Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › SACD vs. DVD-A
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

SACD vs. DVD-A - Page 3

post #31 of 174
Quote:
Originally posted by Cor
So you are arguing that a good system can make inferior sources sound almost as good as superior sources, but on a crappy system the superior source will sound far better? It's has always been exactly the opposite in my experience, but perhaps you're hearing something that I'm not.
In February's Stereophile, Kal Rubinson reports that the $10,000 Theta DAC produced better audible detail on the CD layer of at least one hybrid SACD than on the 2-channel DSD layer. He also describes how many CDs revealed previously unheard aspects through this DAC. This kind of experience is echoed by some other listeners with top-flight CD playback systems (e.g Martin Colloms, reviewer for various UK hifi magazines). So much at least for the 'good system with inferior sources' side of things.
post #32 of 174
Quote:
Originally posted by Calanctus
In February's Stereophile, Kal Rubinson reports that the $10,000 Theta DAC produced better audible detail on the CD layer of at least one hybrid SACD than on the 2-channel DSD layer. He also describes how many CDs revealed previously unheard aspects through this DAC. This kind of experience is echoed by some other listeners with top-flight CD playback systems (e.g Martin Colloms, reviewer for various UK hifi magazines). So much at least for the 'good system with inferior sources' side of things.
who's kal rubinson? why do i care about his opinion? your post doesnt give much here - how does he know that there's more detail? did he do a scientific test? is there even a scientific test to measure detail?

'detail' to one person is 'harsh digital sound' to another.

and, oh, how many of us own $10000 dacs?
post #33 of 174
Quote:
Originally posted by Calanctus
In February's Stereophile, Kal Rubinson reports that the $10,000 Theta DAC produced better audible detail on the CD layer of at least one hybrid SACD than on the 2-channel DSD layer. He also describes how many CDs revealed previously unheard aspects through this DAC. This kind of experience is echoed by some other listeners with top-flight CD playback systems (e.g Martin Colloms, reviewer for various UK hifi magazines). So much at least for the 'good system with inferior sources' side of things.
I think SACD playback is lousy at pace'n'timing is all.

Otherwise all is well.
post #34 of 174
theaudiohobby,

5.1 DVD-A is restricted to 24/96 because that's the limit specified in the DVD-A spec, and that's the only reason. Even if DVD-A were actually more inefficient at coding the format could have specified a higher reading speed for the DVD drive to pick up the data fast enough for 5.1 at 24/192. So you cannot deduce efficiency from this information.

As to capacity, I imagine having to encode a separate Dolby Digital track for DVD-V players on the DVD-A disc is going to affect capacity...
post #35 of 174
Hi Cor,

I think we should go over this again
Quote:
Originally posted by Cor
If you look at a DS PCM chain from analogue to analogue it looks like this:

Analogue -> 1-bit ADC -> DS Stream -> Decimator -> PCM samples -> Interpolator -> DS Stream -> 1-bit DAC -> Analogue

I was talking about DAC's above, so an Interpolator was the correct beast. You shouldn't find a Decimator anywhere in a DSPCMDAC.
You are confusing terms here, a decimator and an interpolator are different from a differentiator and an integrator , I did not mention a decimator , I said a differentiator , A differentiator is not a decimator, A decimator is the inverse of an interpolator and neither is used to convert from PCM to SDM stream or vice –versa, their use is in oversampling and downsampling. Do not forget what I mentioned earlier SDM words are relative values(differential values) and PCM words are absolute values, so you cannot apply an interpolator in the manner that describe, the is how the block diagram should look

Analogue -> DSD ADC -> DSD Stream -> Integrator-> PCM stream -> Interpolator -> PCM Stream -> PCM DAC -> Analogue

Or to use a 1-bit for Digital to Analogue conversion you have

Analogue -> PCM ADC -> PCM Stream -> differentiator -> DSD stream -> Interpolator/oversampler -> DSD Stream -> DSD DAC -> Analogue
Quote:
In theory, 24-bit 96 KHz. PCM does actually contain more data than 1-bit 2.8224 MHz. DSD. PCM also losslessly compresses more. (Both DVD-A and SACD employ lossless compression algorithms) Hence, given the same raw capacities, you *should* be able to fit more music of a given quality onto a DVD-A. Of course, we're splitting hairs here. Most discs aren't close enough to being full for this to matter.
If you think in terms of the previous paragraph that is DSD relative values and PCM absolute values, your logic here breaks down completely. And lastly even the most ardent proponents of PCM acknowledge that 1-bit SACD is superior to 24-bit 96 KHz PCM, the point of dispute is actually 24-bit 192 KHz. The actual issue that you should be thinking here is how much playing time can you achieve for a given amount of data.
Quote:

