You are here

Log in or register to post comments
johnnie225
johnnie225's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 3 2008 - 9:48pm
The Fall of SACD

It has come to my attention that BIS Records, an SACD label, has been recording in high-bit PCM, not DSD, since 2005. They were simply transcoding to SACD for the consumer disc release. This means that any rave review of a BIS recording since '05 was in effect, a rave for high-bit PCM. Was Kal one of those ravers ?

BIS now joins Sony, Naxos, DG and Telarc in dumping SACD.

Things look pretty dark on SACD's sound as well. Anyone familiar with top-flight CD playback (CD ONLY playback, not hybrid machines) will put CD ahead of SACD on sound quality. They might not jump out and say it...but it's true. Meridian's 808.2 CD player is just one of a new wave of players doing it......

Kal Rubinson
Kal Rubinson's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 51 min ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 9:34am
Re: The Fall of SACD


Quote:
It has come to my attention that BIS Records, an SACD label, has been recording in high-bit PCM, not DSD, since 2005. They were simply transcoding to SACD for the consumer disc release. This means that any rave review of a BIS recording since '05 was in effect, a rave for high-bit PCM. Was Kal one of those ravers ?

Yup but, then again, I never said that I thought it sonically superior to high resolution PCM and I have repeated that experience with the HD codecs and MPCM on BlueRay. I always considered the various HD options pretty much equivalent and translatable. Where SACD shone was in convenience and in repertoire.


Quote:
BIS now joins Sony, Naxos, DG and Telarc in dumping SACD.

Not so. They continue release SACDs from hi-res PCM sources. (BTW, I am not saying that the SACD business is healthy but, if you think this is a final nail in its coffin, I do not agree.)


Quote:
Things look pretty dark on SACD's sound as well. Anyone familiar with top-flight CD playback (CD ONLY playback, not hybrid machines) will put CD ahead of SACD on sound quality. They might not jump out and say it...but it's true. Meridian's 808.2 CD player is just one of a new wave of players doing it......

Nonesense. First, it ain't so and, second, CD needs to grow a few more channels.

This is a big SO WHAT!?!

Kal (who still wonders at all the ill will expressed about SACD)

linden518
linden518's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Dec 12 2007 - 5:34am
Re: The Fall of SACD

Well, you can't hardly say that the future of CDs is exactly too rosy, either! Seems like the current trend among critics & listeners alike is that the music from the server sounds better/more palpable than the music read off discs... With the physical media gradually being phased out of shops, the online downloads are the thing, and I find this a bit sad. Let's at least hope that the hi-rez download grows at an exponential rate, not just among the marginal audiophile crowd.

That said, people said records were dead. And they were for a good while, it seemed, but look how quickly things have turned. Who knows what will happen to CDs and SACDs? I think what the labels need to do is realize that the physical media are indeed for the last of the Mohicans, but they should really CULTIVATE their products toward this crowd. Good packaging and program notes, solid artwork, etc., make those of us who believe in the physical media feel catered to.

One case in point are those Esoteric SACDs, Curzon's Mozart, etc. You may say they're fetish objects. Duh, really? There's fetishistic element to collecting records & CDs? You don't say.

johnnie225
johnnie225's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 3 2008 - 9:48pm
Re: The Fall of SACD

The point is that we can get GREAT recordings via high-bit PCM. *I* still wonder why independant labels chased after DSD. A new format would also distort the decoding parameters for playback.

And let's not kid ourselves - SACD is not more convenient !! It can't be ripped to hard-disk or memory - nor is there anything in the way of selection for pop/rock/r&b. Just two of the many nails in its coffin.

Finally, sound. Apparently, you haven't spent time with the Meridian 808.2. JA struggled to hear a difference between it and (true) Hi-Rez audio. Trust me, it beats SACD head-to-head - I've already tried it. Sam Tellig has similar views on CD vs. SACD...

Kal Rubinson
Kal Rubinson's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 51 min ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 9:34am
Re: The Fall of SACD


Quote:
And let's not kid ourselves - SACD is not more convenient !!

It is more convenient for playing compared to DVD-A and other video-based systems.


