sacd / dxd?

[leevitalone1]

I saw this at acoustic sounds. there are a few. anyone add to this format? Is it multi-channel? Friken sony!!

 

[Bob Squires Jr]

http://www.digitalaudio.dk/technical_papers/axion/dxd Resolution v3.5.pdf

-B

 

[Key]

Wow that stuff about noise limits at the end is weird. I think they are leaving something out in the explanation. Why do they make you limit the out of band noise for SACDs in the first place? It seems like that could be a hassle having to check mixes for sounds I can't even hear with spectral analysis and then having to suppress the ultrasonic frequencies if they are too loud. And I also don't understand why having noise on more than one channel could be considered a cumulative effect - they are separate discrete channels. I understand how it would be with a matrix format but not with a discrete one. And that part where it says to use PCM 88.2kHz if you are recording for SACD seems VERY suspect to me. Is that the REAL limitations of the frequency response? If so I think I'll stick with 96kHz DVD-A.

 

[winopener]

The 88.2 is not a f/r issue but a sampling one: DSD and its derivatives are linked to the base sampling rate of cd, which is 44.1.
The pdf speaks for itself about the weakness of DSD: 120dB between 20hz-20KHz, while PCM has 144 on any full bandwidth - the limit is done only by the audio source and converters. As for DXD, it is described exactly as a PCM-like signal, only a lot heavier to process it.
No wonder why it didn't caught up.

 

[neil wilkes]

See the images below for some very interesting stuff.
DSD (or it's successor, DxD) is the core system behind SACD.
It was developed as an archival media only, and was never intended to be used for consumer playback formats until Sony decided that they had to Torpedo DVDA. The images will show you why.
Image #2 - SACD Noise Plot - shows you the ultrasonic crap off an SACD disc, against the plot from a DTS9624 stream of exactly the same track from the same release.
Note the cutoff at 23KHz, followed by a steep rise in ultrasonic noise where the 1-bit format (Dare I say from a 2-bit company?) uses heroic noise shaping to try & make it audible.
It also clearly shows that the original masters were not at 96KHz, but were upsampled.
Image #1 shows you the effect that this ultrasonic crap has on the actual dynamic range of the music. It aliases down into the audible band, and sounds almost harsh when you know what to check for. It's harder, more tiring in quality & John Watkinson has shown that regular CD actually sounds better in the critical upper midrange area where the ear is most sensitive.
The upper selection shows all 6 channels of the SACD stream, the lower block shows the DTS stream. Signal path: Denon 3910 > RME ADI-8 DS > RME HDSP 9652 > DAW @ 24/96 resolution.

SACD = Sad Alternative to Compact Disc, IMHO.

 

[Bob Squires Jr]

The only reason I have to buy SACDs is for the multi-channel when there is no other alternative.
DVD-A should have been the clear winner but it goes to show you how big bux can torpedo even the best laid plans.
Even with Blu-Ray... DVD will probably still be around for at least 5-10 years.
And... even if one doesn't have a DVD-A capable player, one can at least
still play the DTS or DD tracks in surround on a decent DVD device.
If SACD totally tanks and your discs aren't hybrids (which $ony in their infinite wisdom, chose NOT to do on their discs!)
all we'll have are some pretty coasters!
For what it's worth... SCAD multis should be converted to DVD-As (typo intended!)
just to save the multi-channels.

 

[JonUrban]

Sad but true. The worst thing about it is that after they sent the salvo to torpedo DVD-Audio, their second salvo, jumping on the DualDisc bandwagon half-assed, sank not only DVD-A but their own SACD AND the DualDisc as well. What a joke.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

The only reason I have to buy SACDs is for the multi-channel when there is no other alternative.
DVD-A should have been the clear winner but it goes to show you how big bux can torpedo even the best laid plans.

I do not think that "big bux" has anything to do with the relative success/failure of these media since all the companies with "big bux" have deserted both. IMHO, the main reason that SACD is still breathing is that it was adopted by the small classical labels who continue to support it. Had they adopted DVD-A, it would be the one still trudging on.

Even with Blu-Ray... DVD will probably still be around for at least 5-10 years.
And... even if one doesn't have a DVD-A capable player, one can at least
still play the DTS or DD tracks in surround on a decent DVD device.
If SACD totally tanks and your discs aren't hybrids (which $ony in their infinite wisdom, chose NOT to do on their discs!).....................

On SOME of their discs.

...................all we'll have are some pretty coasters!
For what it's worth... SCAD multis should be converted to DVD-As (typo intended!)
just to save the multi-channels.

Mebbe. I've been stocking up on players for that reason.

Kal

 

[Bob Squires Jr]

Mebbe. I've been stocking up on players for that reason.
Kal

You and me both... I have 3 of them now.

And your right on the Sony discs, not all but at least most of the ones I'm interested in.
ie: The Billy Joels, Aerosmith, Meatloaf, Boston, Oasis etc, to name a few.
However, Heart's Live In Seattle and my Herbie Hancock's Headhunters are both hybrids.
Still, you'd think the inventor would be the ones who would have been the ones to use the format to the fullest
by making ALL the discs hybrids.

-B

 

[Ge Someone]

The only reason I have to buy SACDs is for the multi-channel when there is no other alternative.
...
If SACD totally tanks and your discs aren't hybrids, all we'll have are some pretty coasters!

The only thing you miss out on is the normal (Red Book) stereo CD layer that is still around anyway.

 

[Key]

Well my SACD player does sound a little tinny but I only paid $20 for it so I never expected perfection. Plus I really have no faith in mastering engineers when it comes to high end.

I'm just personally afraid of format deviations. I am afraid of floating point format vs fixed point PCM let alone going to DSD. People have been dealng with fixed point PCM for a long time and the wealth of knowledge and work that has been done to perfect that format will probably have to be re-written when you start going to another format.

Every format will have it's advantages and it's pitfalls. We are familiar with a lot of the pitfalls of fixed point PCM but all this stuff about out of band noise etc... I expect this is very alien to most engineers.

 

[Bob Squires Jr]

The only thing you miss out on is the normal (Red Book) stereo CD layer that is still around anyway.

Yes, but the point of it is that if there is NO CD layer and SACD totally tanks, you'll have to toss your discs. (or sell them on e-bay) once your players go south.
At least with a hybrid, you can still keep them and play the CD on most CD players, in other words they aren't totally useless.
Which is my point with DVD-A... even if you can't play the MLP (AUDIO_TS)
portion of the disc, most standard DVD machines will still play the DTS/DD/LCPM audio from the VIDEO_TS portion and since DVD will probably
hang around for quite some time, they won't become silver clocks hanging in your computer room or a pretty little mobile decoration, at least not for a while to come.

It would be great, however, if DVD manufacturers would include SACD capabilities in most players.
However, I'm not sure that would ever happen due to the licensing from Sony, if there are any, and player makers wouldn't spend the fees for a dying format.

I'm not totally against SACD, I have quite a few, but buying a load of
players now for the future doesn't guarantee they'll work when come to call... even if they did work when stored.

For our sake, I hope they do.
Oh, and a reasonably priced car player would be nice too... but...

-B

 

[leevitalone1]

Wow that stuff about noise limits at the end is weird. I think they are leaving something out in the explanation. Why do they make you limit the out of band noise for SACDs in the first place? It seems like that could be a hassle having to check mixes for sounds I can't even hear with spectral analysis and then having to suppress the ultrasonic frequencies if they are too loud. And I also don't understand why having noise on more than one channel could be considered a cumulative effect - they are separate discrete channels. I understand how it would be with a matrix format but not with a discrete one. And that part where it says to use PCM 88.2kHz if you are recording for SACD seems VERY suspect to me. Is that the REAL limitations of the frequency response? If so I think I'll stick with 96kHz DVD-A.

I too was seriously disapointed with sacd performance and sound quality. Firkken sony! I saw once an "explination" of both formats. The sacd "exp." was long, made no sense, then stated that some material is removed, then repaced by a diff. freq. or sound to make up for it. after asking lots of ? I got no viable response. With dvd-a, The exp. made sense, and the sound backs it up! If not for the titles, I would have sold my sacd deck long ago. Now I am seeing where f sony is pushing quietly, the BR musis format. More music videos. I bet they wil be great. BUt fact remains, what sony did to us!

 

[bmoura]

I too was seriously disapointed with sacd performance and sound quality.

As with any format, the sound quality depends a lot on your system and SACD player.

The well recorded and mastered SACDs (Surround Sound and Stereo) sound very, very good on my system.

 

[dobyblue]

DXD isn't the successor to DSD, it allows for easier editing before going to DSD but also allows for PCM signals, as that's what it is.

2L deliver Blu-ray/SACD combo discs with DXD recordings delivered as both DSD and 24/192 PCM multi-channel, something DVD-A just isn't capable of.

I have no problem with SACD, with all the graphic representations being shown here I thought this one is interesting to add:

DVD-Audio has proved to be too inconsistent, with 24/44.1, 24/48, 24/88.4, 24/96, even sometimes 16-bit tracks - SACD always has the same DSD track and when sourced from an analog master I find it to be more consistently pleasing than DVD-Audio.

Blu-ray should satisfy both parties though...and as far as popular music is concerned DVD-A and SACD are both dead and you're kidding yourself if you think a handful of titles on either format proves differently. Before Neil chimes in with more tales of woe, I'd like to point out that AACS fees have dropped over 20% recently and there are motions to remove it altogether because it's totally useless, and replication fees have dropped drastically over the last two years.

As PacificDisc points out:

Most of PacificDisc's recent BD projects have come from smaller independent producers, or corporate clients. These include: product demos, yoga and meditation videos, an HD eye candy series (fireplace video, aquariums, etc.) and some indie films. "We've not broken into the mass-market titles outside a handful of PBS stuff," said a PacificDisc representative, "as this is not our niche."

http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=2725

Blu-ray is the only format that will satisfy every whim that people have, downloadable content, interactive content, HD video AND audio, etc., etc.

 

[rusinurbe]

DXD isn't the successor to DSD, it allows for easier editing before going to DSD but also allows for PCM signals, as that's what it is.

snip

snip

.

you say DXD is PCM ?

if it is what is the point isnt that a reinvention of the wheel with less flexibilty ?

 

[daved64]

As with any format, the sound quality depends a lot on your system and SACD player.

The well recorded and mastered SACDs (Surround Sound and Stereo) sound very, very good on my system.

I'd say it's more disc related, especially regarding the whole recording/mixing/mastering process. I have SACD's (Gershwin's World) that make me think I have the greatest system in the world. And then I put The Thorns on and want to put knitting needles in my ears.

A soup is only as good as the ingredients you put in it.

 

[Guy Robinson]

I'd say it's more disc related, especially regarding the whole recording/mixing/mastering process. I have SACD's (Gershwin's World) that make me think I have the greatest system in the world. And then I put The Thorns on and want to put knitting needles in my ears.

A soup is only as good as the ingredients you put in it.

I agree. If SACD is purported (in some posts in this thread) to have horrendous sound then why does this Hancock SACD and a lot of others in my collection, sound so great? Better in fact than most of the discs that I have in the DVD-A format. Don't get me wrong, I would still buy discs in both formats that are released. However, from what I have experienced with SACD, the limitations pointed out so not affect the sound in the final product. With all that said, Blu-Ray when using 24 bit lossless sound is the way of the near future.....until another format comes out of course....

 

[dobyblue]

you say DXD is PCM ?

if it is what is the point isnt that a reinvention of the wheel with less flexibilty ?

If it allows for both DSD and PCM masters to be made for SACD and Blu-ray (and to a lesser extent DVD-A) then isn't it more flexible? I can't see most DSD diehards complaining about a 32-bit/384kHz master...although I'm sure someone will prove me wrong!

 

[bmoura]

I agree. If SACD is purported (in some posts in this thread) to have horrendous sound then why does this Hancock SACD and a lot of others in my collection, sound so great? Better in fact than most of the discs that I have in the DVD-A format. Don't get me wrong, I would still buy discs in both formats that are released. However, from what I have experienced with SACD, the limitations pointed out so not affect the sound in the final product.

Agreed. With any format, the final sound is going to depend on how good (or not so good) the original recording and subsequent mastering was !