Thread: What is the best multichannel SACD player????

Posts: 399
Page: prev 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 ... 40 next

Post by Ubertrout June 24, 2012 (171 of 399)
Pretty sure most recievers which handle SACD/DSD data call it 44.1 khz, but it's 44.1 * 64 = 2.822 Mhz.

Room correction / bass management is a process only run on PCM audio inside the reciever...pure DSD mode bypasses all processing and sends the DSD data straight out. Kind of technically, the DSD signal is much closer to the final stage of data out inside the DAC, so it just bypasses intermediate steps.

I really think you're focusing too much on pure DSD. It's a nice feature - and one I enjoy - but focus on getting a SACD player with HDMI support and then a HTR which can power the speakers you like in 5.1. In your price range, that's the best bet. Plus, given your budget, you should be able to get a HTR which can also handle pure DSD over HDMI - so you can have your cake and eat it too.

Post by pacwin June 25, 2012 (172 of 399)
BruinPirateAnteater said:

I've looked up the EDID files for a lot of different receivers, and I have yet to come across one that doesn't show SACD 44K. Can anyone show me or confirm that the EDID for their $1500 or below receiver shows SACD higher than 44K?

To be honest Im not entirely confident how to interpret this data.I can locate an EDID report showing higher 2 channel resolution for the Pioneer VSX-S300-K
http://forum.ixbt.com/topic.cgi?id=62:14612-171

CE audio data (formats supported)
LPCM 2-channel, 16/20/24 bit depths at 32/44/48/88/96/176/192 kHz
LPCM 8-channel, 16/20/24 bit depths at 32/44/48/88/96/176/192 kHz
AC-3 6-channel, 640k max. bit rate at 32/44/48 kHz
DTS 7-channel, 1536k max. bit rate at 44/48/88/96 kHz
SACD 2-channel at 44/88/176 kHz
DD+ 8-channel at 44/48 kHz
DTS-HD 8-channel, 16-bit at 32/44/48/88/96/176/192 kHz
DVD-A 8-channel at 32/44/48/88/96/176/192 kHz

but the most common pattern seems to be 6 channels @44Khz.

Its not really clear what this rate represents. It may well represent the base 44.1Khz x64fs. According to the CEC-861-D specification

"For One Bit Audio and DST streams, the value indicated by the SF bits shall equal the ACR fS value (see sections 7.2.5 and 7.2.6). For Super Audio CD, the SF bits are typically set to 0, 1, 0, to indicate a Sample Frequency of
2.8224MSamples/s (i.e. 64*44.1kHz)."

However these bits are in the audio frames sent over the cable not the EDID stored in the receiver.

Manufacturers are norious for badly programmed EDID's and there is a whole hobby of tweaking them. It is also not clear that there is any software utility that properly reports DSD and DST capabilities including DST_Normal and DSD_Double rate transmission.

In the CEC HDMI Speciifcation it says this about sources and sinks.

"A Source may transmit One Bit Audio at an fS (1/64th of the bit rate) of 32kHz, 44.1kHz, 48kHz,88.2kHz, 96kHz, 176.4kHz or 192kHz. Any Source capable of supporting One Bit Audio should support an fS of 44.1kHz, corresponding to a bit rate of 2.8224MHz.Transmitted One Bit Audio shall have an audio sample rate within ±1000 ppm of the targeted sample rate. A Sink may accept One Bit Audio at an fS (1/64th of the bit rate) of 32kHz, 44.1kHz, 48kHz,
88.2kHz, 96kHz, 176.4kHz or 192kHz. Any Sink capable of supporting One Bit Audio shallsupport an fS of 44.1kHz, corresponding to a bit rate of 2.8224MHz."

If the EDID utility was reporting DSD capabilities it should report an audio format code of 9 for DSD, 13 for DST, number of channels, base fs Rate(s) and bit depth which for codes 9 through 15 is "Default = 0, unless defined by Audio Codec Vendor". In theory then the VSX-S300-K report above might imply support DSD256fs which seems very unlikely. So its not entirely clear if these represent PCM conversion rates or the base fs (x64).

Your best option is to compare analog, PCM and "DSD" and see what sounds best to your ears and not sweat if its not the "DSD" option.

HDMI and DSD really is a black art.

Post by BruinPirateAnteater June 25, 2012 (173 of 399)
Yeah, I'm pretty much convinced that I'll be going the DSD through HDMI route.

Reran some listening tests today after seeing the EDID numbers, and I am pretty sure the EDID should be interpreted as 44.1K x 64. I listened to the Sony though HDMI both in PCM mode and DSD mode and there was no doubt that DSD Direct mode sounded much better.

The Yamaha DVD-S2500 in stereo analog definitely sounded the best of the three configs though. However, I do understand why this is probably the case:

- stereo is a whole different world than Multi-Channel
- The circuitry/DAC of the S2500 is probably better than the the one on my lowly 3024 (modern $250 reciever vs a 6 year old $750 DVDA/SACD/CD player with dedicated circuitry for SACD playback)
- The 3064 has no room correction

So I will be concentrating on finding the right equipment for good HDMI playback and room correction.

Post by Fitzcaraldo215 June 25, 2012 (174 of 399)
BruinPirateAnteater said:

@Ubertrout and Fitz - perhaps here is where my noobness shows. Why does room correction/bass management get disabled for a analog MCH in SACD feed? Does RC/BM only work for digital in sources? Do you loose RC when you play vinyl or any other analog source?

I have been trying to hunt down the answer to this. I am convinced that RC/BM will get disabled for MCH Analog SACD, thats what I keep reading over and over in many threads at many forums, but no one seems to say why this happens.

If the source is analog, how does an AVER/PrePro know it originated from a DSD source?


I would still like to understand WHY AVRs/PrePros disable the RC/BM for MCH Analog from a SACD.

Many, perhaps most, AVR's and AVP's do not support a-d conversion in Mch, while they often do for stereo analog inputs. Internal Digital Signal Processing (DSP) for speaker distance correction, bass management and room EQ all require a digital signal in PCM mode these days.

For analog sources - LP via an external phono preamp, the analog output from any player with SACD, CD, Blu-ray, etc. - the digital processor does not know or care what the specific source was. They are all just analog. Via HDMI, the processor knows whether it is seeing a DSD or PCM bitstream because of information exchanged via the HDMI handshake between the devices.

For analog input, without belaboring the question of whether DSD or PCM sounds better, there is little doubt that excessive conversions from DSD-analog-PCM-analog are going to degrade the sound. That is true no matter how accurately and pristinely the original DSD-analog conversion was done by the player. A signal path that keeps the signal in the digital domain, e.g. HDMI, and involving only one d-a conversion is going to be cleaner and more accurate, assuming competent design. Conversions to/from analog are to be avoided, except for the final one which is inevitable with digital source material.

Having a processor that optionally accepts DSD and converts it directly to analog will give you the opportunity to compare it to conversion to PCM with/without the DSP functions, Including EQ. We have done this in a fair number of different upscale systems, and several of us have a strong preference for use of the DSP functions over pure DSD. As I said, I think pure DSD-analog is no panacea, and it works well only in very carefully selected and often very pricey setups, compared to use of a digital processor via HDMI. But, you will be able to form your own conclusions.

Also, high quality, transparent analog signal paths are expensive, and comparable digital domain ones much less so. There is no free lunch. While I respect Emotiva at their price point, I am doubting that their analog domain performance is above reproach. Ditto for analog domain performance of most HT gear, unless you go to certain expensive high end Prepros. But, I am aware of only one pricey, high end prepro that accepts DSD. Most HT gear sounds much better in the digital domain, including only a final DAC stage and amps, if an AVR.

There is something to be said for prepros with separate amps. But, often prepros are internally near identical to the better AVRs in the product line, if any. If an AVR has insufficient amp power, likely all you would need is a stereo amp for the main front channels, while using the AVRs amps for center and surrounds. Emotiva might be a good choice. Their prowess is amps. Many AVR owners have done this and are satisfied with it.

Post by teac4010 July 2, 2012 (175 of 399)
Fitzcaraldo215 said:

There is something to be said for prepros with separate amps.

OK now, remembering that I have limited hearing, SMILE, coming from the analog age (vinyl and reel to reel) and having suffered through a Yamaha mid 90's AVR/HT/?? (RX V596) is it any wonder I question the PCM/Dolby world ..... and after looking at several SACD players which all suggest operating in their "Pure" modes for best sound the question is answered.

I am convinced as well as others that six separate amps fed by an SACD players six multichannel analog outputs will exceed the sound quality of a players PCM outputs.

Understanding the physical speaker placement requirements of the "Scarlet" book is a small price to pay for "Purity" according to the experts.

Given the time and documentation I would be interested in what if any PCM elves are doing in the players when adjusting for speaker levels and placement. Regards.

Post by Fitzcaraldo215 July 2, 2012 (176 of 399)
teac4010 said:

OK now, remembering that I have limited hearing, SMILE, coming from the analog age (vinyl and reel to reel) and having suffered through a Yamaha mid 90's AVR/HT/?? (RX V596) is it any wonder I question the PCM/Dolby world ..... and after looking at several SACD players which all suggest operating in their "Pure" modes for best sound the question is answered.

I am convinced as well as others that six separate amps fed by an SACD players six multichannel analog outputs will exceed the sound quality of a players PCM outputs.

Understanding the physical speaker placement requirements of the "Scarlet" book is a small price to pay for "Purity" according to the experts.

Given the time and documentation I would be interested in what if any PCM elves are doing in the players when adjusting for speaker levels and placement. Regards.

Again, I think that the whole PCM vs. DSD debate as to sonics is dramatically overrated, especially compared to other factors. That has been confirmed in all the listening I have done to many Mch systems.

You have hinted at it, but yes, one major factor in keeping with Pure DSD Mch is the requirement for the the speakers to be in the preferred ITU arrangement with identical full range, equidistant speakers Most audiophiles cannot do that either for space or budget reasons. So, digital controllers operating in PCM mode provide a set of outstandingly simple solutions in the form of distance correction, bass management allowing subwoofer(s), and EQ, built into most digital AVR' and prepros. The first of these allows the speaker setup in a much wider range of rooms by compensating for unequal distances. I need this even my own fairly large room in order to be able to accommodate Mch.

The last two items on my list, above, allow, with subs, for the use of smaller speakers as center and surrounds. The subs compensate for the lack of bass response in smaller satellites. The EQ voices all channels near identically. This can allow for substantial savings in system cost, as 3 smaller speakers plus a sub can be quite a bit cheaper than 3 added full range speakers to an existing stereo pair.

But, the elephant in most rooms is how the room itself negatively affects the sound of even the best components. The only exception is a professionally treated room with careful measurement and calibration of the treatments. Amateur or DIY passive treatments are in most cases inadequate and suboptimal. The EQ built into many digital processors is an effective answer to this age old problem. You would be quite surprised at how effective and brilliant it is. By the way, it greatly benefits stereo as well. But, stereo is more tradition bound, so most stereos lack this capability. The same distrust you voice for these newer technologies is ramapant among audiophiles and manufacturers. But, it is usually not based on any actual listening experience with it.

But, how transparent are these digital signal processing "tricks". If you think in old fashioned analog terms, they would have to color or distort the sound. But, that has not been my experience at all. They are digital, not analog, so different rules apply. And, in my experience they are totally transparent except for the beneficial effects of their application.

Unfortunately, most audiophiles simply have no way to listen to and evaluate the alternatives. Dealers do not support Mch music. Ditto for most high end audio mags. For all of them, it is a chicken and eqg problem. Audiophiles in general are reactive and conservative and use their stereo analog experience as justification. Only listening will convince people that there may be a newer and better alternative. But, it is quite hard to find somewhere to do that.

Without listening, it is easy to apply any analog era dictums, such as analog from the player is the way to go. Trust me, I have made it my business to listen to many systems in many audiophile rooms. Only in one case, among several, did I find a top notch Pure DSD system - tailspn's excellent system outside Boston. But, the components, room and treatments required to achieve that excellent result are simply far out of reach for most. In all other cases, the Pure DSD approach was quickly replaced by an HDMI enabled digital processor solution with DSP EQ once the audiophiles in question heard a demo in their rooms, even in $50 - $100k systems. The approach I suggest simply and quickly vanquished Pure DSD.

Post by electro October 3, 2012 (177 of 399)
PACWIN,

what you have shown is that outputting DSD to a receiver over HDMI results in a down conversion from 6x 2.8Mhz 1 bit to CD quality 44.1Khz.

It's no wonder that some people claim they cant tell the difference between SACD and CD!!! And it explains why every demo of surround sound I hear at a show sucks compared to my home setup.

Going back to my original question and the reason I started this post. I state my claim therefore that IF WHAT YOU SAY ABOVE IS CORRECT FOR ALL RECEIVERS and PROCESSOR presumably,

1. It's better to output analogue from the SACD Player rather than digital.
2. That means you need an SACD player with good quality analogue stages
3. You need EITHER (a). 5 full range speakers equidistant from the listening position and good room acoustics.

or (b). the ability to do DSP functions like bass management and time delay in the DSD digital domain without conversion to PCM.

What I am after is a player that can do (b). time delay specifically in the DSD domain. So far I have found 1. The Sony SCD XA9000ES.

I was hoping there would be more as mine wont last forever!

I have tried the NAD M5 - but it has terrible time delay adjustment that doesn't have the flexibility to set the right distances, and I suspect is converting to PCM as it doesn't sound as good as the Sony.

Does anyone know of any other player that can do this? Please don't come back to me and say Oppo xxx - as NONE of the Oppos can do this nor the Linn or the Krell etc. In the case of the Oppo - the signal stays as DSD ONLY if you don't use bass management or time delay. The Linn outputs only work with equidistant speakers, the new Krell appears to convert to PCM and then doesn't have time delay (so worst of both worlds) and its £12k!

I thought Sony had a DVD player introduced at the same time as the CD XA9000ES that had "time delay adjust" too. I will check my catalogue.

Isn't it about time a manufacturer sorted this?

Or has anyone tried to use a "bucket brigade" analogue time delay machine to for example compensate for the rear channel speakers being closer?

Post by soundboy October 3, 2012 (178 of 399)
electro said:

Isn't it about time a manufacturer sorted this?

Google "Outlaw Audio ICBM"

Post by electro October 9, 2012 (179 of 399)
soundboy said:

Google "Outlaw Audio ICBM"

The Outlaw ICBM, now discontinued, does not have time delay adjustment, just bass redirection, so unfortunately does not solve the problem.

Post by Kal Rubinson October 10, 2012 (180 of 399)
electro said:

1. It's better to output analogue from the SACD Player rather than digital.
2. That means you need an SACD player with good quality analogue stages
3. You need EITHER (a). 5 full range speakers equidistant from the listening position and good room acoustics.

or (b). the ability to do DSP functions like bass management and time delay in the DSD digital domain without conversion to PCM.

........................................

Isn't it about time a manufacturer sorted this?

Don't hold your breath. By requiring maintenance of DSD (or even full-bandwidth HD PCM), you are demanding expensive features that are simply unimportant or invisible to so much of the market that what remains cannot support the effort.

Dumb it down a bit (as in most AVRs) and there's market volume. Bump it up and the licensing/engineering costs rapidly outpace the demand.

Keep it all analog, especially as stereo, (little or no licensing and mature engineering principles) and there's a market.

Page: prev 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 ... 40 next

Closed