Quote:
It can't be ripped to hard-disk or memory

True but you can rip the RedBook tracks and, apparently, that would be OK for you.


Quote:
- nor is there anything in the way of selection for pop/rock/r&b.

Not a convenience issue. OTOH, I do agree that more offerings in these mass market genres might have made a great difference. But I do wonder if that was the result of poor decision-making or a rational analysis of the market potential. Nonetheless, I must say that, in my own self-interest, I am sorry that these were not offered more widely but I would not have bought them anyway.


Quote:
Finally, sound. Apparently, you haven't spent time with the Meridian 808.2. JA struggled to hear a difference between it and (true) Hi-Rez audio. Trust me, it beats SACD head-to-head - I've already tried it. Sam Tellig has similar views on CD vs. SACD...

Again, nonsense. I have been enjoying the real improvements that the Meridian apodizing filters bring to CD reproduction (thanks to the HD621) but it still does not get to SACD or other high-rez levels nor, as I reiterate, provide the multichannel experience. (Sam's comments are ignored for the time being.)

Kal

johnnie225
johnnie225's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 3 2008 - 9:48pm
Re: The Fall of SACD

A purist would not be happy ripping the Red Book layer of SACD to hard-disk. Another force that will kill the format.

On sound quality, you're making somewhat of a fool of yourself - although I do respect your opinion. Fewer and fewer reviewers are saying that "SACD sounds better" (than CD) these days. You can ignore Sam's comments all you want, but other writers are saying the same thing. Or at least claim that folks "might hear it either way" - like Roy Gregory in one of his Hi-Fi Plus reviews recently.

And I know what *I* hear with the great 808.2 - SACD is now second behind CD, sorry. But let's not forget that it's one multi-bit recording format - that decimates and oversamples - against another !! High-bit PCM simply encodes more quantization - making sense that it sounds better.

RGibran
RGibran's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 10 months ago
Joined: Oct 11 2005 - 5:50pm
Re: The Fall of SACD


Quote:
One case in point are those Esoteric SACDs, Curzon's Mozart, etc. You may say they're fetish objects. Duh, really? There's fetishistic element to collecting records & CDs? You don't say.

It worries me to hear the youth of today speak of fetishism in this way. Surely $60.00 SACD's are the fetishes of old old gray haired audiophiles?

RG

Kal Rubinson
Kal Rubinson's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 51 min ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 9:34am
Re: The Fall of SACD


Quote:
A purist would not be happy ripping the Red Book layer of SACD to hard-disk. Another force that will kill the format.

Really? While some philosophical purists say so, others are finding that hard disk and SSD media are more than equal for RedBook storage and playback. In addition, they are capable of higher bitrates and buffering to assure synchronous data clocking.


Quote:
On sound quality, you're making somewhat of a fool of yourself - although I do respect your opinion. Fewer and fewer reviewers are saying that "SACD sounds better" (than CD) these days. You can ignore Sam's comments all you want, but other writers are saying the same thing. Or at least claim that folks "might hear it either way" - like Roy Gregory in one of his Hi-Fi Plus reviews recently.

Do I have to agree with everyone or am I allowed to make up my own mind based on my own experience? Sam has too many hang-ups for me to discern his real preferences but he has not swayed my opinions much. Mine are, admittedly, biased by the inability of CD to support more than 2 channels. You, probably, have the inverse bias as, I know, Sam does.


Quote:
And I know what *I* hear with the great 808.2 - SACD is now second behind CD, sorry.

You are entitled to your opinion based on your experiences.


Quote:
But let's not forget that it's one multi-bit recording format - that decimates and oversamples - against another !! High-bit PCM simply encodes more quantization - making sense that it sounds better.

Hmmm. What are we arguing about? Besides, is there a reason to decimate and oversample a 24/96 bitstream?

Kal

Kal Rubinson
Kal Rubinson's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 51 min ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 9:34am
Re: The Fall of SACD


Quote:

Quote:
One case in point are those Esoteric SACDs, Curzon's Mozart, etc. You may say they're fetish objects. Duh, really? There's fetishistic element to collecting records & CDs? You don't say.

