Is SACD that good?

[gerbache]

Now there's a topic I'll agree with that rather scares me. I see the music industry moving away from physical media altogether. While this doesn't necessarily mean a negative in terms of sound quality, the collector in me really hates it. I rather enjoy putting on a good album, regardless of the format, and flipping through the liner notes/album cover. Plus there's just something satisfying about walking into your music room and seeing a few hundred albums. Sadly, it seems that I'm in the minority in terms of the general population with this view, though.

[arj]

SACD is still in its INfancy..in fact entry level SACD players are t often bested by good CDPs..which proves that we are still not getting the best out of the Redbook players !

Players from Electrocompaniet, Musical fidelity, Audio note etc certainly give a very smooth feel to Music.

We are still quite far away from getting Good entry level SACD titles...agreed that it has potential..but may not make sense to invest untill it proves by selling. Infact after CD's it is Vinyl that sells and the numbers os SACD discs claimed by Philips needs to be taken with a Pinch opf Salt since many of them are Hybrid discs being bought by folks to play on Redbook CDP's !!

[arj]

Regarding future of Formats...one very interesting trend are Hard Disk transports with Digital outs...ie you buy *any* disc format...Rip in into a High Bitrate uncompressed format into a Hard disk and use a DAC to interface with your Amp.

the way cthe cost of Storage space is falling, terrabyte HDD Transports with digital outs would be quit economical. than all you need is a Ripper to convert Any format to any format and play as a Jukebox with all problems like Jitter, Vibration etc playing a *Much* lower role !!

Me...i wam Very happy with Redbook..could not notice that great a difference with SACD to actually buy a player as well as new remastered titles (So very few...especially of groups one would want to own)

iIl wait and see...and enjoy the music in the meantime

[LarryC]

----------------

On 3/23/2004 10:32:03 AM arj wrote:

...i am Very happy with Redbook..could not notice that great a difference with SACD to actually buy a player as well as new remastered titles (So very few...especially of groups one would want to own)

----------------

The few SACDs I've bought have not sounded good on my non-SACD CD player. Instrumental balances shifted around in odd ways and some instruments had a vague, unclear sound. I guess this is because my player played the "CD" layer: two of those SACDs sounded much better on a friend's SACD player set to play the SACD layer -- but had the same poor sound when he set it to play the CD layer.

Am I correct in inferring that a regular CD player may not bring out the best quality in some SACD's? I myself am not buying any more SACDs because of this.

Larry

[Parrot]

----------------

On 3/23/2004 10:33:39 AM mdeneen wrote:

Another angle not exploited yet is the video+music angle.

----------------

I consider them as two distinctly different things. I could, and have, listened to favorite recordings hundreds of times each. But I sure wouldn't want to *watch* a performance more than once.

[Griffinator]

----------------

On 3/23/2004 1:29:13 AM gerbache wrote:

A quick search on the TI (Burr-Brown) website shows that all of their current production 24-bit ADC chips use a delta-sigma architecture. Considering that Burr-Brown chips are highly touted by many a manufacturer, I would think they'd at least be pretty close to the cutting edge, so it appears that someone is using delta-sigma still.

For reference, this is the website I checked:

http://focus.ti.com/docs/search/vparamsearch.jhtml?searchId=25822&familyId=390&tfsection=param_table&templateId=4&showAssociated=false

It may be that there are better ways of encoding PCM audio than delta-sigma, but this doesn't mean that delta-sigma is a bad technology in itself. After checking the other bit rates of their chips, they are using different technologies for rates other than 24 bits, but there still appear to be delta-sigma chips in all of them, so I think it's safe to say that this technology is still alive and well.

----------------

You're missing the point. Take a read here. http://www.analogzone.com/acqt0310.pdf

The delta-sigma modulator by itself is a terrible converter device. It was only the advent of oversampling and noise shaping that made it feasable for use as a quality audio device.

DSD is a de-evolution of the process. They declare that by reverting to the single-bit setup, but using an incredibly fast (2.8Mhz) sample rate, that they will somehow produce a better final signal. Even Sony's published data is misleading - http://www.proav.de/data/DSD.html

From the article:

The main problem with standard PCM technology is that it requires brick wall filters to block frequencies above 20kHz...

Absolutely incorrect. The brickwall filters Sony refers to here are strictly for the redbook CD specification, not DVD. 24/96 DVD spec does not engage these filters until well up into the 40Khz range, with much more gentle sloping, which reduces the impact on the actual signal.

When the CD format was created in the early 80's, digital technology was at the beginning and the format was forever frozen at 16bit/44kHz. Uncritical listeners don't notice any of the problems but certain people and most music producers do. Especially the low-level performance of PCM technology, the last 20 or 30 dB, of 16 bit, 44.1 kHz digital audio is more or less unusable for music reproduction.

Once again, Sony would love for you to believe that DVD's are no better than CD's, so they focus on the limitations of CD, without bothering to tell you that DVD is a marked improvement.

DSD systems only consider the change in amplitude from sample to sample 2.8 million times per second. Thus, they can record the signal in any number of relative steps rather than having to determine which of a fixed number of amplitude values best describes the signal at any given sample point.

This is where the inconsistencies start showing up. DSD is still subject to implementing oversampling in order to accomplish its feat, which means that it's really not a true 1-bit process. The high samplerate is supposed to compensate for the lack of noise shaping, but there is still the matter of inaccurate sampling. DSD can only describe the amplitude of a given waveform in terms of +/- up to 6dB from the last waveform. 24 bit PCM, on the other hand, is capable of describing the same waveform with individual word lengths anywhere within a 144dB range. You tell me - is the relativity (and non-linearity) of DSD a superior alternative?

More deception:

Such a high sample rate allows the system to record frequencies far beyond the scope of human hearing. The result is a frequency response of up to 100kHz and a dynamic range greater than 120 dB.

First off, Sony's own specifications for SACD demand a brickwall filter at 50Khz. So much for DSD not needing them, and so much for that 100Khz frequency response.

Oh - and by the way - they just verified my declaration about dynamic range. 24 bit PCM (DVD-V and DVD-A spec) is capable of 144dB dynamic range. DSD is capable of a mere 120dB.

Despite the connection between SACD and DSD, DSD is an independent format that can be used without the SACD itself. There are already some DSD recorders (stereo and multitrack) on the market and it seems that it will become the best choice for top-quality audio recordings.

Now here's the dirt. I was, about this time last year, looking into purchasing DSD AD converters for my studio, so I could produce SACD masters.

I talked with George Massenburg over on his forum about DSD and the feasability of converting DSD to PCM for non-SACD applications.

He and several others on that forum echoed the same sentiment: Such a conversion would be disastrous, because the DSD signal is a noisy, non-linear one to begin with. A better choice would be to record high-resolution PCM (in the order of 24/192 or above) and convert to DSD should you choose to produce SACD masters.

Now why would people who are directly involved in the technology (George has a large number of hi-res multichannel productions to his credit, in both SACD and DVD-A) say something like that if it wasn't true? Does he have a vendetta against Sony/Phillips? Highly doubt it. He owns several top-shelf Sony digital consoles.

Final point? When Sony has to pit SACD against CD, not DVD, to demonstrate its superiority, there's a problem. When they feel compelled to distort both their own specifications and those of PCM in order to reinforce that superiority, something is rotten in Denmark.

How's that for a rational response from a rational person, Minn?

[minn_male42]

griff...

thanks for the info....

still .... one thing puzzles me..... if the technology is faulty.... then why do some SACD recordings sound sooooo much better than CD versions?????

have you listened to anything in the telarc SACD catalog???

[Parrot]

As I said on page one of this thread: "SACD has immense dynamic range capability, more than could ever be needed. Please show me a recording that has a greater dynamic range than it is capable of playing."

DVD-A is better because it may be capable of 144dB dynamic range instead of 120dB?--that is totally useless. It's like saying you have a car that will go 600mph.

Russ, there is nothing wrong with the DSD technology. A lot of people in the DVD-A camp just hate it. Who knows why? Griff didn't respond to that question either. Maybe because DVD-A is selling in even more pitifully small numbers than SACD is.

[Cal Blacksmith]

Help! Ok I admit it, I dropped out of the music scene in the late 70s when wife, family, making a living were more important. I have KINDA followed the tec as things came and went but reading this thread left me in an alphabet soup of confusion. I know all of you know what you were talking about and I sorta followed it but what the heck is

1 bit

pcm

sacd

Redbooks

Burr-Brown

etc.......

???? I figured out that DVD-A is the audio function of DVD but the rest of the soup has me stumped. Sorry to drag the thread down, but I am lost.

I was able to follow 1 bit HACD (hyper audio CD with a bazillion samples per second) because these initials were explained, they made some kinda sense. It is unfortunate that they are fictitious!

[Parrot]

This stuff is for real engineers to understand. The only thing that should matter to listeners is how it sounds. Whether someone likes how something sounds or not is personal preference.

[Piranha]

BINGO! Kudos Parrot.

If you think it sounds good, and you paid for it, that is all that counts.

[Griffinator]

Here. Let me lay it out like this. Read Lip****z and Vanderkooy's discussion of 1-bit modulation.

http://www.vex.net/TorontoAES/00-01/dec.html

(edit) that's rather comical, that the man's name is L i p s h i t z - and the forum censored it

[Griffinator]

----------------

On 3/23/2004 12:17:44 PM paulparrot wrote:

As I said on page one of this thread: "SACD has immense dynamic range capability, more than could ever be needed. Please show me a recording that has a greater dynamic range than it is capable of playing."

DVD-A is better because it may be capable of 144dB dynamic range instead of 120dB?--that is totally useless. It's like saying you have a car that will go 600mph.

Russ, there is nothing wrong with the DSD technology. A lot of people in the DVD-A camp just hate it. Who knows why? Griff didn't respond to that question either. Maybe because DVD-A is selling in even more pitifully small numbers than SACD is.

----------------

It's not about hating it. It's about the recording community reacting to "being sold a bill of goods"

Sony has consistently failed to demonstrate (with any validity) that 24/48 PCM is flawed to the point of needing a better system.

They are also trying to pitch a system that they claim is better, but they don't implement the reasons why.

DSD recording and editing is not performed on 1-bit data streams, but rather "DSD Wide" 4-bit streams. If it's a fixed word length multibit stream, then it's not DSD, it's PCM.

They claim they don't use filters in the A/D process. Again, a lie. They use 50Khz brickwall filters, just like the ones used in PCM.

You, the end user, don't care about it, but the resistance being offered by the recording industry is based on a fundamental lack of conclusive data to prove the superiority of the format, and therefore the need to invest massive amounts of money to convert a studio to DSD capability.

[gerbache]

----------------

On 3/23/2004 12:01:21 PM Griffinator wrote:

You're missing the point. Take a read here.

http://www.analogzone.com/acqt0310.pdf

The delta-sigma modulator by itself is a terrible converter device. It was only the advent of oversampling and noise shaping that made it feasable for use as a quality audio device.

DSD is a de-evolution of the process. They declare that by reverting to the single-bit setup, but using an incredibly fast (2.8Mhz) sample rate, that they will somehow produce a better final signal. Even Sony's published data is misleading -

http://www.proav.de/data/DSD.html

Not exactly. They're just saying that by simply using the already oversampled and noise shaped delta-sigma modulated output, they can avoid the extra decimation steps required to encode this into 24-bit PCM. I'm not missing the point that straight delta-sigma modulation is not acceptable, I'm just saying that DSD is eliminating some of the steps required. Did you look at any of the information on the TI website. Reading through the data sheet for the latest 24-bit encoder chip, they're quoting a dynamic range for -both- DSD and PCM as approx. 112 dB. This is because, while theoretically both can manage more, you cannot achieve this in the real world with current technology. This is also due to the fact that both the PCM and the DSD outputs for these chips start out life in the same way. The theory behind both technologies is solid.

From the article:

The main problem with standard PCM technology is that it requires brick wall filters to block frequencies above 20kHz...

Absolutely incorrect. The brickwall filters Sony refers to here are strictly for the redbook CD specification, not DVD. 24/96 DVD spec does not engage these filters until well up into the 40Khz range, with much more gentle sloping, which reduces the impact on the actual signal.

This site isn't hosted by Sony, nor does it say that they wrote it anywhere that I am seeing. Even if Sony had something to do with it, we all know that this sort of thing is written by people in marketing, most of whom are trying to find the most impressive way to say things to people who do not know the technical specifics. I'm well aware of the fact that DVD spec audio doesn't require the same brick wall filters, but for that matter, neither does DSD.

DSD systems only consider the change in amplitude from sample to sample 2.8 million times per second. Thus, they can record the signal in any number of relative steps rather than having to determine which of a fixed number of amplitude values best describes the signal at any given sample point.

This is where the inconsistencies start showing up. DSD is still subject to implementing oversampling in order to accomplish its feat, which means that it's really not a true 1-bit process. The high samplerate is supposed to compensate for the lack of noise shaping, but there is still the matter of inaccurate sampling. DSD can only describe the amplitude of a given waveform in terms of +/- up to 6dB from the last waveform. 24 bit PCM, on the other hand, is capable of describing the same waveform with individual word lengths anywhere within a 144dB range. You tell me - is the relativity (and non-linearity) of DSD a superior alternative?

That 24-bit PCM started out its life from the exact same place as a DSD source. In many chips, both are subjected to similar noise reduction methods until they do the final conversion to the output. Plus, you aren't going to get a true 144 dB range. The best analog electronics cannot approach a true 144 dB range, so the effective range is all that we care about, and from the data sheets on the chips I've looked at, both DSD and PCM are achieving the SAME effective range.

More deception:

Such a high sample rate allows the system to record frequencies far beyond the scope of human hearing. The result is a frequency response of up to 100kHz and a dynamic range greater than 120 dB.

First off, Sony's own specifications for SACD demand a brickwall filter at 50Khz. So much for DSD not needing them, and so much for that 100Khz frequency response.

Oh - and by the way - they just verified my declaration about dynamic range. 24 bit PCM (DVD-V and DVD-A spec) is capable of 144dB dynamic range. DSD is capable of a mere 120dB.

Well, going pedantic here, even if Sony calls for a brickwall filter at 50 kHz, it's a moot point when comparing it to 24/96 PCM, because at a rate of 96 kHz, the PCM will ALSO require a brickwall filter at 48 kHz. As for the dynamic range, I addressed that above, and the fact of the matter is that you will not see an effective dynamic range of much over 112 dB in typical use anyway because of the limits of the analog electronics.

Despite the connection between SACD and DSD, DSD is an independent format that can be used without the SACD itself. There are already some DSD recorders (stereo and multitrack) on the market and it seems that it will become the best choice for top-quality audio recordings.

Now here's the dirt. I was, about this time last year, looking into purchasing DSD AD converters for my studio, so I could produce SACD masters.

I talked with George Massenburg over on his forum about DSD and the feasability of converting DSD to PCM for non-SACD applications.

He and several others on that forum echoed the same sentiment:

Such a conversion would be disastrous, because the DSD signal is a noisy, non-linear one to begin with. A better choice would be to record high-resolution PCM (in the order of 24/192 or above) and convert to DSD should you choose to produce SACD masters.

Now why would people who are directly involved in the technology (George has a large number of hi-res multichannel productions to his credit, in both SACD and DVD-A) say something like that if it wasn't true? Does he have a vendetta against Sony/Phillips? Highly doubt it. He owns several top-shelf Sony digital consoles.

There's plenty of other engineers and studios who -do- like DSD, so I think finding specific examples on either side is a waste of our time. Really, I think both technologies are sufficient for our current state of the art in sound reproduction.

Final point? When Sony has to pit SACD against CD, not DVD, to demonstrate its superiority, there's a problem. When they feel compelled to distort both their own specifications and those of PCM in order to reinforce that superiority,

something is rotten in Denmark

.

Sony is comparing SACD against CD because that's the current leading format. I haven't seen -them- distort their specifications any more than you've distorted the specs of PCM. Both camps are trying to make themselves look as good as possible. Besides, I'm pulling data sheets, which are largely written by engineers for engineers. I really don't think you can say that TI is distorting the specs on these chips, but right now, BOTH DSD and PCM are achieving almost identical specs out of them. I think the real message this sends is that both technologies are fine, and the real war will not be over the technical features, but rather the marketing successes of all the parties involved.

Let me just say, to clarify once more, I'm not trying to say that DSD is superior to DVD spec PCM. I'm simply trying to refute the statement that it is an inherantly inferior technology. Implemented properly, BOTH can be successful, in my opinion.

[Griffinator]

----------------

On 3/23/2004 12:17:44 PM paulparrot wrote:

DVD-A is better because it may be capable of 144dB dynamic range instead of 120dB?--that is totally useless. It's like saying you have a car that will go 600mph.

----------------

Fine.

DVD-A is better because it uses multibit delta-sigma modulators that are capable of employing dithering and optional noise shaping to remove digitization artifacts from the stream. A true 1-bit delta-sigma cannot employ such technology - how exactly do you dither one bit? You can't.

That's why I stated that "1-bit delta-sigma sucks" Not that d-s converters are a bad technology, but rather that single-bit d-s converters are a bad technology. No one, not Burr-Brown, not anyone, uses 1-bit converters anymore. It's oversampling and dithering, both of which have made a positive, not negative, contribution to the fidelity of digital audio. For Sony to declare that these functions are a bad thing? I guess they're hoping we've all forgotten how utterly bad the first CD players sounded.

[gerbache]

Now attacking the DSD technology on the basis of financial motive to change the studios over, that I can agree with. The first few posts you made about the technology had nothing about the business aspects, but were attacking the technology. The technology itself is fine. I'm still inclined to believe that DSD may be a superior technology in the long run, simply because it theoretically can involve less conversions in the digital domain. That being said, I can't argue that right now, there may not be much motive for the studios to convert their equipment from PCM to DSD. This does not mean that the technology is inherently flawed, though. It simply means that there is not enough motivation at this present moment to warrant the conversion.

[gerbache]

----------------

On 3/23/2004 1:38:06 PM Griffinator wrote:

Fine.

DVD-A is better because it uses multibit delta-sigma modulators that are capable of employing dithering and optional noise shaping to remove digitization artifacts from the stream. A true 1-bit delta-sigma cannot employ such technology - how exactly do you dither one bit? You

can't

.

That's why I stated that "1-bit delta-sigma sucks" Not that d-s converters are a bad technology, but rather that single-bit d-s converters are a bad technology. No one, not Burr-Brown, not anyone, uses 1-bit converters anymore. It's oversampling and dithering, both of which have made a

positive

, not negative, contribution to the fidelity of digital audio. For Sony to declare that these functions are a bad thing? I guess they're hoping we've all forgotten how utterly bad the first CD players sounded.

----------------

I haven't heard Sony declare these things bad. They're still doing plenty of noise shaping and such on the DSD signals. DSD doesn't just involve a straight 1-bit delta-sigma modulation. Sure, the final result of the whole deal is down to a 1-bit message, but there's a lot more to the technology than just a simple delta-sigma modulator...

[Parrot]

Lip****z and Vanderkooy always get a big laugh over at Audio Asylum/SACD.

Of course the studio people who think in terms of PCM and lots of editing and processing are going to rationalize about why they shouldn't retool. Especially if they don't want to, or can't afford to, lay out the money.

[Griffinator]

----------------

On 3/23/2004 1:36:28 PM gerbache wrote:

Not exactly. They're just saying that by simply using the already oversampled and noise shaped delta-sigma modulated output, they can avoid the extra decimation steps required to encode this into 24-bit PCM. I'm not missing the point that straight delta-sigma modulation is not acceptable, I'm just saying that DSD is eliminating some of the steps required. Did you look at any of the information on the TI website. Reading through the data sheet for the latest 24-bit encoder chip, they're quoting a dynamic range for -both- DSD and PCM as approx. 112 dB. This is because, while theoretically both can manage more, you cannot achieve this in the real world with current technology. This is also due to the fact that both the PCM and the DSD outputs for these chips start out life in the same way. The theory behind both technologies is solid.

-----------------

Which comes back to my point about why recording people are resisting the format. There's no proof that it's better than PCM, so why spend $500,000 outfitting my studio with equipment to make recordings that are no better than the ones I'm making now on 24/192 systems?

------------------

This site isn't hosted by Sony, nor does it say that they wrote it anywhere that I am seeing. Even if Sony had something to do with it, we all know that this sort of thing is written by people in marketing, most of whom are trying to find the most impressive way to say things to people who do not know the technical specifics. I'm well aware of the fact that DVD spec audio doesn't require the same brick wall filters, but for that matter, neither does DSD.

-------------------

It's actually lifted directly from Sony's website by the folks who host it. Sony has since taken it down, primarily due to Lipsh1tz and Vanderkooy's dismantling of their technological position and their subsequent confession that, indeed, the 1-bit system isn't really one bit until it hits the consumer's playback system, and even then is manipulated by analog filter systems.

--------------------

That 24-bit PCM started out its life from the exact same place as a DSD source. In many chips, both are subjected to similar noise reduction methods until they do the final conversion to the output. Plus, you aren't going to get a true 144 dB range. The best analog electronics cannot approach a true 144 dB range, so the effective range is all that we care about, and from the data sheets on the chips I've looked at, both DSD and PCM are achieving the SAME effective range.

--------------------

Only if the DSD starts out in a multibit oversampled converter. Sony's original claim was that it did not. I merely exposed the claim for the fraud that it was. DSD is not different from PCM, it is precisely the same technology, just a different bit depth and sample rate.

---------------------

Well, going pedantic here, even if Sony calls for a brickwall filter at 50 kHz, it's a moot point when comparing it to 24/96 PCM, because at a rate of 96 kHz, the PCM will ALSO require a brickwall filter at 48 kHz. As for the dynamic range, I addressed that above, and the fact of the matter is that you will not see an effective dynamic range of much over 112 dB in typical use anyway because of the limits of the analog electronics.

----------------------

And you come right back to my point. The best Sony has done so far is demonstrate that DSD is the same as 24 bit PCM, not superior.

----------------------

There's plenty of other engineers and studios who -do- like DSD, so I think finding specific examples on either side is a waste of our time. Really, I think both technologies are sufficient for our current state of the art in sound reproduction.

----------------------

See above.

-----------------------

Sony is comparing SACD against CD because that's the current leading format. I haven't seen -them- distort their specifications any more than you've distorted the specs of PCM. Both camps are trying to make themselves look as good as possible. Besides, I'm pulling data sheets, which are largely written by engineers for engineers. I really don't think you can say that TI is distorting the specs on these chips, but right now, BOTH DSD and PCM are achieving almost identical specs out of them. I think the real message this sends is that both technologies are fine, and the real war will not be over the technical features, but rather the marketing successes of all the parties involved.

------------------------

Again, the engineers who work with high-rez PCM are reacting to a misconception being promoted by Sony. Sony is trying to convince everyone that DSD is better than PCM, when in all reality SACD is only better than CD, and is no better or worse than 24/xxx PCM.

-------------------------

Let me just say, to clarify once more, I'm not trying to say that DSD is superior to DVD spec PCM. I'm simply trying to refute the statement that it is an inherantly inferior technology. Implemented properly, BOTH can be successful, in my opinion.

-------------------------

No argument here. DSD is doomed, however, if they cannot prove that DSD is superior, because the recording industry will not buy equipment unless someone can prove to them that the equipment is superior to what they already have. It's about momentum. Sony wants everyone to believe that DSD is better, but they don't have anything to back the assertion. That's why I keep saying it's a sham.

[Griffinator]

----------------

On 3/23/2004 1:42:23 PM gerbache wrote:

Now attacking the DSD technology on the basis of financial motive to change the studios over, that I can agree with. The first few posts you made about the technology had nothing about the business aspects, but were attacking the technology. The technology itself is fine. I'm still inclined to believe that DSD may be a superior technology in the long run, simply because it theoretically can involve less conversions in the digital domain. That being said, I can't argue that right now, there may not be much motive for the studios to convert their equipment from PCM to DSD. This does not mean that the technology is inherently flawed, though. It simply means that there is not enough motivation at this present moment to warrant the conversion.

----------------

The technology, as presented by Sony to the public in their data sheets, is flawed. When finally called out on it, they admitted that what they present to the public is not actually how it works - we were being sold a bill of goods. That's been my constant complaint.