DVD-A's can be authored in 96/24, 192/24, and several other bit-depth/sample-rates. You could author a DVD-A in 16-bit 44.1 Khz if you really wanted to. With SACD's you have one option: 2.8224 MHz DSD. My point is that while DVD-A at it's best competes well with SACD, it is possible to author DVD-A's that are grossly inferior just by choosing a low bit-depth/sample-rate. Yes, it's a damned silly thing to do, but never underestimate peoples' capacity for stupidity.
Your logic is here is faulty, think of the joys of oversampling that mean you can author any of the PCM bit depths that you have mentioned to DSD. In fact this is where some of the misconceptions about SACD lie since a lot of folk are oversampling low bit depths PCM encoded material to DSD and publishing SACDs and some of these SACDs give DSD a bad name. Secondly I hope you are not unaware of the fact that professional DSD is now 8-bits as opposed to 1-bit. Lastly there is nothing stopping anyone from actually recording in 5.6 MHz SDM if they so desire, as I said earlier as long as your final SACD is 1-bit 2.8 MHz all is well. Personally I fail to see how being able to author to low bit depth and sample rate confers any benefit to DVDA, it is more like an albatross. The flexibility that you expouse here makes it easier to get it very wrong.

Quote:
Originally posted by Joe Bloggs
5.1 DVD-A is restricted to 24/96 because that's the limit specified in the DVD-A spec, and that's the only reason. Even if DVD-A were actually more inefficient at coding the format could have specified a higher reading speed for the DVD drive to pick up the data fast enough for 5.1 at 24/192.
Thanks Joe, I know that the 24/96 MCH restriction is specified by the DVD-A spec but the reason for the restriction is because the current DVD specification cannot support 24/192 data throughput for MCH. Your second point is mute though, if you had a higher reading speed, SACDs will not be stuck at 2.8MHz, they will be running at least 5.6MHz and the issues of ultrasonic noise and equivalent bit-depth pushed by the DVDA camp will be muted.

PS:let me state, I made a factual error in my last post, instead of differentiator I ought to have said integrator.

EDITED: Additional information.
post #36 of 174
Quote:
Originally posted by Calanctus
This kind of experience is echoed by some other listeners with top-flight CD playback systems (e.g Martin Colloms, reviewer for various UK hifi magazines).
See this link from the Audio Asylum, His assessements are not the be all and end all of component assessments. I personally think he has tin ears, Most of the products that he has trashed recently are highly regarded, the Krell SACD Standard comes to mind and I will comment on the fact that this person that you quote actually said that the Naim CDS3, a CD-only Player is the best digital implementation to date (at the time of his writing, October 2003), Effectively declaring it superior to the Meridian 800 series playing 24/192 DVDA I say no more.

Here is another instance of his less than reliable assessments
Quote:
Some digital amps (Sharp) had widely differing reviews: Bad (Colloms) ...
I heard the multi-k$$$ Sharp digital integrated amp on the Coincident Technologies Total Eclipse and, conversely to my (Colloms-induced) luke-warm expectations, it sounded outstanding, better than the Berning ZH 270 on these speakers, and way better than a very renowned italian 845 SE amp, the New Audio Frontiers. Just almost audio dreamland, for me one of the less than a handful of *really* satisfying audio systems i ever heard.
Now think about that for a moment, this is a dealer saying that a product that Martin Colloms trashed is one of the most satisfying products he has ever heard, so much for Martin Colloms opinion. There are other quotes on those disagree in toto with some of his assessments that I could give however I demur.

Lastly, I have read Kal Rubinson comments on the audio asylum and he emphatically said that he believed that DSD is superior to CD, and all he was doing was comparing the DACs in the XA9000ES with the Theta DAC. The DAC alone costs USD10000, the SACD Player costs USD3000, I will have hoped that USD7000 still counts for something.
post #37 of 174
Quote:
Originally posted by kuma
I think SACD playback is lousy at pace'n'timing is all.
whoa.. each to his own, I guess
post #38 of 174
To get this thread back to unfalsifiable opinion and away from technical gobbledygook, I am right now listening to my very first SACD -- Dark Side of the Moon. I'm not really a Pink Floyd fan, but I picked this up because I heard it was a good quality SACD. It sounds pretty damn good to me. I can't say yet whether I like the sound better than DVD-A (I have an irrational bais toward DVD-A, by the way), but I hope to do some more listening and add further perhaps useless comments.

I like to listen to drums when listening for sound quality, and I must say that I can really hear the sound of the stick hitting the hi-hat on Dark Side.
post #39 of 174
Quote:
In theory, 24-bit 96 KHz. PCM does actually contain more data than 1-bit 2.8224 MHz. DSD.
---
If you think in terms of the previous paragraph that is DSD relative values and PCM absolute values, your logic here breaks down completely
Why, because storing the absolute value is extraneous information? It's not that simple... considering that 24/96 has less bitrate than SACD but achieves lower noise floor throughout its usable frequency range... and what could be meant by 'containing more data'? Data about what? Data about what frequency? Data about what time? SACD 'contains more data' than 24/96 at low frequencies while 24/96 'contains more data' than SACD at higher frequencies. If 'data' meant the number of bits SACD's 2800000bps beats 24/96's 2304000bps by a bit. But the important question is to what use the 'data' is put.

