help picking an SACD player

[dvda-sacd]

The Wikipedia states: "Due to way 1-bit Sigma-Delta converters work, DSD encoded audio for lower tones has better resolution than standard CDs, while for higher tones the resolution, and therefore fidelity, drops down below that of standard CDs".

I think that's not completely correct. I will research carefully.

My best sounding discs are pure DSD recordings. That's why I'm a SACD lover. :T

[jim777]

Uh... not completely following where this is going. So are you guys trying to say that producing discs with new high-res audio formats of DTS-HD, DD+, etc, will NOT be any better than SACD or DVD-A?

SACD has no video and DVD-A can't hold a full movie.
Standard DVD-V is 480p max (and 480i most of the time). It can be upsampled all the way up to 1080p, but it is still encoded as 480i on the disc.
The new formats are all about hi-res video encoded on the disc. There is no intention to deliver more on the audio side. Anyway SACD and DVD-A has gone far enough - my opinion is that the remaining limitations are in the studio (and mastering).

[dvda-sacd]

my opinion is that the remaining limitations are in the studio (and mastering).

I totally agree with you.

[jim777]

I think that's not completely correct. I will research carefully.

My best sounding discs are pure DSD recordings. That's why I'm a SACD lover. :T

It has some truth to it, but we are still talking about some low distorsion over 10kHz. Add the fact that the threshold of hearing is way high and also goes up higher pass that frequency.

PCM has a constant noise floor, -6dB per bit. Pretty simple to proove that.
DSD has a frequency dependant noise floor; lower than PCM in low frequencies (under 1kHz) and higher than PCM in high frequencies (over 10kHz). It is less obvious to calculate but it can be done

DSD might have better time resolution. Anyway it works more like an analog signal - an analog signal cannot change value in one instant. That is why I'm a bit biased for DSD. I have no proof of this though - it's only a hunch.

But as I said before, both formats are probably a lot better than what can be attained in the recording/mastering, especially if microphones (with their self-noise) are used - and I don't listen to electronic-only "music".

[JKalman]

The new formats are all about hi-res video encoded on the disc. There is no intention to deliver more on the audio side.

I wouldn't say that. From what I read on the Dolby and DTS sites their new sound formats are not going to be lossy compressed, but rather lossless. Whether or not you can hear a difference is open to debate, but one thing is for certain, they will be delivering more content. :P I don't know how soon these will be delivered on the new disc formats, but this is what their new formats are about: Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD

Of course, they are optional, so we will see if anyone uses them...

[jim777]

I wouldn't say that. From what I read on the Dolby and DTS sites their new sound formats are not going to be lossy compressed, but rather lossless. Whether or not you can hear a difference is open to debate, but one thing is for certain, they will be delivering more content. :P I don't know how soon these will be delivered on the new disc formats, but this is what their new formats are about: Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD

Of course, they are optional, so we will see if anyone uses them...

Sorry if I was not clear:

Audio on the new formats won't be better than SACD or DVD-A. They are lossless already.

However, for movies, yes this will be the first time we can get high quality audio and video at the same time. For now it is audio only...

So yes, the new formats have better audio (for movies), than standard DVD-V. SACD and DVD-A don't hold movies and DVD-V is lossy.

[kurtholz]

Dear all

can we stay focused here, this is all about me and helping me find the best dedicated SACD player

:-)

OK, quandry, $3500 plus tax new Krell SACD standard, $2300 version 2 Krell SACD player,

which would you do

Kurt

[dvda-sacd]

can we stay focused here, this is all about me and helping me find the best dedicated SACD player

Sorry. ops:

[Chris D]

Sorry if I was not clear:

Audio on the new formats won't be better than SACD or DVD-A. They are lossless already.

However, for movies, yes this will be the first time we can get high quality audio and video at the same time. For now it is audio only...

So yes, the new formats have better audio (for movies), than standard DVD-V. SACD and DVD-A don't hold movies and DVD-V is lossy.

Sorry, just to finish up my clarification, I'm not talking about movies or video... I would naturally assume with next-generation formats being released right now, that new AUDIO discs will be released in these formats. i.e. a music album recorded in DTS-HD. If I understand you correctly, there is no point in such an album being re-recorded, because it would not be any improvement over SACD?

[jim777]

Sorry, just to finish up my clarification, I'm not talking about movies or video... I would naturally assume with next-generation formats being released right now, that new AUDIO discs will be released in these formats. i.e. a music album recorded in DTS-HD. If I understand you correctly, there is no point in such an album being re-recorded, because it would not be any improvement over SACD?

Exactly.

