SACD vs regular CD - MATCHUP!!!
03-18-02, 09:32 PM
#1
Moderator - Electronics Forum
Thread Starter
SACD vs regular CD - MATCHUP!!!
The venue. United Audio Centers/Tweeter Corp. I call in advance to get this matchup authorized. Originally it was supposed to be against their 800 dollar SACD player, but decided to go all out, no holds barred. The salespeoples minds are already ticking "He'll get wasted...SACD versus CD. Dumb move to even compare the two." The 777 looks formidable. Bristling with state of the art technology. 24 bit converters, high bit stream processing. The works. The Mike Tyson of players for the ES lineup.
In the other corner. A tried and proven player. Only 20 bits of processing at the standard CD rate. Costs 6 times less than the 777. Doesn't look like much on the outside. Lean. Uncluttered. No fancy blue LED's to light up. No flashing SACD indicator. No HDCD. A lightly modded player. Understated and blends in. FAST. PRECISE. BRUCE LEE.
First up. Track 6. Sarah Maclachlin. City of Angels soundtrack. The triple 7 goes first. First impressions. Powerful. Lots of gut pounding power. For the triple 7's showing, it's not bad. But like Tyson in the slammer, he's been in the bighouse too long.
Next up. Lee. (Denon 560) Precision. Speed. Delivery. Finese. In the time it takes the Tyson to recover, Lee has already delivered near fatal blows in rapid succession without even breaking a sweat. Lee wears down his opponent and delivers the final death blow. Tyson is dead.
Getting out of the ring. We notice the salespeople dragging the dead hulk of "Tyson". When asked what they were going to do with the body..."We're going to bury the poor SOB." Don King is pissed. Just for kicks, Lee punches out King. The crowd cheers and the ref raises Lee's arm and declares him "Da Winnah!" The crowd goes wild....
Now switching over to sonic vocabulary...
The ES didn't do too badly but I expected MUCH more out of a 3 grand cd player. Especially out of Sony's flagship. Dynamics were good but they were a bit muddy. Piano notes had a sharply terminated decay instead of the natural flowing and extended decay. Sarah's voice seemed like she was singing in the mic with lots of heavy duty cotton or sound deadener in front of the mic. It just wasn't there. Bass wasn't as well defined nor was the entire audio spectrum. Ok...so if you were to compare it with other players that were non modded, it would sound "the best".
Denon's 560 is considered a "standard issue, bread and butter" player. At 500 dollars it's not considered a flagship by any means. No HDCD and the technology is fairly old. The 1702 converters date back to the late 80's. It's an old chip. (for the record, the 1704 24 bit will date back to the late 90's.) Playing this unit was completely surprising for 2 of the salespeople. One of them a 10+ year vet of the store, wasn't highly surprised. He'd completely expected this from me and the mods. What surpsied him was that the 560 completely and thoroughly wiped the Sony's flagship on the ground. His remarks..."at least 35 percent better, if not more." When he was listening to the Denon first, he was all smiles. Then he switched over to the 777 SACD. He was shaking his head in disbelief. The man has a good ear and has a recording studio at home so he knows the drill.
The other salesperson to listen to the Denon standard CD vs Sony SACD is fairly young. Mid 20's at most. He's pretty good in that he doesn't play the BOOM BOOM system like so many other kids do, and he actually takes the time to listen. First up for him was the Denon also. His remark..."this sounds REALLY good." After the song was over he switched to the 777 SACD. His look was that of disbelief. The piano and her voice had just collapsed. No spaciousness, no air. His opinion of the 777 SACD..."They should have put better parts in there." When he asked me how much I spent modding the Denon...I replied "6 dollars."
For me the difference was obvious. It's not about bit rates or 20 versus 24 bit d/a's. It's all about the analog section. Crappy parts in, crappy sound out. You can fool a general "John Q Public" person with the large dollar figure and image, but you can't fool a person who's fallen for the hype and has learned from it.
The 16/44.1 standard holds true in theory and with the right parts and application it will hold true. But what the manufacturers want to do is to fool the general public into thinking that the higher the numbers, the better the performance. NOT TRUE. Remember that those numbers are just for bragging and selling.
Score one for the regular CD (with very light mods). SACD is overhyped.
Percy
Future matchup...500 dollar Denon 560 versus 20,000 USD Krell, Linn or Mark Levinson. The 500 dollar is beating my modded Krell and I know my modded Krell will beat out their KPS flagship. Just gotta find someone to set the matchup with!
In the other corner. A tried and proven player. Only 20 bits of processing at the standard CD rate. Costs 6 times less than the 777. Doesn't look like much on the outside. Lean. Uncluttered. No fancy blue LED's to light up. No flashing SACD indicator. No HDCD. A lightly modded player. Understated and blends in. FAST. PRECISE. BRUCE LEE.
