Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 61 to 75 of 75

Thread: Has anyone here heard SACD?

  1. #61
    Senior Member NoCoPilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    232
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by millionrainbows View Post
    The most important consideration is how the files are played back.

    Hilarious.
    You are not going to get a lot of artists in DSD, it's usually reserved for what I'd call "legacy" artists, your Norah Jones, your Steely Dans, your, you know, Pink Floyds ... that crew.
    All of which were recorded, in analog, twenty to forty years ago!

  2. #62
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Arizona, USA
    Posts
    1,189
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eljr View Post
    I never heard a differance.
    I play SACD on a Denon DVD 5910ci, a beast of a unit the was built for discriminating ear, whether it be DVDs or SACD. It has 5 discrete Burr Brown DAC chips, massive isolated power supplies, and other uncommon high-end design features.

    I no longer use it for video, but it still plays SACD extremely well.

    I have owned other players capable of reading the SACD layer, usually higher end BluRay players. On those units I can hardly hear any difference between the CD layer and the SACD layer. But the Denon is a totally different story.

    SACD licensing does not allow a player to output the SACD (DSD) digital signal. The player has to convert it to analogue. That precludes using an external DAC. Getting the high quality DSD audio available on SACD media is only likely to happen with more expensive units. Most multi format units will not likely cut the mustard.

    The licensing restrictions, which Sony implemented with goal to prevent digital sharing and piracy, are largely responsible in my opinion for SACD never becoming a mainstream media format.
    Last edited by Rmathuln; Jan-06-2021 at 04:07.

  3. #63
    Senior Member NoCoPilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    232
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bfBrian View Post
    Even though we only have a sample every 22.7 microseconds
    Having done considerable digital editing, I'd like to emphasize just how SHORT 22.7 millionths of a second is. When playing back a digital file, several thousand samples have to go by before it's even perceived as sound. When editing LP tics and pops, the real sharp ones are maybe 10-12 samples. Handclaps and drum strikes are hundreds of samples. When zooming in to the individual sample level, the screen won't go any farther than about 24 samples, because going beyond that resolution is unnecessary.

  4. #64
    Senior Member NoCoPilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    232
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rmathuln View Post
    I have owned other players capable of reading the SACD layer, usually higher end BluRay players. On those units I can hardly hear any difference between the CD layer and the SACD layer. But the Denon is a totally different story.
    Give me the title of an SACD where you can hear the difference. I have acquired a half dozen SACDs over the years, and on my Onkyo C-S5VL SACD player I swear I can't hear any difference.

  5. #65
    Senior Member jegreenwood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    2,505
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rmathuln View Post
    I play SACD on a Denon DVD 5910ci, a beast of a unit the was built for discriminating ear, whether it be DVDs or SACD. It has 5 discrete Burr Brown DAC chips, massive isolated power supplies, and other uncommon high-end design features.

    I no longer use it for video, but it still plays SACD extremely well.

    I have owned other players capable of reading the SACD layer, usually higher end BluRay players. On those units I can hardly hear any difference between the CD layer and the SACD layer. But the Denon is a totally different story.

    SACD licensing does not allow a player to output the SACD (DSD) digital signal. The player has to convert it to analogue. That precludes using an external DAC. Getting the high quality DSD audio available on SACD media is only likely to happen with more expensive units. Most multi format units will not likely cut the mustard.

    The licensing restrictions, which Sony implemented with goal to prevent digital sharing and piracy, are largely responsible in my opinion for SACD never becoming a mainstream media format.
    That hasn't been the case for some time. About 10 years ago I started ripping the DSD layers of my SACDs using a hacked Sony PS-3. Much was written about this. After my PS-3 died, I switched to my Oppo 105, which can do the same thing. But more significantly, you can now purchase and download DSD files from a number of e-vendors. In either case you can take the DSD file and convert it using an external DAC.

    I believe I can hear a slight improvement when I compare the redbook and DSD layers of an SACD, but most of the SACDs I have bought in recent years have also been remastered, and that makes a greater difference.

  6. #66
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Arizona, USA
    Posts
    1,189
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NoCoPilot View Post
    Give me the title of an SACD where you can hear the difference. I have acquired a half dozen SACDs over the years, and on my Onkyo C-S5VL SACD player I swear I can't hear any difference.
    Just recently I pulled out the Litton Prokofiev Scythian Suite. Put it CD player first, which feed optical digital output to Cambridge Audio DAC Magic Plus.

    Switched to the Denon and found smoother top end and better defined sound stage in SACD stereo playback.



    I hear great differences with just about every BIS SACD.
    Older recordings benefit too to my hear, like the RCA Living Stereo SACDs, though not as dramatically.

    I have also made a similar comparison with the sound from the Cambridge DAC and the Denon using redbook CDs. Found no discernable difference. The improvement comes from the Denon reproduction of the hi-res SACD layer.

