What is the point of SACD? [Archive] - Page 2

Joe

24-08-2015, 13:08

Of course the two can cross over, digital can do emotion and vinyl (if you spend enough) can show you the recording, but I sometimes wonder if our personal preference towards emotional or intellectual is not at the root of the old 'obj/subj divide'.

I dunno, I think the subj/obj thing is a misnomer anyway. Often the most vociferous of the 'trust your ears' subjectivist brigade get all defensive if anyone suggests they do just that and listen 'blind'. It may be more a case of arts vs science; graphs tend to make me switch off because they bring back horrible memories of double maths lessons, so I tend not to read the more techy types of reviews.

It's interesting that most fans of classical music made the switch to CD relatively quickly and painlessly, perhaps because the advantages of CD (no surface noise, better pitch stability, no need to break up a symphony over two sides of an LP) were so great. The ones clinging most tightly to vinyl seem to be mainly fans of jazz and rock.

Macca

24-08-2015, 13:09

o
.

I like music first and HIFI second.:)

Wheras I am sort of the other way around. The recording and how it is reproduced is of as much interest to me as the actual performance. You see what I mean about the obj/subj thing?

Jimbo

24-08-2015, 13:58

Wheras I am sort of the other way around. The recording and how it is reproduced is of as much interest to me as the actual performance. You see what I mean about the obj/subj thing?

I can understand that perspective. I have pursued building my system to allow me to hear the musical performance with as much realism as possible. I like all the production and technical aspects but to me these are just means to an end for me.
I like to feel an emotional connection with the music and performer and not just listen to something that is a clinical, cold presentation of the music. I guess that's why I like vinyl, valves and old fashioned speakers.:)

anthonyTD

24-08-2015, 14:06

Where did you get a CD player from in 1981 ? ;)
It still hurts me when I think of the decision I made in 1981 to get rid of all my vinyl and go CD even though I hadn,t really evaluated it. I committed and spent 25 years trying to make it sound listenable without success.

I gave up 2 years ago and went totally vinyl and have never had so much enjoyment from my music. Feel sad I wasted 25 years on digital hence I AM DEEPLY SCEPTICAL OF ALL DIGITAL FORMATS. It would take a quantum leap for me to now accept any digital format as my main source for enjoying music.

I think I will stick with vinyl for the next 25 years and then re evaluate:lol:

Jimbo

24-08-2015, 14:28

Where did you get a CD player from in 1981 ? ;)

Good point Anthony, misjudged my timeline. I think it was 1983. I bought the first Philips CD100 player when it came out as I was working in a HIFI shop at the time.

anthonyTD

24-08-2015, 15:50

:eek: I thought you may have had access to a time machine when i read that! :lol: yes, 1983 was about the earliest us consumers were able to purchase this new wonder of technology, and 30 odd years later, here we are, still talking about vinyl! :doh:
Good point Anthony, misjudged my timeline. I think it was 1983. I bought the first Philips CD100 player when it came out as I was working in a HIFI shop at the time.

Marco

24-08-2015, 17:48

Often the most vociferous of the 'trust your ears' subjectivist brigade get all defensive if anyone suggests they do just that and listen 'blind'. It may be more a case of arts vs science; graphs tend to make me switch off because they bring back horrible memories of double maths lessons, so I tend not to read the more techy types of reviews.

Ditto, with knobs on!

For me, when it comes to hi-fi, if you're into the hobby primarily because you're a music lover, but also like your system to sound as good as possible [count me in], there's no need to obsess over graphs or measurements, because unless you're technically minded, they're liable to be misleading at best, or meaningless - and thus of little *real* use.

My advice?

Unless you're a 'geek', and enjoy the technical aspects of the hobby, leave the graphs and measurements to the equipment designers or professionals, who can properly understand them and utilise their benefits, and simply trust your ears.

No, they're not infallible, but in my experience plenty good enough to allow the building of a superb sounding system [if you don't get too hung up all the time on 'proving' every new experience to yourself] - and often better than the ones assembled by those who 'live or die' by measurements! ;)

Marco.

surv1v0r

01-09-2015, 08:16

Macca

01-09-2015, 11:19

Who need to shell out a small fortune on a new player and replacing all your CDs?

Just buy a Sound Improvement Disc (Model 15) for just £20.99 with FREE UK delivery (LINK (http://www.amazon.co.uk/SID-Sound-Improvement-Disc-Model-x/dp/B007LNW7AU/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&qid=1441094634&sr=8-11&keywords=sacd+disks)).

After all, this is guaranteed by an impartial observer to make your CDs sound even more like good old vinyl!

Win-win all round :D

'It is also possible to move the CD up to 1,3mm away from the laser. Being as the CD is only 1,2mm thick it shows that it is possible for the laser to actually see right through the CD.With this in mind the sound will be very much smoother as it has hardly any interruptions induced by false information from the correction system'

Dear oh dear. And they want £21 for it!

Rothchild

01-09-2015, 15:08

Dear oh dear. And they want £21 for it!

Bargain, have you seen how much the 'mysterious' powder from australia is.....

Macca

01-09-2015, 15:25

The Black Adder

01-09-2015, 15:28

lol... yes the mysterious powder in little plastic sachet's... what a load of rubbish.

Rothchild

01-09-2015, 16:10

The mysterious powder? Got a link?

Note to prospective con men: If you are going to sell this sort of thing, at least try to make the explanation convincing - or at least claim something that is unprovable either way.

http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?40110-A-Freebie-Tweak-(well-amost)

When the manufacturer describes the content of their product as 'mysterious' you know it's cobblers (to be fair though some of the descriptions and explanations are so tongue in cheek they are close to admitting they're taking the pee)

WAD62

01-09-2015, 17:58

Perhaps I could lash one to the side of my NAS with some gaffa tape...;)

surv1v0r

01-09-2015, 18:48

The mysterious powder? Got a link?