Quote:
Effectively declaring it superior to the Meridian 800 series playing 24/192 DVDA I say no more
And declaring it superior to dCS Verdi+Purcell playing SACD too Or did you think that SACDs are vinyl?
post #40 of 174
Quote:
Originally posted by Joe Bloggs
And declaring it superior to dCS Verdi+Purcell playing SACD too Or did you think that SACDs are vinyl?
Joe,

Firstly take it easy it is not a fight. I mentioned the Meridian because you can make a direct comparision between 16/44.1 and 24/192. The comparison to the DCS is not direct i.e. different encoding schemes. In the case of DCS, Martin Colloms position could be argued, even if unreasonably.
Quote:
Why, because storing the absolute value is extraneous information?
You missed the point I was trying to make completely, It is best I you leave to reread my post.
post #41 of 174
After reading that part of the post again, I still read it as meaning to be an argument about data efficiency

Never mind, I don't want to have this argument again either. There are any number of solid reasons why SACD is superior to DVD-A now--marketing penetration, convenience, equipment... it just bugs me that you feel the need to bring out this technical stuff as well to justify SACD... As others have mentioned, the tech people themselves are nowhere near reaching an agreement on which format has the 'technical merit' over the other... why do you feel the need to argue for the format on technical grounds when there are so many other directions to take? It'll just get people on the other side of the fence (like me ) all riled up--especially as you never seem to present the technicalities all that clearly
post #42 of 174
Thanks for all the technical info and subjective opinions guys. I am seriously debating the universal player vs SACD/CD only player, and threads like these make decisions like this easier.

A couple of comments: a standard DVD player will play DVD-A discs, but only at 24/96 rate. They can not read the 24/192 sampling rate discs.

If you go to Vacuum State Electronics website you'll see Allen Wright is so hyped on DSD, especially the Sony VC24 chip IIRC, that he feels it is the equal to vinyl, and has done extensive A/B testing to come to this conclusion. His customers sure agree that his mods are simply incredible.

To me, it seems the market is big enough to handle two high-rez formats. If certain companies or recording studios adopt a certain standard and bring out the best in it, the newer universal players, especially with mods, are quite capable of playing both SACD and DVD-A quite convincingly. I see these two formats as compplimentary to each other, and serve their own purpose. One may win the war, but a truce is best for all sides, and we the consumers esepcailly.


So, let's not join the war and start shooting our fellow travellers for choosing sides and drawing a conclusion. Sound is so subjective no one will ever achieve a total victory as some will always prefer what we find inferior.
post #43 of 174
Quote:
Originally posted by adhoc
who's kal rubinson? why do i care about his opinion? your post doesnt give much here - how does he know that there's more detail? did he do a scientific test? is there even a scientific test to measure detail?
I don't care whether you care or not. But there are some people who might care because they know something about him and his audio interests and experience.

Re your question on detail, read my post again for the answer. Clue: the key word is 'audible'.


Quote:
Originally posted by adhoc

and, oh, how many of us own $10000 dacs?
Irrelevant to the question of SACD vs PCM/DVD-A. If you want to know this, ask about value for money or specify a budget.
post #44 of 174
Quote:
Originally posted by theaudiohobby
I will comment on the fact that this person that you quote actually said that the Naim CDS3, a CD-only Player is the best digital implementation to date (at the time of his writing, October 2003), Effectively declaring it superior to the Meridian 800 series playing 24/192 DVDA I say no more.
Has MC reviewed the Meridian, or auditioned it at any length? I'd like to read his comments, tin ears or no... But if he hasn't heard it, then he can't be construed to be saying this.

Quote:
Originally posted by theaudiohobby

Lastly, I have read Kal Rubinson comments on the audio asylum and he emphatically said that he believed that DSD is superior to CD, and all he was doing was comparing the DACs in the XA9000ES with the Theta DAC. The DAC alone costs USD10000, the SACD Player costs USD3000, I will have hoped that USD7000 still counts for something.
You're right. So a truly level field would be $10000+ SACD player versus equivalent cost CD or DVD A setup. I'm not aware of any published tests of this kind...?
post #45 of 174
Quote:
Originally posted by ServinginEcuador

A couple of comments: a standard DVD player will play DVD-A discs, but only at 24/96 rate. They can not read the 24/192 sampling rate discs.
Are you sure about this? I don't think it's correct. I think a standard DVD player will play the Dolby Digital (or DTS) tracks, but that a DVD-A player is required for even the 24/96 tracks. For example, on the back of my Yes - Fragile DVD-A, it says that the only track that is playable on a DVD video (only) player is the DD and DTS track and that a DVD-A player is required for both the 24/96 surround track and 192/24 stereo track.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Dedicated Source Components
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › SACD vs. DVD-A