HiRez Poll Emerson Lake & Palmer - BRAIN SALAD SURGERY [SACD]

[LuvMyQuad]

Not that I know for sure, but there is at least one QQer who claims his system does (though I think if we dig down in to the details we'll find the AVR is converting to PCM).
There is some special hardware you can insert in the signal chain, that will perform bass-management analog-style, I think. A Maverick or something?

LOL... its an ICBM by Outlaw audio. I used to use one.

 

[jimfisheye]

Jim, it seems you're misunderstanding something. I've done the research here. Read a few manuals.
I'm describing a common limitation of the vast majority of systems.

This is limited to consumer home receivers. It's a common bug, yes, but it's still a bug. And precisely why I have a low opinion of home receivers and always recommend against them!

 

[jimfisheye]

So this discussion leaves me wondering: with all the variables that affect what someone hears, how is it that some recordings are almost universally liked and other have such mixed reviews...

I think it's genuinely because some music is so good that even if it is damaged in delivery, it's still THAT good!
This is one of the things that actually feels right in the world too!

It's funny though. In the analog days some of us would not only hunt for albums but also for the best copies. Because there would be better copies than others because that was how it was. Would have thought that the digital age would have removed variables and ended that. It's the polar opposite now though! More hunting for the unstepped on copies than ever required before and it requires tech knowledge now.

I think there's also a thing with some styles of music that revolve around the sounds themselves first. More demanding soundscapes require the technical elements of the sound system in place. The Beatles might be an example of the kind of music that gets across on anything. Pink Floyd might be an example where it doesn't start making sense until you hear it in full fidelity and surround. Getting subjective again...

 

[jimfisheye]

It doesn't matter if the discs sound different. They don't sound like anything without a system. Listeners have to play them back somehow. If that somehow makes them sound different, and that creates preferences, and especially if it creates an unenjoyable experience, that's sad and should be mitigated with some education.

That's where I'm coming from too. If someone is looking more for the user experience of older or odd tech - including examples that altered the music - that's all well and good and I'm not looking to argue there! But in case someone may be interested in hearing the music how it was actually intended to be heard (for good or bad) and was heard by the band in the studio when they signed off on it - that's my aim in offering tips and technobabble.

 

[ssully]

The 'bug' is SACD spec itself: Sony's decision not to follow the .1 practice of DVD and DVDA 5.1 mixes, where the LFE channel is calibrated so that it expects a 10dB boost before output from the subwoofer jack of the AVR.

To confuse the issue further, some mixes on SACD adhere to this Sony SACD spec and some don't.

The fussiness of DSD itself is another bug. To process the signal digitally it has to be converted to PCM; if it isn't, you've got to use analog methods to achieve the same end. Assuming they exist. This isn't just relevant to exotica like room EQ; it also matters for correct bass management, where LFE level has to be adjusted to combine it correctly with bass from other channels.

On top of that, today users can play an SACD on hardware and output 6 analog channels to an AVR; or output it digitally via HDMI to an AVR; or rip the audio to files and stream those to an AVR via HDMI. And in each case the user may have the option of converting to PCM somewhere along the way.

Is it any wonder that systems don't always 'know' the right thing to do with SACD LFE?

 

[LuvMyQuad]

This is a poll thread gentlemen. A mod might want to move all this extracurricular stuff to a different thread. Just say'n.

 

[Larry Geller]

My Integea receiver does bass management on DSD. 5.0 input DSD is output as 5.1DSD, 4.0 input DSD is output as 4.1DSD. No PCM conversion (it would if I told it to, but I didn't).

 

[marpow]

I voted 9. Not quite Dutton Vocalion 4.0 perfection which I listened to before I listened to this, which I am sure affected my vote. But in the world of 5.1 surround certainly a DVD-A worth having.
Edit this vote was for DVD-A, maybe a mod can move this out of here?

 

[ssully]

My Integea receiver does bass management on DSD. 5.0 input DSD is output as 5.1DSD, 4.0 input DSD is output as 4.1DSD. No PCM conversion (it would if I told it to, but I didn't).

What model is this?

 

[Larry Geller]

What model is this?

DRX-5, but they all do it.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

DRX-5, but they all do it.

I'm surmising here, so don't jump all over me if I'm wrong, but I think you are being misled. This article discusses why any DSP on DSD is pretty much a no go.