Note to prospective con men: If you are going to sell this sort of thing, at least try to make the explanation convincing - or at least claim something that is unprovable either way.If only this applied to gold plated toslink cables, skyhooks to keep your cables from coming into contact with the real world and all the other snake oil solutions . . . and it seems SACDs . . . which neatly brings us back to the original question ;)

surv1v0r

05-09-2015, 22:19

PaulStewart

10-09-2015, 23:18

There is an interesting review of the Stones' Grrr HERE (http://referencehometheater.com/review/pure-audio-blu-ray-rolling-stones-grrr/) where Chris Heinonen suggests that SACD and DVD-A battled each other leaving no one victorious (as with VHS & Betamax)

Aaron you ability to make statements that are at best utter tosh, is becoming legendary, as one of the team that launched VHS for JVC I think I'm in a poition to know. As a domestic format, ( where al, the money is in consumer electronics) VHS was the most successful format on the planet as far as video is concerned till DVD came along. Beta ended up as a niche product for pro video.

He argues that SACD and Blu-ray both offer better quality than CD so perhaps Blu-ray is the way of the future?

I like Blu Ray and feel it is superior to SACD, which is in turn better than CD. My OPPO plays all digital disc formats and file based audio and the ease of use and the ability to download high res files, may spell the end for digital physical media, I hope not as I like to have a physical disc.

surv1v0r

28-11-2015, 20:55

On the basis of their 50th anniversary concert, the other day I bought the Blu-Ray of The Who - Live In Hyde Park. The High Definition of the film is amazing and it is a great memento but I can't say that the sound is particularly special. I gather that the Blu-Ray of the Quadrophenia concert at the Royal Albert Hall with the RPO (which I missed) is definitely a disappointment.

Perhaps it/they would sound more impressive in 5.1?

ps - Baba O'Riley was great but then it always is, isn't it? :)

agk

28-11-2015, 23:30

SACD so far sounds no better than CD on my gear. I've only played two so far and one had been remastered to death. The other although very good sounds much the same on its CD layer.

Gazjam

29-11-2015, 00:05

SACD's (and DVD-A's) are worth it imo as a carrier of higher quality digital files than CD...

As a backup of your discs, its possible to extract the DSD audio as an ISO image using an older PS3 with particular firmware.
From there, the DSD can be extracted and converted to whatever digital audio format you like.
I've spent a fair bit of time looking into this recently and a 16/44 file converted from extracted DSD sounds better (my ears my system) than CD rips of the same music, whether ripped from normal CD or from the CD layer of the same SACD.
My Oppo plays SACDs directly, and its good but not as good as SACD rips into my dac.

surv1v0r

29-11-2015, 09:03

SACD so far sounds no better than CD on my gear. I've only played two so far and one had been remastered to death. The other although very good sounds much the same on its CD layer.I suspect that as suggested below by Gazjam, you need to invest a fair amount in expensive gear. Having done so, it would not be entirely surprising if one was to be reluctant to admit that the difference was marginal.

Sadly, one's hearing range declines with age, as a resuilt only teenagers may derive any actual benefit - as if they could care less ;)

Gazjam

29-11-2015, 09:34

I suspect that as suggested below by Gazjam, you need to invest a fair amount in expensive gear. Having done so, it would not be entirely surprising if one was to be reluctant to admit that the difference was marginal.

Sadly, one's hearing range declines with age, as a resuilt only teenagers may derive any actual benefit - as if they could care less ;)

I never suggested that... :)

The thing is, You dont need expensive gear to extract SACD.

An old PS3 and a home computer or laptop would do it.
Software wise there's free open source stuff to do the conversion, so not much of an investment at all really.
Having said all that,
Like most aspects of this hobby, whats better on paper isn't always better in reality, and SACD vs redbook is no different...
Various reasons:

(1) MUSIC MATTERS!
You wont get a night and day improvement with pop, rock, metal and the like, you know..the popular stuff?
SACD has taken off mostly in the Classical music area, where more subtle detailed music highlights the improvements better.
So over time SACD has naturally found its target market...not the money generating consumers unfortunately, so the labels aren't pushing the format.

(2) MASTERING IS EVERYTHING
As others have said, its not so much the "technology" that automatically makes the improvement, its the way its used.
SACD can sound far better than standard CDs, but only if they are recorded well and mastered right.
For a mastering engineer, SACD provides a bigger 24bit sandbox with bigger dynamic range to play in, what he does with that can make it or break the final product.
I have several SACDs that sound no better than CD, mostly because of lousy recording.
Also, I have 320K MP3 recordings that sound really great!
As long as the mastering and recording is done well, its not the delivery mechanism that matters, its what goes on before you hear it!

Digressing a bit, vinyl is another good illustration of mastering and recording being the most important step in the chain, just like mastering for digital.
Vinyl, weirdly, is technically inferior on paper so why can it sound so much better?
The mastering is different and is done in a way that (mostly) takes advantage of the format, but again not done properly can make it sound mediocre.
Unfortunately, unlike digital, getting the sound quality to a higher level CAN get expensive.

Mastering done right though, that takes advantage of what SACD can do (24bit, higher dynamic range) can be stunning, much better than redbook CD.
As I said, you don't need mega bucks equipment to play back the digital SACD files...which is the important bit in this case, not the plastic disc. :)

The recent SACD release of Vangelis' Blade Runner is a great example of it done right, MUCH better sounding that the original CD all because of its mastering and SACD's
Great video here showing some of the behind the scenes mastering for 24bit SACD.
6R0DSM1DLks

(3) SOME PEOPLE JUST DONT CARE!
As I think you were touching on, a lot of people are happy with their MP3 downloads, 320k Spotify accounts and the like and you know what, they are absolutely right.
Enjoying the music is what its all about.

Different people hear differently and have different priorities in life, so I think there is no black and white, one size fits all answer to "Is SACD better".
TECHNICALLY it has the potential to be a lot better than 16/44 CD, but its a moot point whether that even matters.
The final result is dependant on so many factors, including the person listening themselves, so like most areas of this hifi hobby what works for one, wont work for another.

WILL THIS CHANGE IN THE FUTURE?
Interestingly with the likes of Pono, Tidal, Qobuz and other "high res" streaming services there seems to be a bit of swing towards higher quality music, which personally I think is cool.
Will it last?
Imo...Naa.
Historically, the history of hires formats (audio and video) dying a death in the face of convenience and good marketing shows how things are really.

SO:
SACD isn't a "golden ticket" to hifi nirvana, but like all technology depending on how its implemented it potentially can be.

For those who can be arsed... :)
(Opinion pieces, forum discussion, no empirical measurements supplied...)

Why SACDs Didn't Supersede CDs...
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue64/dsd.htm

(http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue64/dsd.htm)Has anyone tested SACD vs. CD of same album, e.g. for dynamic range?
https://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=99765

Macca

29-11-2015, 11:14

I never suggested that... :)

For those who can be arsed... :)

Why SACDs Didn't Supersede CDs...
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue64/dsd.htm

(http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue64/dsd.htm)Has anyone tested SACD vs. CD of same album, e.g. for dynamic range?
https://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=99765 (http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue64/dsd.htm)

Both your links go to the same article?

And in that article this is very doubtful (and no source quoted):

II. CD backlash

When CD premiered in 1983 the majority of listeners were thrilled with CDs ease of play, lack of noise, distortion, and audible wear. However, audiophiles complained of CD's strident, over-etched and uncomfortable sound quality; especially compared to LPs, reel to reel tapes, and live music. Thus CD equipment manufactures begun to steadily improve their products to satisfy these critical listeners. However, upon hearing what was possible with SACD and DVD-Audio, CD equipment manufacturers engaged in a mad race to try to make their products sound as close as they could to the realistic and comforting sonics of these new digital formats... and all with varying degrees of success. This prevented even more people from adopting SACD and/or DVD-audio as CDs were finally getting good enough (and that the selection of music in the CD format is usually less expensive and more abundant when compared to SACD or DVD-Audio).

Anyone who has heard high end players from the early Nineties/late Eighties knows this is cobblers - there has been no improvement of any note.

In addition whilst your point about re-mastering is correct: taking old analogue tapes and remastering with 24 bits to hand will help. But only in the production process, not in the playback. You can use the same process and issue a normal CD the benefit of the 24 bit mastering will still apply. The extended frequency response won't help since there will not be any frequencies higher than - at a push 18Khz - on the master tapes and you can't put in what wasn't there to begin with.

If there is a sound quality benefit with SACD it is not a direct effect of the higher bit rate or the higher sampling frequency. This is pretty much fact.

Having re-visited my SACDs recently with a new SACD capable player I am inclined to say there might be an additional smoothness, a 'DSD signature' if you like - to the sound. But for me this is a character to the sound rather than any sort of quantative improvement over the CD layer. Although if you prefer it then it is an improvement subjectively I suppose.

Gazjam

29-11-2015, 11:46

Both your links go to the same article?
Weird...now fixed.

And in that article this is very doubtful (and no source quoted):
Hard to find "sources" on Subjective opinion on sound quality (and reports on same) which is other than just that?

II. CD backlash

When CD premiered in 1983 the majority of listeners were thrilled with CDs ease of play, lack of noise, distortion, and audible wear. However, audiophiles complained of CD's strident, over-etched and uncomfortable sound quality; especially compared to LPs, reel to reel tapes, and live music. Thus CD equipment manufactures begun to steadily improve their products to satisfy these critical listeners. However, upon hearing what was possible with SACD and DVD-Audio, CD equipment manufacturers engaged in a mad race to try to make their products sound as close as they could to the realistic and comforting sonics of these new digital formats... and all with varying degrees of success. This prevented even more people from adopting SACD and/or DVD-audio as CDs were finally getting good enough (and that the selection of music in the CD format is usually less expensive and more abundant when compared to SACD or DVD-Audio).

Anyone who has heard high end players from the early Nineties/late Eighties knows this is cobblers - there has been no improvement of any note.

Hasn't there? I've heard those players too and not sure I'd agree.
Who saying there's been no improvement, and according to whom?

In addition whilst your point about re-mastering is correct: taking old analogue tapes and remastering with 24 bits to hand will help. But only in the production process, not in the playback. You can use the same process and issue a normal CD the benefit of the 24 bit mastering will still apply. The extended frequency response won't help since there will not be any frequencies higher than - at a push 18Khz - on the master tapes and you can't put in what wasn't there to begin with.
Agreed, but something is making it sound different/better and it has to be the mastering.
...the improvement with better remastered CD's cant be heard on playback?

If there is a sound quality benefit with SACD it is not a direct effect of the higher bit rate or the higher sampling frequency. This is pretty much fact.
Never said it was? :)
What's your take on it Martin?

