 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
209.165.41.196
Has manufacturer had the b*lls yet to make an 2 and 5.1 channel SACD player *without* redbook and DVD playback? I'd rather have that money go into the transport and output stage. Sounds like a great project for Musical Fidelity.
Follow Ups:
I would buy one if it could be used as a CD trransport and it was better than my kern modded 777es and cost less or the same, but then I would have to have an audio note DAC.
All SACD players by nature are DVD players. They have to have special decoders for DVD signals and SACD signals. There is no difference in the signal path if you did not have CD in the machine. The DAC chip would be the same and the output stage would be the same and the dual laser would just not change to the wavelength that CDs need. If you wanted your SACD/CD player not to play CDs then you would just cut the PCM digital trace between the decoder chip and the DAC chip and disconnect the digital out. Then it would not play CDs. It would not sound different, however. Well, maybe slightly better if you had not before correctly terminated the digital out with a 75 ohm resistor to ground. So, why would a manufacturer want to make something that will not play CDs when it cost them absolutely nothing to include it (except for a couple of parts for the digital out circuit). I think is is also part of the SACD spec that an SACD player be able to decode CDs (could be wrong on that one).Now, let's get really crazy here....there is one DAC chip that plays DSD only. This is the Burr-Brown chip that Meitner uses in his DACs. It really does not look better in specs than the dual purpose DACs that Burr-Brown makes but MAYBE it really does sound better.....so a manufacturer could make a DSD only machine with this DAC chip and MAYBE it would sound better....much conjecture here. And even Meitner puts an upsamping PCM to DSD board in his transport so people can listen to PCM through his DAC. Suppose to sound very good on CDs. By the way, Philips in their new upcoming DVD player will upsample CDs to DSD and run them into the DAC as DSD signals (according to their literature). This is sort of like someone saying why doesn't someone make a 33 RPM only turntable....when the speed control box is the same and everything the same....you just turn up the speed on the motor to run 45 RPM and faster even to run 78 RPM. I am not saying a turntable totally tuned to 33 RPM by some totally tweaked out nutcase (like myself...he he) couldn't sound one tenth of a percent better than a variable speed one...just who the heck is going to do such a thing!?! and who is going to buy it!?! $100,000 turntable that won't play my 45 RPM half speed masters? Huh?
Hey, I am a purest and a (less is more) kind of guy. But in this case there is no less. All you would have is a player that would not play CDs for the same price as one that would....and they would be the same inside (just no digital out connector on the back). What manufacturer would take that risk?
As much as I like SACD and support it, the future will bring other 'hi-rez' formats that will never play on such a design. It would be WAY to risky for any responsible company to design and produce a player that only plays a fraction of available music and is 'locked in' technology wise. Not a good idea. I also believe that the improvements would not be all that great over a properly designed unit that incorporates PCM also.
*** All SACD players by nature are DVD players. ***I don't think this is correct. There are no MPEG decoding circuitry or video processing in dedicated SACD players. SACD players may use a transport that may also be DVD capable, but this does not make them DVD players.
On my XA777ES the CD signal path is completely different from the SACD path - different DSP, different filter, etc. For someone who doesn't care about CD, this circuitry is redundant.
An SACD-only player can have a clock optimised for DSD, it avoids a switching relay that switches between PCM and DSD inputs into the DAC, and you don't need digital outs on the back.
If the concept was really done right, I think it could result in an improvement to the sound.
What I mean by them being essentially DVD players is that they use a DVD mechanism reading DVD size pits and also they read CD because no one would make a DVD/SACD only mechanism. Yes, there is no video stuff in a SACD player but the basic signal path is the same for both SACD and CD, except the SACD signal path is much longer (SACD decoder, DSD for multi-channel). I just looked at the block diagrams for the XA777ES and I cannot see any chip that would be not used if it were SACD only (except for data and clock switching). Please look at the diagrams and let us know which exact chips could be eliminated. As far as switching clocks and data the latest Burr-Brown chips (DSD/PCM 1792/4/6...better than what is in XA) have separate feeds for DSD and PCM so no data switching would be necessary and also the newer Burr-Brown DACs have a separate bit clock input for DSD so separate clocks could be used without switching (not to mention the separate power supply feeds for each channels current output...almost mono chips).So, the ONLY thing different (that I can see) if you used a player with the newer Burr-Brown chips would be the digital out. Obviously, your XA777ES is outdated...he he. I don't know why Sony did not use these newer better DACs in the 9000ES...really a shame...they were available.
