SACD,DVD-A DEAD due to analogue outs? (1 Viewer)

[Brian-W]

The BIG problem with all these claims of "weak link" in a system set up hindering true SACD/DVD-A performance is a weak argument itself.
Most people aren't going to go out and buy 'optimum' (i.e. expensive) equipment to hear a difference. I love SACD/DVD-A an multi-channel music (if done right, very hit and miss at this point). But in many cases the differences in quality are there, they're just not leaps and bounds better.
Remember J6P's generally don't have 'optimum' set ups.
Even a crappy television and a $99 DVD player provides a more glaring increase in quality over VHS and a crappy TV. If you need 'optimum' equipment to hear the difference, it's already not worth it.
-Brian

 

[Randy G]

In all of this discussion, it's unfortunate that nobody has brought up the topic of our capabilities(or lack thereof) to discern differences between 16, 20, and 24 bit sampling rates at frequencies of 44k,48k,96K, 192k etc.(divided by 2, of course).
Many highly respected acoustic engineers with Phd.s, experts on psychoacoustics, audiologists, etc.
claim that these 24/192 formats are just plain old wasted bandwidth, and that if you don't use up all that space on the disc, the recording labels would be forced once again to fill it up with more MUSIC...which is what happened when LP switched over to CD if I'm not mistaken.
And as for the system on which I compared the SACD vs. CD, I'll just say that it is the dealers main system and that most folks would consider it to be first rate. OK, they were Duntech speakers. Now, go ahead and start picking them apart. Hmmm, maybe I couldn't tell a difference because everything else in the playback chain was from Target...but they WERE Target's high-end models.
Hey, if the DVD-A and SACD proponents can't come up with an identical CD mix(and level-match it) to judge differences, why should people believe that they'll be able to discern any? C'mon, you don't think that personal bias gets in the way?
------------------

 

[David Judah]

I don't think SACD & DVD-A are dead due to analog outs. The formats are in their infancy, so it's way too early to make that call.
I think many of us would like to see a digital output(besides the extra cables argument)because we assume we will get better processing power if it's in the pre/pro or receiver.
As far as mixes go, we don't have any control over that, so I would rather have the bases covered and go with the formats that have the technical advantages to retain more of the quality that the engineers, producers, and artists heard in the studio.
DJ

 

[KeithH]

All I can say to those who have doubts about the masters being used for SACDs or have concerns about having the right equipment to hear differences between SACD and CD, is either buy into the format or don't. The bottom line is that in my two systems, both of which are good but not high-end, I can clearly hear the improvements afforded by SACD, and I enjoy SACD as a result. Many others have made the same observations and are enjoying SACD in their systems. If you are happy with CD and do not perceive SACD as being any better, then stay with CD. You're still missing out on outstanding music reproduction. Period.
It is true that the average consumer does not have an optimal system to take advantage of SACD. No question about it. Maybe SACD will not make a difference to the person with the $400 home theater-in-a-box. However, for those of us who aspire to have better systems (not necessarily high-end), which every format can benefit from, SACD definitely has its place. The fact remains that SACD is gaining momentum, albeit slowly, which anyone who wishes to delve into the format can take advantage of. Sony now has four multi-channel SACD players available for $400 or less that are available at Best Buy, Circuit City, or similar stores: the SCD-XE670 ($300 street price), SCD-CE775 ($350), DVP-NS500V ($300), and DVP-NC650V ($400). Maybe those with very inexpensive systems wouldn't hear the benefits of SACD with one of these components, but those of us with better systems should. In any case, Sony is now giving people SACD capability by default with its affordable components, and SACDs are now available at Best Buy. Whether or not "Joe Six-Pack" can benefit from SACD is of no concern to me because Sony is making SACD more affordable and more readily available to me. This should entice the naysayers to give SACD an objective, extended listen in their own systems.
Buy the SCD-CE775 and a handful of SACDs at Best Buy and give SACD a shot. Best Buy has a 30-day money-back guarantee on hardware, so you can return the player if not satisfied. You won't be able to return the SACDs, but you will be able to sell them here or on eBay. If you don't feel the 'CE775 is a good enough component, then give the SCD-C222ES or any other model a test drive. If you enjoy music, you owe it to yourself to demo SACD in your home objectively.
------------------
My:
HT Pics ; Equipment List ; DVD Collection ; LD Collection
KeithH: Saving the Home Theater World Before Bedtime
[Edited last by KeithH on October 24, 2001 at 01:23 PM]
[Edited last by KeithH on October 24, 2001 at 01:25 PM]

