Thread: DSD and SACD questions

Posts: 87
Page: prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 next

Post by ghostie December 9, 2010 (11 of 87)
Guys, thanks for your valuable input.

from what i have gathered, it seems that the main bottleneck is my amp. it just not possible to pipe out DSD and therefore denying me the pure pleasure of listening my SACD. In any case, would there be other benefits granted that multi-channel sound distribution is beyond my reach at the moment? are there benefits that can justify my investment into a decent SACD player?

Post by ghostie December 9, 2010 (12 of 87)
rammiepie said:

Ghostie, welcome to SA~CDnet. The OPPO BDP~93 while not yet reviewed is an amazing upgrade from the previous model (the BDP~83) and it would benefit you if you used an HDMI cable to carry the picture and sound to your receiver (Perhaps you should consider a newer receiver that accepts the HDMI v 1.4 if you decide to go the full 3D TV route). The OPPO will sound better through HDMI than using analogue (or regular RCA cables). In the player's menu, you can output either DSD or PCM from SACD into your receiver so choose what sounds best to you.

And on a player like the OPPO, SACD will definitely sound better than regular cds as will soundtracks from Blu~Ray discs (a great choice of player, IMO).

Another word of advice, to play CDs on the OPPO, it is better to use a coaxial digital cable into your receiver as the CD playback through HDMI is NOT the best. The OPPO also decodes HDCD, as well.

Hi rammiepie,
Thanks... so judging from this, i could actually still go for OPPO and the sound coming into the amp and out of my speakers would still be better than normal CDs? if so, would i still be able to pick out those frequencies range that normal CD can't produce, resulting in a clearer and warmer feel? Also, will i still get to enjoy lossless format?

Post by rammiepie December 9, 2010 (13 of 87)
Ghostie, the OPPO plays SACDs extremely well. It will DEFINITELY surpass CD playback. And if you add two more speakers, you can take full advantage of SACD surround sound (try Dark Side of the Moon if you like Pink Floyd) and the 5.1 soundtracks in full high definition surround from blu~ray discs.

One more thing: since you're new to the format an SACD has a CD layer, A Stereo Layer and a Surround layer (but some are only stereo SACD with no cd nor multi~channel layer).

Use this forum to locate artists or titles that you like and the link will indicate whether the album is stereo or multi~channel. Hybrid SACDs always contain a CD layer but older titles from the early days of SACD will not play on a cd player but your OPPO is a great choice and you should thoroughly enjoy this newer unit.

And as with ALL new equipment, it will take some time before the OPPO fully breaks in and as you play it more it will sound even better in time.

And, BTW, I don't think the XBox can play sacds (only the cd layer). The Playstation from Sony will decode blu~rays as well as SACDs (although that varies with models).

Post by Zammo December 9, 2010 (14 of 87)
ghostie said:

Hi rammiepie,
Thanks... so judging from this, i could actually still go for OPPO and the sound coming into the amp and out of my speakers would still be better than normal CDs? if so, would i still be able to pick out those frequencies range that normal CD can't produce, resulting in a clearer and warmer feel? Also, will i still get to enjoy lossless format?

You will not hear "those frequencies range that normal CD can't produce" for many reasons. First and foremost, most people can't "hear" frequencies above about 15-20kHz. It is debatable as to whether reproduction of those frequencies effects our perception of sound though (and I'm not about to engage in arguments about that in this thread.) In addition from your perspective, the frequencies that SACD can produce higher than CD are above 20kHz, and your speaker's tweeters won't produce much in those frequencies according to their specs.

Not sure what you mean by frequencies outside CD's range resulting in clearer/warmer feel.

Also unsure what you mean about enjoying lossless formats. CD's contain files that are uncompressed 16 bit 44.1kHz. Lossless refers to compression algorithms that reduce a files size, but without any loss of information.

Rammiepie was wrong in suggesting you could output from the oppo in DSD or PCM - your receiver will only accept PCM input over HDMI according to the specs.

Will the oppo produce better sound than your xbox through analogue or HDMI - possibly. Will 2 channel SACD sound better than CD through an oppo - I don't think so with your set up.

Post by ghostie December 9, 2010 (15 of 87)
Zammo said:

You will not hear "those frequencies range that normal CD can't produce" for many reasons. First and foremost, most people can't "hear" frequencies above about 15-20kHz. It is debatable as to whether reproduction of those frequencies effects our perception of sound though (and I'm not about to engage in arguments about that in this thread.) In addition from your perspective, the frequencies that SACD can produce higher than CD are above 20kHz, and your speaker's tweeters won't produce much in those frequencies according to their specs.

Not sure what you mean by frequencies outside CD's range resulting in clearer/warmer feel.

Also unsure what you mean about enjoying lossless formats. CD's contain files that are uncompressed 16 bit 44.1kHz. Lossless refers to compression algorithms that reduce a files size, but without any loss of information.

Rammiepie was wrong in suggesting you could output from the oppo in DSD or PCM - your receiver will only accept PCM input over HDMI according to the specs.

Will the oppo produce better sound than your xbox through analogue or HDMI - possibly. Will 2 channel SACD sound better than CD through an oppo - I don't think so with your set up.

Sorry about my lack of knowledge in this...

i was told that SACD could produce sound that are better, warmer and clearer as compared to normal CD. As to how warm or clear, i really have no idea. I am equally clueless as to what benefit does DSD has over PCM and to be honest, i have no idea how their function.

as for speaker wise, i am willing to add on another 2 pcs just for the surround effect, probably by this xmas. what i really in need to know is:

1. Should i go for a SACD enabled bluray player, such as OPPO 83 and Sony S370, or stick to a normal bluray player. noting the big price difference.
2. If there is a real diffence in sound quality over conventional CD or BluRay player, then what is the likely difference i would feel?

Post by rammiepie December 10, 2010 (16 of 87)
Ghostie, the OPPO BDP~93 is the same price as the BDP~83 and has more features. As for Zammo questioning whether the Xbox sounds better than the OPPO in SACD mode, I would definitely say NO (NO, a thousand times NO!)

The OPPO will output DSD into analogue inputs but the OPPO BDP~93 will sound better in SACD/DVD~Audio and of course Blu~ray via the HDMI output. The OPPO~BDP83 SE version would probably sound better via the analogue outputs as that $899 machine has beefed up analogue circuits and a better power supply.

SACD will sound better on most any equipment so don't allow Zanmo to deter you from taking the plunge. And the OPPO at $499 (either one) would be much more versatile than a stand~a~lone Blu~ray player and if you add 3D and digital streaming from the OPPO BDP~93, your machine will give you that much more pleasure.

Post by Fitzcaraldo215 December 10, 2010 (17 of 87)
ghostie said:

Sorry about my lack of knowledge in this...

i was told that SACD could produce sound that are better, warmer and clearer as compared to normal CD. As to how warm or clear, i really have no idea. I am equally clueless as to what benefit does DSD has over PCM and to be honest, i have no idea how their function.

Others will disagree, some violently, but there is little practical, audible difference between DSD and hi rez PCM (at least 24-bit/88K), though that may be system dependant. On a good system with good source material, that difference is often minimal. It's not really worth worrying about.

PCM also exists in lower rez versions, such as the 16-bit/44K version on all CD's. DSD, is, of course, the format of all SACD's, though some may have originally been recorded in hi or lower rz PCM or even analog. Today, hi rez PCM is only available on Blu-ray, since DVD-A died commercially. But, to add to the confusion, some Blu-rays, like movies, are done at lower resolutions.

The important distinction is hi rez vs. lower rez. DSD and 88K or better PCM are the hi rez formats. That often, but not always, makes a difference most people can hear. But, even that can be outweighed by the engineering quality of the recording. Some CD's sound better than some SACD's (in stereo) because of that.

You also have to be mindful of the available repertoire on SACD vs. CD. CD is orders of magnitude more bountiful in repertoire than SACD, even for classical music. For rock, jazz and just about everything else, it's even worse.

At the risk of being controversial, if you want to know what are the very best recorded media in musical sound quality compared to live performance, here is what my experience tells me in general is the ranking in terms of the best quality specimens of each type - the best of the best:

1. hi rez Mch Blu-ray, notably opera, but not much other music
2. SACD in Mch
3. SACD in stereo
4. toss-up: vinyl or CD stereo (highly controversial)
5. everything else

There are, of couse, individual exceptions, as previously mentioned. Many who would disagree with this ranking have little actual listening experience with all the formats. Most who do, including all of my audiophile friends. I daresay, would agree with me.

OK, bring on the slime.

Post by DSD December 10, 2010 (18 of 87)
Fitzcaraldo215 I disagree and you are way too forgiving of the deficiencies in CDs especially their strident string tone and uncomfortable sound which no other format on Planet Earth possesses.

I have experience with most physical formats invented except Blu-Ray and Elcaset, my general ranking would be, with exceptions of course.

1. Real Time duplicated 15 IPS pre-recorded Reel to Reel tape
2. Real Time duplicated 7½ IPS pre-recorded Reel to Reel tape
3. The better audiophile LPs
4. The better SACDs especially from DSD or Analog masters
5. Real Time duplicated audiophile Cassettes
6. Most slow speed duplicated pre-recorded 7½ IPS Reel to Reels from the mid 50's to 1960's
7. The better DVD-Audios from 24Bit 96kHz or 192kHz PCM or analog masters
8. The later 1970's pre-recorded 7½ IPS Reel to Reels
9. The better pre-recorded commercial cassettes
10. The better "decoded" HDCD CDs especially from Reference Recordings
11. The better commercial LPs
12. SACDs from low resolution 24 Bit 48kHz PCM or lower masters
13. DVD-Audios from low resolution 24 Bit 48kHz PCM or lower masters
14. 48kHz DAT
15. The better CDs especially those from Telarc, Reference Recordings (non-HDCD), etc.
16. XRCD, XRCD24 and other sub-format CDs
85. 8 Track Cartridge
90. Pre-recorded 3¾ IPS Reel to Reels
99. Most other CDs
100. Poorly mastered recordings in any format.

Note: this list does not include the dozens of computer music formats I've tried, all of which are better than CD.

Post by The Seventh Taylor December 10, 2010 (19 of 87)
ghostie said:

i knew then that my xbox360 could read the HD level from the disc and further investigation, i realized that not only i need a player that must support DSD but also a receiver that must accept DSD format.

Hi Ghostie,

Before any more disinformation gets spread:

The Xbox360 cannot read the HD layer of an SACD, it can only read the CD layer. The only consoles that can read SACDs are the first two generations of PS3. See http://www.ps3sacd.com/faq.html

Yes, to read SACDs you will need an SACD player (or an early PS3) but you will not necessarily need to have a receiver that accepts DSD input. PS3 for instance does not offer DSD output but converts the DSD to high-resolution (176.4kHz 24bit 5.1ch) PCM, which basically any HDMI receiver accepts. And if you're just into stereo you can even use the analog outputs and any stereo amp.

Unless you insist on doing the DSD decoding in the receiver (or you're choosing a Sony SCD-XA5400ES and want to play SACD multichannel) you don't need a receiver that handles DSD; just about any SACD player can deliver output that common receivers can handle, both in stereo and multichannel.

Post by pgmdir December 10, 2010 (20 of 87)
The Seventh Taylor said:

Hi Ghostie,

Before any more disinformation gets spread:

The Xbox360 cannot read the HD layer of an SACD, it can only read the CD layer. The only consoles that can read SACDs are the first two generations of PS3. See http://www.ps3sacd.com/faq.html

Yes, to read SACDs you will need an SACD player (or an early PS3) but you will not necessarily need to have a receiver that accepts DSD input. PS3 for instance does not offer DSD output but converts the DSD to high-resolution (176.4kHz 24bit 5.1ch) PCM, which basically any HDMI receiver accepts. And if you're just into stereo you can even use the analog outputs and any stereo amp.

Unless you insist on doing the DSD decoding in the receiver (or you're choosing a Sony SCD-XA5400ES and want to play SACD multichannel) you don't need a receiver that handles DSD; just about any SACD player can deliver output that common receivers can handle, both in stereo and multichannel.

Finally! Somebody made some sense here. He wasn't hearing the SACD layer! Ghostie, the fact is that SACD makes inexpensice equipment sound much better. Any who couldn't hear the difference with your setup with the addition of almost ANY SACD player is not listening. My secondary system is far from magnificent, and I absolutely cannot listen to a standard CD if I've been listening to SACDs first. Please take the the time to read up on various players before committing serious dollars. The previoous Oppo special edition might indeed be the wiser choice since all improvement went into the analog outputs--which would make a great deal of sense for you right now.

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

Closed