Maybe someone will make a SACD only player but I would not bet on it nor do I feel it would be worthwhile....except in the case that these Burr-Brown DSD only chips were really sonically better (yet to be proven).
probably have systems infinitely closer to 'more accurate' than most of us have now. For those dozen or so people that could afford to have the best of the best, it probably isn't worth the economic hassle of the manufacturer drawing one up, theoretically speaking of course. Heck, look at all the CDP manufacturers that don't do SACD and/or DVDA playerss for this very same reason?Chris
as i mentioned before, i think it's highly misleading to refer to them as "essentially DVD players" when all they contain is a transport "reading DVD size pits and also they read CD". you might as well also say they are (S)VCD, DVD-ROM, CD-ROM, Kodak Photo CD players (and they don't have the necessary decoding circuitry for any of these either). i have a sony dvd-only player that has an sacd capable transport - does that mean i have an sacd player?*** Please look at the diagrams and let us know which exact chips could be eliminated ***
At the very very least data selectors IC306-308 on page 34. also IC509 can be replaced with a simpler component that doesn't do the DSP and PCM digital filter functions. the clock circuit can be optimized for DSD only. potentially different op amps could be used for the analog stage with different filter characteristics.
plus, as you say, avoidance of support for PCM allows a DSD only DAC which may yield superior results. something like allen wright's DAC-less approach will become feasible.
your basic argument is: supporting Redbook doesn't add any cost. maybe, but you forget that avoiding Redbook opens up new possibilities. designing a high end player isn't about reducing cost or value for money.
As I said, if you use the latest Burr-Brown DACs then you would not need any data switches. As for optimizing the clock, you could do this since the newer Burr-Brown DACs have a separate bit clock input. Different op amps? Heck, who wants op amps. I modded an XA777ES and used a single discrete I-V converter made from discrete FETs. Way better than op amps. You could also make a machine with DSD only DACs and at the same time have a separate path for PCM without any interaction. In fact, I believe Sharp did this very thing in one of their SACD players....they used the very same DAC chips that Meitner is using for DSD and some other DAC chip for the PCM path (most of us have two inputs on our preamp, so one would be the DSD input and the other PCM). You could also do what Meitner is doing but put it all in one box. The transport could read anthing and it could then send upsampled to DSD info when playing PCM into DSD only DACs. Then the player is optimised for the DSD only DACs and you could still use it for PCM. There are so many possiblities. I am an all out tweaker....hey, this is not about saving money...I just don't see the point of an SACD only player.....maybe, just maybe it would sound one percent better if implemented with all the greatest tweaks known to man versus a normal SACD player modded the same way. I think that we try to simplify things too much that we don't understand. Implementation is way, way more important than the basic signal path. I would take a $700 mod to a $300 Universal player (video and all) over a stock $1000 DSD only machine any day. Changing the output stage on the XA to a better one would sound 100 times better than eliminating the PCM inside. Only those who actually tweak these things understand this. I am not against progress, just the opposite. I would like to try everything possible to get the best sound. I just don't see the point of a DSD only machine (at least, not now). I mean, we are just starting to get good at tweaking these things and these latest Burr-Brown DACs are just now starting to show up in machines (Denon 3910, for instance). Also the latest Crystal DAC chip is just now being released in a new player (new Marantz Universal 9500?..due out shortly). I believe the Krell and Esoteric DV-50 are still using the older Burr-Brown PCM 1738 DACs as in your Sony XA.
sorry, but in your long, unnecessary, and patronising diatribe you still didn't address my fundamental point: "you forget that avoiding Redbook opens up new possibilities."
