[Jasper994]

Quote:

Originally posted by Canman You would be amazed what redbook is capable of with a decent CD player.

You'd be amazed how good a cheap SACD player can sound.

 

[Jasper994]

Quote:

Originally posted by jefemeister I definitely prefer DVD-A. In fact they only problem I have with DVD-A at all is that it is multichannel. I'm a firm believer that music in more than two channels is a travesty. Well that and the fact that you need a TV monitor and have to navigate menus just to get a song to play.

Actually most of the discs have 2 channel mixes (there are a couple that don't). Also, the 2 channel mix is often a higher resolution than the 6 channel mix. For example, serveral of the discs I have are 192khz/24bit stereo and 96khz/24bit surround (max limit for surround in DVD-A). Others are 96khz/24bit stereo and 44.1khz or 48khz/16bit or 24 bit surround.


I agree with you about the nav systems though... ARGH! they need to standardize this and realize that many people that are buying these discs don't have a monitor connected or would rather not need to use it. Why the hell should I have my monitor/tv on if I'm listening to music... I mean it's cool the first time, or if you're showing your system off but other than that, what's the point?

 

[Jasper994]

Quote:

Originally posted by stuartr For this reason alone, I completely disregard this moron's expectorations. Whether or not he is right, anyone who casts their arguments in such a racist and baseless manner should be smacked upside the head.

Good man, let's sell tickets and then I'll help you smack him!

 

[jefemeister]

Quote:

Originally posted by Jasper994 Actually most of the discs have 2 channel mixes (there are a couple that don't).

True, but I consider the surround version to be a nice little "bonus feature" some discs have. I'm worried that it will eventually swing the other way with the surround mix becomming the standard and the 2-ch thrown in as a last minute afterthought. Of course this multichannel/video thing may soon apply to SACD as well with adoption of SACD II.

 

[Music Fanatic]

Quote:

Originally posted by jefemeister True, but I consider the surround version to be a nice little "bonus feature" some discs have. I'm worried that it will eventually swing the other way with the surround mix becomming the standard and the 2-ch thrown in as a last minute afterthought. Of course this multichannel/video thing may soon apply to SACD as well with adoption of SACD II.

The mastering on most 5-channel SACDs leaves a lot to be desired. While surround in theory should be wonderful, in practice I think few audio engineers know how to master it well.

 

[Music Fanatic]

Quote:

Originally posted by stuartr For this reason alone, I completely disregard this moron's expectorations. Whether or not he is right, anyone who casts their arguments in such a racist and baseless manner should be smacked upside the head.

It's not just racist -- it misses the main point. The DSD/hi-rez PCM conflict is not about audio quality -- it is about intellectual property rights. Sony and Philips -- who controlled the the CD patents -- control the DSD and SACD patents. Other manufacturers are not enthralled about paying them SACD royalties.

I'm completely unconvinced that their is any humanly detectable difference between DSD and hi-rez PCM.

 

[jefemeister]

Quote:

all these quotes are from markl's above post Sony dreamt of a new signal processing paradigm operating entirely in DSD. It was not to be - they even officially admit it now.

This is exactly what we were discussing previously. I just don't see how digital processing could be done in DSD. Seems to me that being able to process your data is a pretty big requirement for a storage medium.
Quote:

Comparisons between both formats, for the better or the worse, get severely skewed.

Absolutely. It is all but impossible to compare the sound quality of either of these formats because they are so different technically and implementations vary widely. That's true with digital in general these days because every company has their own architectures, up/oversampling methods, filter design, outputstage. It's all a big package. So comparisons between DSD and PCM get down to the nitty-gritty of technical details which most folks are not capable of understanding on that level (myself included sometimes.) There are definitely 2 camps on this issue, both bringing some good points.
Quote:

I've recently built a converter that converts PCM and DSD using the same signal path. That is, the PCM first gets converted to a signal per DSD specs and this signal is then converted to analog. In this way the only difference between the two modes is that in PCM mode, the audio content is band-limited to 20kHz (plus possibly some minor aliases, see "halfband") and the quantisation noise floor in the audio band is at the 16 bit level, whereas the DSD -3dB bandwidth is approximately 70kHz and the quantisation noise floor in the audio band is at approximately 20 bit level. The outband noise is pretty equal in both cases (ie shooting up fearsomely after 20kHz).

I don't know what implementation he used but I imagine he started with redbook PCM for this comparison due to him noting a 16 bit noise floor. What if he would have started with 24/192? His noise floor would be 24 bits (theoretically, in reality probably more like 21) and his bandwidth could potentially be up at 80kHz. There also would be no upshoot of outband noise starting at 20kHz.
Quote:

DSD is in its place in one (1) application: Mastering from analogue. When the recording chain is completely analogue, you can feed the audio from the analogue mastering into a DSD A/D converter and cut that signal straight onto a disc without any further processing. It is in this application that DSD can be viewed as pretty transparent. When you convert the signal twice, however (such as when using a DSD recorder as the tracking medium), the second conversion is no longer transparent, due to the HF noise present in the source signal hitting a second analogue deltasigma modulator.

