|
|
|
Claude said:
I'd say the effect is rather the opposite. It might boost the interest in DACs (with DSD support or not), not SACD players.
You may have a point here but I believe that the vast majority of those SACD-R's are being played on SACD players that can play SACD-R's (like the OPPO) not DSD DAC's which are still very expensive.
The cheapest DSD DACs are still some 10 times more expensive than the cheapest SACD players.
|
|
|
Post by hiredfox June 7, 2012 (22 of 91)
|
|
Nagraboy said:
The poster who said that downloads sound better than discs should not be so hasty, there are a majority who either think the opposite or hear no difference.
YMMV.
I have in audition heard one of the best download systems available today irrespective of cost and IMHO it cannot hold a candle to playback through top class SACD players and I am not alone in that view.
Martin Colloms no less is on record as saying that there is still a long way to go before downloading will ever surpass physical disc playback and he should know should he not?
|
|
|
Post by Claude June 7, 2012 (23 of 91)
|
|
audioholik said:
You may have a point here but I believe that the vast majority of those SACD-R's are being played on SACD players that can play SACD-R's (like the OPPO) not DSD DAC's which are still very expensive.
The cheapest DSD DACs are still some 10 times more expensive than the cheapest SACD players.
But you don't need a DSD DAC to use SACD ISOs. Foobar2000 can convert them to 24/176 PCM (or lower) on the fly, and output the PCM signal to any DAC.
I don't think those who download SACD ISOs care that much about pure DSD.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Claude said:
But you don't need a DSD DAC to use SACD ISOs. Foobar2000 can convert them to 24/176 PCM (or lower) on the fly, and output the PCM signal to any DAC.
I don't think those who download SACD ISOs care that much about pure DSD.
If they weren't interested in the best quality, they could simply stick to 16/44k rips of CD layers.
|
|
|
Post by Claude June 7, 2012 (25 of 91)
|
|
A 24/88 conversion of the DSD layer sounds much better than the CD layer.
People who download SACD ISOs illegally instead of buying the $20 SACD itself tend to make compromises.
|
|
|
Post by tailspn June 7, 2012 (26 of 91)
|
|
hiredfox said:
I have in audition heard one of the best download systems available today irrespective of cost and IMHO it cannot hold a candle to playback through top class SACD players and I am not alone in that view.
Martin Colloms no less is on record as saying that there is still a long way to go before downloading will ever surpass physical disc playback and he should know should he not?
Sound quality wise? Maybe not.
There's no technical reason for a DSD download data to sound any different than the DSD data contained on the same name SACD. They are in fact, bit identical. However the hardware used to play them back can be very different, and very much affect the sound quality. But the big difference is in the method and ease of playback, and the management of the albums. For me, to be able to instantly arrive and play any portion of the piece is important vs. the 2X (4X?) fast forward or fast reverse of the SACD player. But that's just my preference.
On the average, I think you'll find more accurate sounding electronics in purpose built DACs than in SACD players, especially if they are the new crop of DSD DACs. And if it's important to you, there's much more enjoyment in the use of software players like Pure Music and J River (and others), than pressing the Play button on a hardware player. YMMV.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Claude said:
But you don't need a DSD DAC to use SACD ISOs. Foobar2000 can convert them to 24/176 PCM (or lower) on the fly, and output the PCM signal to any DAC.
I don't think those who download SACD ISOs care that much about pure DSD.
You can also choose to have it output pure DSD. When I hook my laptop up to my Onkyo receiver, which is not often cause it is a pain, via HDMI, I choose the SACD plugin to output DSD. Works fine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Claude said:
People who download SACD ISOs illegally instead of buying the $20 SACD itself tend to make compromises.
With disc spinners like BDP-95 they don't have to.
|
|
|
Post by Chris June 8, 2012 (29 of 91)
|
|
hiredfox said:
I have in audition heard one of the best download systems available today irrespective of cost and IMHO it cannot hold a candle to playback through top class SACD players and I am not alone in that view.
Martin Colloms no less is on record as saying that there is still a long way to go before downloading will ever surpass physical disc playback and he should know should he not?
Dear hiredfox, Would you care to share exactly what download system you are referring to and maybe also the recordings and system used?
If it couldn't even hold a candle against SACD,permit me to doubt that you were listening to a really good download system.
From my own experiences often posted here high quality DACs and pcm recorded downloads tend to beat any SACD player I have compared them to.
And now it seems the same thing was experienced by several hundred visitors at a HI FI Show using DSD material and a 1500 Dollar DAC against a 20000? dollar Sacd player.
I repeat food for thought, and even maybe even time for some re-evaluation of strongly held views?
IMO the sad fact in a lot of high end HI Fi is that there is far from always any real connection between the price and the actual SQ of a piece of equipment.
Even if an SACD player is built like a golden armoured TANK like some players are, and costs a fortune, there is no guarantee that they will in fact sound any better than a specially built and much cheaper,little DAC box where maybe a bit more has been spent on highest quality parts,parts that actually matter than on Golden face plates and 40 lbs of weight.
I know that it may not be the technically correct term, but I prefer to call a lot of high end Hi Fi equipment EYE CANDY.
Regarding what Martin Colloms at Hi FI News is "on record" having said.
Well he might be your personal audio Guru but I prefer to trust my own ears.
Not what some audio guru at a commercial HI FI magazine, says I am supposed to hear.
But it would of course be of some interest to know when he said what you refer to.
You and some others here may be digging your heels in, in defence of SACD players and physical discs as the one and only holy Grail, but the fact imho remains that there are a lot of interesting things happening regarding both pcm and dsd right now. It is a wonderful time to be a musiclover.
Unfortunately the ceiling here is becoming lower and lower and I suppose it is only a question of a few more "doubting Thomas's" posts before Zeus decides to close this heretic thread too.
|
|
|
Post by AmonRa June 8, 2012 (30 of 91)
|
|
SACD disk is only a clumsy data carrier. How the data is converted into analog signal is the only thing that matters = quality of the DAC, and amps & transducers after that. Audio files a.k.a. downloads have the potential to be more error free and convenient than a outdated mechanical data disk. And vastly cheaper to play.
|
|