Sorry for hacking the thread... ops:

BTW, isn't choosing a SACD player in this price range more a question of features (SACD and/or DVD-A), personnal preferences (for sound) and system synergy? I would have a hard time believing that there can be a clear winner.

I'm a McIntosh fan, so of course I would go for the MVP861 for multichannel SACD/DVD-A (or my MCD201 for 2ch SACD). But I think that everyone here is going to have his preference. We are not talking cheap player here - there is not many compromises to do in their designs.

Don't want to cut off the fun here though..

[chinets]

Marantz DV 9600 question about Kris Deering's Secret's Review?????

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Everyone,

I have the Marantz DV 9600 and the question I would like to ask is why did Kris Deering in his Secrets review of the Marantz DV9600 DVD benchmark say that In SA-CD one has to go from DSD to PCM???

I listen to SA-CD in Multi-Channel so why would I have to go from DSD to PCM . Doesn't that defeat the purpose of the ByPass mode ,and have a perfect DSD sounding SA-CD CD down graded to a normal PCM sound. Can anyone explain what Kris Deering here is saying below:

"The audio section of the DV9600 is excellent, with full support of both high resolution formats and full bass management as well as time alignment for both. SACD does require conversion to PCM though for time alignment, but in our opinion it is well worth it. "

The other comment Kris Derering said was the Matrantz has full bass management. I have the Dv 9600 ,and I couldn't find in the whole manual or in OSD or my remote anything to do with bass management either in DVD-A or SA-CD??? What is this bass management he is talking about??? Bass management can only be done with my Processor ,so what is Kris talking about when he says bass management on the Marantz DV9600?????

Can anyone out there expalin this to me please!!!
Thanks in advance,

Cheers,
Chinets

Hi Kurt,
This whole thread is a nighmare for me!!!! I can't understand any of this Technical Lingo here!!!!
I had the sony ES9000 DVD player you stated, but I traded it in for the Marantz DV9600. It plays SA-CD and DVD-A superbly, but a little on the warm side in DVD-Video, althought the picture is sublime.
Since we are touching on the subject of the Marantz DV 9600 could you please answer me this question:.
Prior to buying the Marantz DV 9600, I had the Rotel RDV-1060. The sound of the Rotel 1060 In Video sound was Dynamic and forward, but I find that the Sound of the Marantz in Video sound is warm and very neutral with no dynamics which kind of dissapointed me. On the other hand, the Marantz sounds way better in DVD-A to compare and ofcourse the Marantz has SACD which Rotel does not enjoy. I also found that In DVD-A if we compare the sound of both players. The sound of Marantz has more bass but less Dynamics and more neutral which in DVD-A or SA-CD is perfect ,but the Rotel was way brighter and forward.
Can you please explain to me which do you find better in DVD-Video's Audio sound Marantz DV 9600 or the Rotel RDV-1060??? As the Marantz is almost 3 times the price of the Rotel. Marantz $2200 and the Rotel $800. Thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well Kurt I haven't heard from you In a long while so hope you and the family are all well.
You will love the Marantz DV9600 In SA-CD and DVD-A as it sounds so correct and tight and very Natural and neutral compared to the Sony that has only SA-CD or the Rotel 1060 that has Only DVD-A. For movies well I do miss my Rotel for Dynamics..Why is that so for Rotel with Dynamics ,but not so for Marantz when you are paying three times the price?? I do not know?? All I know is that the DV 9600 has the most stunning correct sound, but does lack the Dynamics of other players that might not have that correct sound.
To me the sound of Rotel and Sony was like the B&W 703 very forward and bright, but the Marantz was like the B&W 800 series warmer ,but sooooooooo correct!!
Kurt can you please answer me all my questions above?? Sorry for giving you homework here, but I can't find anyone who understands or owns the Marantz DV9600 to help me.
Thanks for your kind help pal.
BTW I prefer the BMW M-5 that I have ,and forget the Lotus crap!!!!!!!!
Ciao amigo,
Chinets

[jim777]

Why 1-Bit Sigma-Delta Conversion is Unsuitable for High-Quality Applications

I found this paper that suggests that most of the DSD implementation "problems" have been addressed since 2001.. a 185dB noise floor is good enough for me.
Enhanced Sigma Delta Structures for Super Audio CD Applications

So I did a little Wikipedia edit on DSD... :twisted:

Send me a PM if you need the 2nd paper, the one that critizes the "DSD unsuitable" one...

So I guess we can go back at finding great SACD players

[dvda-sacd]

Great SACD players like this Esoteric:

http://stereophile.com/thefifthelement/205fifth/index3.html

[JKalman]

I found this paper that suggests that most of the DSD implementation "problems" have been addressed since 2001.. a 185dB noise floor is good enough for me.
Enhanced Sigma Delta Structures for Super Audio CD Applications

So I did a little Wikipedia edit on DSD... :twisted:

Send me a PM if you need the 2nd paper, the one that critizes the "DSD unsuitable" one...