It worries me to hear the youth of today speak of fetishism in this way. Surely $60.00 SACD's are the fetishes of old old gray haired audiophiles?

Sure. Just look at the market for reprocessed older "Classic" recordings in all genres. Relive your youth.

Kal

johnnie225
johnnie225's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 3 2008 - 9:48pm
Re: The Fall of SACD

SACD people would greatly prefer to hear the format as...SACD...not Red Book, for playback. You're opaque response concerning high-bit rates was puzzling.

You keep bringing up "extra channels". Fine. Can you say "Trifield" ? I knew you could. This gives us a big chunk of the "surround" experience. It does help, also, to use an open-baffle speaker as it further enhances the experience. Boxes have their limits and traditional "open-panels" (Maggie, etc.) seem to be limited at projecting a true, deep soundstage. With real depth and a center channel, we won't be yearning for "surround" effects. Except for those rare pipe organ discs......

Sam has hang ups ? I guess we all do sometimes. So do neurons - but they have the glials to support them. SACD is losing *its* support and this time there is no back-up.....

Kal Rubinson
Kal Rubinson's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 51 min ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 9:34am
Re: The Fall of SACD


Quote:
SACD people would greatly prefer to hear the format as...SACD...not Red Book, for playback. You're opaque response concerning high-bit rates was puzzling.

My point is that I do not have a preference for SACD over other high resolution formats except for the wide availability of the repertoire I prefer.


Quote:
You keep bringing up "extra channels". Fine. Can you say "Trifield" ? I knew you could. This gives us a big chunk of the "surround" experience. It does help, also, to use an open-baffle speaker as it further enhances the experience. Boxes have their limits and traditional "open-panels" (Maggie, etc.) seem to be limited at projecting a true, deep soundstage. With real depth and a center channel, we won't be yearning for "surround" effects. Except for those rare pipe organ discs......

Yes, I have some experience with Trifield but it simply does not compete with real, discrete multichannel, imho (of course). As for the other matters you raise, they are extraneous.


Quote:
Sam has hang ups ? I guess we all do sometimes. So do neurons - but they have the glials to support them. SACD is losing *its* support and this time there is no back-up.....

And sometimes the glia drive them in strange ways. So, what is driving your fiendish glee in the failure of yet another good music medium? Seems just churlish to me.

Kal

RGibran
RGibran's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 10 months ago
Joined: Oct 11 2005 - 5:50pm
Re: The Fall of SACD


Quote:
SACD is losing *its* support and this time there is no back-up.....

Well I read somewhere Sony had a team of engineers traveling about demonstrating and proclaiming the audible benefits of SACD's with green labels. Those Sony marketing folks are genius!

RG

johnnie225
johnnie225's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 3 2008 - 9:48pm
Re: The Fall of SACD

I'll repeat: there was *no reason* for DSD - we had high-bit PCM, a totally transparent recording system. And higher-bit cured the problems 16-bit recording had - in terms of production losses (intermediate calculations, etc.). We also could of had a successful surround format out of this system. Correct ?

If you agree, then *I'm* at a loss why you support a format that was intended to replace the royality profits of a big corporation, confused the decoding parameters for playback, does *not* sound better than done-right CD, has no downloading or hard drive ability (in native form) and has few titles to choose from - compared to CD.

For you to be surprised by these statements is surprising in itself. Actually SHOCKING in itself !!!!

Kal Rubinson
Kal Rubinson's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 51 min ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 9:34am
Re: The Fall of SACD

The reason for my support has been clear from the beginning: SACD has given me many superb recordings and performances. I have about 2000 SACDs now and will continue to enjoy them regardless of what happens in the future. Get over it.

(With this I end my contributions to this pointless exchange. Feel free to play with yourself.)

Kal

johnnie225
johnnie225's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 3 2008 - 9:48pm
Re: The Fall of SACD

Good - we're both clear on our views.

*If* you got anything out of this exchange (unlikely due to your childish tantrums) you'll see that it's not that folks are happy with SACD's death so much angry that it was created in the first place. Not only is SACD a waste on disc (largely filled with noise) but a waste in the consumer audio world.....

rvance
rvance's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Sep 8 2007 - 9:58am
Re: The Fall of SACD


Quote:
so much angry that it was created in the first place.

