The SACD Hybrid/DSD Thread

[starman]

Is there a "collector's corner" in this forum? I can be a real mental midget when it comes to not seeing what's right in front of me.

If this thread has already been started, please forgive me. Just move my post please, if you would be kind enough, to that thread.

I wanted to discuss these digital critters with other folks. (like Craig & others that I don't know yet)

There is no question that these things are both a) awesome in terms of sound quality, and b) VERY collectible.

I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer when it comes to digital this and that, although as the late GREAT Steve Gaines once penned, I know a little.

I hope this thread will be one consisting of questions, answers and general discussion about this incredible CD format. I would love to hear from those that actually listen to these things in 5.1 as well as those like myself who have up until this point only listened to the 2 channel stereo representations.

I understand a small amount about the abbreviations used to describe these things, but I am not positive my understanding is accurate. That's why I am laying that understanding at others feet, more so knowledgeable than myself, to get my understanding more so trued up.

Please take the following as a "true or false" type thing.

SACD Hybrid simply means an SACD encoded digital mix that will play on either a regular CD player, or an SACD player. The SACD player has a choice of output formats dependent on the customer's set up. If the the person with the SACD Hybrid disc and the SACD Hybrid player has a 5.1 system into which the SACD player is input, that person can enjoy the full extent of the SACD experience. A 5.1 system is merely a representation of the Dolby audio encoding process in which the audio sound track from a movie, (encoded with 5.1 surround) or a person with an SACD player and disc, can through the circuitry of the 5.1 system, have that signal decoded and then output into 5 distinct stereo field channels. Correct or Incorrect?

When a disc, such as Aerosmith's Toys In The Attic is not a "Hybrid" version, but rather a strait SACD, it will only play on a SACD player. However, even on a SACD player, the audio output can be mixed down to two channel via the subsequent DSD nature of the encoding on the disc, so that the listen does in fact hear the 2 channel DSD mix from the disc.

DSD is actually the recording process that makes the SACD possible. (T/F?)

My last question is tricky. Maybe MR. Craig or someone else can answer this one for me because I frankly don't have a clue.

When one listens to a SACD within a SACD Hybrid player on a typical two channel stereo system, is what one hears a DSD stereo "mix"? This "mix" being completely different than the two channel redbook information contained on the disc?

I hope this post will "take off". I will be patient in hopes that it will and I also apologize openly for not being more patient on this forum thus far. It's just my nature to be VERY driven, impulsive, impatient, overly enthusiastic, and a mental midget extraordinaire in general with respect for my attention span.

[Lord Grendel]

Your thread is fine Starman, and well written OP, my compliments.

I have always pursued the best sound I can get from my entry into electronics in the mid 70's up to the present day, but I never collected many DVD-A or SACD discs. I was more interested in the playback equipment being the best I could afford.

I'll leave that question for Craig, he is way more knowledgeable about SACD's than I am.

[Craig in Indy]

I'll try to toss my limited bit of knowledge into the pot here, too. If anything I say is known by anyone to be false, don't be bashful about correcting me. I'd like to understand more about this myself...

Originally Posted by starman SACD Hybrid simply means an SACD encoded digital mix that will play on either a regular CD player, or an SACD player.

Not exactly. It isn't a single set of files that can be read by different kinds of playback machines. A hybrid SACD has two or three completely separate sets of song files on different layers (don't ask me how they do that). There's a layer with regular "redbook" CD files that have been digitally encoded with the standard CD process, which is PCM (pulse code modulation, I believe). Then there will be one or two other layers with the DSD (direct stream digital) encoded files. Those are the SACD layers, and there'll usually be a separate one for 2-channel and for 5.1-channel, though if I'm not mistaken, some early discs had only the multi-channel SACD layer, and 2-channel playback relied on the player's circuitry to mix them down to 2-channel.

Originally Posted by starman The SACD player has a choice of output formats dependent on the customer's set up. If the the person with the SACD Hybrid disc and the SACD Hybrid player has a 5.1 system into which the SACD player is input, that person can enjoy the full extent of the SACD experience. A 5.1 system is merely a representation of the Dolby audio encoding process in which the audio sound track from a movie, (encoded with 5.1 surround) or a person with an SACD player and disc, can through the circuitry of the 5.1 system, have that signal decoded and then output into 5 distinct stereo field channels. Correct or Incorrect?

