Fake DSD, Fake DVD-A

R

rsn

Audiophyte
<font color='#000000'>I have seen plenty of SACD (and DVD-A) discs that I know came from 44.1 masters. They did not go back to any multi-tracks and remix, because ther ARE no original multi-tracks.

When it first started happening guys could tell it was the same material because the 24bit 96k sounded identical to the 16bit 44.1k. Now what they do is EQ the 24bit 96k with just a little bit more low end and high end so it "sounds better".

With no indication on the booklet or DVD-A box, you won't know you were ripped off until you get home and listen.

Write nasty letters to the record companies.

Roger</font>
 
A

av_phile

Senior Audioholic
<font color='#000000'>It would be a good idea to sound off some record labels or titles that are in this boat to protect us.</font>
 
A

av_phile

Senior Audioholic
I've noticed some adds that claim GENUINE SACD DECODING. I must assume there are also FAKE SACD decoding. I did some research on this and did come across some Pioneer universal players that are sold at rock bottom prices that do CONVERT the SACD digital 1-bit streams into LPCM prior to analog waveform shaping. They just employ one chip to process SACD together with other downmixing algorhythms for DD and DTS into Stereo LPCM. This is done to bring the player cost down and thus reach the widest markets.
 
rgriffin25

rgriffin25

Moderator
I have read similar articles discussing how Pioneer cut costs to bring a value player into the market. I have also read that it only converts SACD to LPCM if Bass management is used. There are 2 reasons this doesn't bother me.

1. Someone that buys a SACD/DVD-A player for $150 probably isn't too concerned with bass management.

2. You have to applaud Pioneer for making a combo player available at a rock bottom price. Hopefully at this price it will help both formats survive and let average people know the advantages of multi-channel music.

I do not own the pioneer 563a personally, but I have installed quite a few of them and will have to say that any budget conscious buyer will be more than satisfied with its performance.
 
A

av_phile

Senior Audioholic
rgriffin25 said:
2. You have to applaud Pioneer for making a combo player available at a rock bottom price. Hopefully at this price it will help both formats survive and let average people know the advantages of multi-channel music.

I do not own the pioneer 563a personally, but I have installed quite a few of them and will have to say that any budget conscious buyer will be more than satisfied with its performance.
No question about that. I just hope the manufacturers are candid enough to indicate and admit in their specs the technology they use to decode SACD. Because with so many ads and brochures touting "genuine SACD decoding," it leaves a bad taste in the mouth for other universal players and puts suspicion everytime a new affordable universal or SACD player comes around. Just let the consumer know what they are buying. The problem is in being mum about it, it misleads and casts doubts on even your SACD player that don't scream "genuine SACD decoding," when in fact it does. (evidenced by the presence of a proprietary DSD chip inside, made by SONY or someone else)
 
zipper

zipper

Full Audioholic
I asked a salesman what the difference was between SACD/DVD-A players of different prices & was told that models like the 563 employ only 1 DAC/processer to handle all formats served by the player,whereas a model like the Denon 5900 has a separate DAC/processer for each format. I don't know if that's true or not,but I guess it would make sense.
 
rgriffin25

rgriffin25

Moderator
av_phile said:
No question about that. I just hope the manufacturers are candid enough to indicate and admit in their specs the technology they use to decode SACD. Because with so many ads and brochures touting "genuine SACD decoding," it leaves a bad taste in the mouth for other universal players and puts suspicion everytime a new affordable universal or SACD player comes around. Just let the consumer know what they are buying. The problem is in being mum about it, it misleads and casts doubts on even your SACD player that don't scream "genuine SACD decoding," when in fact it does. (evidenced by the presence of a proprietary DSD chip inside, made by SONY or someone else)
I don't think it is mentioned simply for the fact it is pretty unnoticable. I have done a A/B comparison with my Sony SACD player and the Pioneer 563a and I don't feel that most people could hear a big difference between the two.

I agree to some extent that it should be mentioned. However for the people who may or may not notice the difference it may discourage them from buying the player. IMO this defeats the original purpose of the player. Which is as we discussed before, is to make more people aware of how good each of these formats are at a great price.
:)
 
Last edited:
H

hopjohn

Full Audioholic
guess i'll just have to throw it away

Since my 563A can't hold a candle to any player that properly decodes the DSD stream, I guess I'll just have to throw the lump of dung in the trash. I guess then I'll go out spend twice as much on one for a player that can properly play SACDs just so I can hear a barely discernable difference. Then my new player will have to be thrown out cause it may or may not have better picture quality, and may not playback DVD-A as well, and may have a CHROMA BUG, or some jitter issue. Oh the viscious cycle, and oh how the electronics industry grins at my ignorance.
 
A

av_phile

Senior Audioholic
rgriffin25 said:
I don't think it is mentioned simply for the fact it is pretty unnoticable. I have done a A/B comparison with my Sony SACD player and the Pioneer 563a and I don't feel that most people could hear a big difference between the two.

I agree to some extent that it should be mentioned. However for the people who may or may not notice the difference it may discourage them from buying the player. IMO this defeats the original purpose of the player. Which is as we discussed before, is to make more people aware of how good each of these formats are at a great price.
:)
Thanks for sharing my conviction that it should be mentioned with whatever extent it should. But I must confess i have difficulty accepting the notion that by converting the DSD streams to PCM and by doing so make it inexpensive, we are "making more people aware of how good each of these formats are." The fact that you have tampered with the native SACD format into something else, how can people know how good that format is?

Whether or not there is any sonic difference between native SACD decoding and LPCM conversion is beside the point. Perhaps there's none in your comparison, perhaps there is in others. But any format debate here is beside my contemplation. The manufacturer is defeating the objective for which SACD was concieved. They're not giving the consumer what was promised with the new technology. Converting DSD streams into PCM prior to analog waveform shaping is no different from playing those SONY CDs with DSD bitstream logos. The performances were recorded in DSD but coverted to PCM when burning CDs. In the 563A, the DAC receives the converted signal as 16-bit information and processes it like ordinary CD. It may sound as good as the native DSD processing, but to say the player plays SACD smacks of deception. Not entirely perhaps. But when I was kid taking a true or false exam, a statement that was partly true was still considered false. I think that also applies in real life.
 
rgriffin25

rgriffin25

Moderator
av_phile,

I want you to know that I agree with you a lot more than it may appear. I just don't think we should be so critical about a budget DVD player. I would be a bit more out spoken if I found out it cost $300 or more. However, at $150 you would be lucky to find a better progressive scan dvd player w/o SACD and DVD-A in that price range.

Hopefully in the near future the price will come down in the players using true DSD decoding so we all can enjoy great multi-channel music.


:cool:
 
A

av_phile

Senior Audioholic
rgriffin25 said:
av_phile,

I want you to know that I agree with you a lot more than it may appear. I just don't think we should be so critical about a budget DVD player. I would be a bit more out spoken if I found out it cost $300 or more. However, at $150 you would be lucky to find a better progressive scan dvd player w/o SACD and DVD-A in that price range.

Hopefully in the near future the price will come down in the players using true DSD decoding so we all can enjoy great multi-channel music.


:cool:
rgriffin25,

I know we do agree on this. In fact, I think what some reviewers say when reviewing an inexpensive gear has some wisdom: "At that price, can't complain" And I can agree with that. I just pointed it out to inform and hope people know what they're getting at whatever price point. And not be duped into some false expectations because of a misleading silence in the specs.
 
Last edited:
U

Unregistered

Guest
Discusted

IF yall are selling fake dvd's or cd's i hope yall get caught and go to jail.
 
H

hopjohn

Full Audioholic
dumb or ignorant?

Unregistered said:
IF yall are selling fake dvd's or cd's i hope yall get caught and go to jail.
Maybe you should get caught and go to jail for wasting a lifetime's supply of oxygen. What does this thread have to do with pirating music or movies? If you want someone to get hauled off to the pin for discussing this, at least go to a thread where something of this nature IS being discussed. Let me guess you read the title of the thread and assumed that this meant that everone was talking about making their own.....??? You think maybe you'd like a do over?
 
C

Colonel_Tomb

Audioholic Intern
rsn said:
<font color='#000000'>I have seen plenty of SACD (and DVD-A) discs that I know came from 44.1 masters. They did not go back to any multi-tracks and remix, because ther ARE no original multi-tracks.
Well, for two-channel digital recordings, you may be right. But most -- if not all -- of the stereo SACDs I own were originally recorded in analog, so I would assume they were mastered in DSD directly from the analog master tapes. That's not necessarily true (more on that below), but I know in the case of the Rolling Stones' ABKCO catalog that Bob Ludwig says he used PCM only when he had to do some special processing, and it wasn't much. For surround, however, they'd have to go back to the multitrack masters; how else could they make a surround mix? I've never seen a two-channel DVD-A (although it's in the spec), so I've always figured all DVD-As are remixed from the multitrack tapes. I think a more-significant issue -- and a relatively arcane one -- is that some SACDs migrate through PCM, which would seem to defeat the purpose of DSD. I'll give you a couple examples.

Earlier this year, I was reading about the upcoming SACD of the Who's "Tommy," and Pete Townshend, who supervised the surround mix, mentioned that, since they didn't know which format they'd ultimately use for release, they mixed to LPCM (at 24/96, I think). Eventually they released the recording on both SACD and DVD-A, but I'm sure they used the same mix, so this means the SACD went from multitrack analog to LPCM to DSD. Kinda stupid, if you ask me.

