[Herandu]

I keep reading about this SA8001 so I borrowed one for a few days to listen to it before commenting on it. What I can say is that it has a wide soundstage that is better than when I feed it through my DAC. But detail wise, my DAC knocks it for six. So I would say that the SA8001 could easily be modified to produce more detail in the analogue output. That would be cheaper than banging a whole DAC in front of it. Why use a sledgehammer to crack a nut?
If you had a cheap transport, then a DAC would sound more sensible to me.

 

[sejarzo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hciman77 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Can you present any decent controlled comparative listening tests between CD and SACD where the mastering was the same. i.e where the only variable was the encoding. <<snip>> Sure SACD can give you more dynamic range and lower noise , but most CDs dont even get within a country mile of using the capability of 16/44.1.

The only disc that would allow that comparison easily is this one:

http://ssl.blueearth.net/primedia/home.php?cat=9

Anthony Michaelson, founder of Musical Fidelity, playing the Mozart Clarinet Concerto, tracked on DSD and analog tape, and dual layer--so it has both SACD stereo and CD redbook of the same performance.

Even so, a comparison of the two "all digital" versions would be between an "all DSD" version on the SACD layer and a "DSD-to-PCM" on the redbook layer, rather than a "pure PCM-to-PCM" rendition.

While the NOS crowd can have their opinions, I truly believe that the latest DAC chips from all the major manufacturers are a leap ahead when it comes to improving the sound of 16/44.1 material. And a great DAC running redbook does indeed sound markedly better than most early generation SACD players, IMHO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by daltonlanny /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have actually read articles and other comparisons on the internet that state that the treble on Redbook CD, and especially on DVD-Audio discs, is superior in resolution and dynamic range to DSD......While the bass and mids are noticeably superior on SACD compared to CD, the CD's sound as if the treble, especially the upper treble, is simply more open, extended, and dynamic than the SACD versions.

The problem can be that you don't know for sure if the mix you are hearing on an SACD stereo layer is the same one as on the redbook layer. I have a couple of hybrids on which there is a large difference between the redbook and SACD stereo on some cuts, but hardly any on others, that I wonder if maybe it's not even consistent within a single disc!

Or, heaven forbid, someone pulls another goof like on Norah Jones' "Come Away With Me" hybrid SACD........yes, the surround layer is hi-rez, but the stereo layer is simply the original redbook 16/44.1 master resampled to DSD.....and it does sound worse than the redbook layer. Hi-rez ain't always hi-rez, technically speaking.

 

[Mr_Sukebe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pesciolino /img/forum/go_quote.gif well, if you're not already convinced that dsd reasonably presented is tons better than cd even super presented, then i don't think anything i can tell you would change your mind otherwise.

I did think that I'd asked a reasonable question about why you felt that SACD was so much better. You seem very uncomfortable with that.

The background to my question is that I tried a Marantz 6400 player a couple of years ago after being rather impressed with it in store against other SACD players, felt it would be worth a try at home. On comparing it to the Naim CD5i I had at the time, with the Naim playing CD and the Marantz playing SACD, I didn't think there was much in it overall. The Marantz was better in some areas, the Naim in others. The inference being that an SACD player could compete with a CDP of double the cost, when using SACD disks.
Now that was only my findings, and I've no idea how that would scale. So for example, how good would the Esoteric X01 sound with SACDs? I've heard it with CDs, and it was completely awesome.

So my question was quite genuine, and I was hoping to clarify whether you'd really done a good side by side comparison using the same track, or were simply guessing because in theory the data source was at a higher bit rate.

My other experiences with HD sound from Blu-ray seemed to show that well implemented 16 bit was more than capable of mixing with poorly implemented 24 bit.

 

[pesciolino]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hciman77 /img/forum/go_quote.gif You seem convinced that DSD is superior, how did you come to that conclusion ?

I'm not uncomfortable about answering anything. I just don't want to get into a debate. Because I know that doing so would be attempting to essentially prove the unprovable.

But regarding my "set of ears" and experience... I am a musician, worked for a mastering studio for awhile, and listened to some of the first dsd demonstrations by sony at aes.

