SACD/DVD A 2 channel Question

[surveyor]

I have a Denon 2910. I also, have a Panasonic BD55.
Now, here's my dilema.
I am using a Outlaw 990 processor. The 990 has only 1 ea. 7.1 anlog input to plug high resolution audio into;the 990 does not have any HDMI inputs.
I now have the Panasonic BD55 connected to the 7.1 analog inputs on the 990, with the HDMI output set to video only and connected to my HI DEF TV.
Will using the 2910 2 channel analog output for SACD and DVD A be rewarding, or am I up a creek without a paddle?

Kelly

 

[Alex2507]

It might and probably does depend on the mix/recording but one particular piece that I compared M/C to stereo compelled me to laboriously type this out:

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=471918&postcount=1

I have a Foo Fighters DVD-A that I want to try that with and I really don't know what to expect. It just occurred to me that you may have to try that out for yourself. Until I was able to play the same 10 seconds of music again and again switching back and forth between formats, I could not tell what I preferred. They both sounded good.

Alex

 

[the grunt]

No way to improve on the excellent post Alex linked to but I hope I can expand on one thing he said. I think it really does depend on the “mix/recording.” Just because something is SACD or DVD-A doesn’t mean it’s always going to sound better.

It seems to me that when stereo SACDs sound better I think it’s mainly when the songs are re-mastered better for the SACD version. A couple examples I found of this are standard CDs of Boston and The Bangles compared to stereo SACDs which sound much better. In both cases the SACDs exhibit much better clarity, imaging. On the other hand comparing a standard CD of “Blondie” to a DVD-A couldn’t tell the difference.

Adding to why I think the mix/recording makes the most difference, is when comparing a U.S. standard CD of “Nena” to a German import standard CD, the German version is vastly superior.

One caveat to my opinion, besides that it’s only my opinion, is that I do all my listening on “detailed, articulate, bright” (call them what you wish) speakers. I can’t see why it still wouldn’t make a difference with more “laid-back” speakers but I have no experience with them.

In the case of standard CD compared to Multi-Channel SACD and DVD-A recordings the multi-channel almost always sounds better to me. Some examples of this are Pink Floyd’s “Dark Side of the Moon” and Vivaldi’s “The Four Seasons” where the SACD and DTS recordings both sound more detailed and enveloping. However, there are even exceptions to here as I found comparing standard and Multi-Channel SACD versions of “Carmina Burana” where I couldn’t tell the difference.

Another place I think Multi-Channel shines is in some live concert recordings. I have one of Roger Waters “The Wall” live in Berlin that sounds like you are right there in the arena.

Also don’t overlook regular DVDs. The DTS track of “Jethro Tull Live at Montreux 2003” sounds way better than my Aqualung CD.

So in my opinion I think that SACD and DVD-A are worth it in some cases especially in Multi-Channel. However, I’m not convinced that stereo SACD versions are necessarily that much better than well mastered standard CDs.

I’ve found links like this helpful before deciding to spend the extra money on an SACD vs CD.

http://www.highfidelityreview.com/reviews/review.asp?reviewnumber=19939611

Cheers,
Dean

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Thing thing which puzzled me is the ultra-high end SACD player from Marantz like this $6500 player:
http://us.marantz.com/Products/1947.asp

It's clearly high-end, and yet it's only 2.0 SACD/CD player, instead of 5.1.

 

[j_garcia]

Thing thing which puzzled me is the ultra-high end SACD player from Marantz like this $6500 player:
http://us.marantz.com/Products/1947.asp

It's clearly high-end, and yet it's only 2.0 SACD/CD player, instead of 5.1.

Most of the higher end players I've seen are 2.0 vs multichannel because the high end market tends to be stereo people.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Most of the higher end players I've seen are 2.0 vs multichannel because the high end market tends to be stereo people.

That's what I thought too. But what about DVD-A playback? I guess they don't consider DVD-A as "high-end"?

Are there any 2.0 DVD-A players out there I wonder?

 

[j_garcia]

DVD-A can be 2ch at the flick of a button, just like SACD on most players I think the "high end" crowd just likes to see "2CH" on the machine.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

DVD-A can be 2ch at the flick of a button, just like SACD on most players I think the "high end" crowd just likes to see "2CH" on the machine.

Those snobbish rich bastards.

 

[surveyor]

Those snobbish rich bastards.

They need to be confined in rehab. Once they are freed from mind altering egos, they will devour multi channel!

 

[fteixeira]

"I have a Denon 2910. I also, have a Panasonic BD55.
Now, here's my dilema.
I am using a Outlaw 990 processor. The 990 has only 1 ea. 7.1 anlog input to plug high resolution audio into;the 990 does not have any HDMI inputs.
I now have the Panasonic BD55 connected to the 7.1 analog inputs on the 990, with the HDMI output set to video only and connected to my HI DEF TV.
Will using the 2910 2 channel analog output for SACD and DVD A be rewarding, or am I up a creek without a paddle?"

You're not the first to have this problem... here's a possible solution... here.

 

[Alex2507]

DVD-A can be 2ch at the flick of a button, just like SACD on most players

Which do you prefer?

 

[j_garcia]

Which do you prefer?

Depends on the disc. There are some that have terrible 5.1 tracks and I prefer the 2ch tracks on them, while others have amazing 5.1 that makes it entirely worth being setup for it.

 

[surveyor]

Yes ,I'v seen that option, it would do the trick well. But, if I were to spend that much, I'd probably opt for a HDMI 1.3 compatible AVP.

Thanks,

Kelly

 

[surveyor]

I listened to 2 channel SACD

Yesterday just for GP, I listened to my Denon 2910 through 2 channel SACD.
It seemed quite a bit better than 2 channel CD to me.
I used my auxillary audio setup, as follows:

Denon 2910
Carver M1.0t 2ea. bridged @ 1kwatt ea.
Carver CT Seven Pre-Amp
JBL 82 t 2ea.
However, I still prefer multichannel SACD and DVD A.
Also, the 2910 has some pretty darn good DAC's IMO!

 

[Alex2507]

I have a Denon 1920. That post I linked describing my 2 ch. - 6 ch. comparison might not be a fair comparison. While the player is in multi channel mode the L & R audio outs for stereo might only be putting out what would be coming out of the L & R multi channel outs. I noticed that with an SACD I can't go from M/C to 2 ch. on the fly. I think the tech term for that is that they are on different layers.

Back to what j_garcia said about it all depending on the recording I'll add a specific example. The Beethoven I talked about in that link I suspect really does sound better in M/C. However an SACD of Dire Straits Brothers in Arms really sounds amazing in 2 ch. SACD played through slightly modified Infinity Primus 360's that I have pain stakingly positioned, equalized and level matched. It takes me a lot of time to get things set up just so (I'm still playing around with the EQ) and comparing what one format sounds like verses another takes more time so I have been sticking to only a couple of recordings for listening. I'm going to have to give the Beethoven a listen with the player in 2 ch. mode and see if it does anything for me now that I have had some time to refine my EQ setting and blend my subs in a little better.

I'm might just snap and start playing all kinds of recordings at volumes that appeal to me regardless of noise laws, hearing damage and condo association rules. I'll be the deaf guy posting from cell block 'C'.

 

[surveyor]

I have a Denon 1920. That post I linked describing my 2 ch. - 6 ch. comparison might not be a fair comparison. While the player is in multi channel mode the L & R audio outs for stereo might only be putting out what would be coming out of the L & R multi channel outs. I noticed that with an SACD I can't go from M/C to 2 ch. on the fly. I think the tech term for that is that they are on different layers.

Back to what j_garcia said about it all depending on the recording I'll add a specific example. The Beethoven I talked about in that link I suspect really does sound better in M/C. However an SACD of Dire Straits Brothers in Arms really sounds amazing in 2 ch. SACD played through slightly modified Infinity Primus 360's that I have pain stakingly positioned, equalized and level matched. It takes me a lot of time to get things set up just so (I'm still playing around with the EQ) and comparing what one format sounds like verses another takes more time so I have been sticking to only a couple of recordings for listening. I'm going to have to give the Beethoven a listen with the player in 2 ch. mode and see if it does anything for me now that I have had some time to refine my EQ setting and blend my subs in a little better.

I'm might just snap and start playing all kinds of recordings at volumes that appeal to me regardless of noise laws, hearing damage and condo association rules. I'll be the deaf guy posting from cell block 'C'.

Although I prefer multichannel, I found The Allman Brothers At Fillmore East to be better in 2 channel SACD. I found Pink Floyd DSOM better to me in multichannel.I'm using the 2channel audio outputs for SACD 2 channel listening.

 

[j_garcia]

I found the Diana Krall SACD that I have, the 2ch is much better than the 5.1. Same with The Police 25th Anniversary - the 5.1 mixes are terrible on most of the tracks so I tend to only listen to that disc in 2ch. With Roxy Music's Avalon, the 2ch is great, but the 5.1 track is quite a bit better and I have found the same with the Porcupine Tree DVD-As.