Having re-visited my SACDs recently with a new SACD capable player I am inclined to say there might be an additional smoothness, a 'DSD signature' if you like - to the sound. But for me this is a character to the sound rather than any sort of quantative improvement over the CD layer. Although if you prefer it then it is an improvement subjectively I suppose.

Quantative improvement or Qualitative....both are improvements.
Subjective is 90% of the hifi game I'd say.

(All replied to in the best possible taste)
https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8230/8581096620_32978d545a_b.jpg

Macca

29-11-2015, 12:16

Ah Cupid Stunt! We really didn't appreciate Kenny enough while we still had him around.

The article states it as a fact that CD player manufacturers upped their game when 'hi-rez' emerged. I have my doubts that they were at all concerned and in any case they all made SACD or DVD=A capable players for a time at least. A quote from one of the big manufacturers (since they do all the R&D the little fish just buy it in) stating they did this would at least lend some credibility. Otherwise it is a wild and slightly illogical claim.

Old players are better - well not necessarily but I have yet to hear anything that can match the high end Technics and Sony players of 20=25 years ago. Probably because they were taken to extremes in terms of quality of the analogue output stage and the power supplies: the expensive bits. Compared to that mucking about with different chips and bamboo caps and what have you is tinkering around the edges but makes for good marketing copy.

Those older players do 2 things - very low noise - that mush or hash in the sound you only notice when it is gone, and a sense of weight and authority to the sound (nothing to do with frequency response).

That is not to say that there are no contemporary players around that can do what those old players do but they will be good for the same reasons as the old high end players - and will be expensive.

Gazjam

29-11-2015, 20:46

Your right Martin, I think the manufacturers realised they were on to a hiding for nothing and slowly let production slip away, Linn being the classic example when they went solely over to digital streaming.

Shame really, the CD12 was a nice bit of kit for a "5K" player. :)

I feel Linn let CD players die as they realised the market was saturated, from a Business sense the opportunity to make money had expired...so they looked to the future and went DS.
Kind of illustrates how what is successful technology wise is dictated market wise rather than sound quality wise?

I think unfortunately us audiophiles are a minor bunch, and what sells to the masses will always win out.
If there's enough of a niche market then a technology will survive in a reduced form, like SACD for the Classical market maybe.

How many failed technologies that are technically better are they?
V2000 videotape, DCC...Minidisk?

Is this the road that SACD will take, despite being technically better than CD?

Macca

30-11-2015, 08:57

surv1v0r

01-12-2015, 01:05

No, I think SACD has been around long enough to survive as a niche format for the foreseeable at least. A bit like vinyl in the '90s when the clubbers kept it alive, SACD is still supported and bought by a lot of classical music enthusiasts.

Of course it is hard to see how far ahead the future is foreseeable. I think only a tiny minority of the currently under thirty-year-olds will ever graduate to a proper separates system playing physical media, whereas in our day it was a sizeable minority.I agree with part of what you say - "niche format for (rich) classical music enthusiasts" and "Digital 30-year olds".

To take the easy part first, I wholeheartedly agree that the majority of people under 30 will go Digital, via the Internet and will probably never own any physical media at all.

I think that the significant difference between Vinyl and SACD is that Vinyl had matured over decades and never really had any competition until CD came along. People used Compact Cassette Tapes for Piracy and to listen in the car. Once CD came along, most people migrated it to it for reasons of simplicity and convenience. Quite why Vinyl is making a bit of a comeback today is a mystery - I suspect that it is a fashion flash in the pan and doubt that the resurgence will last for long.

The problem with SACD is that it simply doesn't offer enough to persuade a commercially significant number of people to move to it. This is compounded by the existence of alternative formats such as DVD-Audio, Pure Audio Blu-ray and High Fidelity Pure Audio. It has been suggested that all of these formats are actually a solution to a problem that nobody much cares about, a business model relying on ignorance and scamming gullible people.

Digital streaming and downloads are the future . . . for all of us. MP3 are fine in the car and for easy listening; if you really care, you can always opt for FLAC :)

eisenach

01-12-2015, 13:07

"niche format for (rich) classical music enthusiasts"

How dare you ! I'm not rich ! Wish I were !

SACD's great by the way ! Maybe I'll just settle for the over 30 part.

agk

18-12-2015, 11:47

"What is the point of SACD?"

Dire Straits Brothers in arms 20th anniversary SACD.

daytona600

18-12-2015, 19:07

"What is the point of SACD?"
some recent ones , all Outstanding

Mofi Kind of Blue
Aanalogue Productions beach boys

Audio Advent

18-12-2015, 20:16

"What's the point of SACD"

The point is in the recording, the A/D conversion process and the impulse response of the DSD A/D equipment. That wouldn't be possible without the higher resolution/bandwidth

But there is no point in SACD itself because it's DSD rate is fixed and now outdated whilst you can more easily sell a USB stick with the DSD256 file on.

Audio Advent

18-12-2015, 20:23

II. CD backlash

When CD premiered in 1983 the majority of listeners were thrilled with CDs ease of play, lack of noise, distortion, and audible wear. However, audiophiles complained of CD's strident, over-etched and uncomfortable sound quality; especially compared to LPs, reel to reel tapes, and live music. Thus CD equipment manufactures begun to steadily improve their products to satisfy these critical listeners. However, upon hearing what was possible with SACD and DVD-Audio, CD equipment manufacturers engaged in a mad race to try to make their products sound as close as they could to the realistic and comforting sonics of these new digital formats... and all with varying degrees of success. This prevented even more people from adopting SACD and/or DVD-audio as CDs were finally getting good enough (and that the selection of music in the CD format is usually less expensive and more abundant when compared to SACD or DVD-Audio).

