Thread: Why the gap between SACD and download sound quality will grow even further over time.

Posts: 83
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 next

Post by Jonalogic April 13, 2014 (1 of 83)
How’s that for a provocative title? But kindly let me explain, and see if you can fault the logic. You're most welcome to try.

Most observers – myself included – have already come to the conclusion that – given the same source data quality (DSD vs DSD, 24/96 vs 24/96 and so on) – downloaded recordings invariably sound better than their SACD-encoded equivalents. Not by much, admittedly, particularly if you have a top quality SACD-spinner, but noticeable even so.

This is not rocket science, it’s common sense – encoding the data on SACD, spinning the discs, transport issues, laser read-off, added levels of jitter, necessary error correction et al means there are several extra processing and signal transfer stages involved in reading the datastream off an SACD before passing this onto the DAC. Taking data straight off- say - a flash card and into the same DAC is clearly a simpler, more direct and less error-prone process.

But it now strikes me that another process is at work- the quality of the DAC. SACD as a format was crippled at birth by not permitting digital data output to an external DAC*; only analog outputs are permitted. So, if you already have an SACD player, you are basically stuck with the DAC technology prevailing at the time you purchased it. SACD players are unlikely to develop much further, so I don’t think we can expect to see a significant improvement in the basic sound of SACD in the future. We are stuck where we are right now, so to speak.

Downloads are different. We can pick and choose, and update our DAC. Every time we do so, we seem to be rewarded by improved SQ. By contrast with static SACD technologies, DACs are advancing by leaps and bounds at the moment; this is driven not only by downloads, of course, but by increasing demand for mobile hi-res audio platforms and – let’s face it – also by folk wanting to get the most out of large existing RBCD collections.

To cut to the chase. SACD sound quality is now basically static; download SQ will inevitably increase further in the future. So, stand by for the gap to grow ever larger.

Of course, if any of this logic is wrong, I am sure you will all tell me. I look forward to hearing from you!


* With the notable exception of the short-lived ‘fat’ Sony PS3; tried getting hold of one of those, lately?

Post by Epsilon April 13, 2014 (2 of 83)
Why do you think SACD players will not develop further while stand alone DACs will? There will be new players with new DACs inside, better transfers and other improvements.

And you are not stuck with the DAC of your sacd player if it allows DSD streaming through HDMI. Even my player that I bought in 2007 came with this feature. Now I stream DSD from my Pioneer player to my Marantz AVR, which has a better DAC.

Post by Fugue April 13, 2014 (3 of 83)
You make some excellent points. My main issue with downloads is the paucity of multi-channel files, and those that are available are much more expensive that their disc counterparts. Then there's the issue of having to turn on my TV just to see the file menu, plus the lack of a booklet/notes about the music is bothersome to me.

Post by Jonalogic April 13, 2014 (4 of 83)
Epsilon said:

1) Why do you think SACD players will not develop further while stand alone DACs will? There will be new players with new DACs inside, better transfers and other improvements.

2) And you are not stuck with the DAC of your sacd player if it allows DSD streaming through HDMI. Even my player that I bought in 2007 came with this feature. Now I stream DSD from my Pioneer player to my Marantz AVR, which has a better DAC.

1) Well, where are these real-world advanced SACD players? With ultra-performance DACs like the latest standalone Chord, Ayre, Aurelic and PS Audio devices? They don't exist. And I'll bet large odds they won't. Development to SACD - stuttering at best over the last 10 years - is in the deep freeze. DACs are where the market and money is.

2) DSD over HDMI? Sorry, it's my understanding that only a very few mid-range receivers ever had that. And are you quite sure the signal is not converted to analogue or PCM somewhere in the chain? Otherwise it would appear to break compliance with core SACD spec.

Post by Jonalogic April 13, 2014 (5 of 83)
Fugue said:

You make some excellent points.

1) My main issue with downloads is the paucity of multi-channel files, and those that are available are much more expensive that their disc counterparts.

2) Then there's the issue of having to turn on my TV just to see the file menu

3) Plus the lack of a booklet/notes about the music is bothersome to me.

Hi

Thanks. To respond to your points:

1) Yes, 5CH files are much bigger than 2CH (surprise), but most vendors do them. They're typically not much more expensive than the 2CH version. But they are, indeed, more expensive than the SACDs. See previous Forum discussions on Pentatone, the need for download prices to fall before market take-off, the impact of lower cost downloads from eClassical, and so on. We ALL agree download prices need to come down.

2) Only if your download playback device has an inadequate display. They're now sorting this, fast. See, for example, the display on the new Sony Z1. And then, for something like the Oppo with a crappy built-in display, you can download an Android or Apple app and control from your tablet, smartphone, laptop or whatever.

Or you can plug in a teeny slave display into the HDMI.

Or you can navigate with the numeric and colour-coded buttons on most remotes, including the Oppo.

Or you can switch off the TV after navigating. As you know, the Oppo has a nice 'pure audio' functionality which turns off all video processing and outputs. I just engage it after I have found the right album/track.

And so on.

3) Nearly all downloads come with separate cover art and PDF booklet. Decent vendors embed the cover art in file metadata.

Cheers

Jon

Post by steviev April 13, 2014 (6 of 83)
Jonalogic said:

How’s that for a provocative title? But kindly let me explain, and see if you can fault the logic. You're most welcome to try.

....
Of course, if any of this logic is wrong, I am sure you will all tell me. I look forward to hearing from you!

Paragraph two contains one false premise.
Paragraph three contains one unsubstantiated assertion.
Paragraph four stopped being true about six years ago.
Paragraph five contains one unintentionally hilarious and wry observation.

Post by padanx April 13, 2014 (7 of 83)
Can't say that I've kept up with the download market, and I haven't sampled what's available, or even read many knowledgable reviews. But based purely upon regular email notices I get from Acoustic Sounds, download titles are flooding onto the market rather quickly. Are all of these titles previously released, or are there selections that could have been released on SACD, but have been withheld from that format for whatever reasons?

Post by hensdav April 13, 2014 (8 of 83)
steviev said:

Paragraph two contains one false premise.
Paragraph three contains one unsubstantiated assertion.
Paragraph four stopped being true about six years ago.
Paragraph five contains one unintentionally hilarious and wry observation.

Concur.

We have double-blind tests confirming that people can't tell the difference between CD and SACD, and the original poster is suggesting that people think DSD downloads sound better than SACD?

Let the hilarity ensue.

Post by rammiepie April 13, 2014 (9 of 83)
Jonalogic AND Company:

Until my SACD players (I have many) take their last, dying breath, I am solely committed to 'proudly' spinning those shiny 5" PHYSICAL discs, with their informative booklets, glossy illustrations and non~crack resistant cases.

Also, until my overabundance of physical discs spill out into my neighborhood (pretty close to that, already), I will support those companies, both large and small, from Timbuktu to Okinawa, who continue to grace our shelves with bouquets of musical delights.

The rest of you pseudo Star Wars, cyberspace geeks can spend ALL your hard earned money on pricey downloads and extol their virtues ad nauseum.

Just hope you ALL have a BACK~Up plan.


From Across the pond,

DISCSPINNER

Post by Links April 13, 2014 (10 of 83)
rammiepie said:

Just hope you ALL have a BACK~Up plan.

Exactly.
Hard Drives and SSDs fail, no getting around that.
Then of course you could burn your own disc copies.
However, home burned discs have a shorter shelf life than Replicated discs
(often referred to as pressed discs) and album art is a pain to make.

So far, the price differential between the 2 options favours the SACD.
And so, why not just buy the SACD in the first place?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 next

Closed