In 1992, Tom Dowd remixed "The Allman Brothers Band at Fillmore East" and it was re-released it as "The Fillmore Concerts." In the liner notes, Dowd says they transferred the eight-track masters to digital (at 16/44.1 or 16/48, I'd assume), allowing them to retire the priceless multitracks "to the Smithsonian." This year they re-released "Fillmore East" as a 5.1 SACD, and you gotta think they mixed from the 1992 PCM multitracks (not that the liner notes tell you anything).

For SACD surround mixes of classic works (mostly recorded in analog), it seems to me as though they'd specifically transfer the multitracks to DSD, then mix and master in DSD, and keep PCM out of it. Same thing for DVD-A -- just use LPCM all the way. But for digital recordings . . . I dunno. Everything was recorded in PCM, so what's the point of a higher digital resolution?
 
Last edited:
Mudcat

Mudcat

Senior Audioholic
Hope this is not off topic.

Does anyone from the NYC area remember Don Kirschner's Rock Concert series on ABC TV from the late 60s through mid 70s. Don't know if it went beyond the NYC area.

a Rolling Stone concert from 1975 that was broadcast on WABC (Channel 7 out of NYC) and simultaneously broadcast on WPIX FM and recorded on my old sanyo cassette player.

I just bought Wave Lab 5. Now I'm going to remix and develop my own DVD-A and burn it in my Pioneer DVR-A08XL of that cassette master. Clean it up in Adobe Audition, remix in Wave Lab 5.

I write an article later about ease of use and results.
 
Last edited:
Rob Babcock

Rob Babcock

Moderator
It's cool that Pete Townshend personally supervised the mixing, but has everyone forgotten that he's essentially deaf? ;)
 
Dan

Dan

Senior Audioholic
I've bought a bunch of SACDs a two DVD-As now. AS I've said here before I have not been impressed with older reissues on the new format. There are exceptions which are mostly classical. I also am NOT impresssed with multichannel for conventional music. Tommy is much better in two channel SACD than 5 IMO. Stranger things like DSOTM, Blue Man Group Audio, and a quad recording from the 70s of E Power Biggs doing the Bach organ contatas at a specially outfitted cathedral with five organs (played from one control spot) are exceptions.

Now, I will only buy new recordings in this format. Replacing old Redbooks with SACD reissues is a big waste of money. Why not buy something you don't already have instead?
 
Rob Babcock

Rob Babcock

Moderator
Dan, I agree that reissues can be a mixed bag. Some are stellar (eg Donald Fagan's The Nightfly, Foreigner's 4) and some are dreadful (eg Deep Purple's Machine Head, Don Henley's The End of the Innocence). The off the wall stuff like DsotM and Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots can be amazing- even if not originally conceived for MC. But it's easy to bugger it up, too. Best would be a hi rez stereo version alongside a MC remix. Then you can have it anyway you like.

I also agree that ideally, MC will be brought to bear primarily on new music. It's great when the original artist participates, like Townsend did with Tommy. But what to do when the original creator is dead?

Sometimes I get down on the future of "serious" music listening. I wonder if anyone in the mainstream much cares about sitting down for the sole purpose of actively listening to music. The Unwashed Masses want MP3 as the soundtrack to our morning jog or Sirius to get us to work. We'll even sit still long enough to savor the pop-tartlette-of-the-month, provided we get to watch her shake her moneymaker at the same time. But Hi Res MC with no picture? Aside from a few of us, does anyone care?

And all you diehard 2 ch guys shouldn't get too smug- the mainstream thinks you're just as looney for sitting in the dark listening to two speakers as I am for listening to six. To me that's more worrisome than SACDs made from 44.1 PCM masters.
 
S

SQ Kid

Audioholic Intern
i recently picked up the pioneer dv-578 universal player. although it does not play in true sacd quality, i wanted to get something to try out the new formats. as previously stated, you cant really complain about such a low cost entrance into the market.

now, for my point. while it does has its downsides, this player has restored some of my (along with some of my friends) love for music. we couldnt wait to see how these new formats sounded. we sat around just listening to the music; not as background noise, but as the center of our attentions. i had to have spent half a day just a/b'ing some of the originals vs. the new 5.1 mixes. i'm happy to be drawn back into the new audio technology.

now granted there are a lot of gimicks just to sell the new formats to the general public, but thats also part of technology. you gotta draw 'em in. and i'm hooked with my $150 (actually on sale at $110) investment. maybe someday as my system gets upgraded (along with my paycheck), i'll try something better.
 
L

Leprkon

Audioholic General
SQ Kid said:
now granted there are a lot of gimicks just to sell the new formats to the general public, but thats also part of technology. you gotta draw 'em in. and i'm hooked with my $150 (actually on sale at $110) investment. maybe someday as my system gets upgraded (along with my paycheck), i'll try something better.
it should definitely hold you till the end of the year when yet another one of the "new" formats comes out and then you get to make another decision.. :)
 

newsletter
  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top