Anyone who has heard high end players from the early Nineties/late Eighties knows this is cobblers - there has been no improvement of any note.

Mid 90s perhaps... But I think the early-mid 90s high end players improved upon the late 80s ones for sure, maybe not for build quality.

Multi-bit, 20-24 bit DACs allow noise-shaping/dithering to be played back at a pseudo-20 bit resolution compared to 16 bit DAC chips. But there's no doubt in my mind that some of today's dacs are better than those of the 90s whether inside a CD player or outside, not automatically better but certainly my Caiman is better.

danilo

19-12-2015, 03:30

"What is the point of SACD?"

Dire Straits Brothers in arms 20th anniversary SACD.

Have their Albums in vinyl.. bought back when it was still viable
Work fine, albeit rarely played.
How many Variations on 'Sultans of Swing' can one endure :lol:

Macca

19-12-2015, 09:17

Mid 90s perhaps... But I think the early-mid 90s high end players improved upon the late 80s ones for sure, maybe not for build quality.

Multi-bit, 20-24 bit DACs allow noise-shaping/dithering to be played back at a pseudo-20 bit resolution compared to 16 bit DAC chips. But there's no doubt in my mind that some of today's dacs are better than those of the 90s whether inside a CD player or outside, not automatically better but certainly my Caiman is better.

As ever I base things on my own experience and I've yet to hear digital replay that tops my Technics SLP1200--B ) from 1989. I don't think the reason that sounds so good is anything to do with the chip set or how much dynamic range it is capable of. That is one main reason why I think we are barking up the wrong tree with 'hi-rez'. I think there are other, much more expedient ways of improving digital playback.

As far as off-board DACs go my experience is limited. I have heard a Young DAC in my system and could not discern that it was doing anything particularly special. But with music these days being streamed or stored on hard drives the DAC is pretty much here to stay and the CD player fast becoming an anachronism.

StanleyB

19-12-2015, 11:20

Multi-bit, 20-24 bit DACs allow noise-shaping/dithering to be played back at a pseudo-20 bit resolution compared to 16 bit DAC chips. But there's no doubt in my mind that some of today's dacs are better than those of the 90s whether inside a CD player or outside, not automatically better but certainly my Caiman is better.
And you aren't wrong. Over the years I have tried, and in some cases used in my designs, a number of different DAC chips. The difference in performance between them has been an eye opener and dispelled many of the old wives's tales that I have been dished up over the decades. By just playing the same discs through the years I have managed to hear more information that was previously not known to me. When 16 bit CD first came out the sceptics regularly complained that the sound was metallic, the sampling rate was too low and therefore leaving out some of the available audio, etc. Imagine my surprise when those apparent missing bits in a CD recording turned out to be audible all those years later after all, once DAC technology had improved.

Audio Advent

22-12-2015, 17:52

As ever I base things on my own experience and I've yet to hear digital replay that tops my Technics SLP1200--B ) from 1989.
......
As far as off-board DACs go my experience is limited.

Then you should take more care in stating your opinion and taste as just that and not stating your opinion and taste as fact.

Anyone who has heard high end players from the early Nineties/late Eighties knows this is cobblers - there has been no improvement of any note.

That statement presented as fact - as understood by anyone else but you - is absolute cobblers.

That is one main reason why I think we are barking up the wrong tree with 'hi-rez'. I think there are other, much more expedient ways of improving digital playback.

I'd half agree there - it's a matter of magnitude of improvement which again will be personal. But it is still absolutely worth those doing the recording as concentrating on the things that they themselves are in control of; firstly their recording techniques, mixing techniques .. and then their digitising techniques which will likely be most improved by moving into higher resolutions with the right gear.

If the studios, musicians and engineers play their part, likely resulting in high-rez for the sake of quality rather than sales then audiophiles will have to be using high-rez to be able to play those optimised recordings. i.e. it will then be up to us to play our part in having the right playback ability to match their achievments. Of course that's all wishful thinking... there are people in the recording industry who are opinionated too.

However, I'd move away from the specific focus of digital to make more expedient improvements to ones own playback quality before throwing everything at high-rez digital.

Macca

22-12-2015, 18:05

Then you should take more care in stating your opinion and taste as just that and not stating your opinion and taste as fact.

That statement presented as fact - as understood by anyone else but you - is absolute cobblers

I'm not going to put IMO after every post I make you'll just have to take it for granted that it is my opinion. It is pretty obvious.

I'd guess that not many people have had the chance to listen to players that are now very old and were very expensive in their day. Especially not in their own system. And especially not the SLP1200B as they do tend to go U/S, having had a lot of use in broadcast studios before making it to the s/h market.

Audio Advent

24-12-2015, 03:29

I'm not going to put IMO after every post I make you'll just have to take it for granted that it is my opinion. It is pretty obvious.

I'd guess that not many people have had the chance to listen to players that are now very old and were very expensive in their day. Especially not in their own system. And especially not the SLP1200B as they do tend to go U/S, having had a lot of use in broadcast studios before making it to the s/h market.

How do you express when you're stating that something is a fact and not opinion? You'd be using the same words - so it's not obvious unless you're on your side saying it.

In the above you'd just say something like "I'm yet to hear any modern equipment that's better than my 1988 Technics" - quite different from saying "Anyone who has heard high end players from the early Nineties/late Eighties knows this is cobblers". For some reason you think you can speak for other people, dictate their experiences and whitewash over everyone else's experience with what you want to believe in order to support your point of view... I understand that it is your opinion (that everyone elses experience must be the same as yours) but that opinion is quite obviously cobblers. I'm proof of it being untrue for a start..