And I can say without reservation that dsd simply sounds better than pcm - even high rez pcm - more lifelike and natural.

(Although I will say that I have not yet heard dxd)

 

[twsmith]

Quote:

Originally Posted by daltonlanny /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have actually read articles and other comparisons on the internet that state that the treble on Redbook CD, and especially on DVD-Audio discs, is superior in resolution and dynamic range to DSD. I have read that the treble on DSD sounds compressed and veiled compared to well recorded CD's and DVD-Audio discs, and the upper treble on DSD is limited to only about 6 bits of resolution! I have also noticed this effect in my own listening sessions. While the bass and mids are noticeably superior on SACD compared to CD, the CD's sound as if the treble, especially the upper treble, is simply more open, extended, and dynamic than the SACD versions.

Your impressions of SACD are basically the same as mine. I had the opportunity a few years ago to audition for an extended period a very well respected universal player (Ayre C5-xe). I listened to a few DSD-encoded hybrid discs with the Ayre (which does not convert DSD to PCM) and then listened to the CD layer (I had to use another machine because the Ayre did not allow you to manually switch between the two layers). The CD machine was a Creek CD53, which was considered a good machine at the time. Granted that I had to rely on auditory memory to some degree when making the comparisons, but still I was left with definite feeling that the upper high frequency resolution and dynamic range was better in the CD version, surprisingly even considering that the original master was a DSD. Even here, though, none of the DSD discs - SACD or CD version approached the high frequency resolution that I heard from PCM only recordings - the best being those that were analog recordings converted to PCM using a hi-rez intermediary such as the XRCD and Sony Bitmapping processes. I realize that some might argue that what you are really hearing could be a "illusion" of higher resolution due to PCM conversion anomalies or distortions and that DSD is the more accurate conversion. Nevertheless, the bottom line for me - artifacts or distortions aside - is that I prefer PCM over DSD, much as some might prefer analog over digital, I suppose.

 

[Redo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by twsmith /img/forum/go_quote.gif Your impressions of SACD are basically the same as mine. I had the opportunity a few years ago to audition for an extended period a very well respected universal player (Ayre C5-xe). I listened to a few DSD-encoded hybrid discs with the Ayre (which does not convert DSD to PCM) and then listened to the CD layer (I had to use another machine because the Ayre did not allow you to manually switch between the two layers). The CD machine was a Creek CD53, which was considered a good machine at the time. Granted that I had to rely on auditory memory to some degree when making the comparisons, but still I was left with definite feeling that the upper high frequency resolution and dynamic range was better in the CD version, surprisingly even considering that the original master was a DSD. Even here, though, none of the DSD discs - SACD or CD version approached the high frequency resolution that I heard from PCM only recordings - the best being those that were analog recordings converted to PCM using a hi-rez intermediary such as the XRCD and Sony Bitmapping processes. I realize that some might argue that what you are really hearing could be a "illusion" of higher resolution due to PCM conversion anomalies or distortions and that DSD is the more accurate conversion. Nevertheless, the bottom line for me - artifacts or distortions aside - is that I prefer PCM over DSD, much as some might prefer analog over digital, I suppose.

Chalk it to mastering, as the CD layer's on Hybrid discs are nearly always a different master. Plus DSD can handle high frequencies just fine, but when you start putting insane amplitudes on high frequencies (12khz+), DSD falls short. However, those high amplitudes on high frequencies just don't exist unless lots of compression is used.

 

[chesebert]

I was reading OP's wants to compare on-board vs DAC1, then I glanced at the posts, and somehow the discussion went from, Is dac1 a better dac than onboard to SACD vs CD? where did the post go wrong?

 

[tourmaline]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chesebert /img/forum/go_quote.gif I was reading OP's wants to compare on-board vs DAC1, then I glanced at the posts, and somehow the discussion went from, Is dac1 a better dac than onboard to SACD vs CD? where did the post go wrong?

Take a guess.

To chime in:

there are also xrcd's and xrcd2 discs for sale. This technique brings cd much closer to sacd. They sound, much, much better then ordinairy cd.

I have some tested this with a cd version and an xrcd version and the latter is much better. They are expensive though.

So, apperently, there's quite a margin for cd improvement.