    I have a few Japanese made SACDs not available internationally. Those sound unbelievable when played in hi-res SACD with the Denon. Favorites include Kubelik's BSO Ma Vlast, the Szell Sibelius Sym. #2 from Tokyo, and the Blomstedt Dresden Beethoven Sym. set.

    But those cost a fortune! Three current offerings I would love that way are the Martinon Ravel set, Kempe's R. Strauss, and Schmidt-Isserstedt's Beethoven 9 Symphonies. But all told I would have to lay out almost $600 for 18 SACDs. Not worth it.

  7. Likes perempe liked this post
  8. #67
    Senior Member NoCoPilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    232
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    $58.84 +$3.99 shipping at Amazon. I'm not that rich.

  9. #68
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Arizona, USA
    Posts
    1,189
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jegreenwood View Post
    That hasn't been the case for some time. About 10 years ago I started ripping the DSD layers of my SACDs using a hacked Sony PS-3. Much was written about this. After my PS-3 died, I switched to my Oppo 105, which can do the same thing. But more significantly, you can now purchase and download DSD files from a number of e-vendors. In either case you can take the DSD file and convert it using an external DAC.

    I believe I can hear a slight improvement when I compare the redbook and DSD layers of an SACD, but most of the SACDs I have bought in recent years have also been remastered, and that makes a greater difference.
    Purchasing DSD files is certainly a good option now that they are more readily available.
    But both that and the "loophole" extraction made possible with some media players (I do that too BTW) does not change the unfavorable experience most buyers have with SACD because of the digital protection restrictions Sony attached to SACD equipment licensing. Remember, it was the same Sony that tried embedding digital protections on redbooks CDs (about the same timeframe as the development of SACD) and subsequently "hosed" many computers. Sony obsessed with creating digitally restrictive media formats then.
    Last edited by Rmathuln; Jan-06-2021 at 15:07.

  10. Likes jegreenwood liked this post
  11. #69
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    32
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jegreenwood View Post
    but most of the SACDs I have bought in recent years have also been remastered, and that makes a greater difference.
    I have a number of SACDs and DVD audios, too. In my experience, the format makes very little difference. I'd much prefer to stream some well recorded music from youtube, rather than listen to a substandard recording/mix from any high quality format. Also, the mutli-channel format doesn't do much for me. I typically find the stereo reproduction to be more authentic sounding than the surround mix, even though I've set up my receiver for time alignment of all the channels, etc. Surround effects can be fun for a while, but for critical listening I still prefer stereo.

  12. #70
    Senior Member NoCoPilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    232
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NoCoPilot View Post
    Not only that, but with a properly-matched pair of ADCs and DACs (analog-to-digital converter to get the music into the digital format, and digital-to-analog converter to turn it back into sound waves), there is one -- and only one -- waveform that matches both converters. In other words, you'll get out of the DAC exactly what you put into the ADC. If there's a 7μs intra-aural delay in the original signal, it'll be there in the output. If it wasn't there, you can't add it.
    If there is a 7μs event that comes and goes within 7 μs, it's quite correct that sampling every 22.7μs won't capture it. It would "fall between the samples."

    But the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem states that for digital recording the highest captured audio frequency will be half the sampling frequency, so a 44.1kHz sample rate captures frequencies up to 22kHz.

    And that 44.1kHz sample rate translates to the 22.7μs sampling interval.

    Now, a 7μs event would be roughly 1/3 of the 22.7μs sampling interval, meaning its frequency is around THREE TIMES the Nyquist frequency of 22kHz, or up around 66kHz. I don't know about you, but my hearing doesn't go up that far.

    Dogs' hearing goes up to around 45kHz. Cats to around 64kHz. Bats can go up to 200kHz ... maybe bats can hear a 7μs event.

  13. #71
    Senior Member Baron Scarpia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Texas, USA
    Posts
    1,723
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon Moon View Post
    Several technical advantages.

    The one that I think has the biggest advantage has to do with the human auditory system ability to detect interaural time differences as low as 7 microseconds. This is one of our evolved survival mechanisms that allows us to detect very small differences in where the sound of a possible threat is in space (ahead of behind us, to the right or left, above us, etc). 7 microseconds difference in ITD is typically in the literature, but 10 microseconds is often referred to, also. This ability translates to the audio cues that allow us to hear soundstage width and depth, distance from the soundstage, placement of instruments withing the soundstage, etc.

