SCAD Requirement (1 Viewer)

[Roland_Sjouw]

Hai All,

I've been looking at SCAD now for a while, but have no clue on what the requirements for fully expoiting the format are.

Currently I own :
- Onkyo DVD player
- Onkyo CD Player
- Marantz receiver

For Speakers I use :

Infinity Delta 60 Front + Surround
Infinty Kappa Center
B&W ASW1000 Subwoofer.

I've been looking at various models from Sony, Marantz and Onkyo. But one question remain.

Does the receiver need to be SCAD compatible ?
I Know it isn't, but the SCAD player should do the playing,
not the receiver.

Am I completely wrong or is this true ?

 

[WilliamJulien]

The Marantz receiver must be able to receive the SACD music in order to play it. It must have 6 channel analog inputs for this. If it has this you are set other than needing a player. I suggest a Pioneer 563A player. It is inexpensive and does not discriminate against DVD-A. Why have SACD without DVD-A or vise versa?

 

[Chris Purvis]

The main thing is that you can't get any digital bitstream out of a SACD player. (Okay, you CAN, but you'll just get normal CD fidelity if you do - sony is very protective of the high-resolution DSD bitstream). The D/A conversion has to happen inside the player itself, so you need to make sure you have analog multichannel inputs to play back multichannel SACD's. This raises the whole issue of bass management - essentially you need something like an Outlaw ICBM (analog 6-channel bass manager) to have complete control over redirecting bass from a SACD to your subwoofer - otherwise sometimes depending on the disc and how it's been recorded you'll lose the bass information from some of the channels, unless you run all your speakers set to "Large" on the player and on your receiver.

Finally, (and there's much debate about how important this is) the 563A is a great player because it's cheap and it does both DVD-A and SACD (and there's nothing else like it, at least for now) but if you engage bass management in the 563A it will convert the DSD SACD stream to PCM and you'll lose the added fidelity SACD offers (yet another reason why using an Outlaw ICBM for bass management is a good idea).

 

[Chris_C]

if the marantz doesn't have multi channel inputs, you could play the SACD stereo layer and the connection would be exactly like connecting a regular CD player (i dont believe my player will even output a downconversion of the stereo SACD layer, use analog connectors). The ideal situation would be if the receiver has an analog bypass/direct switch so that the receiver's internal DAC's wont reprocess your hi-rez source. You should probably set your receiver to stereo and forget about any "hall" effects or other such things.

hope this helps

 

[Roland_Sjouw]

thanks for the reply's they are very helpful.

The marantz I've got does have 6 analoge input so that shouldn't
be a problem.

As to the question why only go for SCAD, I didn't say that
The only format I've been interested in for the moment was SCAD.
The player I've looked at support both SCAD and dvd-A, but the dvd-A
was only an added bonus for the moment. Of course I will be playing
with DVD-A if I buy a player that supports both, I would be a moron
not to...


Aaa the Outlaw ICBM, well there's a problem with that.
I've been looking a the outlaw product line for a while now
and would love to have a complete setup.

But they only Ship the USA and canada from what I can gather.
That's pretty much always the problem with on-line company's
for me...

at least I know now what to look for and the problems which I could
have going to SCAD.

Thanks again

 

[Adam.Heckman]

SACD = Super Audio Compact Disk.

SCAD unfortunately is not correct. I just want to keep you from going into a dealer's and saying this. It doesn't help your chance of whittling down prices or getting decent recomendations from salesmen.

I'm not trying to bust on you, just helping with the terminology.

 

[ross ish]

Roland,

To fully 'exploit' sacd potential, you are going to need high end components, good grade connectors, and high resolution monitors.

Just because a player can decode sacd or that a receiver has inputs for sacd does not mean it will fully exploit the medium.

sacd/dvd-a is high resolution. Receivers have too much noise and interference inside it. all this extra noise kills any resolution gains made by the sacd format. yes, you will hear music in 5.1, but not in the resolution sacd is capable of.

likewise, cheap sacd/dvd-a players can decode sacd, but all the noise and jitter within it will kill any resolution gains by the sacd recording. most sacd players have so much noise/jitter that quite often ultimate resolution outputs are less than 16bit cd. (theoretical best by today's technology is 19bits).

a well designed sacd/dvd-a player should be full size chassis, pains must me made to separate out the video/analog/digital/power supply from each other, some copper shielding, and a decent transport. This cost monies that no sub $200 player has.

unfortunately, to fully exploit sacd/dvd-a, is going to be expensive.