So I guess we can go back at finding great SACD players

Excellent, nothing like putting knowledge to good use. That is the bothersome thing about Wikipedia, stubs aren't very official, and they are often full of mistakes. It is good to have them corrected by people who have a background in the area, which is why I recommended you correct the stub so others aren't misled. You should try to find a link to that second paper, if there is one you don't have to pay for, so that it can be placed there as well.

[dvda-sacd]

The Wikipedia states: "Due to way 1-bit Sigma-Delta converters work, DSD encoded audio for lower tones has better resolution than standard CDs, while for higher tones the resolution, and therefore fidelity, drops down below that of standard CDs".

You can see how the Esoteric X-01 gets a DSD noise floor lower than 44.1 kHz PCM, even above 10 kHz frequencies, because of ultrasonic filtering.

http://stereophile.com/thefifthelement/205fifth/index3.html

Besides, I don't agree less noise means higher fidelity.

[kurtholz]

Hey Chinets

I had the Rotel 1060, i thought it was the worst player i have ever owned, ( bet i lit a fire with that comment), but it's the way i feel, i am trying the Sony out, but, will probably just go Krell sacd standard, the arcamdv29 i enjoy for dvd-a,etc, is outstanding, it does everything but SACD, since i have upgraded to the 802D, 2 channel is a more important area i can enjoy,( Kal is still new age multi channel,but maybe with a Krell processor he could convert), hahahaha

the Marantz does look like a great over achiever, but i don't want to pay for a universal when i am so happy with my DVD player already

also, mod-right does an upgrade on the Sony that includes tubes etc, that has me somehwhat intrigued, but having to wait and not knowing anyone who has used them is a concern, so

as always, what to buy next

hope all is well with you, look forward to your next email

regards

Kurt

[Kal Rubinson]

Kal is still new age multi channel,but maybe with a Krell processor he could convert), hahahaha

Why? What am I missing? :E

Kal

[jim777]

Why? What am I missing? :E

Kal

Sometimes less is more :B :B :B

[Kal Rubinson]

Sometimes less is more :B :B :B

That's my current working philosophy.

Kal

[chinets]

Hi Kurt,
Nice to hear from you again. Wow the 802D!!! Congratulations. I am getting the 802D too, but a year from now ,as I am building a new house and will be finished the beginning of 2007 ,so that is when I will get the largest Plasma screen available at that moment and the 802D which I will use in a 7.1 set up!!!!!! I love Multi-Channel.

Yo!!! Kurt you did not answer my question I put forth to you in this thread. Please help me and answer the questions as I am kind of Pissed that the Marantz is not Dynamic in sound compared to the cheap Rotel. Ok!!! As I said earlier the Marantz is more correct sounding but no Dynamics, but Rotel not as correct sounding but YES very Dynamic..WHY?????????????????? I paid three times for the Marantz over the Rotel ,so the Marantz should theoretically have better DACs and BITs over the Rotel...RIGHT??????
Please answer my questions??
Thanks pal In advance.
Hope you and the family are all well!!! Miss you Amigo!!!!!
Keep in touch,
Chinets

[kurtholz]

Why? What am I missing? :E

Kal

Hey Kal

how can you work for STEREOPHILE, meaning 2 channel, and not like 2 channel,( a harmless jab)

now i understand multichannel, in fact i embrace it, but a lot of music just seems right on 2 channel,( now that i have 802Ds) and i think that is a rather universal opinion,

just curious as to your thoughts on the two formats

regards

Kurt

[jim777]

Hey Kal

how can you work for STEREOPHILE, meaning 2 channel, and not like 2 channel,( a harmless jab)

now i understand multichannel, in fact i embrace it, but a lot of music just seems right on 2 channel,( now that i have 802Ds) and i think that is a rather universal opinion,

just curious as to your thoughts on the two formats

regards

Kurt

And don't cheat. A budget for 2 802D's and electronics is not the same as a budget for 5 802D's, two subs, etc..

[JKalman]

I appreciate surround when the rear and surround channels are used for ambience, to recreate the acoustic space of the original recording or concert (as much as that can really be done considering the laws which govern electroacoustically coupled spaces). Otherwise it bothers me...

