I Wish SACD & DSD Would Go Away

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Both of the previous posts make valid points but do not clearly acknowledge that, in this real world, all such decisions are based on marketing and profit expectations and will never give more than lip-service to any audiophile considerations. To expect otherwise is unreasonable. What we do (speaking of our little niche of consumers, dealers and manufacturers) is to respond to those decisions by adapting what comes to market and optimizing it for our own goals. Our options are limited by those who do not share our goals.

Well, Sony/Philips wanted a next-gen audio format, and the consumer hook was that it was higher-resolution and multichannel. So the audio quality element was a necessary part of the equation, and the central problem they discovered is that there just aren't enough people who care. Without our goals the whole project would have been even more stillborn than it was. My point, though, is simply that having a format war without much of a market meant that to the extent any chance of success of a next-gen audio format existed, consumer confusion snuffed it out.
 
One thing I find intriguing about this discussion is the notion that you have to drop a billion dollars on a system to play SACD or DSD properly.
I have a very modest system and SACD and DSD sound great, regardless of what my player or receiver are actually doing.
 
You can choose to decide that a more modest system still sounds very good and not invest more for perfection. Such decisions are what we do.
If for example, your speakers are the more limiting factor of your system, you might never be able to monitor the nuance between reasonably close to the signal in the wire vs. dead on accurate. The consumer DVD player with OK-ish PCM converters that is format converting from DSD to PCM (at 48k) will sound every bit as good through said speakers as lossless 24/96 native PCM through Apogee or Prism converters.* Get better speakers and then you hear what you were missing. Just like the Youtube video and the bluray video look pretty much the same on a phone screen.

For one thing there are FAR more choices for PCM converters on the market than DSD! DSD gives you consumer fair in various surround receivers and then goes straight to the very top end with Prism with no in-between. The most bang for the buck is higher end PCM converters and then format convert any DSD to 24/88.2 PCM. You'll hear more of the original fidelity of what's in the wire than with cheaper native DSD converters.

If just whatever sound trickles out of whatever device is just fine... well your probably not on this forum! If you're chasing after what the band/engineer tried to deliver at the highest levels possible (still within reason I mean), investing in PCM is still the thing to do. Then convert any DSD. The $1000 mark for multiple channels of PCM converters is the high water mark. Going boutique after that starts chasing single percentages (and you better have that room treated and dialed in physically or such a thing is a moot point!)

* OK, there are so many variables and different levels of products that this could swing the other way. Hopefully this example still makes the point.

PS. I'm speaking in generalities here. I don't know exactly what kind of excellent system you have Edisonbaggins so I'll assume the best. :) You just might want to try the experiment of converting your DSD program to 24/88.2k PCM and have a little shootout though. You might just end up suddenly upgrading a healthy chunk of your collection!
 
Oh Lordy. I try to keep my personal happiness in mind, in relation to this hobby of ours.
My system sounds great, and if other's comments on polls are good data, I'm hearing what others are hearing reasonably enough.

Sure, there are upgrades in my future, but that is because I want to hear Atmos and Auro 3D, not because I'm concerned over fidelity or resolution.

I honestly get the same enjoyment out of a DTS-CD as I do a 192k bluray. IMO, it's mostly the mix and mastering that count.

It may very well be that I'm missing something, vis a vis fidelity or resolution, but life is short and happiness counts.
Besides, I'm the sole bread winner for my growing family and I already push the limits on budget.
 
Yes yes, keep things in perspective! :)

I'm just pointing out some variables that I don't think everyone realizes. Also, if there's a possibility of upgrading your listening experience by pushing a button or setting a switch differently (ie. no money required), who wouldn't want that right?

Mix and mastering quality are absolutely the main thing. Sample rate conversions and format conversions between DSD and HD PCM are subtle in the long and short of things. Reducing 24 bit to 16 bit is next. (You'd still never hear that on cheaper speakers.) The muddiness of dts or especially dolby are striking though. If I was not hearing a difference on a reasonable decent system between dts and lossless discreet surround, I'd go looking for what I had set wrong. Because that would mean I absolutely had something screwed up! Just saying.

I'll say it again. We live in the golden age of audio now!
But the greed and stupidity behind this here DSD format needs to be disparaged IMHO. Not a wise use for hard earned money!

And of course I'm also a geek and room clearing technical discussions like this also make me happy. :D

PS. "Dolby Atmos" is just a poor mans surround processing system to make 'soundbars' (those ratty cheap fake speakers sold at Worst Purchase) and portable gimmicky stuff like that sound slightly more realistic (but still pretty short of good). Nothing wrong with that in itself. Nothing wrong with portable equipment either. "Soundbars" and the like cross the line into snake oil though. Actual speakers are more bang for the buck. If you already have actual speakers and amps and can listen to surround program with them, you're already light years ahead of this kludgey portable system.
 
Last edited:
Well, Sony/Philips wanted a next-gen audio format, and the consumer hook was that it was higher-resolution and multichannel. So the audio quality element was a necessary part of the equation, and the central problem they discovered is that there just aren't enough people who care. Without our goals the whole project would have been even more stillborn than it was. My point, though, is simply that having a format war without much of a market meant that to the extent any chance of success of a next-gen audio format existed, consumer confusion snuffed it out.

Sure. I was not saying that they (1) would not choose to add valuable elements as a way to market their efforts nor (2) screw it up along the way. It's what they do.
 
Amusing indeed.
The good news is that DSD is alive and well. And unlikely to "go away". :)

sa-cd.net how many are there?
The format was an audiophile intent, and has become the format they now cherish. Plus, there must be a profit from the production, and desire for music in the format. And they have the titles and license to produce the music.
Not much different from the dvd audio days, mlp in a new format, same shit different way to play it. (better way)
 
Oh Lordy. I try to keep my personal happiness in mind, in relation to this hobby of ours.
My system sounds great, and if other's comments on polls are good data, I'm hearing what others are hearing reasonably enough.

Sure, there are upgrades in my future, but that is because I want to hear Atmos and Auro 3D, not because I'm concerned over fidelity or resolution.

I honestly get the same enjoyment out of a DTS-CD as I do a 192k bluray. IMO, it's mostly the mix and mastering that count.

It may very well be that I'm missing something, vis a vis fidelity or resolution, but life is short and happiness counts.
Besides, I'm the sole bread winner for my growing family and I already push the limits on budget.

EB, it's like that ole Stephen Stills Song "Love The One You're With." If you're happy with your system......that's ALL that really matters.

Everything IS relative. Some live in mansions ...... others live a more sedate lifestyle but then that's the way it's always been throughout history.

Me....I've been in audio forever and have always tried to keep up with the latest trends but even that's become nigh impossible. I have NO plans for Dolby Atmos [being a full range speaker man most of my life] and if I can ever get my main listening room reconfigured, my last statement will be buying these uber whacky expensive Meridian self powered speakers with built in MQA. No DSD downloads IN my future as the system will be PCM ALL the way [no digital to analogue conversion necessary].

Just be happy because you're certainly on the right path. The enjoyment of music is the key and you're certainly accomplishing that....in spades.
 
................................and if I can ever get my main listening room reconfigured, my last statement will be buying these uber whacky expensive Meridian self powered speakers with built in MQA.

Those Meridians are, aside from MQA, old tech by now. :mad:@:
 
Those Meridians are, aside from MQA, old tech by now. :mad:@:

So what would YOU recommend, Kal? It's certainly NOT a done deal by any means. I can always get my deposit back. Actually, I've had my 'misgivings' about those speakers, as well. Their $20K amplified 'matching' center channel, was, IMO, a giant piece of shit! My initial attraction to them was they were self~amplified with 750 watts of power each and only required hook up to my Meridian 861 v.6 pre/pro with a single digital cable and required NO digital to analogue conversion.

Would you ever recommend Dolby Atmos configurations or is that just a flash in the pan also? I am an ardent film buff.

What would be YOUR speaker recommendations* but keep in mind....I have a projection screen and low 7'2" ceilings so I would only need four speakers with no center channel [which would block the screen] and would prefer matching FULL RANGE ones front and rear.

*YG Acoustics?
 
I honestly get the same enjoyment out of a DTS-CD as I do a 192k bluray. IMO, it's mostly the mix and mastering that count.

I don't. Maybe it's buying into blu-ray and some of the fantastic sounding audio on the medium, maybe it's the speakers, or the current receiver not decoding DTS as nicely as the previous one, I don't know, but there's a sound (or lack of sound, if you like) that seems to accompany the data compression when I listen.
 
I don't. Maybe it's buying into blu-ray and some of the fantastic sounding audio on the medium, maybe it's the speakers, or the current receiver not decoding DTS as nicely as the previous one, I don't know, but there's a sound (or lack of sound, if you like) that seems to accompany the data compression when I listen.

The artifacts/loss of dts is MUCH more apparent than even reducing 24 bit to 16 bit. It's at least as obnoxious as mp3 compression IMHO. Dolby is downright glaring.

Now this is still somewhat subtle in the big picture. Poor mixing or mastering work is far more noticeable. DTS is not "offensive" - I'd use a less strong word. (But Dolby is! I'd just listen to the stereo mix instead.) I'd still be enjoying the music in dts if I had no better options. But if the system in question supports discreet surround and I didn't hear a difference between them, that would tell me to go looking for the settings I screwed up! :)
 
There is a difference between not hearing the difference and actually being annoyed by it or care about it that much.
I not only listen to mc BD, but also stereo LP. They sound very different. I enjoy both for what they are.
A certain kind of person is going to care about subtle differences in sound and spend lots of time and money. Another type of person may be able to enjoy the differences.
Personally, mc listening is already somewhat lonesome. Given that a wide variety of sources sound great to me, my time is best spent enjoying as much music as I can, but also getting outdoors or spending time chatting with friends or whatever else.