 

[Nathan Stohler]

I spent a total of $190 on the Pioneer DV 563A, cables and a SACD copy of Dark Side of the Moon to extend my current system to play DVD-A/SACD, and I was floored, to say the least, when I hooked everything up and heard "Speak to Me/Breathe" on my system.

Just think how great it would sound if I'd spent another couple hundred dollars on fancy interconnects.

 

[Brian L]

It would sound exactly the same as it does now, IMHO.

But, if you spent a "couple hundred" on an ICBM and some low dollar interconnects, you will get greatly improved bass response that would dwarf any possible improvement from a mere cable upgrade.

The previous statement assumes that you are using the BM in the 563, which is known to be less than optimal. If you are already doing BM properly through other means, then never mind.

Roland, here is a link to a FAQ that several members put together a while back on the subject of hi-rez audio:

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...22#post1800722

BGL

 

[John Garcia]

I agree with Ross that a $200 player is not going to give you audiophile grade performance.

However, I'm with Nathan that you DON'T need "high end" equipment to realize this media. It will STILL be better than redbook CDs in nearly all cases (I've got a few SCADs that sound no better than a gimmiky surround version of the redbook). I have one audio only SACD player, my DVD is a universal player, and both easily sound better playing SACD than the same music on redbook CDs/CD layer.

 

[Doug_B]

I generally agree with both sides of this argument. Yes, you can enjoy SACD (and DVD-A) with modest equipment, but I think the improvement comes mostly in the (re)mastering technology and techniques that are part of these hirez solutions.

Take a SACD hybrid as an example, and assume that the mastering process to produce this SACD vastly improved the previous version that made its way to redbook. I believe that most modest systems would show this improvement, but I think the improvements would be similar for the new redbook layer as well (assuming the redbook layer was derived from the new mastering, of course). I think the ability to discern differences between the SACD layer and redbook layer would be more difficult with a modest system. [BTW, the level of "training" that a listener has becomes critical in determining differences as well, IMO.] Since not all SACD material is issued as part of a hybrid, there is a gain in using a modest system for SACD (ditto for DVD-A up to now). I would also buy in to the possibility that not all redbook layers of a hybrid are derived from the new mastering or are handled with the same "care" (I have insufficient info / data points on this), so this represents another situation where a modest system can realize the hirez benefits.

Doug

 

[ross ish]

Especially sacd, its original design intentions were for high end applications audio only. Video just happened to be a by product. Good sacd recordings can sound amazing. While not holding true for Rock or smaller ensembles, it is the large scale orchestras where this medium really shines. Instead of hearing general locations of performers in an orchestra pit, you can now identify which seat they are in. sacd imparts separation; air around each individual performer. This kind of detail rez extraction is going to require some serious equipment.

DVD-a was designed for two/multichannel hirez; not to compete with standard rez DVD 5.1 music videos. 24/192 stereo recordings are a treasure to listen to, but your equipment would determine how much of that 24bit you would actually end up hearing.

It was the designers intentions to offer a new format that was able to embed more data into the audio bit stream while using less extrapolation/interpretation. To extract this additional information was going to take some serious equipment. The eqpt used to handle this chore were very expensive-cost no object transports. Big heavy monsters.

Well, 5.1 surround sounds better than its two channel counterpart; anyone with a modest system would note the differences immediately. Its a little bit harder with two channel hirez. With time trickle down technology would happen. Unfortunately the only part that the budget versions share with the high end sacd transport is the chip. Expect 5.1 envelopment, just don't expect hirez. So the budget sacd players are merely marketing ploys suggesting the benefits of sacd/dvd-a but not really delivering.

For those who are happy with their budget sacd players in their modest system...great. Its the old axiom, 'never had it, never will miss it'. Gee, for a long time I was happy with my analog projection tv--sure it played interlaced dvd...

 

[John Garcia]

It's funny that this discussion came up, because I was talking to a guy at a pretty high end shop ($175K speakers, $5K turntables, etc...) and his opinion of SACD was that even with very high end gear, it still sounds digital to him and that a high end SACD transport is not worth the money. His recommendation was to get a very good CD transport and get a modest SACD. I didn't ask him what his personal setup was, but again, I have to say that I don't see your point regarding the "necessity" for high end gear to enjoy the format.