Skip to main content

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: SACD Ripping (Read 61116 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

SACD Ripping

Reply #25
Quote
Its not the frequency response I worry about, its the number of data bits making the sound "less jagged" like a higher polygon count 3D model for example that makes it smoother.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=331249"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I don't understand you.  are you talking about the bit depth?

SACD Ripping

Reply #26
no one seems to be joining us in this conversation? Someone should come in and say DVD audio sounds better or something. hehehe

SACD Ripping

Reply #27
Interpolation, also called reconstruction, of the analog waveform is not guessed. It's done lowpassing the "jagged" digital signal with a brickwall filter with a cutoff frequency of half the sampling frequency or less. Edit: that's what sampling theorem says, and what is done in practice.

Here at HA you won't find many people that agrees that DVD-A or SACD sounds better than CD.

SACD Ripping

Reply #28
You may also want to read the FAQ.

This has been beaten to death in the past.

SACD Ripping

Reply #29
Quote
Can DSD to PCM be done losslessly?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=331054"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No, but when you do DSD -> 24bit/88.2kHz for example the loss will be practically negligible.

Quote
So If you have to downsample when converting to pcm and convert the audio file to a lossy format, wouldn't the output mp3 technically sound the same as a 16bit cd rip/encode?(considering the sacd/dvd-audio and the cd version of an album was from the same master.)
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=331171"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The only thing you gain by doing this (feeding for example LAME with a downsampled 24 bit version compared to 16 bit CDDA content) is dynamic resolution. MP3 (as well as AAC & Vorbis) does support that kind of dynamic resolution.

Quote
What I was getting at when posting this thread was not just whether I could rip the audio files out of sacds/dvd audio discs but whether the sound of an mp3 ripped from these sources would sound better than ones ripped from a 16 bit cd. Another thing that I was wondering is if there was a 24 bit audio lossy format that can go direct dvd audio to lossy without downsampling to 16bit
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=331173"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

1) The lossy formats like MP3, AAC, Vorbis are not restricted to 16 bit input !!! They can do better.
2) "downsampling" only refers to reducing the amount of samples taken (reducing the sampling rate)
You can for example rip (somehow) a DVD audio track (24bit PCM) and feed it directly to LAME without converting it to 16 bit PCM first which would induce some noise. For very quiet parts that may matter.

Quote
What is DVD audio by the way 24 bit 96khz? that in itself should make it sound more analog since there is more data bits per second. Question is who hears this difference around here? please reply
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=331231"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You fell for the SACD marketing crap.

Quote
Well what I was saying is that you don't need to interpolate(basically guess) as much when there is more data per second so there are less chances of interpolation errors.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=331251"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Bandlimited interpolation is NOT guessing. If your analogue signal is bandlimited then you are allowed to sample it at a samplingrate above twice the highest frequency to get a time-discrete signal. The original signal can be reconstructed perfectly from this time-discrete version without guessing.

Quote
Still, let's ditch theory. Is there nobody that can say that DVD audio or SACD sounds better than conventional CD? Can anyone here hear the difference? If Not, then whats the point of SACD then? Is it just something that can cure some audiophiles paranoia that CD sound is not good enough?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=331251"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It's not only about increased bandwidth and dynamic resolution (which probably is no real advantage if you just want to listen to the disc) but also the ability to store multichannel content. This, of course, is noticable.


Sebi

SACD Ripping

Reply #30
Quote
Quote
Can DSD to PCM be done losslessly?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=331054"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No, but when you do DSD -> 24bit/88.2kHz for example the loss will be practically negligible.

Quote
So If you have to downsample when converting to pcm and convert the audio file to a lossy format, wouldn't the output mp3 technically sound the same as a 16bit cd rip/encode?(considering the sacd/dvd-audio and the cd version of an album was from the same master.)
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=331171"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The only thing you gain by doing this (feeding for example LAME with a downsampled 24 bit version compared to 16 bit CDDA content) is dynamic resolution. MP3 (as well as AAC & Vorbis) does support that kind of dynamic resolution.

Quote
What I was getting at when posting this thread was not just whether I could rip the audio files out of sacds/dvd audio discs but whether the sound of an mp3 ripped from these sources would sound better than ones ripped from a 16 bit cd. Another thing that I was wondering is if there was a 24 bit audio lossy format that can go direct dvd audio to lossy without downsampling to 16bit
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=331173"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

1) The lossy formats like MP3, AAC, Vorbis are not restricted to 16 bit input !!! They can do better.
2) "downsampling" only refers to reducing the amount of samples taken (reducing the sampling rate)
You can for example rip (somehow) a DVD audio track (24bit PCM) and feed it directly to LAME without converting it to 16 bit PCM first which would induce some noise. For very quiet parts that may matter.

Quote
What is DVD audio by the way 24 bit 96khz? that in itself should make it sound more analog since there is more data bits per second. Question is who hears this difference around here? please reply
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=331231"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You fell for the SACD marketing crap.

Quote
Well what I was saying is that you don't need to interpolate(basically guess) as much when there is more data per second so there are less chances of interpolation errors.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=331251"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Bandlimited interpolation is NOT guessing. If your analogue signal is bandlimited then you are allowed to sample it at a samplingrate above twice the highest frequency to get a time-discrete signal. The original signal can be reconstructed perfectly from this time-discrete version without guessing.

Quote
Still, let's ditch theory. Is there nobody that can say that DVD audio or SACD sounds better than conventional CD? Can anyone here hear the difference? If Not, then whats the point of SACD then? Is it just something that can cure some audiophiles paranoia that CD sound is not good enough?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=331251"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It's not only about increased bandwidth and dynamic resolution (which probably is no real advantage if you just want to listen to the disc) but also the ability to store multichannel content. This, of course, is noticable.


Sebi
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=331268"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Thanks sebastianG, Oh by the way I never heard SACDs marketing crap. What was it? hehehehe

SACD Ripping

Reply #31
"The Type R is Sony's ultimate video and audio PC, with this time the apparition of a Sound Reality chipset for the HD audio. This PC is SACD compatible and you can even burn SACD's! This high-end model gets a Pentium D 820 (2.8Ghz), 1Gb of RAM, a 256Mb GeForce 6600, a DL/RAM DVD-multi-burner, a TV tuner and 320Gb of HDD space (not too much for this machine to be honest). There is also a new system to extract the HDD's in an easier way. The R should Retail foR 1500 EUR (without scReen)."

http://www.akihabaranews.com/en/news_10130.html

Sorry if this is redundant...

SACD Ripping

Reply #32
The only way that DVD-A or SACD (2 channel) can sound "different" (read by many as better) than CD is to have a different master, ie, less compressed.
"You can fight without ever winning, but never win without a fight."  Neil Peart  'Resist'

SACD Ripping

Reply #33
Quote
"This PC is SACD compatible and you can even burn SACD's!"[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=331705"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I read that news, but it was so big that I checked out the product on Sony's websites. I didn't find a single reference to burning or even reading SACD's, so I really don't know where that news comes from, and if there is any truth to it.

SACD Ripping

Reply #34
well probably the advantage of having more dynamic range, multichannel and all is that the mixers can expect the system behind to follow, hence not compress so much.

but I am surprised that no-one mentionned the advantages of higher-sampling frequencies such as
- noise shaping (as in SACD)
- looser anti-aliasing filter (a major feature in any digital->analog converter)

SACD Ripping

Reply #35
Quote
I read that news, but it was so big that I checked out the product on Sony's websites. I didn't find a single reference to burning or even reading SACD's, so I really don't know where that news comes from, and if there is any truth to it.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


So far, I believe the Vaio Type R is Japan only, and my Japanese is a little rusty, so the Sony Japan web site isn't much help.  But you're right, I haven't seen any references to the notion of an SACD burner anywhere else.  The news story was posted on August 30, you'd think if it were a mistake that they would've fixed it by now.  I found the original link to that news story on digg.com...