 

[David Judah]

Well put, Keith.
IMO, asking for double blind tests to "prove" the superiority of SACD or DVD-A to Red Book CD is like asking for double blind tests to "prove" 5.1 Dolby Digital is better than Dolby Surround on DVD.
DJ

 

[Kent Nelson]

Keith, I have read that the 775 is a good sa cd player, but a shitty cd player. Do you have any advice on the latter? I am asking because I would like to try sa cd out for some of the reasons you had mentioned.
I used to be a pretty serious audiophile, but then home theater came around and I dedicated all of my time and money to big screen tvs, dd and dts recievers, dvd players and speakers. I do have an above average 2 channel audio only system (B&K amp, B&K pre, VPI turntable, Martin Logan Aeruis speakers) that has been almost dormant since the HT bug - but I do spin some vinyl every week or so.
I am looking to add a good cd player (I am using my old Pioneer Elite CLD79 LD player as a cd player now) and thought of one that does sa cd also might be cool. Is the DAC in the LD plyer better than the one in the entry level Sony player? Or should I spend more money and get a higher end sa cd player?
Thanks for any response.

 

[KeithH]

David,
Thanks. I have no patience for double-blind tests and do not in any way feel they are necessary to determine which format or component is better than another when the test is done on a capable system.
Kent,
I have not used the Pioneer Elite CLD-79 LD player before, so I can't comment on it's capability as a CD player. I would expect it to be good, but not great. Furthermore, I can't comment on how it would compare to the Sony SCD-CE775.
Reviews I have read about the 'CE775 say it is an average CD player at best. That does not surprise me given that it is not an ES products and only sells for $350. For example, I have read the the Sony SCD-C333ES stereo SACD carousel changer (recently discontinued) is much better with CDs than the 'CE775.
You have a nice stereo system there, and I think you should look at a better SACD player than the 'CE775. I like the 'CE775 because it represents Sony's first foray into mass-marketing of SACD, however, it isn't a great component. Build quality is lackluster. In any event, I think you should take a look at the Sony SCD-C222ES or SCD-C555ES multi-channel SACD carousel changers. Both play CDs and stereo SACDs. The 'C222ES retails for $800, but Oade Bros. (1-229-228-0093 or 1-229-228-4480) sells it for $600 delivered. The 'C555ES retails for $1200 (recently dropped from $1700), but Oade Bros. sells it for $800 delivered. I just got the 'C555ES this week, and I'm very happy with it. Build quality is first-rate (it looks and feels just like the aforementioned 'C333ES), and the sound is great in all modes.
I realize you are looking for a component for your stereo system, but a multi-channel SACD player might be nice for your home theater system if the two systems are proximal. In any event, I feel the two ES multi-channel SACD changers will give you significantly better CD playback than the 'CE775 and will probably outperform your LD player.
------------------
My:
HT Pics ; Equipment List ; DVD Collection ; LD Collection
KeithH: Saving the Home Theater World Before Bedtime

 

[Dan Hitchman]