First up. Track 6. Sarah Maclachlin. City of Angels soundtrack. The triple 7 goes first. First impressions. Powerful. Lots of gut pounding power. For the triple 7's showing, it's not bad. But like Tyson in the slammer, he's been in the bighouse too long.
Next up. Lee. (Denon 560) Precision. Speed. Delivery. Finese. In the time it takes the Tyson to recover, Lee has already delivered near fatal blows in rapid succession without even breaking a sweat. Lee wears down his opponent and delivers the final death blow. Tyson is dead.
Getting out of the ring. We notice the salespeople dragging the dead hulk of "Tyson". When asked what they were going to do with the body..."We're going to bury the poor SOB." Don King is pissed. Just for kicks, Lee punches out King. The crowd cheers and the ref raises Lee's arm and declares him "Da Winnah!" The crowd goes wild....
Now switching over to sonic vocabulary...
The ES didn't do too badly but I expected MUCH more out of a 3 grand cd player. Especially out of Sony's flagship. Dynamics were good but they were a bit muddy. Piano notes had a sharply terminated decay instead of the natural flowing and extended decay. Sarah's voice seemed like she was singing in the mic with lots of heavy duty cotton or sound deadener in front of the mic. It just wasn't there. Bass wasn't as well defined nor was the entire audio spectrum. Ok...so if you were to compare it with other players that were non modded, it would sound "the best".
Denon's 560 is considered a "standard issue, bread and butter" player. At 500 dollars it's not considered a flagship by any means. No HDCD and the technology is fairly old. The 1702 converters date back to the late 80's. It's an old chip. (for the record, the 1704 24 bit will date back to the late 90's.) Playing this unit was completely surprising for 2 of the salespeople. One of them a 10+ year vet of the store, wasn't highly surprised. He'd completely expected this from me and the mods. What surpsied him was that the 560 completely and thoroughly wiped the Sony's flagship on the ground. His remarks..."at least 35 percent better, if not more." When he was listening to the Denon first, he was all smiles. Then he switched over to the 777 SACD. He was shaking his head in disbelief. The man has a good ear and has a recording studio at home so he knows the drill.
The other salesperson to listen to the Denon standard CD vs Sony SACD is fairly young. Mid 20's at most. He's pretty good in that he doesn't play the BOOM BOOM system like so many other kids do, and he actually takes the time to listen. First up for him was the Denon also. His remark..."this sounds REALLY good." After the song was over he switched to the 777 SACD. His look was that of disbelief. The piano and her voice had just collapsed. No spaciousness, no air. His opinion of the 777 SACD..."They should have put better parts in there." When he asked me how much I spent modding the Denon...I replied "6 dollars."
For me the difference was obvious. It's not about bit rates or 20 versus 24 bit d/a's. It's all about the analog section. Crappy parts in, crappy sound out. You can fool a general "John Q Public" person with the large dollar figure and image, but you can't fool a person who's fallen for the hype and has learned from it.
The 16/44.1 standard holds true in theory and with the right parts and application it will hold true. But what the manufacturers want to do is to fool the general public into thinking that the higher the numbers, the better the performance. NOT TRUE. Remember that those numbers are just for bragging and selling.
Score one for the regular CD (with very light mods). SACD is overhyped.
Percy
Future matchup...500 dollar Denon 560 versus 20,000 USD Krell, Linn or Mark Levinson. The 500 dollar is beating my modded Krell and I know my modded Krell will beat out their KPS flagship. Just gotta find someone to set the matchup with!
03-18-02, 09:47 PM
#2
Forum Administrator
iTrader: (2)
Percy,
Nice writeup! Couple of questions just out of curiosity...
What were the speakers and amps you were using for your test? I'm assuming (since I'm familiar with what Tweeter usually carries) it was a set of Sonus Faber Grand Pianos or Viennas and a Krell or Adcom Amp? I'm sure you used the same set for both players.
How was the SACD player connected to the preamp or receiver? Was it via digital cables or analog RCA?
What sort of bass management did the amp / receiver have (or perhaps the SACD player has it on-board, I'm not familiar with it)?
Did you tweak the Denon yourself and bring it in, or buy it from somewhere?
Thanks,
D
Nice writeup! Couple of questions just out of curiosity...
What were the speakers and amps you were using for your test? I'm assuming (since I'm familiar with what Tweeter usually carries) it was a set of Sonus Faber Grand Pianos or Viennas and a Krell or Adcom Amp? I'm sure you used the same set for both players.
How was the SACD player connected to the preamp or receiver? Was it via digital cables or analog RCA?
What sort of bass management did the amp / receiver have (or perhaps the SACD player has it on-board, I'm not familiar with it)?
Did you tweak the Denon yourself and bring it in, or buy it from somewhere?
Thanks,
D
03-18-02, 10:21 PM
#3
Lexus Fanatic
One major flaw in this test. It was not a true double blind test. Secondary flaw, salesperson will kiss your *** for any of a number of reasons. His intensions are not always forthcoming. I know because I used to be a high end audio sales associate.
Also critical to list specific pieces of equipment including amplification, preamplification/processing, source, connection, and speakers. Both systems should be identical. Both sources should be identical. Speaker placement is critical. Every piece of equipment in both systems should be of similar wear and tear age. This includes the software. Were the CD and SACD both the same album? Was the SACD a two-channel disc? Are you sure it wasn't playing the second layer CD data?
A true DBT involves three parties. The setup crew, the operator, and the observers. The setup crew hooks all components up, and ensures that equalization, band extensions, and DSP modes are all neutralized, arranges the two systems behind a velvet cloth and places the speakers properly. Both systems should be checked and ready to go for operator to step in.
Operator randomly selects one system and plays a piece on each system for equal amounts of time before switching to second system. This process is repeated at least ten times. The operator should not know which system is which.
Observation crew should consist of an even number of people (five or ten) and should all be trained audiophiles of different likes. They should be blindfolded during testing. This is a true scientific double blind test procedures. It is a very formal procedure that I've performed many times. There has never been a unanimous vote for any of my tests. Many heavily weighted outcomes, but unanimous is very rare.
I have compared SACD and performed comparisons for SACD and the software is superb. It closely ressembles the warm analog flavor of vinyls. CDs I have never had luck with. I've owned the Sony CDP-XA20ES. An $800 single disc player with fixed pick-up mechanism and singe gear driven laser sled. It is widely regarded as Sony's best CD player and was based off of a $6000 prototype developed 8 years ago. It had a 1-bit ES pulse D/A convertor. Very sophisticated for it's time. It is still a better CDP than my current SACD player is, but SACD will annihilate it. My mother has the DCM-560 you have so I am familiar with it. I'm also very familiar with Denon's current models, the DCM270 and 370. Fidelity is all subjective, but everyone that's auditioned the 370 with my XA20ES has confirmed that the XA20ES has superior clarity and bass extension. I also have a friend with a Meridian 508 CDP which is something like $4000 and he concurs that CDs still sound cold and lifeless compared to his analog sources. He has a Nakamichi tape deck from the '80s, which he admits produces a better sound than his Meridian. Anyway, my two cents.
Also critical to list specific pieces of equipment including amplification, preamplification/processing, source, connection, and speakers. Both systems should be identical. Both sources should be identical. Speaker placement is critical. Every piece of equipment in both systems should be of similar wear and tear age. This includes the software. Were the CD and SACD both the same album? Was the SACD a two-channel disc? Are you sure it wasn't playing the second layer CD data?
A true DBT involves three parties. The setup crew, the operator, and the observers. The setup crew hooks all components up, and ensures that equalization, band extensions, and DSP modes are all neutralized, arranges the two systems behind a velvet cloth and places the speakers properly. Both systems should be checked and ready to go for operator to step in.
Operator randomly selects one system and plays a piece on each system for equal amounts of time before switching to second system. This process is repeated at least ten times. The operator should not know which system is which.
Observation crew should consist of an even number of people (five or ten) and should all be trained audiophiles of different likes. They should be blindfolded during testing. This is a true scientific double blind test procedures. It is a very formal procedure that I've performed many times. There has never been a unanimous vote for any of my tests. Many heavily weighted outcomes, but unanimous is very rare.
I have compared SACD and performed comparisons for SACD and the software is superb. It closely ressembles the warm analog flavor of vinyls. CDs I have never had luck with. I've owned the Sony CDP-XA20ES. An $800 single disc player with fixed pick-up mechanism and singe gear driven laser sled. It is widely regarded as Sony's best CD player and was based off of a $6000 prototype developed 8 years ago. It had a 1-bit ES pulse D/A convertor. Very sophisticated for it's time. It is still a better CDP than my current SACD player is, but SACD will annihilate it. My mother has the DCM-560 you have so I am familiar with it. I'm also very familiar with Denon's current models, the DCM270 and 370. Fidelity is all subjective, but everyone that's auditioned the 370 with my XA20ES has confirmed that the XA20ES has superior clarity and bass extension. I also have a friend with a Meridian 508 CDP which is something like $4000 and he concurs that CDs still sound cold and lifeless compared to his analog sources. He has a Nakamichi tape deck from the '80s, which he admits produces a better sound than his Meridian. Anyway, my two cents.
03-19-02, 06:03 AM
#4
Moderator - Electronics Forum
Thread Starter
[QUOTE]Originally posted by DaveGS4
[B]Percy,
Nice writeup! Couple of questions just out of curiosity...
What were the speakers and amps you were using for your test? I'm assuming (since I'm familiar with what Tweeter usually carries) it was a set of Sonus Faber Grand Pianos or Viennas and a Krell or Adcom Amp? I'm sure you used the same set for both players.