Sent from my TA-1025 using Tapatalk
 
The artifacts/loss of dts is MUCH more apparent than even reducing 24 bit to 16 bit. It's at least as obnoxious as mp3 compression IMHO. Dolby is downright glaring.

Now this is still somewhat subtle in the big picture. Poor mixing or mastering work is far more noticeable. DTS is not "offensive" - I'd use a less strong word. (But Dolby is! I'd just listen to the stereo mix instead.) I'd still be enjoying the music in dts if I had no better options. But if the system in question supports discreet surround and I didn't hear a difference between them, that would tell me to go looking for the settings I screwed up! :)

When one ponders the alternative to DSD/SACD namely lossy codecs like DTS and Dolby Digital, thank the stars we have high resolution formats like DSD/SACD, DVD~A and BD~A/V to remind us ALL how VERY SPECIAL high res formats are!

For those who are 'content' with DTS [and yes, it's better than DD], sorry you really cannot hear the difference between that and higher res formats.

It is system dependent. That's for damn sure.
 
There is a difference between not hearing the difference and actually being annoyed by it or care about it that much.
I not only listen to mc BD, but also stereo LP. They sound very different. I enjoy both for what they are.
A certain kind of person is going to care about subtle differences in sound and spend lots of time and money. Another type of person may be able to enjoy the differences.
Personally, mc listening is already somewhat lonesome. Given that a wide variety of sources sound great to me, my time is best spent enjoying as much music as I can, but also getting outdoors or spending time chatting with friends or whatever else.

Sent from my TA-1025 using Tapatalk

Yep. You'll catch me listening to some pretty challenging fidelity sometimes because I'm still interested in the music.
I do like to talk about tech though for one thing. I'm always interested in getting closer to an original whenever possible just because. I enjoy getting upgrades of recordings I've had for years and getting treated to details and nuance that was a little obscured before. When it comes to offering opinions on gear choices, I aim for biggest bang for the buck and keeping old but still useful gear in service whenever possible. That's where I'm coming from on that. On that note, my advice is invest in a unit with very good PCM converters and just format convert any DSD program to 24/88.2 PCM. And then watch out for the surround receivers that disable inputs and thus, for example force you to settle for dts when you have the lossless files sitting right there teasing you.

Anyway, I'm going out in the country for a few days where there are no computer screens and not even cell reception. :)
 
That'll be large parts of the UK then! I can only get GSM out here in the wilderness, I do have around 25Mb/s broadband to the house, but I'm one of the lucky ones........

Anyway, I'm going out in the country for a few days where there are no computer screens and not even cell reception. :)
 
I don't. Maybe it's buying into blu-ray and some of the fantastic sounding audio on the medium, maybe it's the speakers, or the current receiver not decoding DTS as nicely as the previous one, I don't know, but there's a sound (or lack of sound, if you like) that seems to accompany the data compression when I listen.
I recall being blown away by the sound of my Millennium 2.4.6 DTS Decoder/Preamp, in patricular the DTS CD "BILLIE MYERS - Growing Pains". DTS have the audacity to say that they use compression to improve the sound! Actually there is some truth in that statement as for one thing DTS CD's are 20bit where as CD's are only 16bit. I've been a bit less impressed with the sound of DTS from my universal DVD players, I don't know if the built in decoders are of lesser quality than that of the Millennium or if it's just that it's up against the sound of DVD-Audio and SACD. The difference between DTS and Dolby however is like night and day!
 
I nice album, haven't listened to it in a while, its just gone on tomorrow's play list. I have set the Oppo to produce PCM for all disc formats, sounds Ok. BTW SACD works out at about the equivalent of 20-bits as well due to the oversampling.
I recall being blown away by the sound of my Millennium 2.4.6 DTS Decoder/Preamp, in patricular the DTS CD "BILLIE MYERS - Growing Pains". DTS have the audacity to say that they use compression to improve the sound! Actually there is some truth in that statement as for one thing DTS CD's are 20bit where as CD's are only 16bit. I've been a bit less impressed with the sound of DTS from my universal DVD players, I don't know if the built in decoders are of lesser quality than that of the Millennium or if it's just that it's up against the sound of DVD-Audio and SACD. The difference between DTS and Dolby however is like night and day!
 
My initial attraction to them was they were self~amplified with 750 watts of power each and only required hook up to my Meridian 861 v.6 pre/pro with a single digital cable and required NO digital to analogue conversion.

I cant understand how there is no D/A conversion step. There must be. The cone drivers themselves are analog devices, aren't they? They cant be driven directly with a digital signal. So somewhere in the loudspeaker enclosure is a DA conversion step and probably a good amount of DSP circuitry. The internal amps themselves might have digital systems supporting them, but the current amplification required to support 750 watts of power has to be rooted in the analog domain as well.

Is this not the case? Isn't the overall concept one of re-locating the digital processing and amplification stages into the speaker enclosure and optimizing it all to work together?

Or have I missed something (again)?
 
Back
Top