If the conversion of DVD-Audio's PCM tracks and SACD's DSD tracks is done in a receiver or pre-amp/processor we must have separate high bandwidth pathways for each format and separate high-end DAC's (24/192 for DVD-Audio and high caliber DSD chips for SACD) as well.
I'm just afraid that DSD will be converted to PCM somewhere in the chain and the benefits (if any) of Direct Stream Digital will be lost.
That said, I think we need a single, high bandwidth digital audio interconnect standard.
Right now, unless a high quality, no-loss, reasonably priced 5.1 analog audio switcher is produced most will have to decide on DVD-Audio or SACD players not both unless they like headaches and massive amounts of expensive wires.
Dan
------------------
Stop HDCP and 5C-- Your rights are at risk!
[Edited last by Dan Hitchman on October 24, 2001 at 02:00 PM]

 

[John Kotches]

Dan,
I'm sorry, but you don't need seperate DACs. Solutions from Crystal Semiconductor, Burr-Brown, Analog Devices and Asahi-Kasei all have PCM out to 24bit/192K and DSD decoding as well.
Seperate pathways too? Nope. It could easily be handled in firmware. The delivery mechanism for both? Probably firewire.
I don't know your definition of reasonably priced, but the street price on the new Sony TA-P9000 preamplifier (2x6 channel inputs with volume control, 1x6 channel passthrough for an HT processor) is US$450. That isn't too bad.
Much more expensive, and much better, is EMM Labs' Switchman-2, which is a superb 6-channel analog preamplifier. Not for the faint of heart, or the small in pocket, it goes for US$3200.
Regards,

 

[Randy G]

David and Keith,
Some things are verifiable when personal bias is removed, others are not. If you choose to believe, then enjoy spending your money accordingly. Given the amount of witchcraft and voodoo that exists in the audio hobby, I am much less willing to take as truth, the words of those with vested interests. I tend to be more scientifically oriented and thus need more convincing before spending MY hard-earned money. That's also why I joined PSACS, the Prairie State Audio Construction Society, here in Illinois. It happens to be populated with the likes of Tom Nousaine, Don(DB) Keele, and other widely acknowledged audio "luminaries" who frequently contribute to the various audio magazines.
As for that Dolby Digital/ Dolby Surround analogy, qualitative differences HAVE been measured in listener preference, and HAVE been demonstrated to be both repeatable and verifiable. Maybe you're trying to use the logic of "Of course you can't tell a quality difference between 8 and 9 if you think that 2 is as good as 7".
------------------

 

[KeithH]

Randy said:

Given the amount of witchcraft and voodoo that exists in the audio hobby, I am much less willing to take as truth, the words of those with vested interests. I tend to be more scientifically oriented and thus need more convincing before spending MY hard-earned money.

I found the witchcraft and voodoo comment amusing, but unfortunately, it is true with regards to certain aspects of this hobby. However, SACD does not fall into that dubious category. I have a Ph.D. in organic chemistry, so I can appreciate your scientific approach. However, with SACD, I just use my ears. They tell me that SACD beats CD. I've compared enough SACDs and CDs with equipment of varying quality to be convinced that SACD is a better medium than CD.
------------------
My:
HT Pics ; Equipment List ; DVD Collection ; LD Collection
KeithH: Saving the Home Theater World Before Bedtime

 

[RobertR]

quote: However, with SACD, I just use my ears[/quote]
Using only their ears is EXACTLY what people do in double blind, level matched listening comparisons where only ONE variable is changed.
Is that the kind of comparison you've done where you've used your ears?
[Edited last by RobertR on October 24, 2001 at 03:27 PM]

 

[KeithH]