How do you know the DSD signal isn't being converted to PCM internally? Your player can put out DSD over HDMI, check. Your AVR can receive DSD over HDMI, check. Your AVR can decode DSD over HDM, check. And in each case there is likely some indicator on the equipment that says what is being input and output. But once you engage DSP, things change, even if the equipment indicators don't

Why would Onkyo have a method for doing DSP on native DSD when no other manufactured does? And if they did have such a method, why wouldn't they be shouting about it as a selling point? I'll bet your owners manual never even mentions it one way or another except to say that the AVR will acccept DSD over HDMI.

 

[marpow]

I'm surmising here, so don't jump all over me if I'm wrong, but I think you are being misled. This article discusses why any DSP on DSD is pretty much a no go.

How do you know the DSD signal isn't being converted to PCM internally? Your player can put out DSD over HDMI, check. Your AVR can receive DSD it over HDMI, check. Your AVR can decode DSD over HDM, check. And in each case there is likely some indicator on the equipment that says what is being input and output. But once you engage DSP, things change, even if the equipment indicators don't

Why would Onkyo have a method for doing DSP on native DSD when no other manufactured does? And if they did have such a method, why wouldn't they be shouting about it as a selling point? I'll bet your owners manual never even mentions it one way or another except to say that the AVR will acccept DSD over HDMI.

This is a really good topic, and the article you supply is also real good and informative. May I request a moderator to create a new thread with these discussions added as this is a poll thread which essentially makes this sideways topic useless and many like myself might miss this important sideways topic.
I know you have already suggested this Luv.

 

[quicksrt]

The DVD-A is the original, the SACD came from that, Or did the SADS get a remix? While DVD-A is my fave every time, this title shows why, Sound is demo knockout material. Prices were way up there on this ELP disc, like $175 there it peaked, Then rip, mix, 'n burnin' took the world by storm and brought priced back down to reality.

 

[ssully]

DRX-5, but they all do it.

What they are doing, and how, is the question. Do they have a special DAC that no other AVR has? All consumer DSD DAC chips I know of simply convert DSD from digital to analog. Any changes in the digital realm require digital processing, which even in production studios requires using a Pyramix or other high-cost platform that uses 'DSD-wide' format -- actually a form of PCM, i.e., it is no longer 1-bit -- to enable processing. Otherwise, I'm guessing the Integra line incorporates some sort of *analog* bass management of the *analog* signal that is output by the DSD DAC...an internal version of the old Outlaw device.

 

[ssully]

The DVD-A is the original, the SACD came from that, Or did the SADS get a remix?

It should be clear from the conversation so far that the *mix* -- the allocation of sound elements to different channels -- is the same. No remix. The EQ is a bit different.

 

[quicksrt]

It should be clear from the conversation so far that the *mix* -- the allocation of sound elements to different channels -- is the same. No remix. The EQ is a bit different.

The SACD is also a DSD CONVERSION from a PCM mixed 5.1 master. This should also be clear from the history thus far of the 5.1 mix. That alone will account for a difference of tone even with no EQ applied at all.

But... i think that the BSS album has been mixed twice in 5.1 - from the conversation(s) beyond this one.

 

[salsdali]

OMG, Blah, Blah, Blah

Lucky Man is such an awesome song on weed

 

[ssully]

The SACD is also a DSD CONVERSION from a PCM mixed 5.1 master.

True, that would be the most parsimonious explanation.

This should also be clear from the history thus far of the 5.1 mix. That alone will account for a difference of tone even with no EQ applied at all.

Interesting claim. Can you explain why transcoding from an (at most) 192 kHz/32 bit master to a >1000kHz/1 bit master would cause loss of energy at both ends of the audible spectrum?

But... i think that the BSS album has been mixed twice in 5.1 - from the conversation(s) beyond this one.

It certainly has been mixed twice to 5.1 Once by K&K, once by Jakko...both PCM. If these conversations have evidence that it was remixed a third time in between, for SACD, I'd love to see it.

 

[quicksrt]

Interesting claim. Can you explain why transcoding from an (at most) 192 kHz/32 bit master to a >1000kHz/1 bit master would cause loss of energy at both ends of the audible spectrum?

I didn't describe it as a "loss of energy" actually. I just said it can and often does sound different. Some might consider the difference(s) better. and some not.

 

[ssully]

Silly me...I forgot to add "'Because I hear it"' does not count as an explanation", to my last post. When will I learn?