***B&K component A/V switcher. It's the wierd one with the rubber buttons up front. Although it's expensive, to me it's a piece of junk. As for the speakers I do believe they were the viennas. Have to get the equipment list.
How was the SACD player connected to the preamp or receiver? Was it via digital cables or analog RCA?
***Analog RCA. Monster M850i interconnects.
What sort of bass management did the amp / receiver have (or perhaps the SACD player has it on-board, I'm not familiar with it)?
***I do believe it was a Martin Logan sub.
Did you tweak the Denon yourself and bring it in, or buy it from somewhere?
***Player was bought years ago. I tweaked the player about 2 days ago and brought it in yesterday. Talk about a last minute comparison!
Percy
[B]Percy,
Nice writeup! Couple of questions just out of curiosity...
What were the speakers and amps you were using for your test? I'm assuming (since I'm familiar with what Tweeter usually carries) it was a set of Sonus Faber Grand Pianos or Viennas and a Krell or Adcom Amp? I'm sure you used the same set for both players.
***B&K component A/V switcher. It's the wierd one with the rubber buttons up front. Although it's expensive, to me it's a piece of junk. As for the speakers I do believe they were the viennas. Have to get the equipment list.
How was the SACD player connected to the preamp or receiver? Was it via digital cables or analog RCA?
***Analog RCA. Monster M850i interconnects.
What sort of bass management did the amp / receiver have (or perhaps the SACD player has it on-board, I'm not familiar with it)?
***I do believe it was a Martin Logan sub.
Did you tweak the Denon yourself and bring it in, or buy it from somewhere?
***Player was bought years ago. I tweaked the player about 2 days ago and brought it in yesterday. Talk about a last minute comparison!
Percy
03-19-02, 06:24 AM
#5
Moderator - Electronics Forum
Thread Starter
[QUOTE]Originally posted by lex400sc
[B]One major flaw in this test. It was not a true double blind test.
***Difference was obvious. I could compare the sound quality of a Alpine Cha604 versus McIntosh MX406 players and you'd still get them. Double blind or not.
Secondary flaw, salesperson will kiss your *** for any of a number of reasons. His intensions are not always forthcoming. I know because I used to be a high end audio sales associate.
***And salesperson will always push the product in most cases. Old player is definitely not an "in stock" product. I always ask for OBJECTIVE opinions and observations. Plus I told them if the SACD was better, I'd buy it. That in itself gives them incentive to push the SACD. Hey, they would either sell a 800 dollar SACD unit or the 3 grand SACD unit! Also remember that there are honest and objective salespeople out there. When asked about SACD, one of the salespeople remarked "It's not *that* superior...and it depends on the SACD recording. There are SACD recordings that have been slapped together, plus the software isn't widely available." Now with HDCD it's much more available.
Also critical to list specific pieces of equipment including amplification, preamplification/processing, source, connection, and speakers. Both systems should be identical.
***These were all identical.
Both sources should be identical.
***Then there would be no a/b/a cd player comparison. If you meant the disc then it was the same one.
Speaker placement is critical. Every piece of equipment in both systems should be of similar wear and tear age. This includes the software. Were the CD and SACD both the same album?
***Both were playing HDCD. No SACD. But both players can't handle HDCD so they resort to standard 16/44.1 decoding. If both players were playing their native code (sacd and regular cd) then the differences would have narrowed. I've listened to the SACD sampler and yeah, it was good. Was it mindblowing? Not really. Not compared to modded equipment. The industry still has a long way to go, though there are a few companies that are pushing for the better. I'll give you a hint...it's not Mark Levinson, Krell, Sony or any of the "recognized" brands. They're too busy trying to push sales numbers. Add to the list of Nakamichi, Denon, Meridian. Unfortunately most of the digitial gear sounds, well, "digital". Get them modded right and you open up a whole new ballgame.
Was the SACD a two-channel disc? Are you sure it wasn't playing the second layer CD data?
***Very sure. City of Angels soundtrack. They don't have it on SACD where I'm at. It's the HDCD version, the most widely available one.
A true DBT involves three parties. The setup crew, the operator, and the observers. The setup crew hooks all components up, and ensures that equalization, band extensions, and DSP modes are all neutralized, arranges the two systems behind a velvet cloth and places the speakers properly. Both systems should be checked and ready to go for operator to step in.
***Definitely not enough time. I only had about an hour and also customers running in and out of the shop. Also, as mentioned before, difference is obvious enough not to need DBT.
I have compared SACD and performed comparisons for SACD and the software is superb. It closely ressembles the warm analog flavor of vinyls. CDs I have never had luck with. I've owned the Sony CDP-XA20ES. An $800 single disc player with fixed pick-up mechanism and singe gear driven laser sled. It is widely regarded as Sony's best CD player and was based off of a $6000 prototype developed 8 years ago. It had a 1-bit ES pulse D/A convertor. Very sophisticated for it's time. It is still a better CDP than my current SACD player is, but SACD will annihilate it. My mother has the DCM-560 you have so I am familiar with it. I'm also very familiar with Denon's current models, the DCM270 and 370. Fidelity is all subjective, but everyone that's auditioned the 370 with my XA20ES has confirmed that the XA20ES has superior clarity and bass extension.
***What software were you using? Also, the Sony SACD high end units have had some motor problems. This was on their flagship model. For Sony to have *any* problems is extremely rare, but their flagship (DSD1) has had them. Tells me that Sony was rushing to "push a product".
I also have a friend with a Meridian 508 CDP which is something like $4000 and he concurs that CDs still sound cold and lifeless compared to his analog sources.
***Once again, consider the analog stage. Non modded components will sound cold and lifeless. Very typical. My modded Krell can't even keep up with the modded Denon in 16/44.1rate. HDCD sounds a bit better...but I have more tricks up my sleeve for the Krell. Krell sells for (KAV300cd) 4,250. Add to that about 600 dollars in mod parts. The unit would easily sell for 10 grand on the retail market if Krell had their way. And the little Denon is beating the Krell.
He has a Nakamichi tape deck from the '80s, which he admits produces a better sound than his Meridian. Anyway, my two cents.
***Now that is scarry!
Percy
[B]One major flaw in this test. It was not a true double blind test.
***Difference was obvious. I could compare the sound quality of a Alpine Cha604 versus McIntosh MX406 players and you'd still get them. Double blind or not.
Secondary flaw, salesperson will kiss your *** for any of a number of reasons. His intensions are not always forthcoming. I know because I used to be a high end audio sales associate.
***And salesperson will always push the product in most cases. Old player is definitely not an "in stock" product. I always ask for OBJECTIVE opinions and observations. Plus I told them if the SACD was better, I'd buy it. That in itself gives them incentive to push the SACD. Hey, they would either sell a 800 dollar SACD unit or the 3 grand SACD unit! Also remember that there are honest and objective salespeople out there. When asked about SACD, one of the salespeople remarked "It's not *that* superior...and it depends on the SACD recording. There are SACD recordings that have been slapped together, plus the software isn't widely available." Now with HDCD it's much more available.
Also critical to list specific pieces of equipment including amplification, preamplification/processing, source, connection, and speakers. Both systems should be identical.
***These were all identical.
Both sources should be identical.
***Then there would be no a/b/a cd player comparison. If you meant the disc then it was the same one.
Speaker placement is critical. Every piece of equipment in both systems should be of similar wear and tear age. This includes the software. Were the CD and SACD both the same album?
***Both were playing HDCD. No SACD. But both players can't handle HDCD so they resort to standard 16/44.1 decoding. If both players were playing their native code (sacd and regular cd) then the differences would have narrowed. I've listened to the SACD sampler and yeah, it was good. Was it mindblowing? Not really. Not compared to modded equipment. The industry still has a long way to go, though there are a few companies that are pushing for the better. I'll give you a hint...it's not Mark Levinson, Krell, Sony or any of the "recognized" brands. They're too busy trying to push sales numbers. Add to the list of Nakamichi, Denon, Meridian. Unfortunately most of the digitial gear sounds, well, "digital". Get them modded right and you open up a whole new ballgame.
Was the SACD a two-channel disc? Are you sure it wasn't playing the second layer CD data?
***Very sure. City of Angels soundtrack. They don't have it on SACD where I'm at. It's the HDCD version, the most widely available one.
A true DBT involves three parties. The setup crew, the operator, and the observers. The setup crew hooks all components up, and ensures that equalization, band extensions, and DSP modes are all neutralized, arranges the two systems behind a velvet cloth and places the speakers properly. Both systems should be checked and ready to go for operator to step in.
***Definitely not enough time. I only had about an hour and also customers running in and out of the shop. Also, as mentioned before, difference is obvious enough not to need DBT.
I have compared SACD and performed comparisons for SACD and the software is superb. It closely ressembles the warm analog flavor of vinyls. CDs I have never had luck with. I've owned the Sony CDP-XA20ES. An $800 single disc player with fixed pick-up mechanism and singe gear driven laser sled. It is widely regarded as Sony's best CD player and was based off of a $6000 prototype developed 8 years ago. It had a 1-bit ES pulse D/A convertor. Very sophisticated for it's time. It is still a better CDP than my current SACD player is, but SACD will annihilate it. My mother has the DCM-560 you have so I am familiar with it. I'm also very familiar with Denon's current models, the DCM270 and 370. Fidelity is all subjective, but everyone that's auditioned the 370 with my XA20ES has confirmed that the XA20ES has superior clarity and bass extension.
***What software were you using? Also, the Sony SACD high end units have had some motor problems. This was on their flagship model. For Sony to have *any* problems is extremely rare, but their flagship (DSD1) has had them. Tells me that Sony was rushing to "push a product".
I also have a friend with a Meridian 508 CDP which is something like $4000 and he concurs that CDs still sound cold and lifeless compared to his analog sources.
***Once again, consider the analog stage. Non modded components will sound cold and lifeless. Very typical. My modded Krell can't even keep up with the modded Denon in 16/44.1rate. HDCD sounds a bit better...but I have more tricks up my sleeve for the Krell. Krell sells for (KAV300cd) 4,250. Add to that about 600 dollars in mod parts. The unit would easily sell for 10 grand on the retail market if Krell had their way. And the little Denon is beating the Krell.
He has a Nakamichi tape deck from the '80s, which he admits produces a better sound than his Meridian. Anyway, my two cents.
***Now that is scarry!
Percy
03-19-02, 03:13 PM
#6
Moderator - Electronics Forum
Thread Starter
SACD...Here's the problem.
Lex400sc,
Read the link below. Interesting info. Sony's SACD uses double filters, one of which can be bypassed. The second filter is the one giving problems. Even on the top end DSD1 they're only using BB604's. POOR FOR A 5k$+ player.
Once again, it's not the digital or the bitstreaming. IT'S THE ANALOG SECTION. That's why the Denon creamed the 777.
http://www.vacuumstate.com/son.htm
There are now different companies that have mods for the DSD1. Also there have been complaints about the motor drive and the filters being used for standard cd.
Percy
Read the link below. Interesting info. Sony's SACD uses double filters, one of which can be bypassed. The second filter is the one giving problems. Even on the top end DSD1 they're only using BB604's. POOR FOR A 5k$+ player.
Once again, it's not the digital or the bitstreaming. IT'S THE ANALOG SECTION. That's why the Denon creamed the 777.
http://www.vacuumstate.com/son.htm
There are now different companies that have mods for the DSD1. Also there have been complaints about the motor drive and the filters being used for standard cd.
Percy
03-19-02, 08:25 PM
#7
Forum Administrator
iTrader: (2)
Percy,
Don't take this the wrong way (I definitely value your opinions and advice!!), but reading through your test I see one big flaw in the comparison unless I'm missing something - the media you are using for comparison. You're comparing the CD performance of a SACD player vs the CD performance of a CD player. Is this right?
Why wouldn't you compare the best possible output of both devices? You used a tweaked CD player to get the best possible sound out of it - why not use the SACD player the same way?
Sure a SACD player can play a CD or an HDCD. No argument there. But if I buy a SACD player, I'll get it to play SACDs, not CDs. I'll use my Theta Jade to play CDs. An analogy might be doing a comparison of two DVD players, but using a Video CD in one versus a DVD in another.
Just my thoughts!
D
Don't take this the wrong way (I definitely value your opinions and advice!!), but reading through your test I see one big flaw in the comparison unless I'm missing something - the media you are using for comparison. You're comparing the CD performance of a SACD player vs the CD performance of a CD player. Is this right?
Why wouldn't you compare the best possible output of both devices? You used a tweaked CD player to get the best possible sound out of it - why not use the SACD player the same way?
Sure a SACD player can play a CD or an HDCD. No argument there. But if I buy a SACD player, I'll get it to play SACDs, not CDs. I'll use my Theta Jade to play CDs. An analogy might be doing a comparison of two DVD players, but using a Video CD in one versus a DVD in another.
Just my thoughts!
D
Trending Topics
03-19-02, 09:06 PM
#8
Moderator - Electronics Forum
Thread Starter
[QUOTE]Originally posted by DaveGS4
[B]Percy,
Don't take this the wrong way (I definitely value your opinions and advice!!), but reading through your test I see one big flaw in the comparison unless I'm missing something - the media you are using for comparison. You're comparing the CD performance of a SACD player vs the CD performance of a CD player. Is this right?
***Yep.
Why wouldn't you compare the best possible output of both devices? You used a tweaked CD player to get the best possible sound out of it - why not use the SACD player the same way?
***A couple of reasons. One is that they didn't have the exact same title or song, thus negating any native mode comparisons. Another is that the SACD is supposed to be the "next thing" in digital. I wanted to see how well it would perform with an established base, that of 16/44.1 sources. Since the HDCD disc had no HDCD decoder, the Denon decoded it in the only way it knew how...that of 16/44.1 This presented a level playing field for both. If I wanted to "play dirty" then I would get the HDCD Krell versus the Sony triple 7. A better test would have been matching songs in their high end "language". HDCD versus SACD sources. ***
Sure a SACD player can play a CD or an HDCD. No argument there. But if I buy a SACD player, I'll get it to play SACDs, not CDs. I'll use my Theta Jade to play CDs. An analogy might be doing a comparison of two DVD players, but using a Video CD in one versus a DVD in another.
***The SACD is supposed to be able to play both SACD and regular CD, thus "supposedly" eliminating the need for 2 different players. I'd rather have one player out of conveinence that does both extremely well rather than going back and forth. It's like going to the Mac for one thing and the PC workstation for another. Or in the case of IBM/Motorola, the 604 chip back in '95. It was supposed to do Windows, Unix and RISC as an all in one wonderbox. Guess what...it only emulated Windows at an incredibly slow pace...that of a 386sx. Pentium 133's were already on the market.
BUT...the only reason why SACD sounded so LOUSY compared to the player is due to it's analog filtering. Sony is using two different filters. One is from the "v24" chip and another is a different filtering chip. Plus adding all sorts of op amps within the chain isn't going to help any. They're already modded SACD players (250 dollar entry level units) that are SURPASSING the "vinyl" quality, even for 16/44.1 source. Yes, that means surpasssing the Linn CD12, The Krell KPS25 and the high end Mark Levinson players. Sony/Phillips had it right. The numbers are good, but then again they are good for the 16/44.1 ... it's all in the analog section. Well, at least most of it anyways! (The clock makes a difference in how "clean" it can make a square wave.)
Also note that the SACD processors used in recording studios have better op amps, power supplies, etc. All this will affect the final results in the recording.
SACD has MUCH potential. Now if the big wigs can get their greasy mitts off of the analog section and refine it to what it's REALLY supposed to be. My guess, a SACD versus a NON OVERSAMPLED 16/44.1 with the same recording (a good one) and you WON'T be able to tell the difference. That's if all the analog stage is at it's optimum, the clock at optimum and the recordings for both (16/44.1 and SACD) are at it's possible best. The only dead giveaway was the filtering of the triple 7 player. It's like cranking a 500 hp motor and the tranny was only built to handle 80 hp. Sad.
Percy
BTW...How do you like the Theta player?
[B]Percy,
Don't take this the wrong way (I definitely value your opinions and advice!!), but reading through your test I see one big flaw in the comparison unless I'm missing something - the media you are using for comparison. You're comparing the CD performance of a SACD player vs the CD performance of a CD player. Is this right?
***Yep.
Why wouldn't you compare the best possible output of both devices? You used a tweaked CD player to get the best possible sound out of it - why not use the SACD player the same way?
***A couple of reasons. One is that they didn't have the exact same title or song, thus negating any native mode comparisons. Another is that the SACD is supposed to be the "next thing" in digital. I wanted to see how well it would perform with an established base, that of 16/44.1 sources. Since the HDCD disc had no HDCD decoder, the Denon decoded it in the only way it knew how...that of 16/44.1 This presented a level playing field for both. If I wanted to "play dirty" then I would get the HDCD Krell versus the Sony triple 7. A better test would have been matching songs in their high end "language". HDCD versus SACD sources. ***
Sure a SACD player can play a CD or an HDCD. No argument there. But if I buy a SACD player, I'll get it to play SACDs, not CDs. I'll use my Theta Jade to play CDs. An analogy might be doing a comparison of two DVD players, but using a Video CD in one versus a DVD in another.
***The SACD is supposed to be able to play both SACD and regular CD, thus "supposedly" eliminating the need for 2 different players. I'd rather have one player out of conveinence that does both extremely well rather than going back and forth. It's like going to the Mac for one thing and the PC workstation for another. Or in the case of IBM/Motorola, the 604 chip back in '95. It was supposed to do Windows, Unix and RISC as an all in one wonderbox. Guess what...it only emulated Windows at an incredibly slow pace...that of a 386sx. Pentium 133's were already on the market.
BUT...the only reason why SACD sounded so LOUSY compared to the player is due to it's analog filtering. Sony is using two different filters. One is from the "v24" chip and another is a different filtering chip. Plus adding all sorts of op amps within the chain isn't going to help any. They're already modded SACD players (250 dollar entry level units) that are SURPASSING the "vinyl" quality, even for 16/44.1 source. Yes, that means surpasssing the Linn CD12, The Krell KPS25 and the high end Mark Levinson players. Sony/Phillips had it right. The numbers are good, but then again they are good for the 16/44.1 ... it's all in the analog section. Well, at least most of it anyways! (The clock makes a difference in how "clean" it can make a square wave.)
Also note that the SACD processors used in recording studios have better op amps, power supplies, etc. All this will affect the final results in the recording.
SACD has MUCH potential. Now if the big wigs can get their greasy mitts off of the analog section and refine it to what it's REALLY supposed to be. My guess, a SACD versus a NON OVERSAMPLED 16/44.1 with the same recording (a good one) and you WON'T be able to tell the difference. That's if all the analog stage is at it's optimum, the clock at optimum and the recordings for both (16/44.1 and SACD) are at it's possible best. The only dead giveaway was the filtering of the triple 7 player. It's like cranking a 500 hp motor and the tranny was only built to handle 80 hp. Sad.
Percy
BTW...How do you like the Theta player?
03-19-02, 09:50 PM
#9
Forum Administrator
iTrader: (2)
How about using one of the Telarc SACDs that are encoded in both SACD and CD formats? I'm not certain about HDCD support (I'm guessing no since they don't list it), but from what I've seen in stores the biggest user of HDCD is the Country music industry, and I'm not a big fan except for a couple of artists. Yah, SACD and DVD-A titles are even more limited.
Telarc SACD link
"My" Theta is actually part of my girlfriend's 2 channel setup, so it falls under the 'our' category... The Theta Jade is a very nice transport, but her DAC is a mid-end one (I'm pretty sure it doesn't oversample). Still impressive and accurate, especially with female vocals. I've got all the home theater systems in the house, she's got the music one.
Speakers she chose are very warm sounding - she really wanted a set of ProAc speakers, but we ended up with such a great deal on the Sonus she couldn't pass them up. Tube amp, solid state preamp. In general:
Speakers Sonus Faber Grand Piano
Amplifier Audio Research D130
Preamp Audio Research LS8 MKII
CD Player Theta Jade
DAC Theta DS Basic II
Cables MIT Terminator 2 JPS Superconductor +
PS Audio P300 Power Plant and Ultimate Outlet
We'll have some more pics and equipment writeups on our website soon --> www.somniplex.com ... Links and pics don't seem to all come up tonight (maybe it's just me = too late
but likely the last push up broke some stuff ).
Telarc SACD link
"My" Theta is actually part of my girlfriend's 2 channel setup, so it falls under the 'our' category... The Theta Jade is a very nice transport, but her DAC is a mid-end one (I'm pretty sure it doesn't oversample). Still impressive and accurate, especially with female vocals. I've got all the home theater systems in the house, she's got the music one.
Speakers she chose are very warm sounding - she really wanted a set of ProAc speakers, but we ended up with such a great deal on the Sonus she couldn't pass them up. Tube amp, solid state preamp. In general:
Speakers Sonus Faber Grand Piano
Amplifier Audio Research D130
Preamp Audio Research LS8 MKII
CD Player Theta Jade
DAC Theta DS Basic II
Cables MIT Terminator 2 JPS Superconductor +
PS Audio P300 Power Plant and Ultimate Outlet
We'll have some more pics and equipment writeups on our website soon --> www.somniplex.com ... Links and pics don't seem to all come up tonight (maybe it's just me = too late
but likely the last push up broke some stuff ).
04-04-02, 06:51 PM
#10
Moderator - Electronics Forum
Thread Starter
Originally posted by DaveGS4
Percy,
Nice writeup! Couple of questions just out of curiosity...
What were the speakers and amps you were using for your test? I'm assuming (since I'm familiar with what Tweeter usually carries) it was a set of Sonus Faber Grand Pianos or Viennas and a Krell or Adcom Amp? I'm sure you used the same set for both players.
How was the SACD player connected to the preamp or receiver? Was it via digital cables or analog RCA?
What sort of bass management did the amp / receiver have (or perhaps the SACD player has it on-board, I'm not familiar with it)?
Did you tweak the Denon yourself and bring it in, or buy it from somewhere?
Thanks,
D
Percy,
Nice writeup! Couple of questions just out of curiosity...
What were the speakers and amps you were using for your test? I'm assuming (since I'm familiar with what Tweeter usually carries) it was a set of Sonus Faber Grand Pianos or Viennas and a Krell or Adcom Amp? I'm sure you used the same set for both players.
How was the SACD player connected to the preamp or receiver? Was it via digital cables or analog RCA?
What sort of bass management did the amp / receiver have (or perhaps the SACD player has it on-board, I'm not familiar with it)?
Did you tweak the Denon yourself and bring it in, or buy it from somewhere?
Thanks,
D
I went back to Tweeter yesterday and found out the configuration. Speakers used were Vienna Acoustics Beethoven in Rosewood finish. Speaker cables were Monster M series CX2's. (Their entry level model for the M series) Interconnects were Monster M Series M350i. Amp/preamp was a B&K (forgot the model number). Source unit for the SACD was an 777ES (XA, NOT SCD) multichannel.
Funny thing...I was reading a few writeups on their discontinued SCD-1 flagship (5k, Stereophile Class A+ rated). It intrigued me so much that I decided to pick one up, AT COST. Initially, when compared to the Krell, it didn't hold up (SCD-1), even when playing SACD vs HDCD sources. BUT when I modded the unit (no more than 2 days and I'm already modding) it's literally whipping the Krell on everything. That's with very light mods. I can imagine a fully modded unit.
The thing is heavy too! 58 pounds!
I like the SCD-1 so much that I'm selling the Krell!
Percy
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