As far as I understand it, that's right. I don't have much experience with multi-channel SACD. As I mentioned in another thread, the only multi-channel setup I have is an extremely modest home theater. I think I erroneously reported in that thread that the disc player in that system doesn't read SACDs, but it actually does. I just don't use it for that very often because for me the true beauty of the DSD process is in the quality of the sound, and not in the fact that it can be played through more than 2 channels. And the hi-fi potential of that system is pretty limited, so it's seldom used for anything but movies. In fact, the only SACD I've ever listened to on it was Dark Side of the Moon, just for curiosity's sake (the only other audio-only use it's seen was when I tried out the DVD-audio versions of the Beatles' Love and Neil Young's Live at Massey Hall). It was fun, but I prefer hearing better sound from 2 speakers rather than so-so sound from 5.1. A really, really good 5.1 channel system would be a lot of fun, I'm sure, but I can't justify the cost.

Originally Posted by starman When a disc, such as Aerosmith's Toys In The Attic is not a "Hybrid" version, but rather a strait SACD, it will only play on a SACD player. However, even on a SACD player, the audio output can be mixed down to two channel via the subsequent DSD nature of the encoding on the disc, so that the listen does in fact hear the 2 channel DSD mix from the disc.

That's right, as far as I know. The player definitely plays DSD files in that case, and I have a faint recollection that I had to go through a setup routine on the player when I first turned it on, to tell it to mix 5.1-channel output down to 2. That's what I was referring to in my earlier paragraph about the different layers on a hybrid disc. It's my understanding that some have separate layers for 2-channel vs. 5.1, but that earlier discs didn't, and in those cases the player had to handle the 2-channel mixing process.

Originally Posted by starman DSD is actually the recording process that makes the SACD possible. (T/F?)

True. That's the whole Direct-Stream-Digital process vs. the Pulse-Code-Modulation process that is supposed to give SACDs their enhanced resolution and resultant higher-fidelity. I personally don't have a clue what the differences actually are, or how either process works. That's way beyond my meager technical expertise.

Originally Posted by starman My last question is tricky. Maybe MR. Craig or someone else can answer this one for me because I frankly don't have a clue. When one listens to a SACD within a SACD Hybrid player on a typical two channel stereo system, is what one hears a DSD stereo "mix"? This "mix" being completely different than the two channel redbook information contained on the disc?

This goes back again to what I was saying earlier about the separate layers on a hybrid disc. If it's a disc that has separate SACD layers for 2-channel vs/ 5.1 channel, then, when you listen to the 2-channel layer you're hearing the record producer's or engineer's own 2-channel mix. If it only has one DSD layer, it's probably in multi-channel, and the 2-channel mix you hear is created by the disc player. In either case, though, it's DSD files you're listening to, completely separate from any redbook CD files.

Originally Posted by starman I hope this post will "take off". I will be patient in hopes that it will and I also apologize openly for not being more patient on this forum thus far. It's just my nature to be VERY driven, impulsive, impatient, overly enthusiastic, and a mental midget extraordinaire in general with respect for my attention span.

I don't see any reason for you to apologize for anything. Let me know if anything I said is unclear. And again, if anyone else reading knows of any errors or misstatements I made, please correct me. As my late father used to say, I don't understand everything I know about this.

[Lord Grendel]

Nice answer Craig. The PCM part is right, when you play a DTS encoded DVD for example you have to change the setting in the player to "Bitstream", from PCM, at least I do in my old but still good Toshiba player. When I played Gaucho the other night, I just left the PCM setting, maybe I should see what happens if I switch it to Bitstream...

[Hepcat]

The 5.1 layer of SACDs actually troubles me. Quite simply, when I listen to a concert, the band members are on the stage in front of me. I'm not seated in the middle of the stage myself. I'm seated in the audience. Yet the 5.1 layer of SACDs is actually designed to be played on a system where the center channel speaker is different from the left and right channel speakers, which in turn are different from the rear channel speakers, which of course are positioned behind the listener! That would be some kind of weird concert.

