Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › SACD rips?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

SACD rips? - Page 3

post #31 of 40
My Emm Labs CDSD and Dac6e output in true DSD, my Esoteric DV-50 plays SACD, DVD-A and 5.1 Video Movies but outputs in PCM.
Perhaps there is a way to capture the DSD output (at least 2 channels of it, at least) on the Emm Labs.
post #32 of 40
The CDSD will only output unencrypted pcm data for redbook CDs, it can output encrypted data over the Optilink interface to other EMM Labs products (similar to Denon's Denon Link, etc).

Outputting unencrypted DSD is a violation of the standards required to produce an SACD player. Many Bluray players that support SACD playback offer streaming DSD over the HDMI interface, but it's allowed to do that as of the 1.3a standard encrypts the data for transport, and unless you're using a illegitimate decoder, there isn't going to be a loop that allows access to the unencrypted stream.

Here is a good thread about why converting DSD to PCM is a bad idea, why HDMI might not be the best interface to transfer DSD and a few other interesting tidbits.

OPPO BDP-83 Bluray Disc Player - plays SACD as DSD rather than PCM. DSD vs PCM question | AVguide

In any case, I would be completely uninterested in listening to DSD -> PCM conversions as it fundamentally change many of the benefits of why one would buy and listen to a SACD to begin with.
post #33 of 40
Whether DSD is better than PCM is an opinion/view, a worthwhile topic for another thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DVD-Audio versus SACD: Perceptual Discrimination of Digital Audio Coding Formats; Blech, Dominic; Yang, Min-Chi. Erich-Thienhaus-Institute (Tonmeisterinstitut), University of Music Detmold, Germany 2004
When comparing a DSD and PCM recording of the same origin, the same number of channels and similar bandwidth/SNR, some still think that there are differences. A study conducted at the Erik-Thienhaus Institute in Detmold, Germany, seems to contradict this, concluding that "hardly any of the subjects could make a reproducible distinction between the two encoding systems. Hence it may be concluded that no significant differences are audible".

If you have the right software/hardware, you can make some interesting comparisons using these (high-resolution music in DXD, DSD, and PCM formats):

High Resolution Music DOWNLOAD services
post #34 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by gevorg View Post
Whether DSD is better than PCM is an opinion/view, a worthwhile topic for another thread.
The summary of Blech and Yang is a bit misleading. Numerically 4/110 (highly trained tonnmeister students) subjects did reliably detect a difference using single instrument samples and more importantly using headphones.

However only 35 subjects used headphones so the hit rate here is 4/35 for that specific condition, still a smallish percentage but over 11% instead of under 4%.

Certainly not the obvious difference claimed by some though...
post #35 of 40
Are there SACD discs available where the entire recording, mixing and mastering process has been done in DSD with no conversions or any processing done in PCM? Studio tools and software are PCM based so doing everything in DSD would have to be a challenge, if it can be done.

If the music has already been contaminated by PCM at some point during the recording, mixing or mastering stage then how would another conversion to PCM by the SACD player make that much of a difference?
post #36 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ham Sandwich View Post
Are there SACD discs available where the entire recording, mixing and mastering process has been done in DSD with no conversions or any processing done in PCM? Studio tools and software are PCM based so doing everything in DSD would have to be a challenge, if it can be done.

If the music has already been contaminated by PCM at some point during the recording, mixing or mastering stage then how would another conversion to PCM by the SACD player make that much of a difference?
Nearly all SACDs are done using a full DSD chain from post R2R to final master. There have been problem discs in the past such as Norah Jones Come Away With Me; the SACD side was a mirror copy of the red book side only converted to DSD. Most SACD capable mastering houses will either detail or print the SACD mastering chain in the liner notes.
post #37 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by gevorg View Post
Whether DSD is better than PCM is an opinion/view, a worthwhile topic for another thread.

If you have the right software/hardware, you can make some interesting comparisons using these (high-resolution music in DXD, DSD, and PCM formats):

High Resolution Music DOWNLOAD services
I don't see the point of 'adding' this to the discussion as the OP brought up not mastering chain process but converting DSD to PCM in playback.
post #38 of 40

DSD processing during mixing/mastering is done in multibit PCM

"This idea is used in, for example, the Merging Technologies[20] and the
SONY Sonoma [21] editing systems. In these systems, the DSD signal
is converted to a multi-bit signal, and all subsequent signal processing
is done in that domain; only at the final stage, when all signal processing
is done (after mastering) the signal is converted back to DSD."
post #39 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by thisbenjamin View Post
I don't see the point of 'adding' this to the discussion as the OP brought up not mastering chain process but converting DSD to PCM in playback.
This was in response to your and AVGuide's comments that there is a quality loss when converting DSD-to-PCM.

Once again, if you have the right hardware/software, you can use these files to convert DSD to PCM with different methods and listen to the differences. Of course, the best comparison would be to actually listen and compare the the digital rips of SACD layer by something like Oppo.
post #40 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterlogic View Post
Ripping DVD-A is a simple process, actually. You can then downsample the hi-res files for portable use in a nick of a time.

So buying DVD-A makes much more sense than buying SACDs.
Agree 100%, and I have done both extensively.

I use my PS3 (older model) to stream a 24/176.4 LPCM bitstream over HDMI from the SACD layer, then split out the SPDIF using an HDMI-to-SPDIF converter, and capture with my sound card (M Audio). (You can also do this at 88.2 with a modded Oppo, a Vanity board, or a Wadia CDP -- these methods give you LPCM over SPDIF directly, no need to use HDMI ... but at 88.2!).

I demo's this live at the last Harrison NY meet, and posted pictures of the SPDIF DAC showing 176.4 on its display (to prove it all).

A bit of work ... now let's contrast this with DVD-A's: I just pop DVD-A's in the computer CD-ROM drive and rip with DVD-A Explorer. All I have to do is re-name each track using the liner notes. Voila, I have 24/96 right on my music server. FB2K plays them perfectly, and the SQ is to die for.

I then use FB2K DSP to create 24/48 FLACS from the 24/96 (a direct decimation -- I embed the album art at this stage too), then XRECODE II to make ALACs from the 24/96 (which preserves album art, FB2K does not), and load them on to an RWA iMod.

Head-Fi'ers who have heard the 24/48's on my iMod consider them jaw-dropping ... I have had multiple requests for copies of the tracks.

The 176.4's I would need to convert to 44.1 for the iMod (if I wanted a direct decimation only) so would I hear any difference from just ripping the red book layer?

The Who's Tommy is one album I have in both SACD and DVD-A. I prefer the 48 ALAC of Pinball Wizard to the 44.1 on the iMod. Could be placebo, who knows.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › SACD rips?