SACD inquiry (1 Viewer)

[Rick Deschaine]

Hi there everyone.

Recently I've been contemplating jumping into SACD but I have some questions regarding my current equipment. I'm curious if an SACD player will give me noticeable improvement with my Sony STR-DA777ES receiver and Klipsch KG 4.5 speakers, or do I really need to upgrade those components to hear the difference? Keep in mind also, my CD player is a Sony XA20ES.

My other option is to break out my Rotel RC-960BX pre-amp, and Proton D1200 amp out and go that route with an SACD player and get some separate speakers for music playback only. More cash but still not as bad as buying new separates.

But basically it comes down to, I don't want spend a ton of cash (except for maybe some new speakers) on new components other than the SACD player.

So, anyone have any thoughts on the matter? I appreciate any advice in advance.

Peace, Rick

 

[Evan S]

I think you will hear the differences in SACD with that modest setup without upgrading anything else. If you want to go multichannel however, make sure you have 5.1 analog inputs on your receiver or pre-amp to get the benefits as SACD does not transport in a digital domain.

I have the Sony 555ES and SACD is head and shoulders over Redbook in just about every A/B I've done. My system is far from hi end stuff and I can tell the difference immediately. Some disks are just slightly better than Redbook, some are night and day, but with all the head to heads I've done, you can always tell which is which IMO.

 

[Jason Watson]

Does the 777 have analog pass through? If not, the A/D to D/A conversion will rob you of the SACD benefits.

Jason

 

[Rick Deschaine]

Evan and Jason,

Thanks for the input. The 777ES has both analog 5.1 inputs and analog bypass. In fact when I listen to CDs, currently I make sure to listen in analog mode which is essentially the bypass mode. From what I've heard in direct comparison, the D/A converters are a lot better on the 20ES than they are on the 777ES.

It is a relief to know that I probably won't have to buy a ton of new equipment. Eventually I wan't to upgrade a lot of the system, but I'm just not ready at the moment.

And of course I would still welcome more input from anyone else.

Later, Rick

 

[Earl Simpson]

Extra/extra/extra dumb, very stupid question!!!!
What is SACD exactly?????
I just bought the 333 and was curious!

 

[Evan S]

Earl, see this thread...
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...threadid=42464

 

[RicP]

And that's basically what SACD was born to do.

Again, not really. DSD (Direct Stream Digital) which is a form of Delta/Sigma Modulation and is the format that SACD is based on was originally conceived as a way to digitally archive deteriorating analog master tapes. DSD is an inherently more analog-like system than PCM is, so it was thought that by storing the master tapes in DSD, they would be able to create a PCM CD simply by extrapolating a 16/44 sample from the DSD stream.

DSD is taken as 1-bit values 2.84 Million times a second. The 1 bit is either a 1 or a 0 -- 1 means the voltage is higher than the last sample, 0 means it's the same or lower. A long string of 1's signifies a steep increase in voltage, and a long string of 0's signifies a deep drop in voltage. A string of alternating 1's and 0's means little or no change in voltage.

When the engineers at Sony and Philips listened to the DSD stream, they were astounded at the quality and "analog-ness" of the sound, thus SACD was born as a consumer product.

So in closing, CD's were never using "compressed" audio. DVD-Audio uses the same PCM that CD does, just at a higher rate, and SACD uses a different method, DSD, to encode the data digitally.

 

[RicP]

So really the difference was that instead of CD's being compressed as I stated, they're actually downsampled. But for the purposes of understanding the end result that would seem to be an extremely minor distinction.

I understand what your point was, but I just think you used incorrect terminology to get it across. The word "compressed" carries with it a certain connotation, and it is simply untrue when it comes to CD-Audio...it is not compressed in that sense of the word, in the sense that Dolby Digital, dts, and MP3 are. I think the difference is more than extremely minor, because anyone that talks about CD-Audio being "compressed" would simply be incorrect.
The DVD format ushered in a new way of thinking for digital engineers and it does allow them more physical space to store data, but when CD was conceived in the late 70's/early 80's the intention was not to present a somehow "inferior" or "degraded" version of the music. The intention was to deliver the best quality sound they could, and in fact they touted CD as "perfect sound forever", and "better than LP."
That's all. When you say that "audio CDs have always used compression", it is an incorrect statement; even though I can ascertain what your intent was in comparing them to SACD/DVD-Audio, I think you just chose poor terminology.

 

[RicP]

In the general vernacular, one way to "compress" audio data to fit a smaller storage medium would be sample at a lower rate or downsample from the orig

Sorry Larry. I know you're trying to defend your stance, but I'll say it for the last time...CD Audio is not compressed in any sense of the word. There was no decision to alter the data to fit on a smaller medium. Please re-read my last post again...the 16/44 rate was chosen first, and then the size of the medium was chosen.
There was no decision to "sample at a lower rate" or "downsample" at all. That is simply incorrect.