Will i lose the benefit of SACD... (1 Viewer)

[Keir H]

I'll be sure to let you guys know how my Sony 900V DVD/SACD player will sound matched up with my equiptment. I hope it still sounds good although I am dealing a prepro with no passthrough.

 

[Walt O]

PCM is transparent so if that's truly the case this shouldn't matter. Still, many people claim it does. Obviously these aren't consistent with one another.

Perhaps what they mean is that changing into PCM from DSD is no worse than if the source were PCM in the first place. This would not be inconsistent with the belief that a sound stored in PCM is inherently worse than DSD.

Walt O

 

[chung_sotheby]

I think that i have to chime in:

In my experience, I have found some sound degradation to be present in the conversion of DSD to PCM in my Rotel 1055. While the DAC's in this unit may not be up to par with those in the higher end pre/pros, I felt that the difference in sound was enough between the converted (digitized) analog signal and the straight analog signal to warrant only direct path analog to be used when listening to SACD. Whether this would be the same with higher end dacs, I don't know, but in my case there was a noticeable difference and it was large enough to warrant only straight pass through of the SACD signal when using the Rotel. OTOH, there was almost no difference of the analog signal and the digitized signal when I did the same test with DVD-A discs, which are sampled at something like 24/192 and use the Meridian Loss Audio technology. While I used two different players for DVD-A and SACD (Panasonic RP91 and SCD555ES) I thought that they were pretty comparable in their respective playback quality in order to make this comparison valid. These are just my results with the equipment and software I had, although i would like to oneday be able to do the same comparison using higher-end equipment sometime soon(read: Newest excuse to upgrade)

 

[John Kotches]

Chung,

I'm just sitting here scratching my head over what you typed, it is that unbelievable.

There is no difference between the analog signal coming out of the RP-91 and the Sony C555ES from your Rotel's perspective for sampling. None. Zip. Nada.

The problem is that you have prior knowledge, it's not a blind test and it has been demonstrated time and again that "sighted" tests aren't always reliable for discerning audible differences between products.

Do you suppose that the original price difference (US$1700 for the Sony C555 vs, about US$700 for the Panasonic RP-91) might lead to a better analog output on the SACD player in the first place?

Just some things to consider.

Regards,

 

[chung_sotheby]

Do you suppose that the original price difference (US$1700 for the Sony C555 vs, about US$700 for the Panasonic RP-91) might lead to a better analog output on the SACD player in the first place?

Again, putting words in my mouth. I never said that I thought that the Sony had a better analog output. I simply stated that the difference between the digitized Hi-res signal and the pure analog signal using the Sony was more perceptible than that of the Panasonic using my equipment. Nothing else.

Instead of going out and automatically trying to wreck someone's argument or opinion, why don't you practice a little civility and ask questions as to why a person came up with their opinion. It will help you out in the long run.

 

[Jeff O.]

Chung,
I can't speak for John, but I think you mis-understood his point. What he was saying was that no matter whether the output was from the Sony (SACD) or the Panasonic (DVD-A), it was an analog signal. Therefore, processing from the Rotel should be identical from either source (analog to digital in both cases). Therefore it would be hard to believe that there was a difference in one conversion, but not the other. Unless perhaps the analog signal from the DAC's in the Sony was a better source originally. It shouldn't arise from the original medium for recording (PCM or DSD).

 

[John Kotches]

Jeff,

Exactly my point.

Regards,

 

[Walt O]

What he was saying was that no matter whether the output was from the Sony (SACD) or the Panasonic (DVD-A), it was an analog signal. Therefore, processing from the Rotel should be identical from either source (analog to digital in both cases). Therefore it would be hard to believe that there was a difference in one conversion, but not the other. Unless perhaps the analog signal from the DAC's in the Sony was a better source originally. It shouldn't arise from the original medium for recording (PCM or DSD).

While both signals are analog after coming out of the players, the signal coming out of the DVD-A player was at one time encoded in PCM, so if PCM somehow corrupts or degrades the sound, then the degradation has already happened. The analog coming out of the SACD player was originally DSD, and if it had never been through a PCM stage up till that point, then it would not be affected...but taking that analog signal from the SACD player and then changing it into PCM would introduce the corruption/degradation, which is exactly what he is finding; the PCMed sound from the SACD player sounds worse than the PCMed sound from the DVD-A player. It seems that once something has been through a PCM stage, it's sound is damaged forever, but subsequent PCM stages may not harm as much.

Walt O

 

[John Kotches]

Walt,

The first fallacy you have is that Chung's test was based on DSD--> Analog --> PCM vs PCM --> Analog --> PCM. It wasn't it was based on PCM --> Analog --> PCM on two different players. Here's the relevant portion of his post:

With said CD's, I burned copies of each disc using a CD writer and high quality Audio only cd's (which I do anyway, keeping the orig at home and the copy in my car) and alternated which CD player would have the original or the copy

I have serious reservations about his methods, but it's also not something I'm going to clog this thread with, and will discuss it with him privately. Suffice it to say, that what he tested vs. what I'm discussing are two different matters.

