Can Sacd/hdcd Make Better Md?

[Guest tony wong]

it seems not a simple topic

I have this guess : would SACD stream make encoding easier?

then with the same size, better quality of sound can be made

Could it be true?

[added at later times]

what about HDCD?

does all Sony CD player do nothing with HDCD?

Edited February 19, 2005 by tony wong

[aeriyn]

Eh, DSD is a lot larger, takes up more space than PCM data does. Also, SACD seems to be on the decline as it is. It could be done, though not easily and not with Hi-MD the way it is currently. Sony surely has no portable DSD decoder systems so... there's probably no market for it, either.

High-rez on the go would certainly appeal to a lot of audiophile types, though.

[dex Otaku]

I have this guess : would SACD stream make encoding easier?

then with the same size, better quality of sound can be made

Raw DSD uses 64x the bandwidth that CD does, if I'm not mistaken.

Also, SACD seems to be on the decline as it is. Sony surely has no portable DSD decoder systems so... there's probably no market for it, either.

DSD is actually making fair inroads in the studio realm [almost surprisingly].

I say -almost- surprisingly since the majority of studios [that I've known of, anyway] that ran digital over the past 20 years ran on none other than Sony DASH equipment [Digital Audio Stationary Head]. While most of the smaller outfits have moved to hard disc recorders, variations of Tascam's 8mm [Hi8] tape-based multitrackers and of course ADAT, a lot of the biggies were using Sony equipment right from the start.

High-resolution audio is making a very slow penetration of the consumer market. SACD and DVD-Audio exceed the playback capabilities of probably 95% of the equipment out there, so perceived benefit for most people is next to nil.

Still, that DSD has been adopted by a few studios is a big thing, because if the beginning of the chain doesn't support it, the rest basically doesn't matter - unless you focus exclusively on remastering.

I'm willing to bet that every Sony Music studio runs DSD, of course.

[jadeclaw]

it seems not a simple topic

I have this guess : would SACD stream make encoding easier?

then with the same size, better quality of sound can be made

Could it be true?

←

Not easier.

Reason: You have to convert the data format first. DSD, the data format used for SACD

is a timebased vector format. Duration and polarity define, if a capacitor is charged or discharged.

However, all codecs (lossy and lossless) are wordbased parallel encoders, which can't do anything

with DSD. After converting, which is a complicated mathematical process,

you get digital data with a resolution of roughly 22bits. Now that can be fed into the Atrac codec,

which has usually a resolution of 24bits. What Atrac hasn't thrown out, will not be better

than the original converted 22 bit data.

Since a standard CD is only 16bit, you do get better sound, but only if you accept the additional

effort to convert the original data into something useful.

For that, you have to rip the SACD directly, something not possible currently,

as no computer drive on the market can read that format.

[dex Otaku]

Since a standard CD is only 16bit, you do get better sound, but only if you accept the additional effort to convert the original data into something useful.

For that, you have to rip the SACD directly, something not possible currently, as no computer drive on the market can read that format.

Niggling point: SACD uses the same physical format and filesystem as DVD; the problem is with its 80-bit encryption and the fact that no current drives recognise scarlet book discs.

SACD is designed, basically, as a "playback but do not process" format. In pro audio circles there's been a lot of discussion about the fact that you can't really do DSP with the DSD stream itself - you can either convert it to PCM to make it usable with anything else, in which case you're not really seeing any advantage with it*, or you can just convert it directly to analogue and put that into an amp and listen to it.

* It also presents a few great disadvantages compared to high resolution PCM formats. Some interesting reading here: http://sound.westhost.com/cd-sacd-dvda.htm

[jadeclaw]

Some interesting reading here: http://sound.westhost.com/cd-sacd-dvda.htm

←

Ouchies!

Seems that Sony was more interested in copy protection than creating the optimal system

for sound reproduction.

Plus, what the article didn't covered, is the fact, that the normal CD can be improved as well

without losing compatibility, which makes the advantage of SACD look even smaller...

And the same methods can be used with Hi-MD as well when using LinearPCM.

Ok Sony, when do we get Hi-MD recorders with SuperBitMapping and HDCD-Encoder?

[dex Otaku]

Seems that Sony was more interested in copy protection than creating the optimal system for sound reproduction.

What I love about this [and all of the new media formats] is what this says about "fair use" - that it's apparently nonexistent now.

Ok Sony, when do we get Hi-MD recorders with SuperBitMapping and HDCD-Encoder?

We'd have to have >16-bit A/D in there first, at the least.

SBM and HDCD-encoder are both postprocessing mechanisms; unless you're requantising things [bitwise] or doing a bunch of processing [which has to be followed by requantising and dither], neither presents any advantage.

[jadeclaw]

What I love about this [and all of the new media formats] is what this says about "fair use" - that it's apparently nonexistent now.

The media industry is just too greedy to allow for that...

We'd have to have >16-bit A/D in there first, at the least.

That's true. However, we don't know, what's really inside. And I'm not inclined to take my NH700 apart...

SBM and HDCD-encoder are both postprocessing mechanisms; unless you're requantising things [bitwise] or doing a bunch of processing [which has to be followed by requantising and dither], neither presents any advantage.

←

Are you sure? Sony once offered an A/D converter with SBM built right in.

And later DAT-recorders had it as a standard feature.

Of course, SBM can be done later as well.

HDCD might be a different thing regarding the position in the signal chain,

but both methods do improve the quality. However, HDCD does need a decoder on playback.

[Guest tony wong]

Not easier.

Reason: You have to convert the data format first. DSD, the data format used for SACD

is a timebased vector format. Duration and polarity define, if a capacitor is charged or discharged.

However, all codecs (lossy and lossless) are wordbased parallel encoders, which can't do anything

with DSD. After converting, which is a complicated mathematical process,

you get digital data with a resolution of roughly 22bits. Now that can be fed into the Atrac codec,

which has usually a resolution of 24bits. What Atrac hasn't thrown out, will not be better

than the original converted 22 bit data.

Since a standard CD is only 16bit, you do get better sound, but only if you accept the additional

effort to convert the original data into something useful.

For that, you have to rip the SACD directly, something not possible currently,

as no computer drive on the market can read that format.

←

Sony have some system(mini or micro) that can both read SACD and record MD

I am just curious, did these system convert the SACD to pcm first....

then compress to MD format?

[EDIT] forget to add the word SACD(in red).....

Edited February 19, 2005 by tony wong

[zerodB]

It's an interesting bad point. And not just for SACD, but for HDCD as well.

Quite a few of my CDs are HDCD compatible, but the only way I have to access the full HDCD resolution is to play it in Windows Media Player through my CD-Rom drive.

So what happens exactly when I hook up the optical out of my USB PC link to my MD unit? The MD does a downsample right?

But will this result in anything better than just simply chucking the CD in my cd->md micro system (non HDCD) and just hitting record?

[Michael1980]

Sony have some system(mini or micro) that can both read SACD and record MD

I am just curious, did these system convert the SACD to pcm first....

then compress to MD format?

[EDIT] forget to add the word SACD(in red).....

←

Yes, I believe the stream is downmixed to PCM and then recorded as usual to minidisc.

[jadeclaw]

It's an interesting bad point. And not just for SACD, but for HDCD as well.

Quite a few of my CDs are HDCD compatible, but the only way I have to access the full HDCD  resolution is to play it in Windows Media Player through my CD-Rom drive.

So what happens exactly when I hook up the optical out of my USB PC link to my MD unit? The MD does a downsample right?

No, your PC does it. Plus, the MD possibly records only the top 16bit from the data stream,

so that any resolution gain from the HDCD is lost.

A different case would be ripping a HDCD in SonicStage and transferring that via USB onto Hi-MD in LinearPCM.

If you connect then a HiMD-player via optical out to a HDCD-capable D/A-Converter,

then you get back the full HDCD quality.

The HDCD-information is simply transferred with the Audio-data as it is encoded in it.

But will this result in anything better than just simply chucking the CD in my cd->md micro system (non HDCD) and just hitting record?

←

Slightly, if your Soundcard is true-bit capable. Since the datastream does no longer contains the HDCD-information, the resulting S/N-ratio is slightly better.

(We're talking about a few dBs while the whole thing is still in the 90 dB range)

Reason: The HDCD method encodes additional sound information by dithering around with the lowest bits of the signal.

