[fatcat28037]

After this can we discuss power cables? 

 

[Mr.Sneis]

But I like when my dac lights up HDCD or when my CDP has the SACD logo light up in the display

 

[logwed]

Quote:

But I like when my dac lights up HDCD or when my CDP has the SACD logo light up in the display

The blue LED screams enjoyment.

 

[Mr.Sneis]

If I play and HDCD FLAC rip on my PC feeding into my DAC the green hdcd led lights up and I get excited!

 

[Vkamicht]

Marketing gimmick - yes and no.
 
It does what it is supposed to do - more resolution, more "information." I quote that word because it might not be the kind of information most people are looking for. That's where the gimmick comes into play.
 
I still don't get what there is to argue about all this "better-than-redbook" business. Take a true 24 bit, 96khz audio file (or higher res if you want), resample and dither it to 16/44.1, then upconvert it back to 24/96 or original format. Invert the resulting waveform and mix it into the original. Press play. (Or just look at the waveform...) I don't know about you, but I hear silence, even with my amp cranked 100%.
 
Prove that this high frequency, inaudible noise affects the way a driver reproduces audible frequencies below 20khz or the way they reverberate off surfaces or the way your ear percieves them and you'll have a selling point for SACD. Until then, mastering is a good excuse.

 

[IPodPJ]

Quote:

No, SACD, DVD-A and HDCD are legitimate. Whether or not people can hear the difference is irrelevant.

SACD is what it says it is. It is technically different and works as advertised. It is not of those "trust me, it's different, existing science is wrong, now give me $500 for $10 of materials" things.

The difference might very well lie in mastering. But isn't great mastering something that should be encouraged? Further, don't we want to have the boundaries pushed towards the best possible recording? This is why I support the format. Every dollar spent is a way of saying that I will pay for high quality. In these days of the Loudness War and awful MP3 downloads, buying a high quality recording is a statement.

Some SACDs are too expensive. But I've found hundreds that were priced within a dollar or two of a regular CD. Of course I'll buy them. My SACD player was about $600 used, which is pretty fair for a CD player. My DVD-A player was $100 used. It's an early model that has hi-rez digital out, too.

Unfortunately Erik, SACD is not only a dying format but I think is a dead format in the eyes of Sony.
 
My step-brother was supposed to get the new Move for Playstation 3 for Christmas but by mistake they gave him the entire Playstation 3 + Move combo.  He scored.  Anyway, so now he has two Playstation 3 units, one older, and one new.  The old Playstation had lots of logos on it of formats it supports including SACD.  The new one has lots of logos on it too, but no SACD.

 

[plaidplatypus]

i.Link AKA Firewire can be used to send a DSD signal too.
 
The older PS3s are suppose to decode DSD and resample to multi-channel PCM when using HDMI and stereo PCM with optical.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacd

 

[crozone]

Many of the tests conducted comparing different formats do not always test audiophiles and often test a rather random group. I wouldn't consider myself an audiophile but with a pair of Westone 3s and a 24 bit sound card I can definitely tell the difference between 16 bit 44.1 kHz PCM and 96 kHz 24 bit PCM audio. Sure, in almost all real world situations I probably wouldn't notice the difference, but it is definitely audible when directly comparing equal tracks. One thing I am sure of though is that there isn't an audible difference between 2.8224
 kHz 1 bit DSD (SADC) and 24 bit 96 kHz PCM, so arguing which high end format is superior is fairly useless. 
 
Although I wouldn't call SACD or HDCD gimmicks, they aren't open standards like DVD-A which makes them very inaccessible to the average person. If more players could play DVD-A, or any of these high end formats then I'm sure they would eventually replace Red book CDs. In addition to increased fidelity, people seem to have neglected to mention that these formats also support 5.1 channel surround sound, which can definitely provide a better listening experience.
 
Unfortunately for all these formats, they all have issues regarding mainstream adoption. DVD-A has no backwards compatibility with existing CD players, and SACD and HDCD are both locked to select Sony and Microsoft devices respectively. 

 

[evanft]

Quote:

Many of the tests conducted comparing different formats do not always test audiophiles and often test a rather random group.

 
Prove audiophiles have magically hearing beyond the average person.

 

[sterling1]

I actually think SACD is poised for a successful re-start. With OPPO and other universal players out there now, the folks who own them, and  who are also somewhat curious, may seek out an SACD or two to see what these disks are all about.
 
 I have one of the first universal players, a Sony DVP-S9000ES. My first SACD for it, which I had to order from my local record store, is Kind of Blue, you know, the Miles Davis piece. I also have this material on CD. I can't tell any difference between the SACD version and CD. It made me lose interest in buying any more; plus, there was never any distribution for SACD in my geographic area. Record stores did not choose to stock 'em.  Add to this, youngsters at the time of SACD's introduction were warming up to free downloads from Napster,  and the iPod. These frugal folks, I think, like the idea of getting just the songs that appeal to them, rather than having to pay for a whole album for just one or two good tunes. With iTunes and iPods folks get just what they want, immediate gratification. It's why CD sales are dwindling now, too.

 

[akart]

The issue with any SACD player is that you cant get digital out using COAX/TOSLINK/BNC thus rendering an external DAC useless. I think many will be p*ssed because of this (myself included) - because I have an awesome external DAC (dual wolfson in mono config + a load of other features).

 

[sterling1]

I assume you bought a DAC to get computer audio to your stereo preamp in your home audio system, perhaps not satisified with sending an analog signal from your headphone output to your preamp. Since CD players, SACD players, and BD players have internal DAC's, of course, there's no need for an external DAC, unless you are convinced the DAC within the player is inferior to your external DAC. I like external DAC's too, they may be a great idea, since  they could allow for manufactures of home theatre receivers and universal players to simply eliminate the internal DAC to save the customer some money. Now, we have redundancy, as well as a lot of choices, like choosing between using the DAC in the player, or the DAC in the preamp, or receiver, or the external DAC. Non of this stuff regarding where the DAC should be located however relates to SACD. The whole idea from the start was to have an uncopyable disk for folks who would use 'em as they had traditionally used records and CD's. It was mobility that gave folks recognition that SACD's could not be copied digitally. That's to say downloading to iTunes was not possible. For those that listen to music in an home theatre environment, that the disk cannot be digitally copied is moot.

 

[Skylab]

But at least with SACD's you can import the CD layer into iTunes.  With DVD-A, you can't even do that.

 

[leeperry]

 

But at least with SACD's you can import the CD layer into iTunes.  With DVD-A, you can't even do that.

It's the opposite for me...w/ SACD, you're stuck w/ the CDDA version...OTOH, you can rip DVD-A to full resolution FLAC on a PC.

 

[Skylab]

How do you rip the DVD-A layer? I know you can easily rip the DVD-V tracks, but I thought the DVD-A tracks were not ripable.