|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
71.146.61.219
In Reply to: RE: Giving up on SACD posted by bullethead on December 22, 2018 at 08:16:24
Boom! There, I said it.
Optimizing low rez will get you sooo much more satisfaction and bang for your buck, than chasing after some ghost of audiophile nirvana. Hi Rez is a waste of money, full of false expectations and is for gear lovers, not music lovers.
Follow Ups:
This of course is absolute tosh!
The SACD players are still relevant moving into 2020. Back in the Spring, I purchased a sweet AYRE DX-5 universal spinner.
IS optimizing redbook level playback...
Your post is trolling as the subject is hi-rez DACs, and this is a hi-rez FORUM.
This isn't the place to make pronouncements about whether or not Hi-Rez works.
People DO enjoy the SACD format. People also have Universal players that play DVD, DVD-A, SACD, and redbook discs. These folks get to compare directly the recording quality, - sometimes with the exact same music between CD and SACD discs. Most agree that the SACD discs of the same recordings do sound substantially better at the higher resolution of SACD.
The same/or similar holds true with digital file playback.
Many folks who have purchased the DirectStream DAC or the APL DSD DACs where an FPGA chip processes all input to the DSD before converting to Analog report a much improved SQ.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
At least I can say the really good Red Book sound is all I need, hi rez doesn't seem to add anything inherently. (Vindication of the Nyquist Theorem.)
The fact too rarely discussed by audiophiles is that 90+% of the sound quality depends on the engineering and mastering of the recording, not the distribution medium or resolution above 16/44.1.
I love the music of Dmitri Shostakovich ...
"The fact too rarely discussed by audiophiles is that 90+% of the sound quality depends on the engineering and mastering of the recording, not the distribution medium or resolution above 16/44.1."I have a handful of older hi-res albums that sound no better than my CD rips, and I have some CD rips that sound as good as my hi-res. As you say, it's mostly in the engineering and mastering of a good recording.
I might hear a very slight benefit in a quality recorded and mastered hi-res album over the same high quality 'redbook' if I stress over it and dissect the music rather than just sitting back and enjoying it. And I'm just talking hi-res PCM. I've played with SACD & DSD but was never a fan.
Edits: 12/29/18
But I listen to multi-channel music, (on my HT system), only very, very rarely.
I have quite few SACDs but listen mainly to rips of their CD tracks.
I love the music of Dmitri Shostakovich ...
...but I bet 99.9% of us are 2-channel listeners when it comes to music.
Absolutely! Abe-
2 channel here. You own an interesting collection of DAC(s).
And the Accuphase cd player.
When SACD and DVD-A came to market, high quality CD playback seemed expensive to chase. Playing some of the good SACDs and DVD-As through mid-priced hi-res players (around $1-2k roughly) gave me sound quality that was at least as good or better than what I was hearing from CDs on significantly more expensive players. That's how I got into hi-res in the first place. I attribute some of the difference to the new formats, and some of it to new masterings that were only available on hi-res.
I don't buy SACDs anymore, but I still buy hi-res downloads. Some are worth the extra cost over the CD, and some aren't. I try to scour the net for opinions before buying, and generally I think I've gotten my money's worth.
Me? For most of my SACD, I use my Sony SCD-777es, which is plugging away just fine.
Otherwise? I honestly do NOT find much difference in transports, and even my XBOX will spin an SACD and give me an output to a decent DAC.
Ordinary redbook can sound fantastic if properly reproduced and if the original recording was good to begin with. Some (certainly not all) hi-res versions sound better. Some sound better period, some sound slightly better but only given direct comparison with the redbook equivalent. Without the comparison and just listening to a sequence of well recorded different albums, in general most listeners would be none the wiser as to which were and which were not hi-res.
Whatever the resolution the quality of the original recording trumps everything else.
I agree with that too. But that's not incompatible with preferring hi-rez, all other things being equal (which is what I think you were also saying).
" But that's not incompatible with preferring hi-rez, all other things being equal (which is what I think you were also saying)."
