sacd player - got it hooked up two ways, one sounds funny.

[bryantm3]

well, from reading the posts here, i made some adjustments, but they are irrelevant because changing the speaker setting to small didn't change the sound at all, so that's why i've been so confused with bass management; my player doesn't have any. i was hoping this would be a good quality dvd/sacd player, i paid 200$ at hifi buys. i guess i just won't use the 5.1 outputs, then.

 

[krabapple]

Now, now krabapple...I'm trying to figure this one out just like you. I missed the part where he's lacking bass "in his sub"; this thread is rife with statement that he's lacking bass. I think he's confused. He keeps writing stereo and 2 channel (not 2.1), which to me means two speakers. I think he means there is not enough bass in his mains; that's why I wrote set the speakers to "large." He also wrote early on:

"oh, i also have it hooked up with a single-line thingy (forgot what it's called.. i just know it's not coaxial or HDMI, and it carries dolby digital, and doesn't carry the SACD signal.)

i just wish they made a single line digital plug for sacd to receiver. the dvd player has to convert it to analogue and it mucks it all up."

How many posters here don't know what an optical cable is called (answer: optical cable). Clearly he's a little confused. Why bother with sacd's and sacd players if you're only going to play it through 2.0 or 2.1? Audioholics is for the novice, mid-level audiophyte, as well as the afficionado...that's one of the things I like about it. If bryantm3 writes his problem(s) more succintly, I'm happy to offer assistance, otherwise I'm done here (toast).

- There are quite a few notable SACDs out there that don't include a surround mix (e.g., most of the Police and Peter Gabriel catalogs; Michael Jackson's 'Thriller'). Most if not all of the early Sony SACD remasters didn't have one, though some of these were later rereleased with a surround mix.

- There is a single-line digital plug for SACD to receiver, called firewire/ilink/IEEE1394, but it's only available on a few models of AVRs and DVDA/SACD players. There are also some proprietary versions of the same idea (e.g. Denonlink).

- optical cable is often also called 'toslink' cable because of its connectors

 

[krabapple]

well, from reading the posts here, i made some adjustments, but they are irrelevant because changing the speaker setting to small didn't change the sound at all, so that's why i've been so confused with bass management; my player doesn't have any. i was hoping this would be a good quality dvd/sacd player, i paid 200$ at hifi buys. i guess i just won't use the 5.1 outputs, then.

You don't seem to be doing anything in a systematic fashion. You've by no means demonstrated that your player is broken. What you should be doing is trying to isolate different variables, to see which are affecting the sound.
You have way too many connections going on at once, to do this simply, and you're giving too little information for me, or anyone, to diagnose this properly.

What you should do at this point is DISCONNECT *all* audio connections, except the subwoofer cable from the multi-channel out panel. Ideally, run this connection directly from the player, to the input on the subwoofer itself, bypassing the AVR.

I learn from perusing your owner's manual that your player has SEPARATE
speaker settings for SACD and DVD sources. That means you have to be sure you are making settings that apply to SACD sources, if you plan on playing SACDs.

in the setup menu (display -->custom-->audio-->speaker setup)

- Select 'Super Audio CD' then set speakers to small and subwoofer to YES (p 75) Set center and surrounds to 'NONE'.

- The same holds true for 'level' and 'distance' settings -- there are separate settings for DVD and SACD. Make sure you have adjusted them for SACD rather than DVD. (p 76-77)

- make sure AUDIO ATT (p 73) is set to OFF

- for the third time : are you sure you're playing *2-channel* SACD material?
On a multichannel or hybrid SACD, select the two-channel mix on the SACD layer, not the CD layer (p 32)

If you've done all this correctly, you should definitely hear something from the subwoofer. This demonstrates that bass management is working in the player. You can test this further by playing the same stereo SACD track, but first setting the front left/right speakers to LARGE. There should now be no output from the sub.

If the sub output with SACD speakers set SMALL is low, turn up the volume control directly on the sub (assuming it has one). You can always attenuate it later using one of the menus in the player or AVR.

Once you have determined that Sony BM is indeed working for SACD sources, witha direct connection to the subwoofer, then you can begin to investigate what it happening after the signal goes to the AVR in the normal connected setup.

 

[Johnd]

krabapple: That is a methodical and well-devised plan (of attack) that you've suggested for bryantm3 (much of which has already been suggested). Let's see what transpires.

 

[Johnd]

- There are quite a few notable SACDs out there that don't include a surround mix

At the risk of hijacking this thread, "quite a few" is a relative term. Forgive me, because I am not trying to be disagreeable, but I just purchased my sacd player (I know, I'm a dinosaur), and after much research, I did it only for multichannel playback, it's true purpose.

