[MacDEF]

Quote:

Originally posted by Wodgy elambo, while I agree that specs are largely meaningless to listeners, the theory is not meaningless to engineers, who have to design the DACs that we listen to, and who strive for the ideal case that might one day be possible in theory. Fact is, an ideal redbook DAC will sound better than an ideal SACD DAC. The ideal redbook DAC will be much more expensive though.

It's interesting that this thread is the first I've heard about any of these "shortcomings" of SACD. Like elambo, I've heard some of the best Redbook systems and some of the best SACD systems, and it's not even a close match -- SACD is simply giving me another level of realism and performance that Redbook can't match.


Quote:

Plus, frankly, there are many people who have complained about the weird highs in SACD just by listening, without understanding anything about theory or specs.

Again, this is the first I've heard of this, as well. I think "many" is an exaggeration. For example, despite the relatively high concentration of SACD players on Head-Fi (relative to the general population) all of whom listen using headphones at least part of the time (which provide much better detail and resolution in the highs than most speakers), not a single person has commented on "weird highs" with SACD playback.

I'm not trying to be too contrarian, but from my experience, and the experiences of everyone I know, with SACD, the criticisms here seem to be theoretical at best, and dubious at worst.

 

[Born2bwire]

That kinda makes me wonder as well, but mostly in comparison with the specs that Sony states for the format, stating that the format is capable of 100kHz over 120 dB. With the calculations saying that the swing of the wave is actually worse than redbook at high frequencies, how does the stats that Sony puts out work? My guess is that the calculations are not incorrect, but maybe the assumptions of how exactly the DSD works. I'll admit though that I haven't looked in depth into technical articles that might illuminate on this.

 

[dparrish]

I'm not an engineer, and I don't have the facts at hand to quote, but Robert Greene wrote a series of articles for Absolute Sound some time ago which looked at the theory behind both 48/192 PCM and DSD/SACD. He spells out in detail how that both formats beat 16-bit redbook hands down and are able to capture the now-known limits of human hearing/perception.

He happens to favor the 48/192 PCM over DSD, but he shows how that both capture alot more sound than redbook.

I would suggest anyone seriously interested in DSD to check out Audioasylum. There's lots of knowledgeable people there who can explain the theory behind it.

From personal experience, I can say that DSD/SACD is a BIG step up in the high frequency (and all other frequencies) department from redbook. The soundstaging/spatial queues are much more realistic, and we now know that such information is primarily high frequency information. As a Classical musician who has heard alot of acoustic/live instruments (unamplified), I can tell you that such instruments sound MUCH more realistic when recorded in DSD/SACD, particularly in the mid to high frequencies.

David

 

[Calanctus]

Quote:

Originally posted by dparrish I would suggest anyone seriously interested in DSD to check out Audioasylum. There's lots of knowledgeable people there who can explain the theory behind it.

Yes...but also, the best way to start a flamewar, with multi-branch 100-post side threads and name calling back and forth, is to post a 'SACD sucks' (or DVD-A sucks) type thread in the Hi-Rez forum. You might learn a lot from a few of the postings, but sorting out the wheat from the chaff will be difficult.

 

[elambo]

Joe - I haven't heard DVD-A yet, but I've heard 24bit/96K and 24bit 192K very briefly directly off of a recorder. Both are impressive, but I haven't been able to do any critical listening to DVD-A... YET! I'm eagerly awaiting the Pioneer Elite universal players that are coming out soon. More to come then...

Wodgy - I have no problems with specs whatsoever. In fact, I said in my post that I enjoy discussing specs, and I certainly understand their importance to engineers, but I thought SACD was getting a bad rap so I chimed in to say how good it is at reproducing music, if not test tones. I have to mention this - you say that the ideal redbook DAC will sound better than the ideal SACD DAC? I can't say that I agree with that. Let me paraphrase Rick Shultz who is (was) known for making some of the best redbook DACs available. He no longer makes his redbook DACs because he said that (paraphrasing now, not quoting) 'an inexpensive SACD player can sound as good or better than even the best redbook DACs with simple modifications'. He also said something to the effect of (not quoting) 'CDs played from this modified SACD player could also sound as good or better than CDs played from the best DACs'... His DACs were out-freaking-standing, but he gave up the manufacturing business entirely and now he simply does modifications. I'm in the long line for one of his mods to my Sony 500V.

I'll see if I can help with the SACD issues you're all debating. I've done some work with Bernie Grundman recently and we talked a bit about the theory behind accumulative signal loss with digital file translation (in a nutshell - there is signal degradation when taking a stereo audio file and splitting it out into double-mono and back and forth and back and forth). Real geek stuff, but the point is he was very willing to get into it. I wouldn't be surprised if he'd talk my ear off about DSD, too... if he can find the time that is. He's pretty busy. Coincidentally, he has mastered more of the SACDs that I own than anyone else so I'd be willing to trust his info. I won't be working with him again for about 6 months, but I'll see if I can get his ear sometime relatively soon.

 

[markl]

All you need to do is get a hybrid disc and press the CD/SACD button on your SACD player, and you'll clearly hear that the SACD layer is superior.

This argument is never-ending and always causes massively unreadable, inconclusive debate over at audioasylum. Suffice to say, there are people who support PCM and those that support DSD and the two sides will never agree.

The proof is in the pudding, just go listen for yourself.

markl

 

[Joe Bloggs]

Yes I've heard SACD (once

) and it did sound better than the CD version--although I'm sure you know the stories about Sony hobbling the CD recording to show off SACD

I've now concluded that the information contained in SACD is at least superior to CD, if not DVD-A. What made the difference for me is finding out that SACD uses delta-sigma coding, not just delta coding as the usual description would have you believe.

(the usual description being that each bit in the SACD stream indicates whether the waveform in this time slice is at a higher or lower position than the waveform at the previous time slice. This is a description of delta coding. Delta-sigma coding should be described as coding the 'difference from the sum of the previous difference' (whatever that means

) but the end result is that you obtain a 1 bit stream at a very high sample rate that can be transformed directly into the reconstructed waveform after applying a lowpass filter. Delta-sigma coding has higher information density than delta coding (although still not as high as PCM)

 

[Born2bwire]

I thought that there was more to it than we first thought. Probably one album that was made separate of the SACD releases would be the Journey albums. I purchased the Greatest Hits about a year or two ago and the latest copywrite on the case is 1996, though I don't think one could use that as a good estimate for when it was released. Sony is now releasing the same remastered albums on SACD, but they aren't hybrids, so those albums might offer an "un-hobbled" evaluation.

 

[markl]

"-although I'm sure you know the stories about Sony hobbling the CD recording to show off SACD "

I sure hope you're joking. If not, how do you explain the Rolling Stone hybrid discs that have no mention of the SACD layer anywhere on the packaging (you don't even know you're buying a disc with an SACD layer), you just know its a remastered CD? Did Sony have those re-masters deliberately "hobbled"? Did they bribe the great Bob Ludwig to make a suck-ass Redbook mastering?

markl

 

[Joe Bloggs]

Stories, markl, can be factual or fictional

--going by the name, I'd say more usually the latter