It's a matter of how you think rather than a choice of words - the words simply reflect the outlook.

Macca

24-12-2015, 08:31

Audio Advent

26-12-2015, 21:01

My assertion was deliberately contentious. ;)

So are you saying you have never had a good listen to a high end player from late Eighties, early Nineties? Or that you have and didn't rate it/them? If so which one(s)?

:lol: Ah well there you go! Mission achieved haha..

I've listened to a few regarded as the best at the time according to Martin Coloms (for what that's worth) e.g. Meridian 602/606, a few DAX models , Wadia 2000, Sony 555es, 557es, some others in passing like Sonic Frontier DAC/Transport. I've liked the UtraAnalog chip based ones most but still prefer the Caiman at home a Digital Audio Denmark converter was superb, better than the old lot too. And the Caiman's really a budget DAC - imagine if money was poured into it as per the high-end marques with added colourations and things that high-end listeners often prefer.

Of course some oldies I'd still love to hear may be better...

Audio Advent

26-12-2015, 21:04

struth

27-12-2015, 01:25

Are there any cheapish dac or whatever that you can take the signal from a sacd player(read blueray) out to your amp instead of using its own processing

Audio Advent

27-12-2015, 03:16

Are there any cheapish dac or whatever that you can take the signal from a sacd player(read blueray) out to your amp instead of using its own processing

Can you get the SACD signal out of your player might be the first question - thought it was part of the SACD licence that you couldn't for consumer gear, prevent copying of SACDs.

Macca

27-12-2015, 08:42

Only an early Sony Playstation 3 with a hack or an Oppo. to my knowledge.

Macca

27-12-2015, 08:47

This could be of interest to this thread and in relation to high-res in general:

On the Audibility of "High Resolution" Digital Audio Formats and How to Test This - Dr. Hans R.E. van Maanen (http://temporalcoherence.nl/cms/images/docs/HighReso.pdf)

It's a .PDF before you click, know what to expect..

Was an article in LinearAudio magazine which it more of a specialist audio DIY technical mag type thing..

P.S. I've not read it yet!

You should since he broadly supports your argument viz. we can't hear the higher frequencies directly but we can hear the result of them being present. Although he really only offers conjecture as to how. However even if we were to accept that that is true, it still does not explain how it can make recordings made in 16/44.1 or on analogue tape 'better; as the higher frequencies were not captured on those recordings in the first place.

Gazjam

27-12-2015, 08:50

Can you get the SACD signal out of your player might be the first question - thought it was part of the SACD licence that you couldn't for consumer gear, prevent copying of SACDs.

You can, but not generally.
Extract DSD layer from SACD using PS3 extraction method.

or

With some kit you can output DSD layer to an AV receiver via HDMI.
My Oppo 103 can do this for instance, but there aren't many Dacs on the market that have HDMI input.
The Bryston BDA-3 can do it, but it aint cheap at $3495 USD
http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/new-bryston-bda-3-dac-with-sacd-input-dsd-over-hdmi.391669/

Macca

27-12-2015, 08:56

My Oppo 103 can do this for instance, but there aren't many Dacs on the market that have HDMI input.
The Bryston BDA-3 can do it, but it aint cheap at $3495 USD
http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/new-bryston-bda-3-dac-with-sacd-input-dsd-over-hdmi.391669/

Some of the fancier Onkyo A/V receivers have DACS that will accept DSD input via HDMI.

Gazjam

27-12-2015, 09:00

Are there any cheapish dac or whatever that you can take the signal from a sacd player(read blueray) out to your amp instead of using its own processing

Grant,

I looked into exactly this a while back and whilst its do-able, though you need a bluray player with SACD output over HDMI and as far as I know only the Oppo does this?
I managed to get 24/96 to my Dac for music, and 24/48 for Bluray movies.
The Oppo's inbuilt Dac is plenty good and my musics mostly file based nowadays so it was an idea that I tried, but ultimately shelved.

There's more info on my old Oppo Sales thread when, in a moment of madness (and being skint), I thought to sell it.
http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?36151-Big-Sale-Thread-1-Oppo-103D-Bluray-Player

(About half way down)

AlfaGTV

27-12-2015, 09:02

And Denon have Denon Link, also used to send a stream of DSD data between player and reciever through an ethernet style cable.

Gazjam

27-12-2015, 09:02

Some of the fancier Onkyo A/V receivers have DACS that will accept DSD input via HDMI.

Aye, there's a Nad Dac too, the M51.

Gazjam

27-12-2015, 09:07

You should since he broadly supports your argument viz. we can't hear the higher frequencies directly but we can hear the result of them being present. Although he really only offers conjecture as to how. However even if we were to accept that that is true, it still does not explain how it can make recordings made in 16/44.1 or on analogue tape 'better; as the higher frequencies were not captured on those recordings in the first place.

My own £0.02 worth...and some observations after spending a bit of time on this over the last few weeks.

Sample Rate over 88.2 is less important imo than bit depth, where 24Bit is potentially better due to increased dynamic range...assuming the mastering isn't crap.
Hires digital itself isn't the holy grail that some talk about, and its too easy to get caught up in the numbers game thats been marketed to you. My Dac does 32/384, but so what?
Like all things hifi its the combination of several things coming together to make a whole, its implementation, its synergy, right from the mastering to all the steps that hit your dac.

24/88 is the sweet spot for me, especially when looking at PCM, and NO upsampling: keep it at native rate as every conversion can potentially damage the original data.