Just think how cool the SACD technology could have been had it been designed for three, four or five identical speakers all positioned in front of the listener! In fact, given the potential of different layers in SACD technology, they could have been good for anywhere from two to five channels at the flick of a switch depending upon the number of speakers in the listener's system!

The problem is that SACDs were designed for home theater gimmickry, earthquakes in surround sound and all that crud, and then adapted as best can for hifi purposes.

[Hepcat]

I'm still looking at this Marantz SA8003 SACD player:

[Craig in Indy]

Originally Posted by Hepcat The 5.1 layer of SACDs actually troubles me. Quite simply, when I listen to a concert, the band members are on the stage in front of me. I'm not seated in the middle of the stage myself. I'm seated in the audience. Yet the 5.1 layer of SACDs is actually designed to be played on a system where the center channel speaker is different from the left and right channel speakers, which in turn are different from the rear channel speakers, which of course are positioned behind the listener! That would be some kind of weird concert.

Hepcat, you and I have a different philosophy about the reason for hi-fi and recordings in the first place. Unless a recording is of a live, in-concert event, I don't expect it to, nor would I want it to, replicate a concert experience. I'm not being argumentative, or suggesting you're wrong. I'm just saying because of my viewpoint on hi-fi in general, the "surround" experience of being placed in the middle of the band would be fine with me if I were interested in that sort of thing to begin with, which I'm not terribly.

Originally Posted by Hepcat Just think how cool the SACD technology could have been had it been designed for three, four or five identical speakers all positioned in front of the listener! In fact, given the potential of different layers in SACD technology, they could have been good for anywhere from two to five channels at the flick of a switch depending upon the number of speakers in the listener's system!

Here, I probably would argue with you. A well-designed and setup 2-channel music reproduction system (hardware and software) should provide all the spacial cues you need to get a clean, accurate aural "image" of instruments across a stage of any width. IMO, additional speakers placed in between the far left and far right speakers wouldn't provide any benefit unless they were designed specifically for a particular instrument (like a dedicated woofer for a bass).

Originally Posted by Hepcat The problem is that SACDs were designed for home theater gimmickry, earthquakes in surround sound and all that crud, and then adapted as best can for hifi purposes.

Is that true? I can understand saying multi-channel systems in general were designed for HT and then adapted for music systems, but is that true of the whole DSD/SACD technology? I had assumed it was created as a higher-resolution audio reproduction system and that its ability to be presented in multiple channels was a happy (for some) byproduct. I'm not saying that's actually the case; it's simply what I had assumed. If you know different, I'd be interested in learning more about that.

[Craig in Indy]

Actually, Hepcat, I just thought of an instance where additional speakers/channels in the same plane as the left and right speakers would be of benefit - if you were in a listening environment where you were forced to sit too close the speaker plane, making the left and right speakers too distant from one another to image properly. Then some additional channels filling out the space between them would work the way I think you want them to.

[Lord Grendel]

I have to disagree with Hep a little, a 5.1 system when configured properly Enhances the sound of a band, the rear speakers for example are providing an accompaniment/complimentary sound, not like all 5 speakers playing the same volume. So when you play DSOTM by PF, the instruments are perfectly placed, the totality of sound engulfs you and gets you closer to the music than ever before possible. Plus modern concerts like Pink Floyd use multiple stacks of speakers, placed in sequence from the stage to the back of the stadium to create a complete coherent soundstage for the concert, add a DSP to co-ordinate the signals and the experience is breathtaking.

[Hepcat]

Craig:

IMO, additional speakers placed in between the far left and far right speakers wouldn't provide any benefit unless they were designed specifically for a particular instrument (like a dedicated woofer for a bass).

I don't like the whole concept of dedicated speakers for one instrument including sub-woofers. Just how often do you attend a concert where the singer, guitarist and bassist, etc. stay in one spot the whole time? I expect instruments to be able to move from speaker to speaker just as band members move about on stage.