[a href="http://digg.com/hardware/Most_useless_feature_ever_built_into_a_PC]http://digg.com/hardware/Most_useless_feat...built_into_a_PC[/url]

A commentor on the article linked from digg said...

"btw, you can relax, its not gonna be able to write SACD's. It can only write DSDIFF files, maybe DST-encoded. Why ? Because SACD has a nice piracy-protection mechanism, which is not yet broken (probably because of low publicity).  commented by silvioster, 7:46 PM"

So at this point I'm throwing my hands up in the air because I have no idea if it's true or not 

SACD Ripping

Reply #36
Quote
First, you (normally) can't read SACD data using your standard DVD ROM drive.

Second, even if you could read it, the data is strongly encrypted.

Third, even if you could decrypt it, it's compressed by a proprietary lossless compression method.

Fourth, even if you could decompress it, the stream format (DSD) is unreadable by most audio processing software.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330986"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

WOW,  rjamorim reading this concise post really puts it all into sharp relief=  SACD is perhaps the most DRM hobbled beast of them all ! 

And I never really visualized it that way before.  SONY has successfully made me think of SACD as more like vinyl or physical CD's,  and not a "virtual" medium for computers, portables, and networks at all.  WM serves big business and Hollywood first and consumers second,  but SONY is now a content gatekeeper of the highest order. And they are in no hurry to put a SACD player in every home. 

***Perhaps it needs to be said=  Let's not waste any energy cracking this monster,  and just go out into the analog realm to create any lossless 16 bit 44khz copys for fair use outside the SACD container.  DSD as a process isn't perfect,  but I am willing to assume that it's rough performance parallel is not 16 bit 44khz,  but instead,  24 bit 96 khz. THUS,  jumping out of pure digital realms and going from DAC to ADC and into the format of my choice,  is an acceptable real world solution.

I'm beginning to see it like this now=  SONY doesn't even care if we rush to embrace SACD as music consumers.  They designed this format for their OWN mastering uses first,  and a consumer music container second.  The word sent down from the very top was to design an archiving medium for their own vast music  catalog.  Since SONY music owns about 35% of the worlds old catalog last I checked, this is enough for them,  and the consumer release format targeted at "audiophiles" is just gravy on top.

ARCHIVE TECH ASPECT of SACD= Part of the benefit of a stream of 1-bit words,  is that 50+ years from now,  SONY (and anybody who uses DSD and pays their piper) can spit out with total automation copys of all it's masters into any PCM file format size it wants without sound losses from  "DSP clock gearboxing".  Going from 48 khz film sound to  to 44khz cd sound for instance is a large loss, and messy,  or at least it certainly was back in the 1990's when they began developing DSD. 

They have watched themselves remaster all that Mile Davis catalog for instance, over and over for each new format.  The master analog tapes are beginning to shed!  The Digital encodes they made when the CD first came out,  are now useless,  from being done with 1980's technology,  and sound like it.  To do format transfers  with integrity, has meant hiring expensive Mastering engineers for each and every piece of catalog,  to transfer to each new medium when it comes along= Surround,  CD,  DVD-A, whatever is next.  They saw the economic aspects of this,  and came up with a fix.  1/2" 30 ips analog tape has been considered the archival medium,  till SACD came along.  It has DEPTH,  and suffers no "gearboxing" issues.    DSD archiving  is like GETTY Images archiving all it's visual content on a wet DRUM SCANNER to massive file sizes,  so that they never have to address the issue of rencoding,  ever again.  Now SONY has a library Jukebox.  Pick your resolution from the list,  and BINGO,  make more money.

CONSUMER TECH ASPECT OF SACD=  Another part of DSD that was supposed to change the world,  was that theoretically,  a DSD player has a very simple DAC needed.  I-bit words don't need an expensive PCM engine on every player.  Of course 15 years later,  PCM DAC's are both high quality and cheap,  so I suppose this is now largely moot.  But have SACD players become affordable?  They have NOT.  Instead,  SONY doesn't care=  they are selling this as an ARCHIVE medium for their own uses,  and to sell to primarily audiophiles,  and an audience reaching for better sound.  To make sure audiophiles are impressed,  only really decent expensive players are let out of the bag.

When I've tested SACD sonics,  and  I was very impressed.  But then I listened to the 16 bit 44khz layer of the same disc,  and I was ALSO very impressed.  THUS,  I haven't had a chance to compare the medium really,  because all the players are upper niche designs only,  with decent analog output circuitry.  It's $2000+ player against $2000+ player.  And all the way till a few years ago,  it was $5000+ player against $5000+ player.  SONY is fully conscious of all this.

HERE WE ARE in 2005, and finally the true all DSD workstation editors from SONY show up ($25K). SADIE and other have allowed you to edit and work with DSD audio, ($12K or so)  but under the hood,  it is changing DSD into to PCM audio for the DSP  !!! And then back out into DSD.


***This is all only for the big dogs in town.  I say, make your lossless fair use copys by jumping out of the  digital realm thru a $80  1/2 ,metre of premium analog cable,  and don't look back.

 

SACD Ripping

Reply #37
Well, DSD is a lousy format for mastering, processing and archiving. It's very inneficient for archiving, and very dificult to process. 24/192 PCM is better in every aspect, not to say that 24/96 PCM is most likely the best anyone could ever need.

Also, the problem with DSD is that it's a marketing-originated format. From a technical point of view, it has no sense.

SACD Ripping

Reply #38
Quote
well probably the advantage of having more dynamic range, multichannel and all is that the mixers can expect the system behind to follow, hence not compress so much.

but I am surprised that no-one mentionned the advantages of higher-sampling frequencies such as
- noise shaping (as in SACD)
- looser anti-aliasing filter (a major feature in any digital->analog converter)
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=331775"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Well, the problem about excess of dynamics compression is not technical, since CD audio  has already enough dynamic range not to need any dynamics compression. It's just a trend in the type of sound produced. Music producers want compressed dynamics because they want that kind of sound , that's the only reason.

As to noise shaping, it is applied regularly to in CD audio too, as it  can be applied to any digital format. In fact it is a technic used to increase perceived dynamic range. In case of DSD, it's essential for it to work, as opposed to CD or DVD audio.

As to antialiasing/antiimaging filters, it is quite debatable whether the filters required for CD audio must have an audible effect.

SACD Ripping

Reply #39
Quote
it is quite debatable whether the filters required for CD audio must have an audible effect.


I am sure they do on a cheapo $40 hi-fi, a higher sample rate should increase the sound quality of cheap end systems (ie mass produced stuff), just because the filters are not that great, a bad filter up at high frequencies will be inaudible.

SACD Ripping

Reply #40
http://www.homecinemachoice.com/cgi-bin/ou...033_EHC_038.pdf

This is my SACD player, the Marantz SA8400, which I've had for nearly a year. I bought it because I wanted a well-built player priced around 500 UK pounds (I'm not expecting to change it for 10 years or so) with the SACD element adding a bit of future-proofing.

It's only a stereo player but, since I'd prefer to have two good speakers rather than four average ones, I consider that a strength. I can always go surround sound in 10 years, after all!

Clearly there is a difference in sound between SACD layers and the standard CD layer. I would describe it as being a 'wider' more natural, involving sound.

The figures are better and it sounds better. I don't expect to get into a long debate with people over this! It must offer more top end as, on older recordings, you can hear more tape hiss. Whether or not this is a good thing is down to the listener, but I certainly never liked the sound of cassettes made from vinyl when Dolby 'B' was switched on - it cut off the hiss and a good deal of music too!

However, I only have about 10 SACD discs (Dark Side of the Moon, several Rolling Stones titles, Ziggy Stardust the live Depeche Mode double CD set) so most of the time I listen to conventional CDs.

