[DanG]

Wow... do those work with SACD DSD? I heard that a new TI PCM DAC cost $25 each, so I thought that high-end DSD chips would be far more expensive. Plus, aren't multiple DAC chips used in high-end systems?

 

[thomas]

In the "applications" for that chip, it lists SACD players...

Some of them are more expensive, i saw another one for $9 each....

But in general Delta-Sigma DACs are really cheep, i don't think any are more than $10. Both DSD and PCM can be used with delta-sigma DACS.


But PCM can also be used with R2R DACs, which are MUCH more expensive to produce... The chip you're talking about, the PCM1704 (up to 96khz x 24bit PCM) is about $25 each, i'm not sure if it can support DVD-A (as there is no transmission interface for 192khz)...

I think Sony uses some proprietary DSD DACs for their high-end SACD players, but i doubt that they cost more to produceor sound much better than burr brown...I guess you could use multiple DACs in high end systems, though i haven't seen any high-res players that say they do.

But although the technology behind SACD is quite cheep, i still don't think it should be aimed at low-cost equipment (like portables). Even though the DACs are cheep, you'll still need to spend lots on power supplies and analog stages for you to notice an improvement over CD...

 

[MacDEF]

Quote:

If you believe that better electronics can truly portray the nuances of a natural instrument, than it is paradoxical how it doesn't apply to music that uses electric/amplified instruments. So somehow good electronics can portray nuances of natural instruments, but good electronic instruments themselves would lack nuance? Maybe classical or jazz need higher fidelity because they incorporate natural instruments. But it is interesting that in the end you are just listening to an electronic stereo rig.

But that's not really a good argument. Electronics that reproduct audio are completely different than electronic instruments. Electronic instruments are very limited -- they usually make one type of sound (save synthesizers, but see below). The sounds they make are quite easy for other electronics to reproduce. But audio equipment ("electronic stereo rigs") must also be able to reproduce non-electronic instruments, which is a much more difficult task. Ask the companies who make synthesizers/keyboards, who have been trying in vain for decades to make a keyboard/soundfile that sounds like a real piano or a real sax. Yet stereo rigs can do an amazing job of reproducing a lifelike image of a piano or sax. What DanG. said is completely true, IMO -- rock, rap, and overproduced pop can only benefit so much from higher-end equipment. Classical and jazz are the genres that truly benefit from high-end audio.

 

[Tim D]

I haven't seen synths that are good at reproducing electric guitars either.

The only thing I would concede is that often rock, pop, or rap aren't even utilizing the full potential of CD technology. Not because these genres can't, but because it seems typical that they do a poor job mastering. But there are always standouts that show off what a good recording/mastering job is. Classical CD's usually have more dynamic range...I don't know if this is the nature of the music or recording (actually rock music SHOULD have a lot of dynamic range as well, but it ends up typically compressed to death).

I guess if there is one thing to agree upon, is that there is no point for some music to utilize better media if they do a poor job mastering it.

Although I've heard that one of the reasons compressors/limiters are used is because of limited dynamic range of CD. But the bigger reason is probably the ignorance that louder is better.

 

[Beagle]

Quote:

Well, isn't this to be expected? SACD is a new format. All of the recordings in SACD do sound better, and will be cheaper as soon as it becomes less of a novelty

A very good point. Makes me take back a lot of what I said, assuming the above does come to pass. I suppose I should respect the people out there who are buying into the new formats if those are indeed the guinea pigs who will keep the formats afloat and help to eventually lower the prices to affordable levels. (I mean, I am happy that I can now purchase blank MiniDiscs at $5 rather than $15; yet it is probably easier to score crack than to find blank MD's) I would pay 20% more for a new format that was indeed 20% better than the existing standard. But pay 500% for a 20% improvement (with VERY limited selection) over the best sounding CDs? No way.

There seems to be a certain snob appeal with new formats, as there is a scarcity and high price attached to them. I recall certain snobbish people praising the CD during it's infancy and suddenly badmouthing the same vinyl they had so enjoyed. The limitations of vinyl had been removed from their listening biases and that was all that was embedded in their minds. It didn't occur to them that half the music was missing. 15 years later those early CDs sound terrible and the vinyl is still amazing.

Tim D, excellent points.

jude, I wasn't trying to be personal, just pointing out how the industry takes advantage of rich folk who just have to have the latest thing and will pay anything to get it. The industry depends on this.

 

[MacDEF]

Beagle wrote:
Quote:

(I mean, I am happy that I can now purchase blank MiniDiscs at $5 rather than $15

WHAT???!!! (looks at location tag) Oh... Canadian

Isn't that like 25 cents US?

Quote:

There seems to be a certain snob appeal with new formats, as there is a scarcity and high price attached to them.

I think that's true. But I also think that some people (like myself) really just want better sound. I'm no CD snob by any means -- I'm one of those people who has heard a top-notch vinyl system, and believes they can sound *amazing.* But I also have an SACD player and can tell you that given good recording and mastering of the source, it sounds better than Redbook CD. And you're right about CD hype: remember in 1981 when it was supposedly the best sound possible? Then there was 20-bit, and *that* was the best sound possible. Then there was HDCD, and *that* was the best sound possible. Now there are DVD-A and SACD, both of which are "revolutionary" -- hmmm... makes you wonder how "perfect" that 1981 CD was

Tim D wrote:
Quote:

The only thing I would concede is that often rock, pop, or rap aren't even utilizing the full potential of CD technology. Not because these genres can't, but because it seems typical that they do a poor job mastering. But there are always standouts that show off what a good recording/mastering job is. Classical CD's usually have more dynamic range...I don't know if this is the nature of the music or recording (actually rock music SHOULD have a lot of dynamic range as well, but it ends up typically compressed to death).

I would agree to some extent, Tim. I think it's rare to find a rock/pop album that is recorded and mastered well. On the other hand, there is a LOT more going on in an orchestra or jazz ensemble than there is in a traditional rock band, and the instruments are much more "defined." An electric guitar is such a variable instrument that even if the recording isn't done very well, you're not going to find people saying "that's not what an electric guitar sounds like" And the heavily synthesized pop of today is the same way -- no one knows what it was "supposed" to sound like, so people don't pay much attention to sound quality

Quote:

I guess if there is one thing to agree upon, is that there is no point for some music to utilize better media if they do a poor job mastering it.

Very true.


Quote:

Although I've heard that one of the reasons compressors/limiters are used is because of limited dynamic range of CD. But the bigger reason is probably the ignorance that louder is better.

There is also the fact that a lot of pop/rock is compressed and selectively boosted to sound "better" on the bad systems most consumers play them on (boomboxes, cheap walkmans, etc.).

 

[acidtripwow]

I finally read the article in TAS and have to say that the conclusion that DVD-A is better sounding than SACD after listening to only one title is pretty lame. I expected better from a high end magazine like TAS. The Absolute Sound - I think not!

 

[blr]

I'am jumping here a bit later, but comparing formats is a tricky job, especially comparing new formats.
So, what were the TAS folks comparing, software or hardware and how is it possible to distinguish between the two. I mean,it could be that their DVD-A player was just a bit bettr than the SACD player during the test, hence the conclusion.
Since both the formats are new we still haven't realized the full potential soundwize due to hardware restrains. Anyone remembers the playback quality of Cd players 15 years ago? That's what I mean.

 

[DanG]

I believe the writer who said that he thought that DVD-A was better thought so mainly theoretically. The engineers who claimed that it was difficult for them to tell the difference between SACD and the actual music were actually listening off a computer. The speakers were they same in their test for SACD, DVD-A, and the live feed. Of course, this really wasn't a fair test for several reasons. First, the DVD-A recording had a sampling rate of only 96 kHz as opposed to its potential, 192 kHz. Also, as you've noted, the technology was even newer then than it is now.

 

[lini]

As I already mentioned in another thread, I recently talked to a studio professional, who told me that they like dsd/sacd, because it requires less filtering and gives them the opportunity to record their stuff with a dynamic range of > 100 dB.

Nevertheless, I think it will take quite a long time for sacd stuff (both equipment and media) to become real mass market products, even if audiophiles might already like it today. It might work faster for dvd-a, because many people who don't already have a regular dvd-player might soon be willing and able to get a dvd-a-player instead - as this will give them both better video and audio quality in one piece of equipment, and because dvd-a is already pushed into mid-range players, too. I wouldn't want to bet which format wins the race now, though (and personally I'd like to have an hybrid sacd-player and dvd-a/dvd-r&-rw&+rw (with multichannel audio recording) for < US$ 800

).

Maybe the industry will even have to find out that both formats fail in the mass market, because the consumers just don't care, as a) the rest of their equipment isn't good enough, anyway, and/or b) they aren't interested in more quality (as the stuff they already own might seem or even be good enough for them now) and/or c) they already have cd stuff everywhere (at home, in the office, in the car, portable, on the computer) plus good equipment to copy cds very quickly and conveniently (so they might refuse a loss of features/usability and/or yet another new investment...) and/or d) they might think they wouldn't be able to tell the difference (which could even be true for some

) and/or e) be convinced that they would rarely use the stuff often enough to justify the investment. And maybe the most clever consumers will prefer buying or keeping decent mid-fi instead of audiophile/high-end equipment - and spend the saved rest of the money on good music or anything else.

I wouldn't be surprised if I heard such reasons, because these would all seem valid to me.

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini

P.S.: What does RG stand for?