Accept the arguments for being unable to hear anything over 20K, but don't agree that the brickwall filter on redbook 16/44 is a "good thing", and that freq's above 20K CAN effect how you perceive the music.
I've been converting a lot of DSD to PCM and spent a lot of time looking into "best practice": What sample-rate/bit depth, dither, low pass filters etc, and read a lot of online opinion from recording engineers, enthusiasts, record produces all across different websites and the answer is that theres NO definitive answer!

So I used my ears, as usual.
24/88 is the sweet spot to me between sound quality improvements you can ACTUALLY NOTICE and file size.
With DSD to PCM conversion, a lot of the higher freq's is just noise anyway.

Happy to say I've looked into it and can now forget all about it. :)

Analogue tape/1644 recordings sounding just as good or better....?
Perhaps "accuracy" isn't the only or even main thing that governs how much you enjoy music.
...which is NOT the same as "sound quality" :)

struth

27-12-2015, 11:15

Sounds like its going to be too much of a task then. It was just a thought. I will stick to 44/16. I think.

Spectral Morn

27-12-2015, 11:18

Jimbo

27-12-2015, 11:45

My own £0.02 worth...and some observations after spending a bit of time on this over the last few weeks.

Sample Rate over 88.2 is less important imo than bit depth, where 24Bit is potentially better due to increased dynamic range...assuming the mastering isn't crap.
Hires digital itself isn't the holy grail that some talk about, and its too easy to get caught up in the numbers game thats been marketed to you. My Dac does 32/384, but so what?
Like all things hifi its the combination of several things coming together to make a whole, its implementation, its synergy, right from the mastering to all the steps that hit your dac.

24/88 is the sweet spot for me, especially when looking at PCM, and NO upsampling: keep it at native rate as every conversion can potentially damage the original data.

Accept the arguments for being unable to hear anything over 20K, but don't agree that the brickwall filter on redbook 16/44 is a "good thing", and that freq's above 20K CAN effect how you perceive the music.
I've been converting a lot of DSD to PCM and spent a lot of time looking into "best practice": What sample-rate/bit depth, dither, low pass filters etc, and read a lot of online opinion from recording engineers, enthusiasts, record produces all across different websites nad the answer is that theres NO definitive answer!

So I used my ears, as usual.
24/88 is the sweet spot to me between sound quality improvements you can ACTUALLY NOTICE and file size.
With DSD to PCM conversion, a lot of the higher freq's is just noise anyway.

Happy to say I've looked into it and can now forget all about it. :)

Analogue tape/1644 recordings sounding just as good or better....?
Perhaps "accuracy" isn't the only or even main thing that governs how much you enjoy music.
...which is NOT the same as "sound quality" :)

Nice write up Gaz, I agree with many of the observations you have made regarding digital especially not getting obsessed about numbers. No matter what digital bit rate is being used they all depend on the mastering at the beginning of the process and how much mastering has been done to the original digital recording.

Digital recording is actually very very good until it is then mastered as each step in the chain degrades the SQ unlike analogue. Messing about with those 0101010 in mastering is not good.

I have listened too 16 bit ripped CD , CD 16 bit, 24 bit and DSD and feel that 24 bit has the edge for detail. DSD can be awesome but it is so difficult to get hold of totally native DSD recordings. I feel a lot of DSD ends up as PCM but can't be sure without checking. Most DSD sounds a bit flat to me.

However all formats no matter what still have a digital sound which has improved with the constant introduction of better DAC's but none the less still sound a touch etched and artificial compared to the best analogue sound. To my hearing as impressive as the best digital can sound it still does not quite cut it for me.

Soon however I think we will be on the verge of resolving everything captured in the original digital recording. Many folk on here and on other forums are forever mentioning the improvements they are hearing as DAC technology improves and the amount of information and detail that is to be found on digital recordings that they had not previously heard. Some of this important transient acoustic information is now being resolved to a degree which is closing the gap on analogue. I,m not talking here about detail and dynamics and so forth but musicality and that connection with the brain which gives you acoustic satisfaction.

Later this week I am going to be listening to the worlds most advanced DAC for the first time and will hear all bit rates resolved to a level I have not experienced before, should be interesting :eyebrows:

Gazjam

01-01-2016, 08:20

Interesting!
What Dac James, DCS? :eyebrows:

Nice write up Gaz, I agree with many of the observations you have made regarding digital especially not getting obsessed about numbers. No matter what digital bit rate is being used they all depend on the mastering at the beginning of the process and how much mastering has been done to the original digital recording.

Digital recording is actually very very good until it is then mastered as each step in the chain degrades the SQ unlike analogue. Messing about with those 0101010 in mastering is not good.

I have listened too 16 bit ripped CD , CD 16 bit, 24 bit and DSD and feel that 24 bit has the edge for detail. DSD can be awesome but it is so difficult to get hold of totally native DSD recordings. I feel a lot of DSD ends up as PCM but can't be sure without checking. Most DSD sounds a bit flat to me.

However all formats no matter what still have a digital sound which has improved with the constant introduction of better DAC's but none the less still sound a touch etched and artificial compared to the best analogue sound. To my hearing as impressive as the best digital can sound it still does not quite cut it for me.

Soon however I think we will be on the verge of resolving everything captured in the original digital recording. Many folk on here and on other forums are forever mentioning the improvements they are hearing as DAC technology improves and the amount of information and detail that is to be found on digital recordings that they had not previously heard. Some of this important transient acoustic information is now being resolved to a degree which is closing the gap on analogue. I,m not talking here about detail and dynamics and so forth but musicality and that connection with the brain which gives you acoustic satisfaction.

Later this week I am going to be listening to the worlds most advanced DAC for the first time and will hear all bit rates resolved to a level I have not experienced before, should be interesting :eyebrows:

Jimbo

01-01-2016, 08:58

Interesting!
What Dac James, DCS? :eyebrows:

DAVE (Chord):)

Gazjam

01-01-2016, 10:02

Nice!

Jimbo

01-01-2016, 10:25

Nice!

I spent 7 hours listening to DAVE yesterday and it was very nice indeed!

I will post up a separate thread on my thoughts and conclusions later.

Gazjam

01-01-2016, 10:46

Look forward to reading it Jim.

Stratmangler

02-01-2016, 22:13

Esoteric transports and DACs have SACD, transfer via firewire or via a pair of XLR cables, Accuphase have SACD transports and DACS, DCS have SACD transports and DACs and I am fairly sure a few others do to.

In the general market though, bar AV applications not so much, except PC/MAC to DAC.

You'll find that the connections in all cases will be proprietory - you won't get any one piece of equipment from one manufacturer talking to any other manufacturer's stuff.
They're all locked in in that respect.
Just because something uses a cable that utilises a computer industry standard connection (ie firewire) doesn't mean that it will talk to a. n. other's hardware - it won't.

Gazjam

02-01-2016, 23:40

Great read here :)
http://archimago.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/musings-wisdom-of-simplicity-re-hi-res.html

Stratmangler

02-01-2016, 23:46

Great read here :)
http://archimago.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/musings-wisdom-of-simplicity-re-hi-res.html

There's a load of words there, and the only tangible (or remotely interesting) thing on the page is this ...

Don't sell container size, sell better quality mastering of a recording that clearly sounds better because it's more dynamic while in a larger container.

Gazjam

03-01-2016, 00:10

There's a load of words there, and the only tangible (or remotely interesting) thing on the page is this ...

:lol: Ok Chris...

(That IS a good summary mind...)

Stratmangler

03-01-2016, 00:20

:lol: Ok Chris...

(That IS a good summary mind...)

The author has posted many mind numbing and tedious posts on various "contentious" audio issues on his blog, and linked to every single fecking one of them on the Squeezebox forum.
I stopped visiting the place regularly because of it.

I still pop in there from time to time, but it's generally in the name of helping others if possible. Giving something back in my own small way from where I've taken is how I look on it.

Macca

03-01-2016, 10:32

One of the comments is quite interesting though:

Over the years, I've become more and more depressed about the prospects for "high-resolution" audio and music. My tenure on the CTA (CEA) Audio Board has ended as 2016 begins. There were a few influential members that didn't appreciate the honesty that I shared on my blog. My comments ran very counter to their nonsense. They aren't interested in actually promoting better sounding equipment and recordings. The only thing that matters is maximizing sales and profits for the members of the organization. Frankly, I was surprised...but I guess I shouldn't have been. If it means spewing double talk, creating misinformed marketing pieces, and lying to dealers and consumers about "hi-res audio/music", then that's OK with them. As long as it drives customers to spend more on imagined sonic improvements, it's all good.

As for your suggestion of a two tiered system, it simply won't happen for a couple of reasons. The labels won't accept two SKUs for the same release and they won't spend the money to produce the two versions.

However, the most important obstacle is the fact that no one cares. The artist, the engineers, the producers, the management, and the labels don't care about sound quality. They may think they do but their actions have shown over and over again that they only want hit records...aka money. Mastering engineers (I was one for 13 years) do what the labels want...and that means make the recordings as loud as possible.

In other words all we really need is better mastering and we ain't going to get it because it will hurt sales because most music buyers don't understand the basics and/or don't care.

Gazjam

03-01-2016, 10:55

The author has posted many mind numbing and tedious posts on various "contentious" audio issues on his blog, and linked to every single fecking one of them on the Squeezebox forum.
I stopped visiting the place regularly because of it.

I still pop in there from time to time, but it's generally in the name of helping others if possible. Giving something back in my own small way from where I've taken is how I look on it.

Grumpy old man syndrome setting in Chris? :lol:

Stratmangler

03-01-2016, 11:14

Grumpy old man syndrome setting in Chris? :lol:

What do you mean, "setting in"?
I've been grumpy for a long time ;)

Spectral Morn

03-01-2016, 12:30

You'll find that the connections in all cases will be proprietory - you won't get any one piece of equipment from one manufacturer talking to any other manufacturer's stuff.
They're all locked in in that respect.
Just because something uses a cable that utilises a computer industry standard connection (ie firewire) doesn't mean that it will talk to a. n. other's hardware - it won't.

That I suspect is the case, but I have never had the opportunity to try a mix and match approach with this type of kit to find out - so assumed that was the case and stuck to one brand options.

surv1v0r

06-01-2016, 22:50

One of the comments is quite interesting though:

Over the years, I've become more and more depressed about the prospects for "high-resolution" audio and music.
<SNIP>
However, the most important obstacle is the fact that no one cares. The artist, the engineers, the producers, the management, and the labels don't care about sound quality.
<SNIP>Do (the majority of) the listening public care about quality and/or "high-resolution" audio I wonder?
Do most people listen more than once to most of what they acquire in one form or another?
Personally I suspect not, in both cases.

I have something like 500 LPs and a few hundred CDs. I also have a life and haven't really got time to listen frequently to most of my music collection.

I think I listen regularly to Grateful Dead, Fairport Convention, Traffic, Weather Report and an assortment of Jazz, Blues and Classical Music.

On top of all this, I suspect that my hearing isn't what it was in my teenage years - probably because they were teenage years ;)