SACD - what went wrong?

[muel]

Chris had a great thread going here last year:  "Loudness War" and the Dynamic Range (DR) Database - some observations

[Emjay]

You've certainly piqued my interest - I'll have to keep an eye out for this CD, as I'm keen to listen to it myself, now!

[seanwalsh]

The MFSl sacd Dire Straits version is much better but the only master is in redbook format.

[willland]

Imo the dire straits sacd is worlds better than the cd.

 

I can agree somewhat.  Not that the SACD of Brothers in Arms is not fantastic, but the earlier pressings of the CD are great recordings in their own right.

 

 

 

hmmm... the 1985 CD is much more quiet and natural sounding to me.

 

Yeah, what he said.

 

As you can see from the Brother's in Arms chart, a ton on green and mostly high teens green, even most of the CD's are great recordings.  A good mix and recording is hard to screw up even when compressed some.

 

 

Bill 

Edited October 10, 2014 by willland

[Quiet_Hollow]

The worst mastering exists on your 1985 CD, with several tracks peaking at 0

 That's just a lack of normalization. With a digital signal, peaks can hit -0 dBFS all day long. Not to mention that DAW software can also park the signal very accurately, right at the 16th or 24th bit if so desired.

 

The problems start at anything above that. "Over" = crap sound.

[Rhetor]

See https://community.klipsch.com/index.php?/topic/143320-loudness-war-and-the-dynamic-range-dr-database-some-observations/?p=1724625 and https://community.klipsch.com/index.php?/topic/144487-streaming-pure-dsd-just-became-possible/

Basically, SACD is a locked-up way to distribute DSD (1-bit) recordings, i.e., you basically can't get the DSD tracks off the original disc--unless you own an original "fat" PS3 whose operating system wasn't ever upgraded from a certain PS3 OS version . . .

Chris

I have been thinking about incorporating a few SACDs in my listening rotation, just to dip my toes in the water. What has prohibited me was buying a player specifically to try out a few.

Your post intrigued me. So, I checked out my PS3 Fat and it does play SACDs. The PS3 does have the SACD logo on the side, and I checked out his site to verify @ http://www.ps3sacd.com/faq.html

In the HT, I have the PS3 hooked up via HDMI on the Denon 4311 capable of SACD support (my secondary system runs a Pioneer Elite 94TXH, also capable of SACD support).

While I suspicion my PS3 is not up to the most capable SACD players, would I get enough of a true taste of the possible quality of SACD on this PS3 Fat before I consider investing in a dedicated SACD player? (My as only BDP 310 blu ray player in the HT does not play SACDs).

Edited October 10, 2014 by Rhetor

[willland]

would I get enough of a true taste of the possible quality of SACD on this PS3 Fat before I consider investing in a dedicated SACD player?

 

I am not sure but you can pick up some pretty high quality SACD(universal) players for little $$$.

 

A used Denon 3910, 3930, 5910 or even the 2910 and 2930 will give you a nice taste of SACD playback.

 

There is a 2910 on Audiogon for $199.00.

 

Bill

[Chris A]

I am not sure but you can pick up some pretty high quality SACD(universal) players for little $$$.

Could you define what makes a "high quality SACD player"?

[willland]

 

I am not sure but you can pick up some pretty high quality SACD(universal) players for little $$$.

Could you define what makes a "high quality SACD player"?

Good point.

Sturdy transport, quality DACs, good build quality, reliability, maybe?

Bill

[Rhetor]

Instead of buying a pre-owned player, is there some deficiency of note using the SACD capable PS3 Fat coupled with the Denon 4311 and its strong internal DAC processing?

[tromprof]

What turned me off SACD was I had a TOTL Sony ES series DVD player that would play SACDs (can't remember the model number). So I bought a few to try it out and they didn't sound as good as my CD player running through my DAC. If I had been willing to spring for a dediated SACD player, which was $1000 at the time, I am sure it would have sounded better, but the DVD player was certainly not cheap. I came away  bad feelings toward Sony. On a TOTL unit they got cheap and put an inferior DAC in it? It couldn't sound better than a CD played through a cheap CD player and a Cambridge Audio DacMagic? So basically Sony priced me out of the SACD market. Instead of pushing a new and "superior" format they made it a niche format. At this point BluRay has won the the war and I feel no desire to have to add a parallel set of equipment, that still costs more, to play a format that seems all but dead.

Edited October 10, 2014 by tromprof

[Chris A]

 

I am not sure but you can pick up some pretty high quality SACD(universal) players for little $$$.

Could you define what makes a "high quality SACD player"?

Good point.

Sturdy transport, quality DACs, good build quality, reliability, maybe?

Bill

 

 

Okay, so if I'm using HDMI (i.e., not using analog outputs from the SACD player), then the answer is:  sturdy, build quality, and reliability? 

 

But there is no difference in sound quality between an Emerson and a $4K(US) disc player--right (HDMI out only)?  Bits are bits, right?

[Chris A]

I'm not trying to put words into anyone's mouth, but only to point out that while you're in the digital domain, about the only thing that matters is that the digital words go down the HDMI digital bus, after being read and checked via parity bits off the disc (CD, SACD, DVD-A, DVD-V, BD), fairly consistently, i.e., with relatively low transmission jitter so the the HDMI bus can handle any inaccuracies so that words are not dropped on the other end of the digital bus, so that they can be read and placed into a FIFO buffer on the other end of the bus in your external DAC or digital-front-end preamp.  No other factors relating to sound quality really matter.

 

Now, the quality of the DAC and its incoming clock (with errors measured in picoseconds) is of some interest but if the data is arriving from the player and filling up the FIFO buffer relatively consistently, then no audible differences will be heard (...an assertion...).

 

Putting a lot of money into a digital disc reader only makes sense if you're using the player as a DAC/preamp, too. 

 

Otherwise, the place to put your money is in your DACs - wherever they are located, and in the stability of the clock feeding the DAC.  And very good DACs can be had for not a great deal of money nowadays.

Edited October 10, 2014 by Chris A

[willland]

I'm not trying to put words into anyone's mouth, but only to point out that while you're in the digital domain, about the only thing that matters is that the digital words go down the HDMI digital bus, after being read and checked via parity bits off the disc (CD, SACD, DVD-A, DVD-V, BD), fairly consistently, i.e., with relatively low transmission jitter so the the HDMI bus can handle any inaccuracies so that words are not dropped on the other end of the digital bus, so that they can be read and placed into a FIFO buffer on the other end of the bus in your external DAC or digital-front-end preamp.  No other factors relating to sound quality really matter.

 

Now, the quality of the DAC and its incoming clock (with errors measured in picoseconds) is of some interest but if the data is arriving from the player and filling up the FIFO buffer relatively consistently, then no audible differences will be heard (...an assertion...).

 

Putting a lot of money into a digital disc reader only makes sense if you're using the player as a DAC/preamp, too. 

 

Otherwise, the place to put your money is in your DACs - wherever they are located, and in the stability of the clock feeding the DAC.  And very good DACs can be had for not a great deal of money nowadays.

Now that was a mouth full.  

What you say sounds logical to me.  

Bill

Edited October 10, 2014 by willland

[psg]

Picking the first track, defining dynamic range as peak minus rms average:

 

SACD 11.88 dB

SACD CD hydid layer: 9.4 dB

1985 CD version: 21.96 dB

 

No contest... 1985 CD version is much better.  I wonder why the SACD is so bad! Peaking at 0 dB is a good thing in that the noise floor is decreased as much as possible.

 

I don't know how http://www.dynamicrange.de define dynamic range but the script  http://dr14tmeter.scienceontheweb.net returns 20 for my CD track of the same (likely 1985 version as well)

 

 

Interesting.  Based on the below, I would suggest that the best mastering exists on the SACD DSF files

 

Secondly, the 2.0 from the SACD, though there has obviously been some sort of manipulation such that the peak on all tracks is exactly the same at -0.1

 

The worst mastering exists on your 1985 CD, with several tracks peaking at 0

Analyzed: Dire Straits / Brothers In Arms (20th Anniversary Edition) [sACD]
DR         Peak         RMS     Duration Track

DR10      -3.70 dB   -15.58 dB      5:13 01-So Far Away
Analyzed: Dire Straits / Brothers In Arms (20th Anniversary Edition - SACD CD LAYER)
DR8       -0.10 dB    -9.50 dB      5:12 01-So Far Away

Here are the numbers from the 1985 CD version:

DR20       0.00 dB   -21.95 dB      5:13 01-So Far Away
 

 

[Marvel]

reference_head, on 09 Oct 2014 - 9:44 PM, said: Imo the dire straits sacd is worlds better than the cd. I can agree somewhat. Not that the SACD of Brothers in Arms is not fantastic, but the earlier pressings of the CD are great recordings in their own right.

The original studio work was done on a Sony DASH recorder, which really just shows how nice a job they did on the engineering and mastering. According to the wiki on the album, one of the first to use the Sony 24 tracks.

 

Brothers in Arms was one of the first albums to be recorded on a Sony 24-track digital tape machine. The decision to move to digital recording came from Knopfler's constant striving for better sound quality. "One of the things that I totally respected about him," Dorfsman observed, "was his interest in technology as a means of improving his music. He was always willing to spend on high-quality equipment."

 

I'm not sure of the benefit of going to SACD for it.

 

Bruce

[Chris A]

I don't know how http://www.dynamicrange.de define dynamic range

Basically, the DR Meter calculates the arithmetic average dBFS of each track, then stores the second-highest dBFS value for the track. 

 

It forms a ratio (actually a crest factor) using those two values, and is reported in dBFS.

[muel]

I'm wondering if the accuracy of the DR Meter is affected at all by the .DSF files?  

I noticed the PCM Samplerate ...  I wouldn't think it would affect anything but I don't know enough about how it works.

 

" Number of tracks:  9

Official DR value: DR9

Samplerate:        2822400 Hz / PCM Samplerate: 44100 Hz
Channels:          2
Bits per sample:   24
Bitrate:           5645 kbps
Codec:             DSD64"

[muel]

Also, it is no surprise that the CD layer of a hybrid SACD would purposefully be made to sound worse so that the SACD layer can sound that much better. 

I can imagine a demonstration where they would brag, "Listen to how much better the SACD version sounds!"

[Schu]

I'm not trying to put words into anyone's mouth, but only to point out that while you're in the digital domain, about the only thing that matters is that the digital words go down the HDMI digital bus, after being read and checked via parity bits off the disc (CD, SACD, DVD-A, DVD-V, BD), fairly consistently, i.e., with relatively low transmission jitter so the the HDMI bus can handle any inaccuracies so that words are not dropped on the other end of the digital bus, so that they can be read and placed into a FIFO buffer on the other end of the bus in your external DAC or digital-front-end preamp.  No other factors relating to sound quality really matter.

 

Now, the quality of the DAC and its incoming clock (with errors measured in picoseconds) is of some interest but if the data is arriving from the player and filling up the FIFO buffer relatively consistently, then no audible differences will be heard (...an assertion...).

 

Putting a lot of money into a digital disc reader only makes sense if you're using the player as a DAC/preamp, too. 

 

Otherwise, the place to put your money is in your DACs - wherever they are located, and in the stability of the clock feeding the DAC.  And very good DACs can be had for not a great deal of money nowadays.

 

 

Picoseconds used to be the measure of Jitter(Probably still is for a majority of good DAC's)... but now we're into Femtoseconds - 1/1000 picosecond.

 

not that it's probably audible, but every little bit helps.

 

if I were not able to get a picosecond DAC capable below say 5 picoseconds, I would probably just not get a stand alone DAC until I could afford one.

 

Bel Canto's 3.5 DAC is about 2-3 picoseconds and has an external power source, but Wyred's SE DSD/DAC is a Femto unit for much less money. If I hadn't just dropped a bunch of money on an ANALOG front end, I would have probably tried Wyred's SE DSD/DAC... I still might.

Edited October 10, 2014 by Schu