I address each of your concerns and you are left with one statement....which is your opinion. And that opinion, I do not share. How can you know if it will open up new possiblities of better sound? And if someone does make a DSD only player, the resulting sound will totally depend on the implementation of every aspect of the player. One factor does not make a whole, nor will it necessarily bring better sound. I am not against having a DSD only machine, I just don't see the point. Some just like the idea because they hate PCM and figure if the machine does not decode it then maybe the elimination of the PCM bad vibes would make the SACD part better. The fact is, when a SACD player is decoding an SACD there is no PCM in the machine.Well, I am certainly finished with this conversation. I hope some have learned something. I am sure DSD playback will get better and better whether or not there will ever be a "DSD ONLY" machine. Here is to better sound and good vibes (whether DSD, records or PCM).
ahh, what a heady combination - arrogance, plus tunnel vision!*** How can you know if it will open up new possiblities of better sound? ***
i gave you at least one hint, which you ignored (and you ignored a lot of my other statements as well) - a DACless design. actually, allen wright has already done this - in a mod that by necessity disables PCM playback.
actually, i have at least one idea for an SACD-only player that, if implemented properly, should result in a dramatically improved level of playback far exceeding any tweaking you can do to existing players. but i'm not going to share that with you, unless you sign a non-disclosure agreement.
that's your problem, you have limited vision because you are fundamentally a tweaker, not a true designer. you fail to recognise the creative and innovative possibilities of bypassing a design constraint (the need to support PCM).
.
reworded for clarity
Reading this thread through Christine, it is clear that you are the one with a 'limited vision', following Richard Schultz opinion and your opinion, even using Allen Wright's approach only the PCM-DSD converter will be eliminated in a DSD-only machine as per Ric's discuss of the emmlabs design. I fail to see how a commercial company will want to commit commercial harikiri for the sake of a few pence. A DSD-only machine is nice idea in principle, a very poor idea in practice. Considering that DSD clock frequency is essentially 64fs i.e. a multiple of the CD sampling frequency even the crystal will not benefit. I hope you recall that Sharp as far back 1999, essentially developed a DAC-less converter design, the only concension to PCM was that it upsampled all PCM code DSD frequencies using totally different inputs, such that the filter only saw DSD data. The design was so KISS, that DSD input could not recognise PCM data, all the outputs were simple pass-thro outputs. As per current practise they are now doing 128fs and 256fs, It will interesting to see how loss of a single PCM to DSD converter from a design will dramatically increase the performance of the machine. But then again that is what innovation is all about, wish you the best with your idea.
It a'int all about the music I also want excellent sonics!
The truth is what is possible, not what you want to believe!
i wasn't going to reply to you, but since you took the trouble to reword the clarity i'll try.all i said was bypassing a design constraint (ie. need to support PCM) opens up possibilities.
just because you and Ric failed to recognise these possibilities you are saying i'm the one with 'limited vision'??? c'mon, think about what you are saying here.
it's not about converting PCM to DSD or the loss thereof. modern DACs that support both PCM and DSD do not convert PCM to DSD. typically they have an underlying pseudo sigma delta architecture. PCM is converted using sigma delta and DSD is operating in some sort of bypass mode. Such a design compromises both PCM and DSD as the underlying architecture is optimized for neither. avoiding designing something that supports both PCM and DSD allows for something that optimizes for only DSD. i won't say anymore, but there are various avenues to pursue.
PS - Sharp did not implement a "DAC-less converter design". Sharp implemented a digital amplifier. not quite the same thing.
In a pure DSD design, as followed by a number of folks, the DAC (chip or discrete module) does not support PCM at all, as long you have an separate PCM to DSD converter module, the signal path does not need to know anything about PCM at all. And these days, the best converters are already operating @ 2*DSD or 4* DSD and DSD itself is 64fs, so the clock by definition if optimised for DSD is also optimised for multiples of 44.1, largely the reason why downsampling of DSD ends up as 88.2KHz or 176.4KHz PCM. To press the point wrt to your PS, a digital amplifier is actually a converter or what else does one call a device that takes in digital data and outputs an analog signal :-), it's ability to output enough power to directly drive a pair of speakers does not distract from that. Wish you the best with your innovation anyway, I look forward to when it comes to the market.
It a'int all about the music I also want excellent sonics!
The truth is what is possible, not what you want to believe!
arguably the "best" chip-based DAC in the market today, at least on paper anyway. Ric seems to like it a lot, and it is the successor to the PCM1738.guess what, this chip (like the PCM1738) is optimised for PCM. the DSD implementation is almost an "afterthought." It operates at optimal rates of 128-768fs. the digital filter and "advanced segment" architecture (in reality a hybrid multi-bit and sigma delta design) are all for PCM only.
In DSD mode, the whole thing is "dumbed down" to 64fs and the "advanced segment" architecture is not only wasted but arguably degrading the sound quality. a chip that's designed to operate multi-bit at up to 768fs is not going to be optimised for 1-bit 64fs.
It has been my impression that the internals are proprietary and I certainly have not been able to dig up more than the most generic description of what is happening inside of this. Do you have a reference that goes into more detail? Thanks.
Quote:The DSD1792 uses TI’s advanced segment DAC architecture to achieve excellent dynamic performance and improved
tolerance to clock jitter. The DSD1792 provides balanced voltage outputs.Digital input data via the digital filter is separated into six upper bits and 18 lower bits. The six upper bits are converted to
inverted complementary offset binary (ICOB) code. The lower 18 bits, associated with the MSB, are processed by a
five-level third-order delta-sigma modulator operated at 64 fS by default. The 1 level of the modulator is equivalent to the
1 LSB of the ICOB code converter. The data groups processed in the ICOB converter and third-order delta-sigma modulator
are summed together to an up to 66-level digital code, and then processed by data-weighted averaging (DWA) to reduce
the noise produced by element mismatch. The data of up to 66 levels from the DWA is converted to an analog output in
the differential-current segment section.This architecture has overcome the various drawbacks of conventional multibit processing and also achieves excellent
dynamic performance.
it really does not address DSD conversion. This scheme, described in only the roughest detail, is a conversion from 24 bit PCM to analog.From a block diagram early in the data sheets, it looks like the DSD input is routed through this stage as well, but I strongly doubt it. It would make little sense to convert a DSD data stream into 24 bit PCM and then convert it back to sigma delta (bottom 18 bits at least) enroute to analog.
My suspicion is that there is a completely different DSD conversion path which is undocumented for security reasons.
there are two options for DSD, either it is converted to multibit, or it is operating in bypass mode straight to the current segment dac.i suspect the latter - the PCM1738 documentation (on which the DSD1792 is based upon) hints at this.
but a sony marketing white paper for the scd-xa9000es implies conversion to multi-bit, or at least multi-level, is being performed.
can you imagine the reaction of ZS KEKL, Frank, NonA, Martin, ... if the former is true?
i can imagine the headline from ZS KEKL: "Top of the line Sony SACD players convert DSD to PCM - LOL!"
... this is the "other" hot chip out there, which Alex Peychev likes a lot.this is also a multi-bit delta sigma design optimized for PCM. It also has a "DSD processor" that converts DSD to multi-bit - hardly pure, don't you think?
In "Direct DSD" mode, where the DSD is fed directly to the switched capacitor array, almost the entire chip is wasted. Far better to implement a discrete DAC.
I think i have provided enough evidence now that current "pure DSD" DACs used in SACD players are probably not as "pure" or as optimized for DSD as you may think. Meitner is probably the closest to a DSD-optimized implementation at this stage but there's always room for improvement!
It seems that SACD still has a lot of potential of improvement in the future when Optimised for DSD DACs (or DAC less) is available.Alan
... let's just say current players are reasonably optimized for DSD given the constraint to support PCM as well. if PCM support is not required, however, different approaches can be considered.
i suggest you read the data sheets for all the common PCM/DSD DACs.none of them convert PCM to DSD as you suggest, and yet they are pure DSD. virtually none of the players out there today have a PCM to DSD module as you seem to think, apart from the meitner and maybe the early Sonys.
take the Burr Brown PCM1738 for example - PCM is converted via a hybrid multi-step sigma delta architecture, DSD is in a pass thru mode. most of the other chips are similar - PCM is not being converted to DSD, it is converted directly using sigma delta at far higher rates than DSD.
a digital amplifier is NOT the same as a DAC, it is highly misleading to imply that it is so, as you suggest. it is a class D amplifier where the switching is controlled digitally.
please, if you want to label someone with "limited vision", try and be accurate and check your facts before you post.
a digital amplifier is NOT the same as a DAC, it is highly misleading to imply that it is so, as you suggest. it is a class D amplifier where the switching is controlled digitally.
It's not misleading at all. Some class D amplifiers are also DACs. The TI chips used in many new low end receivers and the Sony S-Master Pro chips are both DACs and amplification modules (the Tripath chips on the other hand may only have analog inputs). The Sony chips even have DSD inputs. Internally, they can produce the C-PLM waveform which drives the switches directly from either PCM or DSD. Also, a conventional DAC could be thought of as an amplifier too - just a very low power one. It may be possible to take a simple DSD-> analog conversion circuit and scale it up to the point where it's producing usable power levels, and control volume by varying the supply voltage.
Dave
I thought the TI chipset is basically a PWM amplifier. PCM has to be converted to PWM prior to amplification. DSD has to be converted to PCM (prior to PWM), I think. so it *is* misleading to call the amplifier the "DAC" in the sense that it converts PCM or DSD directly to analog. at best it is a form of DAC but not the same kind used in an SACD player so not directly comparable.The S-Master Pro architecture is a bit purer but still i don't think DSD is directly being amplified. as you pointed out, internal conversions are happening prior to amplification stage.
your last sentence is getting closer to the "possibilities" that i was referring to. one option to pursue in a DSD only player is to have a discrete DSD only DAC that directly outputs line level - involving synergies between conversion, amplification and the switching power supply. this is *not* the DAC-less concept (despite what Ric thinks), but it is a valid path to pursue, and should result in sonic improvement.
Well, I don't think that implementing PCM-> PWM conversion disqualifies those TI amplifier modules from meeting the definition of a DAC any more than delta-sigma conversion disqualifies most normal DACs. But I don't want to go too far down the road of arguing semantics.I agree with your general premise that today's multi-format DACs are not necessarily optimized for DSD conversion. I think DSD makes it possible to design an very short & simple analog signal path by taking advantage of the synergies you mention. In fact, I'm surprised that nobody has really pursued this yet (at least not successfully). Now if some brilliant person could come up with a good algorithm for digital filtering in the DSD domain, which would permit digital crossovers in DSD, you could do conversion and amplification at the speaker and realize an unbelievably clean & short signal path.
Dave
** Now if some brilliant person could come up with a good algorithm for digital filtering in the DSD domain, which would permit digital crossovers in DSD, you could do conversion and amplification at the speaker and realize an unbelievably clean & short signal path **What you propose is already in gestation and will be demoed very soon
It a'int all about the music I also want excellent sonics!
The truth is what is possible, not what you want to believe!
... I thought i better follow my own advice to theaudiohobby and checked the facts by reading the relevant data sheets on ti.com.The TI chipset is a PWM amplifier. PCM must be converted to PWM via TAS5026 PWM processor. TAS5026 does not accept DSD, so DSD must be converted to PCM first.
Needless to say, all this is completely non-optimal for DSD as it needs to pass through two conversion stages before being amplified.
digital amplification does require PCM conversion 1st to the best omk. DSD and PWM are often confused as you suggest.
digital amplification does require PCM conversion 1st to the best omk. DSD and PWM are often confused as you suggest.
No, digital amplification does not require PCM conversion - see Sony's S-Master Pro chips. I don't think anybody is confusing DSD and PWM. DSD is not PWM and PCM is not PWM either.
And when you think about it, "digital amplifier" is probably a misnomer anyway. A more accurate term would be "switching amplifier" or "PWM amplifier" as Christine was using.
Dave
When you point a finger at someone there are three pointing back towards you (think about it)....no need to get personal. I already addressed the idea of a DSD only DAC (or if you like DAC less) in a player where you could either use it with another DAC for PCM or you could run upsampled PCM into it. Or weren't you reading (listening)? I hope you have a brilliant idea for a DSD only player that will actually get implemented. Talking about things can just lead to disagreements. Let's do it! I cannot wait to hear your player that no matter how it is implemented will "beat any tweaked current design". He he. Hey, I don't care if you are right....maybe this little diad will get you ruffled enough to actually do it. Talk is cheap. Do it! Please....I want better sound.
DAC-less means not using any DAC chips at all.... and i'll stop dropping any more hints. i'm not the only one with this idea, i know a few (Australian) designers who share very similar ideas.
i have every confidence that within a few years (provided SACD survives as a format - hah!) some of these ideas will get implemented in commercial players. time will tell, though.
Christine,
Please, I know all about DSD DAC-less ideas. They have been around for years. And Allen has been talking about it here for at least two years. I bet the DAC inside the new Brimm converter is chipless (discrete). Good Luck on your design.
.
That's "Grimm" as in Eelco Grimm.
.
