
|
|
|
|
With all due respect to you and to Michi:
1. My comments are all about conversion to PCM for output via the HDMI connection. They have absolutely nothing to do with internal conversions for DAC and/or analog outputs.
2. The quote from Michi is ambiguous about this as well and it appears he is addressing the issue of internal DSD-to-PCM conversion since he is discussing the DAC chips, none of which take part in the signals output via HDMI.
3. The statements I made about DSD/PCM output via HDMI are not based on hearsay or on circuit analysis but on my own hand's-on experimentation with players (including the XA5400ES) and several prepros which indicate the format of the signals they receive. I invite anyone who is interested to try this for themselves.
Kal
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arnaldo said:
September 13, 2009 (Post 232 of 291) /showthread/30517/42485/y#42485
... Sony's SCD-XA5400ES website states "Incorporating an uncompressed digital output for the Direct Stream Digital® signal via HDMI" and "Multi-Channel Direct Stream Digital Output via HDMI." Unless Sony is blatantly and openly lying, there seems to be no conversion inside the player. If the DSD output is converted to LPCM by a receiver, then it's likely a receiver issue.
That statement is not inclusive. Sony never advertises that any of its devices will output PCM via HDMI from DSD but, in fact, almost all of them do. They are not lying; they are simply being selective with the truth.
This is something that I have discussed with technical staff at Sony, Classe, ARCAM, etc. but, more importantly, that I have tested and observed for myself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kal Rubinson said:
That statement is not inclusive. Sony never advertises that any of its devices will output PCM via HDMI from DSD but, in fact, almost all of them do. They are not lying; they are simply being selective with the truth.
This is something that I have discussed with technical staff at Sony, Classe, ARCAM, etc. but, more importantly, that I have tested and observed for myself.
I have to partially disagree with Kal , Sony did IMO lie to me over DSD .Tim Vine - Lott Technical Director Air Studios in an email . after I questioned Sony re DSD from the DA5400ES receiver said Sony's reply was blatantly misleading. It was only after I wrote to Hi-Fi News that Paul Miller was able to get an accurate response from Sony although of course my published letter was edited. Air Studios logo on a Pioneer product means that they have been involved in the design since the prototype , so presumably they have good ears.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kal Rubinson said:
That statement is not inclusive. Sony never advertises that any of its devices will output PCM via HDMI from DSD but, in fact, almost all of them do.
But the SCD-XA5400ES will output DSD or PCM via HDMI dependent on the receiver's capabilities, right?
|
|