I don't need to do a double-blind, level-matched test to determine that SACD is better than CD. The difference is obvious to my ears (and many others' too). All I was saying is that I am not biased into liking SACD. I have no vested interest in the format (i.e., I don't work for Sony or Philips), and the SACD players I own are very good redbook CD players in their own right. I own nearly 1500 CDs, so if SACD sounded no better than CD, the purchase of my SACD players would not have been a waste of money. If I found SACD to be bogus, I'd still have very capable CD players in these SACD players, and with the number of CDs I own, I could accept CD as state-of-the-art. However, I have found that SACD sounds better than CD. Plain and simple. It's a bitch, so to speak, given the number of CDs I own, but that's the way it is.
Here is an example of what I have observed. I have loaded both the CD and SACD of James Taylor Hourglass into my Sony SCD-C333ES SACD/CD changer to compare the two formats many times. The 'C333ES is paired with an NAD C 350 stereo integrated amp and Energy e:XL 25 floorstanding speakers (and until a week ago, Energy e:XL 16 bookshelf speakers were used). In comparing track 4, "Gaia", the depth of the harmony vocals at the beginning of the track (the extended "Ahhhhhhh" accompanied by a sax) is much more apparent with the SACD than with the CD. The vocals sound compressed on the CD. The vocals jump out at you and sound three-dimensional and layered on the SACD. There is a a "fullness" on the SACD that the CD does not provide.
As another example, I've compared Rebecca Pidgeon's The Raven on CD and SACD on the system described above. I have listened to both the straight CD and the CD layer on the SACD/CD hybrid disc. This album is on the Chesky label, which always puts out first-rate recordings. The CD sounds great, but the SACD is noticeably better. Take track 5, "Grandmother", or track 12, "Spanish Harlem". There is an edge in Pidgeon's voice on the CD (straight CD or CD layer on the hybrid disc) that is not there on the SACD layer. Pidgeon's voice is more real, alive, and smooth on the SACD. On the CD, her voice sounds somewhat edgy and restrained.
The qualities I hear on SACD have nothing to do with listening volume or other issues that one could argue level-matching might address. Rather, it has to do with sound quality, conveying a sense of space, realism, and musicality, and sounding less artificial. SACD excels at all of these things. The system I described above is not high-end by any means, but is good enough to clearly communicate the sonic benefits of SACD.
Finally, I have done similar comparisons using other CD players in the above system as well as using my better stereo system, which also is not ultra-high-end. Again, SACD beats CD hands down. In the end, I don't question it. I just accept (and enjoy) it.
------------------
My:
HT Pics ; Equipment List ; DVD Collection ; LD Collection
KeithH: Saving the Home Theater World Before Bedtime

 

[RobertR]

In short, Keith, the answer to my question is:
No.
That's almost always the answer from people who hear dramatic differences between things for which the technical basis for the differences is dubious.

 

[Randy G]

RobertR,
Agreed.
Like I said, on paper, there's a difference. The problem however, is that psychoacoustic theory would suggest that we cannot hear it. There also doesn't seem to have been much interest in scientifically proving it either.
We each spends our money as we see fit.
------------------

 

[KeithH]

Robert, frankly, think whatever you want to think. Music is about hearing, and if you don't believe that SACD sounds better than CD, fine. I am not about to do a mathematical proof to try to convince you. Why is the technical basis for SACD being better than CD dubious? Have you seen the specs. for the SACD format as they compare to CD? What is so dubious? Regardless, I don't let numbers dictate what sounds better. I listen. In any event, I am not hiding technical data to further my argument. I just don't need to generate technical data for myself or anyone else to know that SACD is better than CD. I hear it time and time again with varying software and equipment.
In the end, if you are happy with CD, then I am happy for you. I, however, have found a format that is better in SACD and will not question it, nor will I conduct experiments under Good Laboratory Practices (GLP) to prove it. Finally, I have around 1500 CDs, meaning I have a fair amount of money invested in the format, but that is not going to make me skeptical about what my ears are telling me. SACD is better. Period.
------------------
My:
HT Pics ; Equipment List ; DVD Collection ; LD Collection
KeithH: Saving the Home Theater World Before Bedtime
[Edited last by KeithH on October 24, 2001 at 05:20 PM]

 

[KeithH]

Finally to Randy and Robert I will say, stop trying to evaluate formats with your calculators. Just listen!!! We are talking about a hobby that ultimately involves dropping a 5" disc into a player for enjoyment. Throw the calculators and level meters away and try to enjoy SACD. I feel scientifically, the specs. indicate that SACD is better than CD, but I don't get bogged down in specs. The proof is in the listening. That is what you should be focusing on. Unfortunately, I don't feel either of you has the mindset to be objective.
------------------
My:
HT Pics ; Equipment List ; DVD Collection ; LD Collection
KeithH: Saving the Home Theater World Before Bedtime