More about HDCD is here: http://www.hdcd.com/default.asp

(Too bad, it has been eaten by Microsoft )

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, I believe the stream is downmixed to PCM and then recorded as usual to minidisc.

←

Or worse, a complete D/A - A/D cycle.

Only the Service Manual will reveal...

[poe]

In regards to the article this info regarding noise in the uper region of SACD has been known for awhile. I think I read about this about 2 years ago in Sound & Vision in articles by Ken Polmann I beleive, overall this is a no point in over 99% of our systems out there. Can it be heard? Yes, even on my low quality system(which doesn't have true analogue pass thru on the 6 channel ins). Does it matter? No, I like to think I'm a audiophile and it really doesn't bother me. I just enjoy the increased resolution on everthing else.

In regards to Sony employing watermarks on SACD I think some readers misread this article. SACD is copy proof just from the way that it is made or recorded from what I understand.

Back to what I said about this being a no point on most of the systems out there. The differences between DVD Audio and SACD are sort of leveled once they reach most peoples receivers, most receivers even on the 6 channel inputs force the signal through A/D converters then D/A converters before being sent to the Amps, so they down sampled to 44.1/16bit. My info regarding receivers is a few years behind, but at the time there were very few receivers with true analogue passthru, I doubt there is many more now either.

In regards to the orignal subject though eaiser I don't think so. In regards to quality though is a subject of opinion. I own a handfull of 2channel PCM recordings mastered and remastered in DSD(they are still regular CD not a SACD)and in my opinion they sound much better than any HDCD or quasi 20bit(24?) cds I have ever personally heard. The quality of these recordings can be heard in my home system as well as my car system. I wish all cds were mastered in DSD.POE

[Embio]

sorry - can someone explain what a sample rate is to me? I can never understand the difference between sample rate and bit rate

[streaml1ne]

sorry - can someone explain what a sample rate is to me? I can never understand the difference between sample rate and bit rate

←

Read this:

http://sudhian.com/showdocs.cfm?aid=639

[streaml1ne]

Back to what I said about this being a no point on most of the systems out there. The differences between DVD Audio and SACD are sort of leveled once they reach most peoples receivers, most receivers even on the 6 channel inputs force the signal through A/D converters then D/A converters before being sent to the Amps, so they down sampled to 44.1/16bit. My info regarding receivers is a few years behind, but at the time there were very few receivers with true analogue passthru, I doubt there is many more now either.

←

Most new receivers are not doing this. Stuff from Harman and Denon do A/D conversion on stereo inputs usually using 96 or 192kHz ADC's, however they explicitly state 7.1 channel direct inputs are NOT converted to digital. My HK AVR which is about 2 years old now doesn't convert the external inputs to digital either. If Denon's LINK interconnect picks up (or firewire for that matter) this will be moot as you'll have a digital path straight through to the DAC before amplification on the AVR. I'm with you though, the increased resolution throughout is the real reason to use SACD or DVD-A. That and multichannel support

[poe]

streaml1ne now that I've thought about it 6 channel inputs are starting to vanish from low priced receiver models. So they are avaible on models now that may have true analogue pass thru. Although my recent replacement of aging Sony(in terms of WAF it was outdated with no s-video hookups which resulted in the use of a switch box)for a Panasonic ($135) that does have 6 channel hookup, I some how doubt it has true pass thru, the Sony didn't either. I guess one day I will be able to afford one though. Which bring me to my point HK and Denon are still fairlly pricey receivers, they do not represent most of the receivers out there though. I will concede that the number of receivers that have true analogue pass through is growing in terms of % of receivers with 6 channel inputs, but they represent a small precentage overall. If I remember the article I read this was described as a dirty little secret of SACD, have to admit I didn't know about it when I bought my Sony, I thought I was set. From the article I read I was under the impression that a large number of receivers do this. To me this doesn't matter though because even in these setups I can still hear a big difference and in the end thats what really matters.POE

[Guest tony wong]

hey man, pls help me.....

can u just write in just a more tidy way?

maybe not in a long paragraph?

[jadeclaw]

maybe not in a long paragraph?

←

Fließtext rulez!