This is the guys most salient point and again mirrors what were discussing earlier about processing. It seems DSD is ideal for directly re-releasing old analog masters and not much else. I would imagine there aren't many studios left that do everything in analog for new recordings. And I'm sure most re-releasing of old analog tapes probably has some digital processing done to it during the mastering process for similar reasons.
Quote:

3) Jitter:

Not sure I understand what he's trying to say on this one.
Quote:

4) PCM implementation issues: On www.nanophon.com you can read a number of the late Julian Dunn's excellent papers on how compromised implementation of digital filters account for many of the deficiencies noted with PCM. These can be readily solved with due care for details and at the expense of only mildly increased computational burden.

A lot of the better players use DSPs between the receivers and DACs for this very reason.
Quote:

everything he says with a grain of salt (and a little sour grapes, too).

ditto.

 

[marios_mar]

Originally posted by kentamcolin
Duh! If you have $3K to spend on a source, why would you buy a $300 SACD player? How about a $3K universal player? If you only have $300 to spend, why buy an SACD player (even if it did sound that good) when there is such a limited selection of music?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





I DONT have 3K on a source but I am just wondering if cheap SACDs due to the hi-rez format can be better than practically ANY CDP.
So such a comparison will help me understand that if you spend multithousand dollars on CD it can sound better than SACD of low end. So buying a low end SACD wouldnt theoretically save one from the need to get an expensive player be it CD or SACD, just because he got the new format. Thats all I asked.

This was a theoretical question. I hope you understand now.

BTW. I already have a SACD/CD player and its price is neither $300 nor 3K. Its new price used to be $750 and Im pretty sure that it will playback CDs as well as a CDP only. Thats why I bought it. I really dont need SACD since I got vinyl. But if good titles come along ill be buying. Now all we got pretty much is bob dylan, rolling stones(completet discographies) from rock and limited selection in other genres too.

And secondly a $300 SACD player plays CDs as well to answer kentamcolins post.

 

[theaudiohobby]

Quote:

Originally posted by jefemeister Many players convert from DSD before decoding. DCS does*.

This is flat wrong, converting a signal to a multibit signal is not equivalent to converting from DSD to PCM. Afterall, Sony do their processing in 8 bit DSD.


Quote:

Originally posted by jefemeister * on a side note, DCS uses the 5-bit ring DAC architecture they're famous for. There is no way DSD can be decoded using it. Kind of makes you wonder why they released the La Scala version of their Verdi transport huh? Or the Purcell PCM to DSD converter for that matter. [/B]

Considering that DCS was one of the first companies outside the Philips/Sony axis to jump on DSD, it will suggest that they saw something that others kind of missed, don't you think? I kind of get fed up when folks automatically associated multibit signals with PCM as if oversampling SDM breaks down when used with multibit signals. The limitations has never been with SDM but with using a 1 bit signal, I accept that is will be more tedious to process SDM than PCM because PCM is a simpler modulation process.

Quote:

Originally posted by Canman while it is true that DSD contains more samples than PCM, does it necessarily contain more information / data than 24/96? [/B]

Considering that DSD stores relative values and PCM absolute values, this observation even it were not so, will be irrelevant. Nor does observation take into account the relevance of sampling frequency to signal fidelity.

Quote:

Originally posted by jefemeister Sony dreamt of a new signal processing paradigm operating entirely in DSD. It was not to be - they even officially admit it now. [/B]

Since Sony is still using DSD albeit with an 8-bit signal for processing, I fail to see his problem.

 

[kentamcolin]

Originally posted by marios_mar: Quote:

I really dont need SACD since I got vinyl.

AMEN

 

[kentamcolin]

From what I have read, SACD players tend to sacrifice redbook performance. I don't think you can expect an SCAD player to play CD's as well as a dedicated redbook player of the same price.

 

[theaudiohobby]

Quote:

Originally posted by kentamcolin From what I have read, SACD players tend to sacrifice redbook performance. I don't think you can expect an SACD player to play CD's as well as a dedicated redbook player of the same price.

Will a 2-channel Redbook player always beat a 2-channel SACD Player playing redbook? If you think through the technology involved especially if throw in upsampling and oversampling technologies, it will become clear that this is not the case. In fact, there are some decent SACDP than handily trash redbook CDPs at playing redbook. Buying a redbook only player is no guarantee of superior redbook sonics, superior implementation is.

 

[jefemeister]

Quote:

quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by jefemeister Many players convert from DSD before decoding. DCS does*. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is flat wrong, converting a signal to a multibit signal is not equivalent to converting from DSD to PCM. Afterall, Sony do their processing in 8 bit DSD.

Where in that sentance did I mention PCM? In fact, I was very careful to not say PCM specifically here. I do use DSD->PCM conversion elsewhere because that is what the majority of canned converters are doing. Also DSD/PCM comparison is what Mark and I are discussing. Wadia will also not be doing a straight PCM conversion.

Quote:

Considering that DCS was one of the first companies outside the Philips/Sony axis to jump on DSD, it will suggest that they saw something that others kind of missed, don't you think?

DCS is commited to providing professional level equipment for the recording/mastering industry. Their audiophile line of equipment is directly decendant of that.

 

[theaudiohobby]

Quote:

Originally posted by jefemeister Where in that sentance did I mention PCM? In fact, I was very careful to not say PCM specifically here..

the quote to which you followed on from painted a different picture

Quote:

Originally posted by Markl I've seen a nasty rumor that low-end SACDPs convert the DSD signal from SACDs into lossy PCM before handing it off to the analog section. If so, this would defeat the purpose of SACD in many ways.

was discussing DSD->PCM conversion...however as long as you accept that a multibit signal is not necessarily a PCM encoded signal I am fine, converting to a larger wordlength gives you a lot of processing flexibility since by definition a longer wordlength can have more possible values and can be properly dithered.

 

[markl]

Quote:

I'm completely unconvinced that their is any humanly detectable difference between DSD and hi-rez PCM.

Have you compared them? On what systems? IME, they have a noticeably different signature, and if you go over to audioasylum, you'll see them argue endlessly every day about these differences. Quote:

I don't see that at all. The soundstaging part, yes. But that's all artificial due to multi channels. It doesn't have anything to do with the inherent quality if the disc/recording. You also are going to have an insane number of room reflections in which you'll have total signal dropout at some nodes and 5x the volume at others. You actually get less resolution from a data standpoint because you have at least 5x the data to put on the disc now. There will actually be more crossover distortion and channel seperation issues because you are dealing with more channels, more electrical components, etc.

Well, until we have a way of beaming the signals directly into our brains, we're stuck with speaker technology. IMO, soundstaging through 5 speakers is no more "artificial" than that created by two. The sound has to get to our ears somehow, right now we use speakers. When they mike classical and even some rock for recording, they use multiple mikes some set up at the rear of the hall to get those ambience cues. Now we can actually place speakers behind us in the same relative positions as these mikes in our listening room, and they can recreate the ambience of the actual hall. With a stereo system, these ambience channels are compacted into the two main L/R speakers and the sound emmanates from in front of you, it's up to our brains to try to trick ourselves into believing that sound is coming at us from behind. How natural is that?

Also, if you have 3X the data in a 5.1 channel recording vs. a 2-channel setero version, it seems to me you have 3 times the amount of resolution. 3x more data = 3X more information = 3X more resolution. Is that thinking flawed? Quote:

Markl, while it is true that DSD contains more samples than PCM, does it necessarily contain more information / data than 24/96?

Yes, that is my understanding, more samples = more data. I think the argument is this: if we think of a real analog signal as containing essentially an infinite number of samples (because it's a continuous wave), then whatever sampling technique that employs more samples, yielding more data points will come colser to emmulating that analog signal. In this case, it's SACD that comes closest. Quote:

From what I have read, SACD players tend to sacrifice redbook performance. I don't think you can expect an SCAD player to play CD's as well as a dedicated redbook player of the same price.

Obviously, we can find examples on both sides of SACDPs and that sound better on CDs than equivalently-priced Redbook players and vice-versa. I think that if we are talking in broad generalizations, we can argue that SACDPs have a couple disadvantages over vanilla Redbook CDPs that add to their cost, making it not an apples to apples comparison:

1. Newness of SACD technology, lack of choices for DACs and other items necessary for SACD playback. Right now, manufacturers are no doubt paying some premium to sport the SACD logo on their players. This won't last forever, however.

2. SACDPs are multichannel. You have to have 4 additional channels in the analog section of SACDP. If we are holding price constant, this means we can't spend as much on parts quality for each of the analog output channels that we can on a Redbook-only, 2-channel machine.


One other thought occurred to me when I was thinking about DSD/SACD releases of recordings originally made in 24/96 PCM. I wonder if it isn't possible for a SACD version of these digital recordings to actually sound *better* on SACD played back through an SACDP than it would playing back in DVD-A on a DVDA player. Here's my thought:

Upsampling of Redbook CDs (of which I admit my technical knowledge is very limited), involves the use of advanced DACs (typically 24/96) that process 16/44.1 data and "add" in cycles and bits to simulate an actual 24/96 recording. It's an attempt to make a mere 16/44.1 recording sound like it was a 24-bit 96Khz recording. It sort of
"fills in the blanks" of missing data in the 16/44.1 CD with extra computing power.

Couldn't an SACD version of a 24/96 recording essentially do the same thing? If you convert it to DSD, put it on an SACD medium, and play it back through a DSD/SACD DAC, is that similar to the effect of "upsampling" you get by playing 16/44.1 discs on a 24/96 DAC? In other words, since the DSD disc and the SACDP sample at such a higher rate than 24/96, couldn't it affect playback in a psychologically positive manner a la upsampling?

Or is it time I stopped sniffin' glue?

Mark