Have to agree with most of what you say based purely on the single 'fact' that dedicated CD players always tend to sound better than SACD players which of course are compromised by their duo/multi format status.Even if PCM processing components are totally disconnected, out of circuit or even removed altogether (those that aren't also involved with DSD), the manufacturer included them in the costing of the player and could not optimise the placement of the DSD componentry within the machine to shorten signal paths or reduce interference (RFI etc).
CD only players benefit from having a transport mechanism and laser dedicated to just CD of course, whereas SACD players again use transports that no matter how technically advanced are still compromised; it would be interesting to see if an SACD only transport/laser mechanism brought significant sonic gains but this would be down to Philips or Sony and not one particular manufacturer.
In short then (and hopefully you won't accuse me of being patronising here:0)), I cannot see how anyone can logically argue that adapting a player designed for multi-format playback for just SACD can ever be as suitable as a player designed specifically for SACD.
Even if the difference was only 2%, dedicated audio enthusiasts would appreciate the improvement considering that they spend thousands on cables in order to secure maybe a 1% improvement.
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
If any - and that would be the only way it could possibly make a $.Like almost reverse marketing - make something so exclusive that the ultra keen enthusiast have to have it...but it won't be me who does it.
I've been mentioning my level "X" upgrade for quite some time - a SCD-1/SCD-777ES with the RBCD playback facility disabled to notably enhance the SACD playback. Takers in a year - zip...!
Allen
PS Christine, .I'd sign your non disclosure agreement...
... I'm not going to talk about it anymore in this forum.
Chris,
Aren't you getting a modded Philips 1000 from Alex? Let us know how CD sounds on it compared to a comparably priced CD only player.We have had years and years to get the transports, digital filters, DACs, etc. right for CD playback and yet it is still getting better. The first bunch of SACD players were all made by Sony, Philips and Marantz....hardly serious audiophile products (look at all the mods for these players now to improve their sound).....now we finally have audiophile companies joining in and the machines are getting better and better....as time goes on there will be SACD and even Universal machines that will sound better than current CD only players (on CD). Peter Moncrief claims the McCormack Universal player sounds better than anthing he has heard on CD (one man's opinion).
I think the main problem with trying to do a DSD only machine is very much tied to money. The world is turning to A-V.....the two channel audiophile is a dying breed. Just go to a Stereophile show and look at the median age of the participants......clearly around 50 years old. So, if a DSD only machine were to be developed....who would do it? Would there be enough payback for the investment in a transport mechanism designed by the worlds leading mechanical and electrical engineers and then trying to make the shortest signal path, etc. etc.? This could cost literally millions....this is why analog is still going so strong....anyone can go down to a machine shop and have a 75 platter made from exotic materials and sell it to a few record freaks. Try developing your own state of the art transport mechanism....oh boy...now you are talking some serious money. Teac (Esoteric) has been some making some fairly serious CD mechanisms for years and have released some new players based on their latest DVD based mechanisms (at a mere $14,000? each).....If you can convince them to make a DSD only mechanism....well...good luck.
So, if a DSD only machine could be made to sound better (conjecture) then who is going to do it? And at what cost? and who would pay for it? Goldmund has a super expensive player....but its Universal....Linns new players are all based on their universal platform....on and on. The big money is in home theater.
If you have ever played with CD treatments (especially on you SACDs) then you know that the laser reading thing is not really where it is at. Many feel that putting the CD info on a hard disc and then reading it back sounds better than directly off the CD. I feel, a real jump in overall quality of all digital reproduction will come from using something other than a laser to read the info....naturally fixed memory comes to mind but it is not cheap enough.....a 1 gig memory chip is still way, way to expensive to use as a commercial carrier. However, fixed memory would not have the laser reading problems and the jitter related distortions would drop significantly, leaving us more palpable sound.
So, maybe a totally tweaked out designed to the max DSD only machine can be better....will we ever know?....meanwhile(back to reality)....we will tweak the heck out of whatever is in front of us.....at least until we get those $1.00 each 5 gig memory chips.
It does keep on getting better and better....it really does.
You bet a pure DSD player would be a really narrow niche market - but, hey, ain't this whole audio thing a really tight vertical, anyway? There are some folks (Teresa, for example) who prefer DSD over redbook, and the folks who really are into DSD could well want a dedicated player IF It Made That Much Difference. My suspicion is that Christine has that kind of confidence in her design - I guess we won't know until after she adds an M after her name. They still sell DAC's, and vinyl systems, and Rubidium players, and all kinds of tweaky stuff, equipment dedicated to one specific format or another, and if that was where my passion was, heck, I'd buy a non upsampling/ oversampling DAC, or whatever.
