Thread: SACD player recommendation anyone?

Posts: 47
Page: prev 1 2 3 4 5 next

Post by Kal Rubinson February 10, 2009 (21 of 47)
hiredfox said:

Look guys, when buying for SACD surround you have to be very very careful. As Telarc once used to advise,

"BEWARE of Home Theatre Receivers with DSP... Many multi-channel receiver/amplifiers provide multi-channel analogue inputs that are routed to analog-to-digital PCM converters for Digital Signal Processing control, often at 44.1 kHz. The signals are then passed on to a DAC for final output to speakers.

This 'feature' will cause ALL signals regardless of source to be no better quality than CD playback.... we recommend using a receiver or amplifier that passes multi-channel ANALOGUE signals through entirely in the analogue domain."

This is old news and quite out-dated. That was the situation prior to HDMI which now permits high-resolution, lossless digital transmission from player to processor at full bandwidth. As a result, there is no need to be abstemious about DSP as is it used for bass management, channel level/distance management and room equalization, all without loss of data or resolution. (You would not have these features with an analog interface and a "direct" setting.)

Finally, this is relevant here because there are, already, several SACD players with this facility from Oppo, Pioneer and Sony. More to come.

Kal

Post by StyleAndEntertainmen February 10, 2009 (22 of 47)
Kal Rubinson said:

This is old news and quite out-dated. That was the situation prior to HDMI which now permits high-resolution, lossless digital transmission from player to processor at full bandwidth. As a result, there is no need to be abstemious about DSP as is it used for bass management, channel level/distance management and room equalization, all without loss of data or resolution. (You would not have these features with an analog interface and a "direct" setting.)

Finally, this is relevant here because there are, already, several SACD players with this facility from Oppo, Pioneer and Sony. More to come.

Kal

Agree with Kal and so I'll recommend the Sony SCD-XA5400es. Brand new DSD DACs will provide MCH via HDMI to your AV receiver and also afford the option of listening in stereo via a first class analog section.

Post by Polly Nomial February 10, 2009 (23 of 47)
Kal Rubinson said:

This is old news and quite out-dated. That was the situation prior to HDMI which now permits high-resolution, lossless digital transmission from player to processor at full bandwidth. As a result, there is no need to be abstemious about DSP as is it used for bass management, channel level/distance management and room equalization, all without loss of data or resolution. (You would not have these features with an analog interface and a "direct" setting.)

Finally, this is relevant here because there are, already, several SACD players with this facility from Oppo, Pioneer and Sony. More to come.

Kal

Wasn't it old news once the arrival of iLink and Denon's equivalent came to market?

Post by hiredfox February 11, 2009 (24 of 47)
Kal Rubinson said:

This is old news and quite out-dated. That was the situation prior to HDMI which now permits high-resolution, lossless digital transmission from player to processor at full bandwidth. As a result, there is no need to be abstemious about DSP as is it used for bass management, channel level/distance management and room equalization, all without loss of data or resolution. (You would not have these features with an analog interface and a "direct" setting.)

Finally, this is relevant here because there are, already, several SACD players with this facility from Oppo, Pioneer and Sony. More to come.

Kal

It is old information but IT IS still highly relevant. Passing the signal in HDMI mode is not really relevant to the argument, it is what then happens to the data in the processor and unless the processor was specifically configured for DSD recovery - most are not - then recovery will be via DCD to PCM conversion prior to D to A conversion.

Don't forget that processors are multi-functional and mostly need to accommodate signals in sic PCM format from DVD-Video sources. Even DVD-Audio was PCM not DSD.

The only way to find out is to contact the manufacturer. In the case of the Sony DA5400 ES, I have not yet managed to find out how it handle the HDMI input from their new SACD player.

I am very suspicious of manufacturer's motives. Most people will take as read that as they have been generous enough to provide HDMI output and therefore can pass the multi-channel DSD signal to a processor then 'ergo' their processor must be DSD compatible... BIG mistake to ASSUME that in view of the argument above.

Certainly it is very unlikely that cheaper processors will be sophisticated enough to handle DSD conversion to analogue as a separate arrangement to the conversion of PCM signals from a DVD-Video source just on cost grounds alone.