    At 44.1 a sample is taken every 22.7 microseconds, which is not enough resolution, in time, to accommodate our 7 microsecond ITD capabilities. 192 is at 5.2 microseconds. Single rate DSD (SACD) samples at 2.8224 MHz. So, even if, like you said, "secondary depth cues are in the mix", one will still not hear them, if the playback format does not have the capability to reproduce everything that is on the mix.
    The assumption that a digital audio system is not capable of reproducing a delay shorter than the sample time is incorrect. A delay of one sample period would imply the exact same waveform is recorded and appears one sample later. If the waveform is delayed by a fraction of a sample period the waveform would be sampled at different instants along its time course and different values would be obtained, producing a delayed waveform. I've made a very simple illustration. I've generated a 1,000 Hz waveform sampled at 44.1 kHz and an identical waveform delayed by 1 microsecond. This is illustrated in the attached picture. The left and right channels are plotted in red and blue, with circles representing the samples, connected by a continuous waveform as the DAC would generate.In the left panel, showing two wave periods, the delay is imperceptible. But zooming in on the zero crossing, we see that the red waveform correctly delayed by 1 microsecond, a small fraction of the sample interval of 22.7 microseconds.

    delay_ill.jpg

    You might be tempted to object that this is just a sine wave and you are interested in transients. But according to Fourier's theorem an arbitrary waveform can be decomposed into pure frequency components, whose delays can all be accurately represented.

    Another advantage is, no need for a brick wall filter at 20KHz. Very steep filters are complex and expensive to build correctly, to keep any audio artifacts out of the audioband. With higher sampling rates, the filter can be much more gradual, which is less likely to cause audio artifacts.
    This was true of the original CD players, and is one of the reasons analog-ophiles decided that digital audio was inferior. But modern players have oversampling output converters and the brick-wall analog filters have been replaced by digital filtering. With a modern DAC the analog filter is pushed out to hundreds of kHz, and not the problem it once was.
    Last edited by Baron Scarpia; Jan-09-2021 at 06:33.
    There are two kinds of music, good music and the other kind. - Duke Ellington.

  14. #72
    Senior Member NoCoPilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    232
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bfBrian View Post
    The sampling interval doesn't have the implications that you associate with it. Consider a continuous waveform like that of the voltage changes associated with the transducer element in a microphone. If we sample that waveform discretely every 22.7 microseconds starting at time 0, then we get a set of samples, let's think of them as S_0. Now let's sample that same waveform again, at the same interval of 22.7 microseconds, but let's start at a time of 5 microseconds instead of time 0. Let's think of those samples as S_5. Even though we only have a sample every 22.7 microseconds, the samples in set S_5 and set S_0 are different. S_5 captures the 5 microsecond delay, and it will be present at playback for us to perceive.
    Quote Originally Posted by NoCoPilot
    If there is a 7μs event that comes and goes within 7 μs, it's quite correct that sampling every 22.7μs won't capture it. It would "fall between the samples."
    Quote Originally Posted by Baron Scarpia
    The assumption that a digital audio system is not capable of reproducing a delay shorter than the sample time is incorrect. A delay of one sample period would imply the exact same waveform is recorded and appears one sample later. If the waveform is delayed by a fraction of a sample period the waveform would be sampled at different instants along its time course and different values would be obtained, producing a delayed waveform.
    We're all saying the same thing. You guys just said it much better than me.

  15. #73
    Senior Member Joe B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Astral Plane 7-B
    Posts
    5,654
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    When I listen to SACD's in my living room on my 5.1 surround system, I do enjoy the surround sound. However, I do not think there is a qualitative difference between the sound of SACD's and CD's on that system. My AV receiver has room correction software on board which converts all incoming signals to 32 bit for the room correction software to operate. So, regardless of the format going into the AVR digitally, it has all been converted and I am NOT hearing the native resolution of the recording.

    On my headphone rig, this is not the case. I have downloads of 128DSD, 64 DSD, 24/192, 24/96, and 16/44.1. At the record label 2L, they have a 'test bench' where you can download the same piece of music in these various formats (my headphone amp/DAC is not capable of playing 32 bit files).

    When I listen on my headphone rig, I can hear differences between the file formats. 128DSD sounds great. 24/192 also sounds great. They are both superior (but I'd be hard pressed to say how much) than red book 16/44.1. But, and I think this is important, these files were originally recorded at 32/384 and then converted.

    I'm not an audio or electrical engineer, but logic tells me that 32/384 must have a lot of information in it to be able to generate a 128DSD recording which sounds superior to a standard red book. I would love to be able to directly compare 128DSD (native recording) to 32/384 (native recording).
    I love music. I want music. I need music.

  16. #74
    Senior Member NoCoPilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    232
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe B View Post
    I'm not an audio or electrical engineer, but logic tells me that 32/384 must have a lot of information in it to be able to generate a 128DSD recording which sounds superior to a standard red book. I would love to be able to directly compare 128DSD (native recording) to 32/384 (native recording).
    "Superior" in what way?

  17. #75
    Senior Member Joe B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Astral Plane 7-B
    Posts
    5,654
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NoCoPilot View Post
    "Superior" in what way?
    What I hear is an improved sound stage, more accurate image, and less fatiguing sound; overall a more transparent presentation of the performance. I say this after comparing the same performance in different formats with roughly 1 second occurring to make the change.
    Just as increased resolution 'looks' better when going from DVD to Blu-ray on the same equipment, I experience an improved sonic presentation from the higher res formats on my headphone rig.
    I love music. I want music. I need music.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •