Stereo-only SACD Players. What's The Point?

[KenM10759]

What's really cool to me is that this is a free country and just as people like @m. zillch can criticize/make light of other people's choices, I can spend my money the way I like and get what I want that makes me smile.

I'm sure there are plenty more people happily connecting their $10 Bluetooth earbuds to their Samsung Galaxy and streaming Spotify low res music...while scoffing at people like him.

I don't care.

 

[m. zillch]

Theoretically posting that two particular things likely sound alike is not an attack of people who post that they don't sound alike. In order to discuss audio it is necessary to discuss what things sound different and what things don't, including what existing published listening studies (conducted under valid conditions) have found with similar units.

 

[TLS Guy]

What's really cool to me is that this is a free country and just as people like @m. zillch can criticize/make light of other people's choices, I can spend my money the way I like and get what I want that makes me smile.

I'm sure there are plenty more people happily connecting their $10 Bluetooth earbuds to their Samsung Galaxy and streaming Spotify low res music...while scoffing at people like him.

I don't care.

Let me ask you a question. Do you believe that two channel DSD sounds better then two channel PCM? I think this is what all this comes down to.

 

[KenM10759]

Posting that two particular things sound alike is not an attack of people who post that they don't sound alike.

While your statement there does ring true, the premise that they sound the same doesn't always gel.

And of course now that I've written that you'll go on about double blind tests and more.

I've got a decent Sony CD player here used as a CD transport only and when I play a regular CD with it's digital signal going into my standalone DAC, and then play that exact same file that was ripped to my Bluesound Vault 2 and it's digital output goes into the same DAC the file from the Vault 2 sounds MUCH better. I was actually shocked.

I want a good player, I'll pay for it and I'll be happy with it

 

[KenM10759]

Let me ask you a question. Do you believe that two channel DSD sounds better then two channel PCM? I think this is what all this comes down to.

I couldn't tell you because I still can't even play the ONE SACD that I have.

In my music room I didn't even have any way to play a regular CD until I moved the $7 Sony SCD-CE595 played into my rack and discovered that it no longer can play SACDs...only regular CD's.

I've never even heard an SACD, it's just that a friend sent me one and I could buy more if I like them.

 

[lovinthehd]

But it does do more than just spin optical CD's (pre-amp, headphone amp, USB DAC capability). For the build and features, it really isn't awfully expensive (but it ain't cheap either).

$4k for that is expensive. Don't need an optical disc player to provide the extra functions but I suppose it might suit someone. Especially it's not a universal disc player. IMHO.

 

[lovinthehd]

What's really cool to me is that this is a free country and just as people like @m. zillch can criticize/make light of other people's choices, I can spend my money the way I like and get what I want that makes me smile.

I'm sure there are plenty more people happily connecting their $10 Bluetooth earbuds to their Samsung Galaxy and streaming Spotify low res music...while scoffing at people like him.

I don't care.

Spotify is lossless now, depending on device (my phone can do it, my tablet can't). Still, spending thousands just for a pretty case, sure, might suit you, but....

 

[KenM10759]

Spotify is lossless now, depending on device (my phone can do it, my tablet can't). Still, spending thousands just for a pretty case, sure, might suit you, but....

I'm aware of what Spotify now offers. That wasn't the point.

If you've never handled/used Luxman gear, you wouldn't understand that it's far more than just "a pretty case." Go to their website and look up a D-07X to see what they put into it, and I can assure you that it's far more than just the sum of it's parts.

 

[lovinthehd]

I'm aware of what Spotify now offers. That wasn't the point.

If you've never handled/used Luxman gear, you wouldn't understand that it's far more than just "a pretty case." Go to their website and look up a D-07X to see what they put into it, and I can assure you that it's far more than just the sum of it's parts.

Sorry, that kind of gear is just jewelry to me for the most part; it's good quality but that's only so meaningful. I don't buy jewelry....

 

[TLS Guy]

I couldn't tell you because I still can't even play the ONE SACD that I have.

In my music room I didn't even have any way to play a regular CD until I moved the $7 Sony SCD-CE595 played into my rack and discovered that it no longer can play SACDs...only regular CD's.

I've never even heard an SACD, it's just that a friend sent me one and I could buy more if I like them.

In that case there is absolutely no point in buying an SACD player. Most SACDs have a CD and SACD layer on the same disc. The only difference is that the SACD track offers surround sound often. 5.1 is max for SACD. So if you have a two channel system then an SACD will play just as well on any player that plays CDs. as most are dual layer. Except for some of the earliest SACDs. Very soon after introduction they were mixed in PCM as DSD is almost impossible to work with. SACD only came about due to total ignorance of digital audio, and to satisfy loony audiophools who had a total misconception of the technology of digital audio. We have gone over this ground many times on this forum. DSD and SACD was a total blind alley and based on ignorance of digital audio. If you have only a two channel stereo system buying a high priced SACD player is a TOTAL waste of money, and better contributed to your favorite charities where it would actually make a difference.

 

[KenM10759]

In that case there is absolutely no point in buying an SACD player. Most SACDs have a CD and SACD layer on the same disc. The only difference is that the SACD track offers surround sound often. 5.1 is max for SACD. So if you have a two channel system then an SACD will play just as well on any player that plays CDs. as most are dual layer. Except for some of the earliest SACDs. Very soon after introduction they were mixed in PCM as DSD is almost impossible to work with. SACD only came about due to total ignorance of digital audio, and to satisfy loony audiophools who had a total misconception of the technology of digital audio. We have gone over this ground many times on this forum. DSD and SACD was a total blind alley and based on ignorance of digital audio. If you have only a two channel stereo system buying a high priced SACD player is a TOTAL waste of money, and better contributed to your favorite charities where it would actually make a difference.

I am tired of people telling what I should or should not do. Bye

 

[dolynick]

Let me ask you a question. Do you believe that two channel DSD sounds better then two channel PCM? I think this is what all this comes down to.

That's a difficult question to answer. In many cases the actual DSD stream isn't even perserved though the playback chain and you're hearing a PCM-ification of it anyways. Which kind of defeats the purprose and makes tha answer to your question unclear (because, no, you're not listening to the actual DSD in question). On top of that, many setups are using AVRs nowadays and running room EQ which is also resampling all the audio into 44kHz or some other arbitrary preset so even if you do get the stream in native DSD to the receiver, you're still not passing it on untouched. Yes, I'm aware that you don't use room EQ in your system. But that's my point. Given all the modern implementations on offer to help with less than ideal set ups, you kind of have to go out of your way to get an actual unmodified DSD stream out and passed unaltered in analog to the speakers. I do have one system set up to do that, but it's also the most sonically compromised of my three systems due to it's nature.

Having said all that, I would submit that any potential audible improvement over uncompressed 16b/44kHz CD quality would be minimal and difficult to hear at best. Still, I have some DSD content that does just simply sound fantastic. That remains true whether it's kept native or PCM converted and eq processed, so I would just conclude that the mastering of the recording, whichever format it is (it's not always the same in CD vs SACD) likely has more impact on the percieved sound quality than DSD's increased bandwidth.

 

[Joe B]

In that case there is absolutely no point in buying an SACD player. Most SACDs have a CD and SACD layer on the same disc. The only difference is that the SACD track offers surround sound often. 5.1 is max for SACD. So if you have a two channel system then an SACD will play just as well on any player that plays CDs. as most are dual layer. Except for some of the earliest SACDs. Very soon after introduction they were mixed in PCM as DSD is almost impossible to work with. SACD only came about due to total ignorance of digital audio, and to satisfy loony audiophools who had a total misconception of the technology of digital audio. We have gone over this ground many times on this forum. DSD and SACD was a total blind alley and based on ignorance of digital audio. If you have only a two channel stereo system buying a high priced SACD player is a TOTAL waste of money, and better contributed to your favorite charities where it would actually make a difference.

The same companies (Sony/Philips) which bought us CD's created the SACD. To say the engineers who developed digital audio are ignorant of digital audio is a fool's comment.

 

[TLS Guy]

The same companies (Sony/Philips) which bought us CD's created the SACD. To say the engineers who developed digital audio are ignorant of digital audio is a fool's comment.

No, it was developed to pander to audiophools.

You need to look at this video.

I have done exactly the same experiment and it is valid information presented here.

It is a free county and you are welcome to waste as much money as you want. It is not my money, so I don;t care/

 

[Verdinut]

The same companies (Sony/Philips) which bought us CD's created the SACD. To say the engineers who developed digital audio are ignorant of digital audio is a fool's comment.

Have a look at this article which covers the real truth about bit depth and sampling rates:

THE 24-BIT DELUSION by Ben Zwickel ~ The Sound Advocate

In The 24-bit delusion, Ben Zwickel explains why greater bit depth and higher sampling rates may not necessarily be a good thing!

www.thesoundadvocate.com

 

[TLS Guy]

The same companies (Sony/Philips) which bought us CD's created the SACD. To say the engineers who developed digital audio are ignorant of digital audio is a fool's comment.

Well DSD is pretty much dead, and that makes the point. Yes, it can sound as good as PCM, but not better. The big issue is its huge production inconvenience. which is why almost all DSD has been converted to PCM in production and then back to DSD , so there can be no upsides only downsides.

 

[TLS Guy]

Have a look at this article which covers the real truth about bit depth and sampling rates:

THE 24-BIT DELUSION by Ben Zwickel ~ The Sound Advocate

In The 24-bit delusion, Ben Zwickel explains why greater bit depth and higher sampling rates may not necessarily be a good thing!

www.thesoundadvocate.com

Yes, there is more than enough information here to show that DSD is NO better than PCM in terms of sound quality. However it carries a lot of other baggage and it has now almost reached the point of being an historic audio footnote. It certainly has got to the point where it is not worth any capital outlay.

 

[dolynick]

The article concedes that high resolutions can sound better before even gets really going. "Slightly", by definition, is still better. Worth going bonkers over? No. But still, if there is some improvement yet, it's there to pursue if the user so desires. The author calls it a "delusion" when he himself admits that he can hear a difference, even if only a small one.

I find it strange to argue that having a format that can represent the full 20 bits of the master tape (even if those last 4 bits) isn't better than having one that has to throw out 4 bits of range. Even if I may not be able to take full advantage of it, I would rather my replication of the master tape have all the information available than not - or at least that there be an option of having such a copy if so desired.

I also find it a bit odd tha the insists on conflating digital range volume with post conversion analog playback volume. I get that he's talking about "maximum" impact from the range but conveniently leaves out the concept of finer nuance when confined into an analog playback range. Is my ear <> brain interface good enough to necessarily catch all of that fine nuance? Probably not. I still don't mind the idea of having it for what part of it I might be able to though.

I'm being a bit nitpicky though. The purpose of the article is to curb the maniacal chase of higher resolutions when CD quality is, generally speaking, fairly sufficient for most listening. That's a fair argument to make and worth hearing.