I will self-thwart my inclination to argue whether or not Michael Jackson, as well as his sacd "Thriller" are examples of an accomplished musician, songwriter, or music, when true musicians, like Al Di Meola, Jeff Beck, Yo-Yo Ma, Miles Davis, as well as the countless thousands of classical examples (modern "covers") of Rachmaninov, Schubert, Mozart, Beethoven, etc., are what sacd is all about...at least for me.

Hopefully, bryantm3 takes your suggestion. As you posted earlier, it sounds like a simple setup or cabling issue, that when approached methodically, is easily identified and cured. Cheers!

 

[Buckle-meister]

...I was not attempting to disparage my Scottish brother in arms...

Just as well laddie!

 

[Johnd]

Buckle-meister: I don't know what you're drinking over there, but one of my best bottles of single malt is a 25 year old bottle of Balvenie. What do you think?

 

[krabapple]

At the risk of hijacking this thread, "quite a few" is a relative term. Forgive me, because I am not trying to be disagreeable, but I just purchased my sacd player (I know, I'm a dinosaur), and after much research, I did it only for multichannel playback, it's true purpose.

I will self-thwart my inclination to argue whether or not Michael Jackson, as well as his sacd "Thriller" are examples of an accomplished musician, songwriter, or music, when true musicians, like Al Di Meola, Jeff Beck, Yo-Yo Ma, Miles Davis, as well as the countless thousands of classical examples (modern "covers") of Rachmaninov, Schubert, Mozart, Beethoven, etc., are what sacd is all about...at least for me.

I have an SACD of Al DiMeola's Elegant Gypsy -- stereo only.
Several Miles Davis SACDs -- stereo only (Kind of Blue being the only 'multichannel' one)
a classical CD of works by Gould and Gottschalk -- stereo only
More recently releases include Neil Young's 'On the Beach' -- stereo only.

Like I said, nearly *ALL* of Sony's initial releases were stereo only SACDs.
They're far less common now, but they're still out there, and they're still released.

I agree that the primary 'perk' of SACD and DVD-A is the surround mix. But you also get a remaster of the two-channel mix, whihc may or may not be superior to current CD versions. (The chances are better for SACD, since digital clipping isn't allowed in SACD mastering)


As for who is and isn't a musician, if Quincy Jones considers Michael Jackson a musician, and 'Thriller' to be music, that's more than good enough for me.

Btwe, I prefer the Balvenie 12 to the other vintages. Don't know why, but that one just tastes better to me.

 

[bryantm3]

i have tried all that you've said, and how you're suggesting i should have it set up in the menu is how i set it up all along. i am getting a signal to my subwoofer, i verified that with the test tones. changing the speaker size to small does virtually nothing. i've just determined that it's the player that doesn't have adequate bass management.

 

[Johnd]

i've just determined that it's the player that doesn't have adequate bass management.

bryantm3: I suggested that some 15 posts ago. Glad to hear that you've finally identified the problem.

krabapple: I'm glad to hear that you're more musically diverse than Michael Jackson, and Quincy Jones. I like and respect them both...for pop music.

My comment was simply meant to illustrate there's a huge difference between the "bubble gum" pop machines that are cranking out the tunes, but all they've really got is a good beat; totally devoid of instrumental timbre, beauty of tone, well-chosen tempos, etc., etc., etc.

Pop's ok. There's a Kelly Clarkson born every minute. But not a Davis, Shubert or Rachmaninov.

 

[bryantm3]

i like progressive music because it is a combination of the elements of classical music with the ability to expand using rock and jazz instruments, and in some cases, techno beats.
try listening to 'unquiet slumbers for the sleepers......in that quiet earth'/ afterglow by genesis. it's an excellent song in movements, but it's divided into three tracks, so don't plug all that into google and expect to find anything. it's the last three tracks on their 1976 album 'Wind & Wuthering'. mp3 doesn't do it any good, since it's supposed to flow together, though.

 

[bryantm3]

bryantm3: I suggested that some 15 posts ago. Glad to hear that you've finally identified the problem.

krabapple: I'm glad to hear that you're more musically diverse than Michael Jackson, and Quincy Jones. I like and respect them both...for pop music.

My comment was simply meant to illustrate there's a huge difference between the "bubble gum" pop machines that are cranking out the tunes, but all they've really got is a good beat; totally devoid of instrumental timbre, beauty of tone, well-chosen tempos, etc., etc., etc.