Lastly, there is a definitive part of this audio nuttiness that is still about prestige, pride of ownership, and wayyy crazy expensive systems and components - it seems that darn near anything trick (translated: expensive) will sell in Asia. Specialization can be a good thing.
"Aren't you getting a modded Philips 1000 from Alex? Let us know how CD sounds on it compared to a comparably priced CD only player."
I'm buying Alex's player primarily for it's CD playback and without hearing it am quite confident it will beat anything around at the price, unless there is a worldwide conspiracy among those who have heard it to deprive me of my cash of course.That comparison is mute however, as it would take Alex to totally redesign the circuit topography of the SACD1000 from scratch without the need for CD playback before comparing the two on SACD replay; ie, comparing a player designed for SACD replay against one similar in component quality merely adapted for SACD replay.
"I think the main problem with trying to do a DSD only machine is very much tied to money. The world is turning to A-V.....the two channel audiophile is a dying breed."Couldn't agree with you more which is why modders such as yourself will always be in demand for maximizing two-channel audio for music enthusiasts.
"...if a DSD only machine were to be developed....who would do it?"Once again we are in agreement as it just won't happen - the market isn't there, but my argument is simply theoretical; an SACD player designed purely for SACD would be better at the job than one designed to play SACD/CD and possibly DVD.
Whether 'better' would equate to a sonic improvement discernable by the listener is open to question, but I'd say it would be going off how quite minor changes in circuit topography can effect replay.
So, maybe a totally tweaked out designed to the max DSD only machine can be better....will we ever know?....meanwhile(back to reality)....we will tweak the heck out of whatever is in front of us.....at least until we get those $1.00 each 5 gig memory chips.Or maybe it's just a case of waiting to see what Christine has up her sleeve? :0)
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
I believe all DVD-V, DVD-A and SACD players essentially use a DVD drive. After the drive is where the differences begin. The firmware and electronics decide whether or not what's on the disc can be interpreted.
*** I believe all DVD-V, DVD-A and SACD players essentially use a DVD drive. ***no they don't - the sacd spec requires a transport capable of 2X speed, plus ability to read pit widths. Not all DVD transports do this.
This has nothing to do with whether it is a DVD drive or not. There are 1x, 2x, 4x, 8x and 16x drives that play DVDs. Just because a drive is 1x, instead of 2x or 16x, does not negate the fact that it is still a DVD drive.However, I'm not familiar with the "pit widths" part of your answer, so I can't comment on that aspect of drives that read SACDs.
you are confusing DVD-ROM drives (which do operate at up to 16x speeds) and consumer DVD transports. the DVD-Video spec only requires 1X, and some consumer transports only support 1X (there are various reasons for this, amongst them level of noise and power requirements).the SACD spec however, requires consumer transports to support 2X. this has nothing to do with DVD-ROM drives out there running at 8X or above - in fact, DVD-ROM drives do not support SACD.
the SACD copy protection mechanism relies on different pit widths. not all consumer transports are able to detect pit widths.
incidentally, DVD-A requires a transport that can read information in the burst cutting area. i don't think all transports support this either, but i could be wrong.
Problem is, I think only you and maybe two other people would buy it.
Accuphase DP-65v -> PS Audio PCA-2 Pre -> AES/Cary SixPac tube amps -> Tannoy D500 spkrs
that is still too little demand.Alan
Problem is, I think only you and maybe two other people would buy it.
I'm one and the other one hangs around here also :)
Yes, I do hang around here too. :-)I'd love an SACD-only player. If one emerged, I'd get it and a Redbook-only transport for my DAC.
Well, I guess that makes 4 now including the post originator! The last time the other one posted here was Oct. 1.
Well, I guess that makes 4 now including the post originatorIf I were a manufacturer, I'd be really excited with the HUGE demand for such a device. ;-)
Accuphase DP-65v -> PS Audio PCA-2 Pre -> AES/Cary SixPac tube amps -> Tannoy D500 spkrs
Sorry... That message number is not valid.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2013, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ Take5 ]