It distresses me to read assertions on your part that PCM is in some way degraded in comparison to DSD. This is at best misguided and at worst completely erroneous. While I appreciate your opinion about sonic preferences, the term degraded is in no way accurate from a technical or sonic perspective.

Some companies that can choose whatever gear they want to for capture, mix and master use PCM equipment at high resolution (24/96K and higher). Other companies use DSD equipment. They choose based on the best sonics to their ears.

Take for example Mark Waldrep's material on AIX Records. It is considered by many to be some of the finest recorded material on the planet, regardless of format. I have never personally heard one complaint that Mark's recordings were anything less than reference class.

For that matter, look at the recording quality from Silverline (yes Silverline). There are about a half dozen titles from them that are simply stunning sonically. For these titles no one has ever mentioned any of the sonic degradations that (in your opinion) come from their PCM heritage. The critiques on their less than stellar titles (far too many) stem from (a) bad master tape quality and/or (b) terrible surround mixes.

Heck, let's talk about one that all the SACD fans rave about, Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon in multi-channel. The analog multi-channel tracks were originally captured as 24/96K PCM for mixing and mastering before finally being converted to DSD for delivery as an SACD. I haven't heard anyone talk about degradation on this title for multi-channel by inserting intermediate PCM.

Perhaps you meant to use different words?

We'll leave the discussion of the various mixing solutions to another thread.

Regards,

 

[chung_sotheby]

Walt:
Exactly. My point was not that the processing was "different" for each signal. I meant that the processing's effect on the pure hi-res analog signals was different. In other words, while the hi-res signal coming from the Sony using a pure analog path might sound like a 10, the same signal, when digitized using the DACs of the Rotel, ended up being an 7.5. On the other hand, while the hi-res signal coming out from the Panasonic might sound like a 8 in pure analog mode, the digitized might end up being an 7.5. The effect of the Rotel's DACs on the hi-res signal was what I compared, not the difference in the hi-res signals of each unit. The only time I compared the sound characteristics of the units head-to-head was using redbook and HD cd's, NOT hi-res, and definately not using any kind of digitization or the Rotel DACs.

 

[John Kotches]

Chung,

It's hard to tell if you're comparing like to like though in anything you've done with hi-res. Even on a recording (Ray Brown's Soular Energy) where the same analog stereo masters were provided for both a DVD-Audio release and an SACD release, it isn't apples to apples, since the Groove Note SACD release used equalization.

Not that many of us haven't tried it. I know I have, and in the end, while SA-CD is certainly nice sounding, I find DVD-A to be a little better. I have both anyway, because neither format has a lock on the titles I want to purchase.

Out of curiosity, do you know what A/D chips are used by your Rotel? I'm guessing at its price point the 1055 is using only 24/48K A/D chips.

Regards,

 

[Walt O]

Chung,

Sorry about that, I did misunderstand what you were saying on that post. I have read so many reports of people comparing DVD-A to SACD; I guess I thought you were doing the same thing.

To all,

It is a shame we can't get more dual releases in SACD/DVD-A. It's not that I think DVD-A doesn't have a place, I just think SACD is better for certain things. What we need is a disc released in both formats that has no PCM stages in the SACD release...I would love to compare something like that on both formats. Of course, we would also need a DVD-A/SACD combo player that did not take shortcuts for either format; it doesn't even need DVD-Video capabilities, since I have enough of those.

Walt O

 

[Keir H]

Gotten the player and while I did no blind test between the two, I can surely tell the difference between the 900V and the JVC 723 in CD playback. Much smoother and less edgy or 'digital' when using the players dacs. I am looking to get a few SACD to test and of course I will be looking for DSOTM..but are there any others that jump out and are cant miss titles. I like all type of music so that doesnt matter far as the genre. I was goin to get Thriller but i hear its a lackluster transfer. You guys have really educated me on the conversion process. I just wish all HT preamps had a pure analog passthrough so that there wouldnt be anything in the way to 'possibly' alter the playback quality. Anyone know how EAD stacks up on their AD/DA conversions?

 

[Brian L]

Bowie's Heathen, Beck's Sea Change, Police EBYT greatest hits (all MC).

The remaing Police albums and the Rolling Stones catalog (all 2 CH) sound pretty good.

BGL

 

[FeisalK]

I'll add Roxy Music's Avalon, Spyrogyra's In Modern Times and Billy Joel's The Stranger to that.

 

[Jeff O.]

If you like all kinds of music, I think that the SACD of Jorma Kaukonen's Blue Country Heart is one of the best sounding disks that I have, regardless of format.