Pop's ok. There's a Kelly Clarkson born every minute. But not a Davis, Shubert or Rachmaninov.

oh, yeah, the post above is also directed towards you. but about bass management, i didn't even consider that a possibility until you mentioned it. i guess just the l/r analogue outputs should do fine with downmixing, as they sound excellent with SACDs. even though this isn't a top of the line SACD player, the difference in sound compared to regular CDs is phenominal. so if i upgrade to surround sound (which i may not ever do, considering i'd have to buy 5 monoblock 200 watt amplifiers, or one kickass do it all multichannel 2000 watt amplifier, plus get a new sacd player), i will probably be even more surprised.

 

[Johnd]

That's what sacd is all about for me. Knock your socks off presence. Glad you figured it out and are now enjoying it.

On your other point, no, you don't need to go so far as "5 monoblock 200 watt amplifiers, or one kick*** do it all multichannel 2000 watt amplifier", a 120+ watt multichannel will do fine. It's all relative. I've got a Denon dvd2900, Denon avr 5803, w/ Paradigm studio 100 mains, cc-570 center, servo 15 sub, and minimonitor surrounds, all had for under 6k. Will it ever compare to highfihoney's setup? Not a chance. Does it sound phenomenal and give me everything I want in a surround sytem. Absolutely. Have I ever looked back? Never.

 

[shokhead]

My head is spinning.

 

[bryantm3]

i'm talking about with the current speakers i have, i would need those/an amplifier(s). i have two RTi8s and to get equal sound, i would rather have equal speakers all the way around instead of different sound, for 5.1 music. but since that would be impossible for a centre channel, i'm willing to get a typical centre channel speaker. even with the two speakers i have now, i don't think i'm giving them enough power. but that's all way in the future.

 

[Johnd]

My head is spinning.

I know. Is that a sweet Mac setup, or what?

 

[bryantm3]

so, on a related topic, what SACD players do you recommend? i'd prefer to have just a single disc player, and with dvd mode also. i hate dealing with the 5000 disc players and all that crap. i actually like this sony player because it's fairly simple to set up and operate (despite the fact that it has inadequate bass management, i set it up right the first time). and it plays DVDs and SACDs through the standard L/R outputs fine. it also has seperate buttons for fast forward and next chapter (which i REALLY dig.)
but when this one goes out in two or three years, what would you recommend i look for an updated version of, or what features should i look for?

 

[shokhead]

You could be dead in 2-3 years,worry about it then. Hard to say what models will be out then. DVD could be dead.

 

[krabapple]

bryantm3: I suggested that some 15 posts ago. Glad to hear that you've finally identified the problem.

No, he hasn't. He's extrapolated a conclusion --but the logic of it is not established. He says he hadn't even *considered* bass management as a possibility before you mentioned it, now we're to believe he's pinned it down to 'inadequate bass management'? He hasn't detailed the results of various experiments as I outlined. E.g., he says he gets sub output -- under what conditions? Does it go away when he sets speakers to LARGE? What happens when other cables are disconnected? Did he try running the sub out directly into the sub? What are the settings for his non-SACD sources, in the AVR particularly? Are we comparing like to like here at all? Do Sony SACD players tend to have 'poor bass management' for SACD? Has anyone else reporte dthis problem for this model?

I'm giving up, because bryant doesn't seem to want to get into the sort of reporting detail that's required to diagnose the problem properly.

My comment was simply meant to illustrate there's a huge difference between the "bubble gum" pop machines that are cranking out the tunes, but all they've really got is a good beat; totally devoid of instrumental timbre, beauty of tone, well-chosen tempos, etc., etc., etc.

You know, Michael Jackson could *sing* a fair bit too. I have no patience with music snobbery. As I get older , I appreceate *more* different kinds of music, not less. I would never have owned 'Thriller' when I was in my 20's (in the 80's). But now I do. (Still not a fan of Rachmaninoff, though...still prefer Bartok). I also come to it from a semi-pro musician's perspective. There are skills and talents involved in the making of all of these kinds of music. It comes down to what you like, or not...not some 'objective' idea of what is 'good' music or 'bad'.

 

[krabapple]

i'm talking about with the current speakers i have, i would need those/an amplifier(s). i have two RTi8s and to get equal sound, i would rather have equal speakers all the way around instead of different sound, for 5.1 music. but since that would be impossible for a centre channel, i'm willing to get a typical centre channel speaker. even with the two speakers i have now, i don't think i'm giving them enough power. but that's all way in the future.

At home, power needs depend mainly on how big your listening space is and how loud you intend to listen. Also, your subwoofer, assuming it's an active sub, has its own amp, and THAT is handling the load of the most-power-sucking part of the spectrum (the bass). Finally, room nulls can give the mistaken impression that your system is underpowered. It's unlikely you need a more powerful amp, though you might need a better sub. Or it may be you simply need to reconfigure your setup. Or adjust levels more carefully. I have no sense that you've ever used a sound level meter to balance the mains and sub, for example.