 

[thomas]

SOny has recently introduced a very low-end SACD, which is a $600 (msp) home theatre in a box, complete with SACD, DVD-video, redbook CD, AC3/DTS decorders, 5.1 channel amplifier, and 5-2way speakers + subwoofer... So the SACD part of it probably costs about $5

THere's also the apex DVD-player, which is probably going to sell for <$400, and has DVD-video, DVD-audio, SACD, MP3, progressive scan output, etc...

And i really don't think the theoretical stuff means a thing, its how well its implemeted that determines how well it will sound (which may explain why SACD is generally getting better reviews, since their players are audio-only so more money is spent on the componants in the signal path)

All the stuff about one format being so much superior over the other is BS marketing hype, and its unfortunate that some reviews accept it, and write reviews that are very biased because they "expect" one format to be superior...

 

[Tim D]

Kind of strange, but SACD had a big head start over DVD-A in that the first Sony players were actually good, and there were a few SACD discs. While DVD-A only had the likes of Technics and practically no selection.

Things seem to be turning out worse for SACD IMO now...Linn, Meridian, Denon, and a few others now have DVD-A players coming out. And in terms of labels...well SACD has Sony, and Telarc, and not much else. DVD-A however has a lot more label support lately.

Course I'm kind of skeptical of either format surviving...but if one did survive I'd have to say things are looking up for DVD-A...

And I doubt Sony "cheapening" their SACD wares is going to help the SACD situation if it isn't especially showing off SACD advantages. Lowering price and maintaining the high quality is good, but it still seems that the cheaper newer SACD players are still behind the footsteps of older pricy flagship models. I haven't heard the best things about the absolute latest cheaper SACD models...and it is pretty obvious that when Sony doesn't significantly drop the price of their older models when the newer cheaper models come out, we know you aren't getting more for less, but less for less.

 

[thomas]

One thing that i've said all along is that the new High-res formats are useless unless the conversion and analog stages are equally good. So a cheep DVD-A/SACD player won't sound much better than CD on the same player, and worse than a CD played on a good player.

So try selling discs that are much more expensive and uncompatiable with all other equipment and with a limited selection and no sonic improvements to the average consumer (or anyone with a brain)...its not gonna work...

And i really wonder why Sony has to always go against the rest of the market, and waste all that money developing propritary formats that will only turn consumers away from their brand.

If all manufactures got together and supported one format for the small niche audiophile market, it might have a tiny chance of succeess. But with a huge format war over a tiny market, both are gonna die...

btw, i'm sure that Sony developed SACD as a competition to DVD-A, contrary to claims that they developed it to backup their archives and decided to release it to audiophiles. I mean, SACD's sampling rate of 1/bit at 4mhz certainly isn't advanced, professional equipment can sample a waveform at over 5 Gigasamples a second these days, at much higher resolutions...( thats a thousand times more than SACD) And storage certainly isn't a problem for storing somthing as important as music archives, a 80 gig hard drive will cost you 200 bucks.

So either sony is destroying their old recordings by storing them at such low resolutions, or the whole thing is a marketing ploy...

 

[lini]

Nevetheless I'd like to know what RG stands for - reel gear maybe?

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini

 

[morphsci]

I have the Aug/Sept issue of TAS in my hand right now. (No Beagle I am not a rich audiophile with more money than brains. I just needed something to read on the 10 hour flight back from Hawaii).

The test was performed by Robert E. Greene (RG) and a panel of Danish listeners: Jan Nielsen, Kim Kruse, K. S. Moeller and Hans Henrik Moerch. RG was involved on the production of the recording used for the comparison, Natures Realm, Philadelphia Orchestra, Water Lily Acoustics. Each of the formats was produced from the exact same analog master (Though the mastering was likely not exactly the same among the formats, but this was not described).

The reference system was Dynaudio Craft Speakers, OCOS speaker cables, YBA integre amplification, Moerch DAC/Meridian transport for redbook, Sony SCD-777ES for SACD and Pioneer DV-717 for 96/24 (not true DVD-A as previously stated). No mention of interconnects or any more system specifics was given.

RG points out his conclusions and states that they do not differ from the rest of the panel as the overall ranking goes.

Their conclusion then was that overall this was a good recording even on CD. The CD still had what they termed "scratch" or residue. SACD cleared up some of the scratch and had higher resolution of space and a cleaner top end. DVD-A (96/24 really) was described as much cleaner than SACD which sounded "grungy" in comparison. Also, the spatial impression of the 96/24 was said to be more realistic. These were all evaluated in light of RG's memory of the master tape, since it was not available to him at the time of the test.

This is certainly not a perfect test but at least they could compare a recording from a single master tape. However it is still unclear how much of the difference is due to hardware, mastering or the inherent strengths and weaknesses of each format.