Post by hiredfox February 11, 2009 (25 of 47)
... and as others have pointed out, Sony missed a chance to provide a full 5+1 set of analogue outs on their SA 5400ES; it only has two-channel DSD conversion on board and stereo outs. I wonder why? Cost, complexity? If only they had done so...

... and, YES, I do agree about comments regarding Marantz's SA7-S1, it is indeed stereo only and follows dear old Ken Ishiwata's avowed philosophy that "stereo SACD is good enough.. "

I will question that one Ken, so why not multi-channel, too much cross talk and distortion to deal with in DSD conversion? Or just too darn costly?

Post by StyleAndEntertainmen February 11, 2009 (26 of 47)
"Sony missed a chance to provide a full 5+1 set of analogue outs on their SA 5400ES; it only has two-channel DSD conversion on board and stereo outs. I wonder why? Cost, complexity?"

Yes, cost and complexity/ease of use. I see this as a positive, not a negative. MCH via HDMI is obviously a less costly way to go: one cable, one DAC (OK set of DACS :). Less complex because there is consistent processing of sources at the digital vs analog domain. Eventually, we'll just have transports feeding your receivers/pre-pros so I'd suggest buying one you really really like (or one that is modular like a PC so you can update the DACs every couple of years).

I'd flip the question around a bit and ask why did Sony release this product at all and why did they include analog outputs at all? I'm not going to try and convince anyone this is a better way to go, but it is the way things are going. Further, if you're not on this bus, you'll be crafting a niche system from specialty audio manufacturers (read NOT Sony).

So again, I'll nominate the Sony 5400es as a great sounding quality product from a top tier company with one foot in the past and one foot in the future.

Enjoy your passion,

Styln

Post by Windsurfer February 11, 2009 (27 of 47)
StyleAndEntertainmen said:

"Sony missed a chance to provide a full 5+1 set of analogue outs on their SA 5400ES; it only has two-channel DSD conversion on board and stereo outs. I wonder why? Cost, complexity?"

Yes, cost and complexity/ease of use. I see this as a positive, not a negative. MCH via HDMI is obviously a less costly way to go: one cable, one DAC (OK set of DACS :). Less complex because there is consistent processing of sources at the digital vs analog domain. Eventually, we'll just have transports feeding your receivers/pre-pros so I'd suggest buying one you really really like (or one that is modular like a PC so you can update the DACs every couple of years).



Enjoy your passion,

Styln

The problem as I see it is the lack of a 3 channel dsd dac. Also when the Sony in question finds a 5 ch sacd in its tray, do the dacs know to process what it finds as the front L and R of the mch layer instead of the stereo layer - and are the remaining three channels being sent to the HDMI as Center, RL and RR?

Although I am pretty darned happy with my SONY SCD XA9000 ES, I would upgrade to something that produced an at least theoretical improvement in sound.

Such an improvement [and I don't know about the 5400 ES model], would entail either treating the stereo the same as my 9000 ES with 3 DACs operating in a differential configuration in each channel, or going it one better. When my 9000 ES is in stereo mode it processes through 3 per channel. Adding an outboard unit with 9 DACs of equal quality to process the surrounds and center the same as the 9000 does in stereo would be a step up from the mch in the 9000 ES, unless the HDMI itself is an issue, it would produce the same quality conversion as the 9000 does in stereo. What about 4 dacs in differential configuration?

BTW I find (and I am an almost exclusive listener to classical music) that the extra dimensionality afforded by the "surround" or "mch" layer totally blows away the ostensibly better conversion offered by SONY's 6 dacs working in differential mode to produce the stereo output......still if it (differential mode) were available in mch, via an additional investment in an outboard unit, I would jump on it. AND it wouldn't have to be made by SONY!

Post by Kal Rubinson February 11, 2009 (28 of 47)
hiredfox said:

It is old information but IT IS still highly relevant. Passing the signal in HDMI mode is not really relevant to the argument, it is what then happens to the data in the processor and unless the processor was specifically configured for DSD recovery - most are not - then recovery will be via DCD to PCM conversion prior to D to A conversion.

Don't forget that processors are multi-functional and mostly need to accommodate signals in sic PCM format from DVD-Video sources. Even DVD-Audio was PCM not DSD.

The only way to find out is to contact the manufacturer. In the case of the Sony DA5400 ES, I have not yet managed to find out how it handle the HDMI input from their new SACD player.

I am very suspicious of manufacturer's motives. Most people will take as read that as they have been generous enough to provide HDMI output and therefore can pass the multi-channel DSD signal to a processor then 'ergo' their processor must be DSD compatible... BIG mistake to ASSUME that in view of the argument above.

Certainly it is very unlikely that cheaper processors will be sophisticated enough to handle DSD conversion to analogue as a separate arrangement to the conversion of PCM signals from a DVD-Video source just on cost grounds alone.

Not really. PCM conversion is innocuous in most cases and avoiding would again bypass all the useful things that DSP can do with PCM but not DSD. Compared side-by-side, without the blandishments of DSP, the differences are inconsequential. Purists who insist that such conversions are, of necessity, objectionable have, either, used older/poor equipment or have their own fixed bias. IMHO, of course.

What do you want to know about the XA5400ES? I have their "technical document" about it.

Kal

Post by Kal Rubinson February 11, 2009 (29 of 47)
Windsurfer said:

[1}The problem as I see it is the lack of a 3 channel dsd dac. Also when the Sony in question finds a 5 ch sacd in its tray, do the dacs know to process as the front L and R of the mch layer and is the remaining being sent to the HDMI as Center, RL and RR?


[2]Although I am pretty darned happy with my SONY SCD XA9000 ES, I would upgrade to something that produced an some at least theoretical improvement in sound. Such an improvement - and I don't know about the 5400 ES model, does it have 3 DACs per channel? When my 9000 ES is in stereo mode it processes through 3 per channel. ADDing an outboard unit with 9 DACs of equal quality would be a step up from the mch in the 9000 ES, if the HDMI is not an issue, it would produce the same quality conversion as the 9000 does in stereo.

[3]BTW I find (and I am an almost exclusive listener to classical music) that the extra dimensionality afforded by the "surround" or "mch" layer totally blows away the ostensibly better conversion offered by SONY's 6 dacs working in differential mode to produce the stereo output......still if it (differential mode) were available in mch, via an additional investment in an outboard unit, I would jump on it. AND it wouldn't have to be made by SONY!

[1]You choose MCH or stereo tracks. If you have a 3channel SACD, like the Living Stereo or Living Presence, you should choose the stereo if you are using the analog outputs. Choose the MCH, if you are using the HDMI. You must choose analog output or HDMI but you cannot have both.

[2]It has 6 DACs per channel.

[3]Agreed. You need a really good(and I mean really good) HDMI-equipped preamp processor, that's all.

Kal

Post by Windsurfer February 11, 2009 (30 of 47)
Kal Rubinson said:

[1]You choose MCH or stereo tracks. If you have a 3channel SACD, like the Living Stereo or Living Presence, you should choose the stereo if you are using the analog outputs. Choose the MCH, if you are using the HDMI. You must choose analog output or HDMI but you cannot have both.

[2]It has 6 DACs per channel.

[3]Agreed. You need a really good(and I mean really good) HDMI-equipped preamp processor, that's all.

Kal

Yeah, I went for my four mile walk and was pondering this and decided that was probably how it would go - so I would want the equivalent of an HDMI driven Meitner DAC-6 for my purposes.

Despite your reassurances, my experience with my Sony SCD XA 9000 ES suggests that DSD processing without all the dsp to set up speakers that have been placed equidistant from the listening chair, and whose volume is controlled by my Bel Canto Pre 6, all sounds better from the MCH Direct output on the Sony which somewhere I was led to believe is a pure DSD conversion, like in Meitner's DAC-6.

It would be nice if Sony or someone would make such a device with HDMI inputs and at least 3 DACs for each of the 6 channels... or should I be saying six DACs per channel?

Page: prev 1 2 3 4 5 next

Closed