Audio Asylum Thread Printer
Get a view of an entire thread on one page
|For Sale Ads|
In Reply to: RE: what DSD bitrate is SACD? posted by bullethead on April 02, 2017 at 06:46:18
The DSD bit rate used on SACD (or anywhere else) is 1. However the sample rate for standard DSD/SACD is indeed known as DSD64 as it is 2.8224mHz or 64 x 44.1 kHz (CD).
I've found SACD to be superior to DSD downloads, maybe there should be quad SACD? Seems the USA market doesn't care except us, but just a thought.
I rip the SACD and compare the following:
playing the SACD through SACD player against
playing the ripped SACD (DSD file) through USB path playing from the computer.
And I found playing the SACD through SACD player is better. (even though my USB DAC should at least be equivalent or even better than my SACD player).
The USB path has introduced many extra component (both software and hardware) that it is very diffcult to figure out where the problem is.
Your Mileage May Varies.
That's what I am hearing too. Thank you. USB connection is not good, as you say it is difficult when you add too much software and hardware in the mix with USB.
I always find USB to sound dull, regardless of file. With Linux, Apple and Microsoft all of them.
And CD rips sound different with different Drives, don't know if Ripping is the best way to acquire Music.
When I compared Downloads to equivalent SACD, preferred Z1 over 5400ES.
2x DSD is IT for me, don't think I'll graduate to 4x or higher due to cost constraints.
McIntosh D150, w/Ifi suite of USB products sounds much better than any other DSD Dac I've heard.
Haven't heard them all, by any stretch.
I just installed a Soekris DAC for a friend. It has both USB input and Coaxial input.
And Coaxial has an CD source through SPDIF, the Coaxial input from CD is more lifely.
You see, for the same DAC, the CD source sound even better. The USB is hires, the CD is Low-Res. But the CD sound better.
I could not believe my ears.
Ripped or downloaded DSD files are entirely the equal of playing the disc.
That is not always true. SACDs (and downloads obtained from those labels giving us, NativeDSD, and others the ripped files) go through an authoring stage that is not required if the labels would offer the step before that, the edit master. This is somewhat theoretical, or worst case, nitpicking to the finest detail, but non-authored edit masters are one gen closer to the recording than the authoring stage that SACDs have to go through. This why those DSD64 (say nothing of higher bitrates) files from labels like our Channel Classics or other boutique labels that either present us with edit masters instead of their ripped SACDs, or labels who now get us files that have NEVER been authored for SACD, are the theoretically better bets.
Perhaps I should have been more specific.
1. The rips I make are entirely the equal of the original disc.
2. Some of the downloads are theoretically closer to the original master and can sound better.
The Download is a copy, when you load it into your SW Player, it's a Copy.
Probably only the Engineer hears the Original.
I do Live Recording, I can only hear the Original off the Recorder, then it's a Copy
on my Desktop.
Can you recommend quality stores on the internet to purchase DSD downloads? I've been using an Auralic Vega DAC. This could just be that I ran into some bad batches compared to the SACDs I have which sound fantastic. I never created a direct comparison. Perhaps the masters weren't as good with the downloads I bought compared to the higher level of performance I've grown to expect from SACD.
Its pretty easy for me because I listen to classical and there are several sites like nativeDSD and 2L that have consistently honest offerings. The latter has nice array of free downloads.
I would find it difficult to reach an overall opinion of DSD downloads v. SACD as in both cases some sound good, others less so. However I can't see me buying the sane thing twice for comparison i.e as a download and on SACD.
I do have a DSD rip (that was originally downloaded I am led to believe - left on my server by a guest) and the SACD of the same thing and there is nothing to choose between them.
I wonder if the difference that you note is a DoP packaging artefact the equivalent of the difference between compressed and uncompressed FLACS that some have noticed (including myself) ?
As for anything to happen again to SACDs in respect of an amended standard I think that is highly unlikely as it is pretty much on its deathbed with no economic reason for it to be developed further as things currently stand. Who knows though, some future revival? If nobody much in the USA cares I can assure you that it is the same here in the UK.
Post a Message!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: