Ok firstly i'll apologise in advance if this topic has already been "done" but i've already had a good search and found nothing this specific, just a sea of jargon!

ANYWAYS down to the question at hand.

All this buzz about DVD-A and super audio CD has me itching to get my hands on some new equiptment so i can hear for myself what all the fuss is about. However reading a whole bunch of post about 192khz and 24-bit audio not being anymore audible than current red book CD, is there any point me investing tons of cash into a new top of the line SACD/DVD-A player with my two speaker set up?

I've gathered that the main benefit of these new high-res formats is that they are top notch when it comes to taking advantage of a 5.1 speaker set up. However, for those of us who have only a two speaker set up i want to know if there really is a major difference in audio quailty in your personal experiences.

I've also heard that some players will upscale standard CD's to 20-bit 88.2khz or something, but again is this going to make a big difference?

Or should i just spend my cash on a high-end CD player?

i'm a little new to all this, so be good to me

In short: there is no difference in perceived audio quality. Not major nor minor.

Nitpickers can construct an artificial scenario where there is a minor audible benefit. For all practical means this scenario is irrelevant.

Please read this recent thread on the topic.

Right now the only one profiting from this situation is the music industry which can resell you stuff you allready own, shoving DRM down your throat in the process. Well, the hardware manufacturers can rake in high margins as well.

ah, the post you mentioned seems to answer my question, cheers gecko

This is exactly the problem with numerous high-resolution audio codecs. The industry is to concerned about running a legitamate business that the only people it's really appealing to are a bunch of Audiophile.



The only real difference is from an engineering perspective. DVD-A takes the conventional approach of Hi-Res audio, while SACD uses 1-bit DAC converters that have been proven from a technical perspective to not be distortion free.

Even if only going for 2 channel .... some of the masterings are a different version on the SACD/DVD-A/CD. The SACD/DVD-A versions are less likely to be compressed/limited so highly in some cases, because it is not trying to compete for radio-play like CDs are(yet). But at this point, you are literally buying the 'hi-res' version for a different mastering version. But no guarantees, many SACD/DVD-A might be the same master as the CD. I am aware of few cases where the CD is a different mastered version than the 'hi-res' master(Telarc's Tierney Sutton, Dancing In The Dark and Diana Krall, The Look of Love).

-Chris

I would make sure your other equipment is good first. Then it depends; people debate about the differences (probably not very accurately ignoring the possibility of different masterings). I would say try it and see.

yeah i did think about the differece in the mastered versions but i just assumed it would have been re-mastered for 5.1 purposes. I might just upgrade when i'm able to go the whole 9 yards and get a 6.1 setup or something.

Still, I've read on and off about the difference in CD players, is it true that some CD players will output at much better quality than others? Right now i have an all in one Aiwa MINI system which i purchased in 1998, now talking to a few friends, they've suggested i get seperates for better audio. I've got my eye on a few slick Denon players.

What do you think?

It all comes down to the Digital to Analog converters inside the device. The more you spend, the better the quality will be, but sometimes it's not that straight forward. Sometimes older devices may have better quality than newer ones due to decreasing production quality across the board and stuff like that.

But I really don't know enough about CD players to comment, you're best off looking on review sites etc.

I went to this studio once and the guy said "I got these in the 80s, they are the best cassette recorders you can get", to which I said "surely getting a tape recorder now would be better quality?" and he said "no, people just don't make them to this standard anymore". Something to think about anyway

Getting good seperates would probably be an upgrade. Read reviews and bring your favourite music to your local hifi dealer and listen to some systems that you find interesting.

The quality of analog output from a good CD player seperate is likely to be better than your mini system (but you would need to do listening tests to be sure). There are several reasons why CD players differ (in order of importance):

• The DACs. Cheap players use cheap DACs which don't have as good measured performance as good ones. The quality of the implementation is also important, some DACs need very clean power and little RF noise to perform optimally.
• Output filters. Some types of DACs (non oversampling ones, especially) depend heavily on analog output filters. The quality of these filters can cause audible differences.
• The transport. The physical process of reading the disc varies from player to player. Some do a better job then others.
• Jitter and friends. The design of the digital audio circuitry inside the player can make an audible difference to the sound coming out of the player.

However, this doesn't mean that an expensive player is automatically better than a cheap one. I recommend you take some of your own music with you to a hifi store a listen to a number of players, on the same speakers.

Well you're far from being able to benefit from SACD/DVDA. Say how much you're intending to spend and I'm sure you'll get some good advice.

Good points. But just to note: I have yet to taken notice of a properly produced DBT demonstrating the audiblity difference between a typical *properly designed $80 consumer component CD player and a typical multi-thousand dollar *properly designed component CD player.

-Chris

*Properly Designed as used in the context of this reply means a device designed to operate linearly and designed competantly; not a device that is purposely designed to modify the output signal or a device that uses obvious non-suitable components that will affect the output signal within known human audibility thresholds.

I would tend to agree with you. Generally what makes the super-expensive kit expensive is not better design, but the use of exotic electronics parts and marketing hype. The parts required to implement a good design are unlikely to run to more than the $80 you mentioned.

This doesn't mean that all reasonably priced players are good. I heard a component CD player in this price range with audible amounts of mains hum on it's analog out. It wasn't related to a ground loop - it was measurable even when the player wasn't playing anything or connected to an amplifier. The bottom line is that you need to listen before you buy. And the cardinal rule of buying sound equipment (and golf equipment and scuba equipment, etc, etc) is that expensive doesn't imply good.

I would be very interested in ABX tests of different CD players. We already know that bad DACs do have an audible effect, but it would be interesting to know for sure whether a $10000 transport and external DAC combination really sound different to a good mainstream player. I would bet it doesn't.

Hey, it's my 500th post!

Oops! Sorry, pressed the send button too soon, please ignore the previous email.
I did invest some cash in being able to play DVD/Audio and SACD, I was curious about the sounds. I do perceive more clarity in classical massed strings and voices. I don't perceive the usual edginess that is ever present in CD recordings of these, although I suspect not many people would be able to tell in a double-blind test unless you had a really nice setup and were familiar with the recording. I cannot detect any differences in popular music SACD or DVD/Audio, other than the fact the some are multi-channel. Note that these are only my perceptions, they are not backed up by any data. You mileage may vary.
A caveat on multi-channel recordings: Some are very well done, but some are mastered with lots of reverberation and actually manage to sound worse than their CD counterparts. Many of them, especially Popular music SACD's are exactly the same master as the CD's. I was especially dissapointed with the Peter Gabriel recordings. It seems, in short, that how a disc is mastered has more to do with sound quality than the format it's on.
Having said the above, the prices are really not high if you already have a good system: My Pioneer DV-578A, which plays both new formats, cost all of $150.00. I have also found some hybrid SACD's for sale in some stores at prices $3 to $4 below the regular CD price.

Go go gadget TOS8!

FWIW, I have bought one DVD-A (Yes's Fragile). I could never really figure out how to get the 2-channel mix to work so I was only able to listen to the L/R channels out of 5.1. The mix seemed much different from the CD version, but I strongly suspect they deliberately expanded the dynamic range beyond even what the master tape contained. Some of the dynamics changes were just nuts.