I'm actually in the process of getting consultation work done by Rives Audio for my space and I have the unfortunate situation of having to decide between optimal setup for stereo or surround. I can't have both in my space as far as I know. I hate having to make this kind of decision. I plan on doing HT in this room as well, but I will do more listening to stereo music than surround, unless I mix the stereo signal up to 5.1 through my preprocessor instead of using my preamp. I think the only decent solution is to have separate rooms so both can be set up optimally.

[Kal Rubinson]

Hey Kal
how can you work for STEREOPHILE, meaning 2 channel, and not like 2 channel,( a harmless jab)

How can I not like 2 channel? I am listening to it now (in the office) even though the recording is a MCH SACD.

now i understand multichannel, in fact i embrace it, but a lot of music just seems right on 2 channel,( now that i have 802Ds) and i think that is a rather universal opinion,

A lot of recordings seem just right on 2 channel.

just curious as to your thoughts on the two formats

IMHO, anything will be better in good MCH. One extreme is to listen to a solo recording such as the Wispelway Britten Cello Sonatas on Channel Classics and compare the stereo with the MCH. The other extreme is, for example, the Harnoncourt Verdi Requiem.............

Kal

[Gump]

I purchased Peter White's "Glow" SACD last week. Based on how much I liked the Redbook CD I was sure that the SACD would be even better. Wrong. The RBCD sounded much fuller and more dynamic. My wife was a little ticked when I told her that I didn't like the SACD version that I just plunked down 20 bucks on. This inspired a mini-blind test which consisted of me telling her "not to peek" as I switched back and forth between the 2 CD's (SACD in 2-channel for demo purposes of course). She quickly agreed that the SACD sounded no where near as good. Playing it in Multi-Ch was not much better. Still very shallow sounding.

At any rate, I realize this is a deviation from the norm. I've just never had that happen before. I've had SACD's that sounded about the same as RBCD (or better obviously) , but never had one that sounded significantly worse.

Off the main topic I know, sorry.

By the way, if anyone's looking for a Peter White SACD.......

[chinets]

Mr. Kurt where are you!?????????????????????????
You never answered my question put forth to you!!!!!!!!!!!!
ARGENTINA CAMPEON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cheers

[jim777]

I purchased Peter White's "Glow" SACD last week. Based on how much I liked the Redbook CD I was sure that the SACD would be even better. Wrong. The RBCD sounded much fuller and more dynamic. My wife was a little ticked when I told her that I didn't like the SACD version that I just plunked down 20 bucks on. This inspired a mini-blind test which consisted of me telling her "not to peek" as I switched back and forth between the 2 CD's (SACD in 2-channel for demo purposes of course). She quickly agreed that the SACD sounded no where near as good. Playing it in Multi-Ch was not much better. Still very shallow sounding.

At any rate, I realize this is a deviation from the norm. I've just never had that happen before. I've had SACD's that sounded about the same as RBCD (or better obviously) , but never had one that sounded significantly worse.

Off the main topic I know, sorry.

By the way, if anyone's looking for a Peter White SACD.......

Be careful!! Many players have their output 1dB or more lower on SACD than on redbook. That is enough to make it feel less "dynamic".

If you want a great SACD demo with dynamics, check out the "Quality of Silence" album.. that's my favorite for showing dynamic range

[Gump]

Be careful!! Many players have their output 1dB or more lower on SACD than on redbook. That is enough to make it feel less "dynamic".

If you want a great SACD demo with dynamics, check out the "Quality of Silence" album.. that's my favorite for showing dynamic range

Thanks for the info, I didn't know that. I kept the volume constant during the comparison. But when I was just listening to the SACD alone I cranked it to a comfortable level (espc. in Multi-Ch) and even higher. Just didn't have the "magical presence" of the original CD. I'm still scratching my head over it....like I said I have other SACD's that sound quite good. (Dire Straits for ex.)
I will check out your suggestion , too... :T

[jim777]

Thanks for the info, I didn't know that. I kept the volume constant during the comparison. But when I was just listening to the SACD alone I cranked it to a comfortable level (espc. in Multi-Ch) and even higher. Just didn't have the "magical presence" of the original CD. I'm still scratching my head over it....like I said I have other SACD's that sound quite good. (Dire Straits for ex.)
I will check out your suggestion , too... :T

Well I also have that SACD, and I can borrow a high quality SPL meter at work, so I might do a little listening test...

[dvda-sacd]

Dsd

Hi,

I've been revising this thread to remember what we dicussed about DSD. It seems to me there is a question that stayed unanswered.

It looks like it approaches it by distorting the signal with noise though. Am I correct in that assumption based on the smudging?

I think we could see a thin line oscillating quickly if the oscilloscope had a better resolution. If DSD-128 (5,644.8 kHz) were used there would be more oscillations, but they would be shorter, what would make the signal clearer.

Regards.