[soundboy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Justice Strike /img/forum/go_quote.gif do they ship to europe?

Don't know....you can try inputting your address and see what happens.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpelg /img/forum/go_quote.gif Wow, that's dirt cheap - less than the cost of two SACD's!

Which is why I ordered one....I am weak.

 

[SirDrexl]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif When digital output of SACD is permitted over HDMI, doesn't it have to be encrypted? Further, that you need to have a DAC capable of decrypting the digital out?

I think the HDMI interface itself handles the encryption. There's encryption of the disc's contents, then encryption when it's output. The interface has to handshake with the receiver and/or display to make sure it's "trusted." The idea behind HDMI was to keep you from digitally capturing the output as it is played back (not quite the same thing as ripping, more like recording, but bit-exact). That's why they didn't let you pass it over SPDIF. Although, I believe that SPDIF doesn't support lossless multichannel anyway. In any case, if the disc's own protection is compromised, you can rip a backup with the protection stripped, making the HDMI encryption a moot point.

Regarding DVD-A discs that allowed you to pass over S/PDIF, were those true DVD-A discs? I remember there were some 24/96 audio DVDs that were released before DVD-A proper was introduced. Not all DVD players could play them as it wasn't required in the spec, but many could. Some discs have both, as Pet Sounds has the 24/96 audio in DVD-A (with MLP) on one side, and non-DVD-A on the other. They're the same quality and all, just packaged differently.

 

[Uri Cohen]

I know this thread is a few days old but I should chime in:

I would like to get into SACD but I really don't want to spend the money on a player plus I really don't have a lot of room to store the discs in my dorm room (storing music on my hard drive is a lot better). I think it's really stupid if I understand that with SACD you can't even use the digital ports or rip them on a computer because there's no SACD drives for computers.

Reference Recordings HRx is a god send because the 24-bit/176.4 sound is pretty amazing on my DAC and I do all my listening on the computer. No DRM is nice plus I can store the files onto my hard drive without no problems (of course convert the WAV files to FLAC would be a good idea if doing that).

I can save space in my dorm room plus get the 24-bit/176.4 sound without spending too much money on a player and such.

Also I must say that Hdtracks.com is good because they offer high quality albums that anyone can afford.

Now a little off-topic what about HDCD? I was planning to buy a few since the quality is still better than CD but I don't know how to rip the HDCD stuff on my computer. Any ideas?

 

[germanium]

DVD -A failed because it was too fiddly & required a TV to be able to do practically anything on most players. The TV requirement in most cases introduced enough noise into the system that it nullified the excellent S/N ratio of the medium. While they did allow computer playback it was also too finicky to be able to take full advantage of as some discs refused to play. The downmixing to get stereo was an issue as well as the downmixed sound was never as good as the multi channel sound & was way overcooked in terms of loudness compared the the multichannel tracks themselves.

SACD succeded in surviving though in a limited sense in spite of no computer play back systems because of being less fiddly, not requiring a TV to setup or use, True stereo mixes instead of multichannel down mixes & just overall ease of use. Also no audible watermarking as was used on many DVD-As. Marketing had a lot to do with this as well.

All in all DVD-A had the most potential sonically but record companies saddled it with too many problems such as DRM, being able to play all resolutions right down to those only of CD quailty, watermarking in the analog domain & poor downmixing. With the market heading more toward compressed music of even lower quality there just was not enough room for 2 high res formats.

Hopefully the record industry doesn't saddle Blu-ray with the type issues that have effected the DVD-A or SACD formats.

1.I want to see full computer compatabilty
2. True stereo mixes that aren't overcooked
3. A special section on disc that stores non DRMed uncompressed CD quality music that can be ripped to portable music players in whatever format & quality nessessary to get the best out of thier PMP.
4. Not require a video device for playback in a normal stereo system
5. No watermarking in the analog domain.
6. Limit the high res section to 24 bit 96KHz sampling & above. No more CD quality files in the high res content section. Must be true High res recordings. Not resampled from CD quality sources.

I understand that they will still require DRM for the High Res section & that is ok but make it easy to use & to take with you on the go.

 

[SirDrexl]

I don't know if it would be possible to only protect part of the disc. They probably have to protect the whole thing or none of it at all. At least BD can be ripped with the right software (although it's fairly expensive).

They'd never do this, but they could include a CD copy like they're doing now with BD movies that include a DVD. Or, they could include a code for iTunes or Amazon downloads (not the best solution, I know). Although, to be honest, I'm more accepting of codes than I was in the past, now that they're using higher bitrates and no DRM.

 

[billyearle]

Hey, would a Stereo-Only SACD player such as Luxman D-05 be able to play the SACD layer of multichannel SACDs? It seems like SOME Hybrid SACDS such as on Vanguard, list a MULTICHANNEL SACD LAYER and a STEREO CD　LAYER. This could just be the way the packaging is worded, I am pretty confused on this issue. So i worry if I would only be getting the CD layer via a Stereo SACD player here, or nothing at all from non-hybrid Multichannel SACDs, if there are such titles. Am I better off getting a multichannel player even though I mainly listen to headphones and have no plans for a multichannel playback setup.
Debating between Luxman's new D-05 (Stereo SACD) or their Multichannel Universal player. It would be ideal to be able to also play a few DVD-A titles I'd want, but on paper it looks like in the same price range I would get a better sounding player with the dedicated Stereo SACD players. Open to other brands, but I am strongly prefering Solid State as I am sick of tube rolling and have much less free time. The Luxman SACD advertizes various "new" techologies that have to do with SQ, so I further worry I might shortchange myself SQ-wise for the sake of playing a few DVD-A's on an older Unviversal Multichannel player in the same price range vs a DEDICATED stereo sacd player (by the same maker).
Thankyou in advance