 

[RobertR]

quote: Music is about hearing[/quote]
Yes, and so is the kind of controlled-variable comparison I referred to. It involves simply listening. You don't seem to be aware of this.
quote: Why is the technical basis for SACD being better than CD dubious?[/quote]
Because it is highly questionable at best to say that a frequency response in the 100 kHz range is audible to human beings OR that any musical instruments have overtones even approaching this. Do you have access to studies demonstrating otherwise?
quote: Have you seen the specs. for the SACD format as they compare to CD?[/quote]
Yes.
quote: I don't let numbers dictate what sounds better.[/quote]
Then why did you mention specs? It sounds like the numbers impress you.
quote: I listen.[/quote]
So do I and so does anyone under the conditions I mentioned.
quote: nor will I conduct experiments under Good Laboratory Practices (GLP) to prove it[/quote]
It sounds like you're unaware of or don't care about the potential sources of psychoacoustic bias that can arise from not using such practices.
Here's a link that may be of interest to people who want to be as objective as you say you want to be:
http://www.pcabx.com/
[Edited last by RobertR on October 24, 2001 at 06:03 PM]

 

[Kevin C Brown]

This is a cool discussion! I actually fall more into Robert's way of thinking: prove to me that SACD is better.
(And yes, someday I will get my own machine and discs. Waiting for a reasonably audiophile quality "universal machine" for < $1000.)
One thing I can acknowledge though:
SACD might sound better simply because jitter (uh oh!) is less of an issue.
All the D/A:A/D stuff occurs in the SACD "box". For CDs, typically, you send the digital connection to a receiver/pre-pro where the chain of electronics (and D/A, A/D conversions) isn't as necessarily as well "controlled."
(But jitter can also fall into the voodoo and black magic realm too!)
But I still hold to one part of the discussion, that even though SACD (and DVD-A) may never/sometimes/usually/always [pick your favorite adjective] sound better than CD, that it will more than likely always remain a niche product.
So I don't think it will ever *be* possible to replace your 1500 (or my 500 CDs) with SACDs, or DVD-As, or any other format in the foreseeable future.
Why did CD effectively kill the lp:
a) sound quality (although this can be argued)
b) convenience
c) cost
d) marketing
I don't think that SACD and DVD-A will have the same advantages over CD.
Plus, the manufacturers have already somewhat shot themselves in the foot by arguing over DVD-A vs SACD anyway. I would think that *either one* would have a better chance of getting entrenched and being successful if the other would just "bow out gracefully."
But nooooooo. They're going to duke it out, and both might fail.
------------------

 

[Joe Casey]

Robert and Randy,
Here's one for you:
Thus far, my assumption is that neither of you have 'listened' to SACD i.e. listened using an analog bypass capable receiver (or separates). Instead of us 'believers' proving the point to you, why not try it out? If you're willing, I can provide a few names of titles that are available on both formats (SACD and CD). All you'll need then is a SACD player in a system where the signals are not redigitized, and some discs. Listen and see.
Its not a subtle difference. The differences are so apparent that a blind test isn't warranted. I've shown this to quite a few of my friends, not to mention family, and the preference has always been SACD. Heck, I'll even invite you over for a listen.
Yes, there is quite a bit of snake oil out there, but how does a higher resolution technology warrant that term? In the end, if you don't agree, then fine. But not having listened to what it can offer and coming to a conclusion is ludicrous. Why spend $100k+ on a performance car? If you're doing it for the thrill of the drive, fine. If you're doing it for the Jones', your loss. The analogy doesn't refer to the dollar amount, but rather to the 'passion'.
PS: SACD output does not reach 100kHz.
------------------
Q
[Edited last by Joe Casey on October 24, 2001 at 06:55 PM]
[Edited last by Joe Casey on October 24, 2001 at 06:58 PM]