I have to admit, though, that because of the lack of availability of SACDs at a price that I'm prepared to pay, I'm just as interested in buying and ripping recently-remastered CDs to my Archos Gmini XS200.

What I can't say is whether SACD is better or worse than DVD-A...

SACD Ripping

Reply #41
Quote
Since the DR of an orchestra is let us say 80 dB, there is no need to go beyond cd. However, the multichannel feature justifies the existance of dvd-a/sacd.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=331227"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

From what I read, it's approximately 120 dB.
But if you really want to enjoy a full 120 dB dynamic range orchestra at home, you have to live alone in a castle or in a desert island (with electricity).
In my apartment I must use my headphone to really exploit current orchestral recordings despite of a compressed dynamic range (60...70 dB are extreme cases: there's just noise beyond that). Otherwise my neighbour would kill me.

I second you on the second point: multichannel is a great (but expensive) improvement.

SACD Ripping

Reply #42
There are only two technical terms we need to use to describe what the differente between the CDDA format and the SACD (od DVD-A) format is: bandwidth and signal-to-noise ratio.
Anything else (warmth, better figures, more natural) has no real meaning. Even if people agree on a common definition of such words relying on mathematical signal properties (like energy distribution in the frequency domain for example) they'd be useless to describe the abilities of digital mediums (like CD, SACD, ...) since they allow storing signals without any colorations (except bandlimiting). These mediums just limit the signal bandwidth and the signal-to-noise ratio which I consider as already appropriate for us humans in case of CDDA.
Not to mention placebo effects. :-)

Sebi

SACD Ripping

Reply #43
Clemech: nobody can assure that the CD layer and SACD layer have been mastered equally. It has been verified that in some cases they had different mastering.

Even if they had equal mastering, unless you could hear the difference under blind conditions and in a repeatable manner, it could not be considered a reliable proof of the existence of true sonic differences.

SACD Ripping

Reply #44
Quote
The only way that DVD-A or SACD (2 channel) can sound "different" (read by many as better) than CD is to have a different master, ie, less compressed.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=331740"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Hmmm, AFAIK there is no definitive proof that DVD-A or SACD sounds better than CD, with proper mastering on both. But the lack of that proof does not imply that the ONLY way for one to sound better than the other is to have a better mastering, an assertion that would imply by itself that the 3 formats offer the same subjective quality.

SACD Ripping

Reply #45
The point is the cd standard encompasses the range of human hearing already.
"You can fight without ever winning, but never win without a fight."  Neil Peart  'Resist'

SACD Ripping

Reply #46
>The point is the cd standard encompasses the range of human hearing already.

It is what is playing the audio - the cheapest portable CD player is going to have a 16 bit DAC inside - noise will be present from the cheapy DAC component on the LSB bits of DAC. You would hope that a cheapest portable DVD-A (ok fast forward 5 years) would have a 24 bit DAC, the noise on the same LSB bits on a 24 bit chip might give 22 good bits, 8 more than the cheapest 16 bit DAC.

Top end stuff, I doubt you could blind test 16 bit or 24 bit, so it only improves bottom end stuff. Now if only they could improve those 45 cents headpones...

<edit: just realized in 5 years time portable digital players might have taken over, the same applies - 24 bit components in an iPod, all the better>

SACD Ripping

Reply #47
Quote
There are only two technical terms we need to use to describe what the differente between the CDDA format and the SACD (od DVD-A) format is: bandwidth and signal-to-noise ratio
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=332673"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Uh, and what happened to horizontal resolution? Sampling rate is about that, too.
Infrasonic Quartet + Sennheiser HD650 + Microlab Solo 2 mk3. 

SACD Ripping

Reply #48
Quote
Uh, and what happened to horizontal resolution? Sampling rate is about that, too.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=332831"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


What else do you gain by increasing the sampling rate other than increased signal bandwidth / dynamic headroom ? Nothing else.

Sebi