 

[robm321]

DVD-A sounds slightly better than SACD. SACD has way more titles

 

[soundboy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by billyearle /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hey, would a Stereo-Only SACD player such as Luxman D-05 be able to play the SACD layer of multichannel SACDs? It seems like SOME Hybrid SACDS such as on Vanguard, list a MULTICHANNEL SACD LAYER and a STEREO CD　LAYER. This could just be the way the packaging is worded, I am pretty confused on this issue. So i worry if I would only be getting the CD layer via a Stereo SACD player here, or nothing at all from non-hybrid Multichannel SACDs, if there are such titles. Am I better off getting a multichannel player even though I mainly listen to headphones and have no plans for a multichannel playback setup.

To be honest, I am not sure what would happen if your SACD was multi-channel only and you only have a 2 channel SACD player. SACD was designed originally as a 2 channel format and Sony/Philips mandated there has to be a dedicated 2 channel hi-rez mix on a SACD. On the other hand, there're a number of multi-channel only SACDs released, but their number are very VERY small when compared to the total amount of SACD titles released.

 

[8140david]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirDrexl /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think the HDMI interface itself handles the encryption. There's encryption of the disc's contents, then encryption when it's output. The interface has to handshake with the receiver and/or display to make sure it's "trusted." The idea behind HDMI was to keep you from digitally capturing the output as it is played back (not quite the same thing as ripping, more like recording, but bit-exact). That's why they didn't let you pass it over SPDIF. Although, I believe that SPDIF doesn't support lossless multichannel anyway. In any case, if the disc's own protection is compromised, you can rip a backup with the protection stripped, making the HDMI encryption a moot point. Regarding DVD-A discs that allowed you to pass over S/PDIF, were those true DVD-A discs? I remember there were some 24/96 audio DVDs that were released before DVD-A proper was introduced. Not all DVD players could play them as it wasn't required in the spec, but many could. Some discs have both, as Pet Sounds has the 24/96 audio in DVD-A (with MLP) on one side, and non-DVD-A on the other. They're the same quality and all, just packaged differently.

So, just to be sure (I am new to all this and am thinking of buying an Oppo-83 universal player), if I put a sacd in the Oppo-83, its only numerical output will be through hdmi? It won't output on s/pdif?

 

[billyearle]

Quote:

Originally Posted by soundboy /img/forum/go_quote.gif To be honest, I am not sure what would happen if your SACD was multi-channel only and you only have a 2 channel SACD player. SACD was designed originally as a 2 channel format and Sony/Philips mandated there has to be a dedicated 2 channel hi-rez mix on a SACD. On the other hand, there're a number of multi-channel only SACDs released, but their number are very VERY small when compared to the total amount of SACD titles released.

Thanks Soundboy, wonder if anyone else might know, or be able to test this. Displays may vary on players, but i think I would be wondering if I am just listening to the Stereo CD layer if the display doesnt make it clear, unless the sound is obviously better than what I'm used to with Redbook. I still havent bought a Hi-Rez player yet, but plan to in the next week or so.

 

[soundboy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by billyearle /img/forum/go_quote.gif Thanks Soundboy, wonder if anyone else might know, or be able to test this. Displays may vary on players, but i think I would be wondering if I am just listening to the Stereo CD layer if the display doesnt make it clear, unless the sound is obviously better than what I'm used to with Redbook. I still havent bought a Hi-Rez player yet, but plan to in the next week or so.

I'd imagine any player capable of playing SACD and/or DVD-A will have some kind of indicator in its display to show what's being played.

 

[jpelg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by soundboy /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'd imagine any player capable of playing SACD and/or DVD-A will have some kind of indicator in its display to show what's being played.

With SACD's it's easier to select/determine what is being played. Unfortunately, DVD-Audio discs have several folders of content. They are highly dependent on having a video display connected to the player in order to be absolutely sure which content is actually being played. The only DVD-A player I know that has a built-in display as to not require a separate one is made by Classe (read: $$$$).

 

[billyearle]

Thanks, I guess it's a tough call to make for someone else, but seems like I should just put the money into a Stereo SACD Player, since my system is stereo. If i got a multchannel player, and put in a multichannel-only disc i dont know how that would come out thru my headphones anyway

 

[macrog]

Its like going back to the old Beta VHS video tape wars. Beta was the better format but lost out due to politics.

DVD-A is superior in performance to SACD (and yes I have owned both) but SACD is the easier format to find music on (and thus has to be the winner)

Bluray audio is just another marketing scam to suck in consumers into rebuying music they already have.

I prefer downloading hirez recordings from the likes of Linn. I would very much like to see more high resolution subscription download services available.

Lets face it CD should sound awful per its technical specs (e.g. 150KB/sec) and yet it can sound surprisingly good.

Regards

Macrog

 

[soundboy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by billyearle /img/forum/go_quote.gif Thanks, I guess it's a tough call to make for someone else, but seems like I should just put the money into a Stereo SACD Player, since my system is stereo. If i got a multchannel player, and put in a multichannel-only disc i dont know how that would come out thru my headphones anyway

Almost all SACD players are multi-channel capable; there're a few stereo only SACD players out there but they usually cost an arm and a leg. Besides, you can generally set the player to default to the 2 channel hi-rez stereo mix if a SACD is detected.