SACD - what went wrong?

[ClaudeJ1]

I also wonder why so many "old guys" (a demographic that I'd be lumped into if I behaved like a typical "audiophile") continue to dilute their investment into separate two-channel and HT systems because if they consolidated, they'd have really killer rigs like some of the younger folks do now. 

 

I have never had separate 2 channel and 5-6-7.1 1 systems. When I went to HT with Klipsch Heritage and beyond, the only thing I gave up was the mono phantom center channel which I had running for 30 years as championed by PWK himself. He was almost "foaming at the mouth" adamant about the "dilute stereo" of commercial recordings and STRICTLY listened to his own, collection of symphonies, recorded with twin spaced omni microphones. I never asked him which brand, but he was clear about his simple technique.

I did notice two additional Rosewood Khorns at PWK's widow's new home, in addition to the original Walnut K's and Belle I heard, so it's possibe he was playing around with 5.1 before he died, I don't know for sure, but I seriously doubt it.

[ClaudeJ1]

My present "downsized" configuration is 6.1 simply because there is absolutely no difference between that and 7.1, and is barely an improvement over 5.1, since almost all source material is still 5.1 and the rears are synthesized from the rest of the signals anyhow.

 

The beauty of the OPPO-83 Special Edition is the stacked 32-bit Sabre DACs in the 2 channel out section. With a single button on my Onkyo, I can switch from Blue Ray 6.1 to CD 2.1 for stereo and maintain the use of "bottomless bass" from my DTS-10's for music, thereby switching off the sides and rear. You would all be amazed at how much subsonic and infra sonic content there is in music nowadays, even though very few producers and engineers ever took full advantage of the redbook CD's 4 Hz. response. I'll bet that those that have subs that roll off below 25 Hz (according to THX theater specs) are missing a whole other OCTAVE below that, which is seldom ever experienced in lesser setups.

 

I know I was quite suprised to discover this.

[Schu]

I can never see myself going to more than 5.1 to be honest.

[Chris A]

On 10/10/2014 at 2:05 PM, Schu said:

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.

 

Okay, there are two effects from jitter:  bus jitter (i.e., HDMI, S/PDIF, etc.) and DAC clock jitter

 

Using HDMI, which has a buffer for the audio channel(s), DAC jitter is typically very low but it results in FM distortion (FMD), while bus jitter can result in the effective loss of accurate transmission of digital words--if the bus clock jitter excessive (something that is typically not experienced). But bus jitter does not result in FMD. 

 

A quote from a technical paper:

 

Quote

Sampling Jitter

[The term sampling jitter is applied to the variation in the timing an audio signal through jitter in an analog to digital (ADC), digital to analog (DAC), or asynchronous sample rate converter (ASRC). In the former two cases this can often be associated with an observable clock signal but in an ASRC it may be a totally numerical process as the samples of a signal are regenerated to correspond with sampling instants.

Jitter will only affect the audio signal contents when it is being sampled or re-sampled. This occurs when a signal is passing from the continuous time domain to the sampled-signal domain in an ADC, from the sampled-signal domain to the continuous time domain in a DAC, or while remaining in the sampled-signal domain but with the sampling intervals re-determined such as in the ASRC.

 

The effect of sampling jitter is to modulate the signal being sampled. This modulation causes unwanted modulation products to be produced. This may produce an undesirable change - particularly if the products may be perceived as making an audible difference. In some cases the signal with jitter is preferred but as the effect is often uncontrolled it is generally felt to be undesirable. The amplitude of the jitter modulation products is proportional to the amplitude of the jitter (where jitter is defined according to the previous section), and the rate of change of the signal that is being affected by the jitter. For an audio tone of frequency f and sinusoidal jitter of peak amplitude J the modulation sidebands produced are at a relative level (with respect to the audio tone) of 20 log(πfJ), derived in [7].

 

For example with sinusoidal jitter of 10ns RMS (14ns peak) on a 1kHz tone the level of each sideband will be -87dB. The same jitter on a 10kHz tone will be at -67dB with respect to the tone.  Of course real jitter and signals are not sinusoidal. However accurately, this illustrates the magnitudes of the effect.

It should be noted that some delta-sigma converters with high levels of ultrasonic noise crossing between the sampled-signal and continuous-time domains have the problem that jitter modulation of the ultrasonic noise causes the audio band noise floor to be raised. However most integrated converters of this type filter out the ultrasonic noise using switched capacitor filters in the sampled domain to avoid this.

 

Sampling Jitter Audibility

A recent paper describes practical research that found the lowest jitter level at which the jitter made a noticeable difference to be about 10ns RMS . This was with a high level test sine tone at 17kHz. With music none of their subjects found jitter below 20ns RMS to be audible.

 

The author developed a model for jitter audibility based on worst case audio single tone signals and including the effects of masking. This concluded: “Masking theory suggests that the maximum amount of jitter that will not produce an audible effect is dependent on the jitter spectrum. At low frequencies this level is greater than 100ns, with a sharp cut-off above 100Hz to a lower limit of approximately 1ns (peak) at 500Hz falling above this frequency at 6dB per octave to approximately 10ps (peak) at 24 kHz for systems where the audio signal is 120dB above the threshold of hearing.”

 

In the view of the more recent research cited above this may be considered to be over cautious. However the indication that jitter below 100Hz is more than 40dB less audible than jitter above 500Hz is useful when determining the properties of jitter attenuation devices.

 

Acceptable Levels Of Sampling Jitter

The market for higher quality audio equipment and the association of very low levels of jitter with audio quality appears to require devices to try to have sampling jitter level commensurate with producing modulation products below the levels corresponding with the quantization noise of the system. Audibility criteria may not be an issue in the marketplace. For this reason sampling jitter levels that may be derived from the interface may need to approach lower levels than 10ns.

 

For example it may be important that devices can have a full scale total harmonic distortion and noise (THD+N) performance of at least 100dB. This would imply sampling jitter levels of below 1.6ns RMS (for a conventional 1kHz tone stimulus)

 

Here is a measurement of a lower-level model of A/V receiver than my preamp/processor that I currently own that uses noticeably lower quality DACs and clock chips.  Looking at its measured FM distortion due to DAC clock jitter:

 

 

Even for these lower quality DACs and clock chips, the measured FMD sidebands are less than -100 dBFS.  I'm okay with that...and I don't have to spend any more bucks driving that any lower. Clock jitter only affects audio quality during analog-to-digital or digital-analog conversion, but not during digital transmission or digital processing, which is buffered.

 

However, many folks here are seeing FMD and AMD spikes out of their loudspeakers in the -20 to -30 dB range due to the use of direct radiating woofers in vented and closed-box cabinets.  I'd recommend paying a lot more attention to that by going fully horn-loaded than worrying about clock jitter on DAC conversion--because of these test results.

 

On the subject of AMD and FMD in phonograph needles/cartridges - which is orders of magnitude higher in FMD and AMD, the picture is much less attractive, e.g.,

 

 

 

 

Chris

[Quiet_Hollow]

He was almost "foaming at the mouth" adamant about the "dilute stereo" of commercial recordings and STRICTLY listened to his own, collection of symphonies, recorded with twin spaced omni microphones.

+1     30 degree arc has been the norm for decades.  Fine for HT where the L & R channels are anchored to the flanks of the screen (driven by viewing distance), but weak sauce for those of us with ultra-wide capability in 2 channel.

[Quiet_Hollow]

I can never see myself going to more than 5.1 to be honest.

Same here. 

[Mallette]

Lots of discussion of various players merits and whatever here.  The main point about SACD is the DSD format.  Like any format, it will sound like the player its played on.  Crappy TT makes analog sound crappy.  Crappy CD players make Redbook sound crappy, and crappy SACD players will make DSD sound crappy.  Of course, the same is true for other items in any sound chain.

 

Point is, it's about the FORMAT first. 

 

Also some comments about how many speakers are enough for surround.  A couple of years ago I fantasized (though based on science as I understand it) about using metatagging in the files to place sounds in precise locations for over a hundred speakers.  I read recently that a new DTS or Dolby format (can't recall which) will do just that with 64 speakers.  As I'd postulated, when there are less speakers the system will send the sound to the one nearest the accurate location right down to stereo.  So, use as few or as many as you like...

 

Should make for some really COOL movie soundtracks and studio music, but I've my doubts about it's application to acoustic music unless some sophisticated computing is done to take the sound from 4 mikes (which I believe to be ideal for acoustic surround as two mike is for acoustic stereo) and place the metadata.  I suppose it's possible but I fear they'll just use a whole flock of microphones which rarely make for a satisfying acoustic experience.

 

Dave

[Thaddeus Smith]

 

Which brings up another closely related question: when will the HT marketplace realize that they are acquiring really killer music reproduction systems--better than anything I typically experienced in the midst of the two-channel epoch (~1960s to ~1990s until higher quality multichannel music started coming out on digital discs)...and start buying high quality multichannel music discs and downloads in greater quantities?

 

I also wonder why so many "old guys" (a demographic that I'd be lumped into if I behaved like a typical "audiophile") continue to dilute their investment into separate two-channel and HT systems because if they consolidated, they'd have really killer rigs like some of the younger folks do now. 

 

 

paragraph 1 is answered by paragraph 2. there are countless threads from paragraph 1's demographic seeking advice on how to make their singular setup perform both functions well, only to be squashed by the snobby paragraph 2 demographic.

 

 

Completely off topic, but this quoted discussion got my gear turning.

 

I've got some bonus money coming at the end of the month and so I began day dreaming and figuring out how to branch into the paragraph two demographic, but the more I look the more I realize I'm firmly planted in the paragraph 1 demographic. Even if I don't use the video features, there's just too many great deals on refurbished flagship AVR's that are only a few years old. They're overkill from a "channel count" perspective, but then again I won't be having to share any power away from the the front two. Audyssey XT32 for help with my funky shaped room. network connectivity so that I may not even need a separate source to play from the music from my NAS, really decent quality 24/192 dac's. All in a single package.

 

and then I've got an emergency spare if my main HT AVR takes a dump.

[Chris A]

You could also look at active crossovers...

 

 

 

[Thaddeus Smith]

I have fond memories of tracking down MP3's on Napster in my youth..but FLAC is definitely where it's at. AIFF/WAV is just a waste of disk space and a pita to properly tag and manage.

[kaiser SET say]

^{It's just another format for us to spend a boatload of cash on to get right! Like Dave says, you want great vinyl playback you have to spend gobs of money to get the best out of the best recorded media and likewise for digital. Sometimes this hobby seems crazy because no matter what you spend nothing is perfect}  

[Chris A]

I re-watched The Social Network recently on Blu-Ray - since they use Red Epoch digital cameras for that feature which presents truly beautiful low-light images on-screen.  I also watched Downloaded on Netflix.  Both were interesting stories, not something I'd get teary-eyed over, but interesting nevertheless. 

 

I always believed that "free mp3s" weren't giving the artists anything back for their trouble and were really wrong because of it, until I found out how little the artists typically get per download after the record companies take their cut.  It would've been better to set up a "shareware" licenses for their music since the artists would've gotten more from that arrangement, IMHO.

 

The real problem was and still is the record company giants.  I believe that these corporate entities have more than served their purpose, and need to pass from the corporate experience. 

 

I was also interested in the laws governing Napster and how the RIAA-member companies rode roughshod over law to get what they wanted.  In this case, the judges involved seemingly were in the pocket of the the corporate giants.  Bad stuff - really not good PR for the legal profession.

 

Chris

Edited October 10, 2014 by Chris A

[Mallette]

The real problem was and still is the record company giants.

 

I am not so sure.  I point the finger at the technology holders, such as the situation with DSD.  It's always been that way.  I wanted to experiment with high res DVD-A.  The software was affordable...except for the specific compression algorithm required for the players.  Not a bit more sophisticated than any other, but patented and sold for 2k to keep mom and pop out.

 

Kept EVERYBODY out! 

 

The good stuff is being recorded by the little guys now, but the means of distribution remain the evil empire.  I have some rather extraordinary surround recordings made with my own 4 mike, 360 mike plan.  I finally manage to figure out how to get Audigy to bind them in correct order.  But I can't figure out how to get it to send them as anything but a two channel mixdown.  Tried MediaMonkey, which is I had been told could handle multi-channel files and it did the same thing.

 

HDTT sells multi-channel files but they have no info on how to play them and don't offer any if you ask.  They said they "had some software for saving and playing them..." but leave it at that.

 

Seems to be the best kept secret in audio.  For now, I am still stuck with playing them back with my Roland recorder...but I sure wish I could find a software player that would do the right thing.  It's ridiculous.

 

Dave

 

[Heritage_Head]

 

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

 

All of his stuff has great sound. His solo stuff is even better (sound) imo. Brother and arms on sacd 5.1 is amazing work. I have not ran it in the 2ch sacd. So I'm not comparing that. 

 

But I go back to my first post and say most people don't care and thats why its failed imo. Sacd could be light years better and still be right where its at. To many people need to get paid to just sell them to a tiny group like some of us. 

[jacksonbart]

The details have been provided by some very smart posts earlier in this thread, but the SACD kind of shows what Sony is now, delivering a failed product, great in some ways, overpriced, under marketed and missing the current technology.  The last part is the inability to control a software copy as mentioned early as well. Seriously SACD was outdated back in 1998.  I mean they lost more than $2 billion this past year, yes dollars not yen.  The big picture is how they lost the display market and then spent so much money trying to get into cell phones.  They are the Japanese GM, but yet unlike in the U.S. (yes we have our problems) the Japanese Banks will never call in the loans to Sony or write them off with in bankruptcy protection for the Company to move on and default the shareholders.  Japan is still burdened by the crash in the late 90s.  Can you imagine never being able to get away from every failed relationship in your life???  The failure of the SACD is really just a small indicator of a pimple of what is going on there. 

[muel]

Perhaps I'm naïve but I can't help but think if they would just build it, people would come.  Deliver to people what they want in a form that they want and I'll bet they would get some decent profit out of it... Good sound draws you in and makes you want to listen even if they don't know or understand the details of it.  Gotta make it easy and accessible though!  Sheesh!  That ought to be simple enough to understand.

[jacksonbart]

Trying to predict where the "mass" tipping point of consumer purchase dollars needed to buy your 'product' at the price point to maximize 'revenue growth' in some realistic future model to offset your expenses to keep afloat all the while trying to reinvent your product is not easy, especially in the restaurant business.  My point was having the ability to fall down and pick yourself up and wipe yourself off is huge for a 'Sony' or 'GM'. 

Edited October 11, 2014 by jacksonbart

[oldtimer]

Can you imagine never being able to get away from every failed relationship in your life???

 

Yes yes a thousand times yes!

[oldtimer]

I have but one system for two and multi channel.  It helps to be space challenged.  It also hones your shopping for the right amp.

[muel]

Here it is... another SACD that failed in my opinion:

Pink Floyd - Dark Side of the Moon

This SACD has the same problems as Dire Straits.    A side note--- The DSOM CD that I am comparing to the SACD is the very first CD I bought back in 1985 the day I bought my first CD player.  Dire Straits - Brothers in Arms must have been the 3rd or 4th.   I'm pretty sure Led Zeppelin IV and Boston were in those first four CDs too!  Anyway, I digress...

 

I'm not saying the SACD is bad... just that the 1985 CD was better.

 

Here is the SACD data:

 

foobar2000 1.3.1 / Dynamic Range Meter 1.1.1
log date: 2014-03-26 22:27:41

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analyzed: Pink Floyd / Dark Side Of The Moon [sACD]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DR         Peak         RMS     Duration Track
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DR10     -14.59 dB   -28.17 dB      1:10 01-Speak To Me
DR10      -6.12 dB   -19.51 dB      2:49 02-Breathe
DR10      -6.23 dB   -20.97 dB      3:29 03-On The Run
DR10      -5.46 dB   -18.45 dB      7:09 04-Time
DR9       -5.52 dB   -19.80 dB      4:44 05-The Great Gig In The Sky
DR10      -3.63 dB   -16.77 dB      6:21 06-Money
DR9       -7.04 dB   -20.50 dB      7:49 07-Us And Them
DR10      -3.73 dB   -17.24 dB      3:25 08-Any Colour You Like
DR10      -5.28 dB   -20.20 dB      3:47 09-Brain Damage
DR8       -5.09 dB   -16.65 dB      2:11 10-Eclipse
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Number of tracks:  10
Official DR value: DR10

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

 

Here is the CD Layer of the SACD Hybrid:

 

foobar2000 1.3.1 / Dynamic Range Meter 1.1.1
log date: 2014-10-10 19:59:18

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analyzed: Pink Floyd / The Dark Side Of The Moon (2003 Remastered CD Layer of SACD)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DR         Peak         RMS     Duration Track
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DR10      -9.27 dB   -22.47 dB      1:08 01-Speak To Me
DR10      -0.68 dB   -13.99 dB      2:49 02-Breathe
DR10      -0.72 dB   -15.82 dB      3:51 03-On The Run
DR10      -0.63 dB   -12.73 dB      6:50 04-Time
DR9       -0.65 dB   -14.27 dB      4:44 05-The Great Gig In The Sky
DR8        0.00 dB   -11.24 dB      6:23 06-Money
DR9       -1.48 dB   -14.92 dB      7:50 07-Us And Them
DR10       0.00 dB   -11.69 dB      3:26 08-Any Colour You Like
DR10       0.00 dB   -14.64 dB      3:47 09-Brain Damage
DR8        0.00 dB   -11.15 dB      2:12 10-Eclipse
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Number of tracks:  10
Official DR value: DR9

Samplerate:        44100 Hz
Channels:          2
Bits per sample:   16
Bitrate:           773 kbps
Codec:             FLAC
================================================================================

 

My CD from 1985:

 

foobar2000 1.3.1 / Dynamic Range Meter 1.1.1
log date: 2014-10-10 19:59:49

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analyzed: Pink Floyd / Dark Side of the Moon
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DR         Peak         RMS     Duration Track
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DR11      -7.97 dB   -22.31 dB      3:57 01-Speak to Me - Breathe In the Air
DR10      -7.25 dB   -23.16 dB      3:32 02-On the Run
DR13      -3.08 dB   -19.74 dB      7:05 03-Time
DR11      -5.16 dB   -21.54 dB      4:47 04-The Great Gig in the Sky
DR12      -2.81 dB   -19.12 dB      6:24 05-Money
DR10      -7.02 dB   -22.11 dB      7:49 06-Us and Them
DR12      -5.36 dB   -19.35 dB      3:26 07-Any Colour You Like
DR11      -5.24 dB   -22.35 dB      3:50 08-Brain Damage
DR10      -4.26 dB   -18.48 dB      2:07 09-Eclipse
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Number of tracks:  9
Official DR value: DR11

Samplerate:        44100 Hz
Channels:          2
Bits per sample:   16
Bitrate:           741 kbps
Codec:             FLAC
================================================================================