I had assumed it was created as a higher-resolution audio reproduction system and that its ability to be presented in multiple channels was a happy (for some) byproduct. I'm not saying that's actually the case; it's simply what I had assumed. If you know different, I'd be interested in learning more about that.

Interesting. I had just assumed the opposite. After all, the home theater market is the big one. Hard core audiophiles are a tiny market.

Why do you think speakers have gotten thinner and taller in the last ten years? It's to appeal to the design sensibilities of women who like that look beside giant flat screen TVs. That's all why low center channel speakers were developed - to fit under the TV. And sub basses were developed for earthquakes and such as part of the home theater experience.

[starman]

Believe it or not Hep, and I DO RESPECT your sound stage reasoning via old school audiophile thinking, when you listen to something that's in front of you, it's IMPOSSIBLE not to hear rear stereo imagery unless your ears are naturally or unnaturally dysfunctional.

There is no question that the very real notion of a stereo "sweet spot" within any listening environment is based on a 360 degree human interpretation of sound waves as they emanate from the source of a stereo listening field.

A few things to consider would be the following with respect to a comparative line of reasoning juxtaposing audio stereo imagery and a home theater listening experience.

With the average 5.1 pro logic system being the absolute dark ages of surround technologies, it's clear that DSD recordings and signal processing with respect to SACDs are not aimed at mimicking 5.1 home theater surround. The DSD process as related to SACDs is being used to better achieve that aforementioned 360 degree stereo field interpretation. There is really no comparing it to Home Theater sound other than the 5.1 channel delivery. The two (HT & SACD) are completely different with respect to the applied engineering's means and end result.

In this sense we could liken the general 5.1 technically referenced means to a form of general commuting, rather than a destination or even a specific device in which to commute.

5.1 Dolby Pro Logic Home Theater would specifically liken itself to an old Steam Locomotive, whereas 5.1 DSD based stereo audio engineering would be likened to that Turbo train you posted in the picture battle a day or so ago.

Both are functioning "trains" to and from multiple arbitrary points of travel using tracks, but the first is obsolescent at best, a mere novelty, whereas the second is more so a contemporary cutting edge application. One in which the traveler is greatly gratified by the superior luxury and efficiency of the train's progressive evolution as a medium of travel. The later resulting in a far more rewarding "sweet spot" of experience.

[Hepcat]

With the average 5.1 pro logic system being the absolute dark ages of surround technologies.... There is really no comparing it to Home Theater sound other than the 5.1 channel delivery. The two (HT & SACD) are completely different with respect to the applied engineering's means and end result.

Okay, if they're completely different technologies, why oh why then did they not make SACDs for two, three, four or five channel listening at a flick of a switch? I mean how many listening rooms have enough room for five really good speakers?

[starman]

Originally Posted by Hepcat Okay, if they're completely different technologies, why oh why then did they not make SACDs for two, three, four or five channel listening at a flick of a switch? I mean how many listening rooms have enough room for five really good speakers?

I don't honestly understand the first question, the second question, as you yourself have stated, is subjective to the desire and capability of the listener. I wouldn't expect any eccentric luxury to become an average commodity. It would more or less defeat the collectivity and desire for the improved experience.

[Hepcat]

If SACDs were a separate technology developed for the music lover, why must they have the same 5.1 channels used by the home theater crowd? Many audiophiles might want an option beyond stereo that's not quite as challenging to implement as 5.1 channels e.g. three or four channels.

[starman]

Originally Posted by Hepcat If SACDs were a separate technology developed for the music lover, why must they have the same 5.1 channels used by the home theater crowd? Many audiophiles might want an option beyond stereo that's not quite as challenging to implement as 5.1 channels e.g. three or four channels.

That's the whole idea behind the "Hybrid" and DSD 2 channel mixdown notion. You do not have to listen to SACDs in 5.1 (6 channels) to enjoy the immensely better sound quality of these discs.

DSD is assuredly a different or separate technology than what was used when encoding 5.1 pro logic was state of the art. If you remember correctly, the notion of using less speakers was actually a home theater option early on the history of home theater receivers. You could use 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 speakers depending on the mode you chose on the decoder/receiver.