Angry? ANGRY??! You are angry about a music format? Do you not believe in free will? Were you coerced into abandoning your true red book love for some tarted up cheap whore and now you feel shame, like a Republican governor? Have you ever really gotten over 8 track? How about Compact Cassette or DAT? Or Mini Disc? So many issues. Maybe you should try the Web M.D. psych forums. Too much opportunity to be traumatized here by the hi-rez tormentors.

johnnie225
johnnie225's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 3 2008 - 9:48pm
Re: The Fall of SACD

Yes - angry that SACD was advertised as a massive improvement over CD but clearly wasn't. CD now sounds better, through the latest playback gear !!

And yes, angry that Sony had to find a way to replace their royality profits. Corporate money, not the interests of a flea-sized market, were the driving forces here.

SACD now joins EL cassette, Betamax, DAT and Mini-disc in the heap of (Sony's) consumer-format ruins. Maybe now they got it - a new format has to be more convenient and/or better looking-sounding by a *wide* measure. These formats were none of these.....

BillB
BillB's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 2 months ago
Joined: Aug 15 2007 - 2:04pm
Re: The Fall of SACD

In my experience SACD sounds better. In some cases just barely better than CD. In other cases, way way better. And it IS higher resolution, yes? So - it's better objectively, and subjectively. Too bad it didn't succeed and thrive. Sometimes quality doesn't win. You could say it was defeated by low bit rate MP3. Darn shame.

ncdrawl
ncdrawl's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: Oct 18 2008 - 9:18am
Re: The Fall of SACD

SACD isnt going anywhere..though I hope this M-CH trash will die.

DSD hasits place in one (1) application: Mastering from analogue. When the recording chain is completely analogue, you can feed the audio from the analogue mastering into a DSD A/D converter and cut that signal straight onto a disc without any further processing. It is in this application that DSD can be viewed as pretty transparent. When you convert the signal twice, however (such as when using a DSD recorder as the tracking medium), the second conversion is no longer transparent, due to the HF noise present in the source signal hitting a second analogue deltasigma modulator.

in the scenario above...the sound will be great, superior to any redbook offering. outside of that scenario though...

stick with DVD-A or redbook..

johnnie225
johnnie225's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 3 2008 - 9:48pm
Re: The Fall of SACD

Even here, PCM does the trick. I don't see how DSD is better....

ncdrawl
ncdrawl's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: Oct 18 2008 - 9:18am
Re: The Fall of SACD


Quote:
Even here, PCM does the trick. I don't see how DSD is better....

if you do not understand how it is better, I suggest you

1.) start reading books.

2.) learn how to listen.

johnnie225
johnnie225's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 3 2008 - 9:48pm
Re: The Fall of SACD

A Rubinson-like response. If you're so smart, they why not explain to the crowd why a DSD transfer is better. And don't say that "there are fewer filters in the signal path". We've been there, done that.

Scientifically speaking, DSD has more spectrum distortion than high-bit PCM - as shown by Lipshitz and Vanderkooy years ago. Did you read these AES reports ?

ncdrawl
ncdrawl's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: Oct 18 2008 - 9:18am
Re: The Fall of SACD

lets see here..

freq response from DC to > 100,000 Hz, dynamic range of 120db or more... but as I said before THE SOUND is the key..

if you cannot hear the difference in a properly done SACD recording(ie the parameters from Mr. Putzeys), you are deaf.

johnnie225
johnnie225's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 3 2008 - 9:48pm
Re: The Fall of SACD

Then why is DSD-sourced SOUND an issue with more than a few folks ? What's wrong with 20-bit PCM ?

ncdrawl
ncdrawl's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: Oct 18 2008 - 9:18am
Re: The Fall of SACD


Quote:
Then why is DSD-sourced SOUND an issue with more than a few folks ? What's wrong with 20-bit PCM ?

hell, more than a few folks love MP3, so try another argument.
I didnt say anything was wrong with 20 bit PCM... I said that, when created correctly(transferring from analogue), SACD is preferred...

andy_c
andy_c's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 8 hours ago
Joined: Dec 25 2007 - 12:48pm
Re: The Fall of SACD


Quote:
Scientifically speaking, DSD has more spectrum distortion than high-bit PCM - as shown by Lipshitz and Vanderkooy years ago. Did you read these AES reports ?

There's a subtle distinction here. The Lipshitz and Vanderkooy paper (which can be found here (PDF download), is about obtaining the DSD bitstream using 1-bit delta-sigma conversion. IOW, it's about a specific implementation of DSD (how it was originally created), as opposed to the DSD format, which in theory is independent of the implementation. Since that paper was written, there have been other papers that show how the DSD bitstream can be created in ways superior to the simplest approach of taking the output of a 1-bit delta-sigma converter. It's unclear to me when (or if) these techniques were ever implemented. However, it's clear from the papers at the same AES convention that were written in defense of SACD by Philips and Sony engineers, that both Philips and Sony were caught with their pants down by Lipshitz and Vanderkooy - no doubt about it.

As to sound quality comparisons, in order to evaluate this on a factual basis, a controlled experiment is necessary. I've done similar experiments with DVD-A, but not SACD. In the DVD-A case, I ripped some tracks that were recorded at 24/96 and downsampled them to 16/44.1 (with dither). Then I upsampled the downsampled track back to 24/96 again and used the Audio DiffMaker software to make a file containing the difference between the original track and the downsampled/upsampled one. The difference consised entirely of silence under normal listening conditions and volume with headphones. If I turned up the volume all the way and put my ear up to the speaker's tweeter, I could hear a very slight increase in hiss in the difference file, but that was it. The trick to making this work was to use SoX, and scale the data down until it just stopped giving indications of clipping in the downsampled file. Before I did this, there were faint clicks in the difference file.

Of course, I'm sure that having a high-resolution format for those who need to manipulate the recording before it gets to the customer gives lots more margin for error than 16/44.1 does. But so far at least, I haven't found a case where having the final product be 16/44.1 makes any audible difference at all (based of the Audio DiffMaker results). This is of course subject to change based on any further experiments that I may perform. But since I've ripped all my DVD-A discs, I won't have any opportunity to do any more such evaluations in the near future. Based on what I've done so far, I'm very skeptical of audiophile claims, based on uncontrolled experiments, of the alleged sonic superiority of high-res in the final product.

ncdrawl
ncdrawl's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: Oct 18 2008 - 9:18am
Re: The Fall of SACD


Quote:

Quote:
Scientifically speaking, DSD has more spectrum distortion than high-bit PCM - as shown by Lipshitz and Vanderkooy years ago. Did you read these AES reports ?

There's a subtle distinction here. The Lipshitz and Vanderkooy paper (which can be found here (PDF download), is about obtaining the DSD bitstream using 1-bit delta-sigma conversion. IOW, it's about a specific implementation of DSD (how it was originally created), as opposed to the DSD format, which in theory is independent of the implementation. Since that paper was written, there have been other papers that show how the DSD bitstream can be created in ways superior to the simplest approach of taking the output of a 1-bit delta-sigma converter. It's unclear to me when (or if) these techniques were ever implemented. However, it's clear from the papers at the same AES convention that were written in defense of SACD by Philips and Sony engineers, that both Philips and Sony were caught with their pants down by Lipshitz and Vanderkooy - no doubt about it.

As to sound quality comparisons, in order to evaluate this on a factual basis, a controlled experiment is necessary. I've done similar experiments with DVD-A, but not SACD. In the DVD-A case, I ripped some tracks that were recorded at 24/96 and downsampled them to 16/44.1 (with dither). Then I upsampled the downsampled track back to 24/96 again and used the Audio DiffMaker software to make a file containing the difference between the original track and the downsampled/upsampled one. The difference consised entirely of silence under normal listening conditions and volume with headphones. If I turned up the volume all the way and put my ear up to the speaker's tweeter, I could hear a very slight increase in hiss in the difference file, but that was it. The trick to making this work was to use SoX, and scale the data down until it just stopped giving indications of clipping in the downsampled file. Before I did this, there were faint clicks in the difference file.

Of course, I'm sure that having a high-resolution format for those who need to manipulate the recording before it gets to the customer gives lots more margin for error than 16/44.1 does. But so far at least, I haven't found a case where having the final product be 16/44.1 makes any audible difference at all (based of the Audio DiffMaker results). This is of course subject to change based on any further experiments that I may perform. But since I've ripped all my DVD-A discs, I won't have any opportunity to do any more such evaluations in the near future. Based on what I've done so far, I'm very skeptical of audiophile claims, based on uncontrolled experiments, of the alleged sonic superiority of high-res in the final product.

right. DSD-Wide is one such implementation..deals with the compromises of the original implement..

johnnie225
johnnie225's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 3 2008 - 9:48pm
Re: The Fall of SACD

Yet others hear a "big" difference. Sounds like a placebo effect....

I agree that high-bit capture - not the final version, was the breakthrough that Red Book needed. But DSD is still a flawed format if it needs noise filters a lot more (than PCM) in the recording chain. But DSD is mostly noise anyway - how can it be better ?

And it must be flawed (again) if it turned out to be a *multi-bit* recording system. This means that it gets decimated and oversampled - two things we were told it wouldn't have to do. 1-bit recording couldn't be done in practice.

Finally, extra channels. More important for the center channel than the satellites - but (most) high-bit PCM masters can be processed into surround anyway. Or we can use Trifield.

Rubinson says that discrete surround is better than Trifield...but that's just his opinion. A good number of folks don't find SACD to be an advance over done-right CD. And more still (inc. JA) don't find surround to be an advance over two-channel audio. At least not when using "satellite" channels - with the bulk of their recordings........

andy_c
andy_c's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 8 hours ago
Joined: Dec 25 2007 - 12:48pm
Re: The Fall of SACD


Quote:
right. DSD-Wide is one such implementation..deals with the compromises of the original implement..

Just to clarify, I wasn't referring to a modified DSD implementation, but an improved A/D technique usable with the original implementation. Here is a post by Ted Smith, who I believe worked for Sony or one of its subsidiaries at the time of the post. This post references an AES article by Hawksford that describes the improved A/D technique. This apparently eliminates the problems with standard 1-bit delta-sigma conversion that Lipshitz and Vanderkooy pointed out in their paper referenced above.

andy_c
andy_c's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 8 hours ago
Joined: Dec 25 2007 - 12:48pm
Re: The Fall of SACD


Quote:
I agree that high-bit capture - not the final version, was the breakthrough that Red Book needed. But DSD is still a flawed format if it needs noise filters a lot more (than PCM) in the recording chain. But DSD is mostly noise anyway - how can it be better ?

Yes, DSD does need noise shaping to get the in-band noise down. In theory, PCM does not, but in practice nearly all PCM A/D's and D/A's use multi-bit delta-sigma with oversampling and noise shaping now. The more modern A/D and D/A designs using this technique actually have much better distortion performance than the old-style A/D's and DACs. The old-style parts had a distortion problem much like crossover distortion in the transistor power amplifiers of many years ago - the distortion got bad at low signal levels. The newer ones are much better, even though there's some nostalgia attached to old-style devices like the PCM1704. For an example of a PCM DAC using noise shaping, see the DSD1794A (PDF file here). Have a look at figure 20 in that file. Notice how the noise increases above 20 kHz. That's noise shaping in action in a PCM DAC. You can see the in-band noise in DSD mode is similar, but they don't show it above 20 kHz. Makes one wonder.

I'm not a DSD apologist. In fact, I think it's a pretty dumb idea because of the difficulty for recording engineers to process the data. I have both DVD-A and SACD discs, neither of which I listen to anymore. I hated having to use a monitor to pick what mix I wanted to listen to with a DVD-A. SACD did a much better job of this. I was able to rip all my DVD-A's to my music server though, which is great. The sound quality of the Workingman's Dead DVD-A blows away the LP, CD and HDCD. Unfortunately, I have some SACDs that aren't hybrids that I can't do anything with, like Mingus Ah Um. That sucks.

  • X
    Enter your Stereophile.com username.
    Enter the password that accompanies your username.
    Loading