I was hoping to say a little more than that and apologise for my failure.
What I was trying to say is that in most cases (not all) the difference between a hi-res version and the redbook version of a well produced, well reproduced , recording will not be clearly discernable as part of a normal listening session i.e. not sitting there carrying out a/b comparisons to spot tiny differences. That is if you spent an evening here just playing albums, some hi-res some not, and I asked you to guess which were which I doubt that it would produce a statistically significant result.
However I will admit to normally choosing the hi-res version "just in case". So I do have a preference in that sense.
. . . especially since most of my hi-rez downloads and discs tend to be MCh! ;-)
Touché !!
However I did say " here" where the space is too confined to house anything greater than vanilla two channel.
What is a subtext to my remarks is a realisation that the whole high-resolution concept started in the late 1990s when the attainment of most commercial CD players was little more than adequate. SACD (for example) came as a reaction to that. However developments over the ensuing decades have meant that the margin in subjective performance between redbook and hi-res has narrowed considerably. Which is one reason why SACD was a commercial failure and why IMO there is really little public understanding or demand for hi-res. Just look how slow the turnover of threads in this forum is :-(
With my Sony XA-777ES player, the difference between SACD and RBCD is almost always obvious (that is, when the machine decides to play SACDs, which is infrequently).
But the thing is at least 15 years old. No doubt RBCD reproduction is much better, but I just have to take the plunge and get a decent DAC that doesn't cost a fortune.
I have a very small number of SACD-only discs; the rest are hybrids. There must be a way of ripping the SACD-only discs to a DSD file and then converting it to PCM. On the used (and some new) market, there are lots of reputable DACs that don't do DSD.
" There must be a way of ripping the SACD-only discs to a DSD file ". Brief details on how to do this are in this very thread further down.
Incidentally there's no point IMO in ripping an SACD and converting it to PCM as most are made from PCM files converted to DSD! It's a major scam. Just rip the redbook layer ( which is usually native PCM) if you want PCM replay. It avoids all of the conversion and will sound better even given the resolution.
Depending upon the DAC, "upsampling" - (it isn't really it is just padding) to 24 bit can bear rewards mainly because most modern processors expect a 24 bit word and faced with a 16 bit one use some of their processing power to insert 8 digital zeros on the fly ( so I am given to understand).
Incidentally there's no point IMO in ripping an SACD and converting it to PCM as most are made from PCM files converted to DSD! It's a major scam. Just rip the redbook layer ( which is usually native PCM) if you want PCM replay. It avoids all of the conversion and will sound better even given the resolution.
That hasn't been my experience. I've ripped lots of SACDs over the last couple years. I keep the .dsf files and also convert them to 24/88.2k FLAC for playback on devices that can't handle DSD. My main system supports native DSD playback, and on that system I don't hear a big difference between playing DSD and playing the converted hi-res FLAC. I long ago ripped the CD layer of my hybrid SACDs, and the difference between the 16/44.1 rip and the 24/88.2 conversion from DSD is usually bigger than the difference between the 24/88.2 conversion and the DSD rip. This is true even for hybrid SACDs from labels like AP, Chesky, and Telarc where they tried hard to make the best CD layer.
I do think it's wasteful to take a hi-res PCM master, convert to DSD for distribution, and convert back to hi-res PCM for playback. But those conversions seem less harmful than downsampling the hi-res master to 16/44.1.
Dave K I agree with you! I too have ripped my SACD's and found the PCM 24/88.2 hi rez taken from the DSD file to sound better than the 16/44 redbook from the same disc.
That's what I would have suspected. The relevance of tbe question to me is that there are some very good DACs that don't do DSD. So, if i migrate away from a disc spinner (as I am inclined to do), it might be handy to have all PCM files in mass storage. Some of my SACDs are SACD only, so there would be no way for me to get that music without ripping it to a DSD file and then converting that file to PCM.
And, as you all suggest even hybrid discs might benefit from ripping and converting the SACD layer rather than just ripping the RB layer.
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: