DSD playback via computer better than from SACD

jkeny

Industry Expert, Member Sponsor
Feb 9, 2012
3,374
42
383
Ireland
Interesting. The measurements show clear differences between DSD and SACD signals. I strongly suspect different filters are being used in the processing of the two signals.
I agree, Don, that level of difference suggests some processing differences between the files.
 

tailspn

Member
Jun 28, 2011
169
0
16
I would suggest one person who could shed some light on this is Andreas Koch. He designed both the Playback Designs DAC, and the Sonoma, and would be in a good position to offer an explanation of the null test results. I agree with Bruce that the poor null is a probably a result of HF noise and jitter differences.

A bit-for-bit comparison of the prior to authoring edit master, to the resultant decoded DST file on the SACD has been done several time to my knowledge, and has been bit perfect each time. I also have done A/B listening tests of switching between the original edit master and SACD of several releases of DSD recorded classical music using a Sonoma and Meitner transport, and could not hear a difference. That's a very simple task on a Sonoma once the two sources are synchronized; alternately on the fly selecting the Track Input and Track Output buttons.

I was also at the Newport Beach show and heard the dramatic difference between Cookie Marenco's edit master file and resultant SACD of Emily Palen – Glass. I believe the differences were playback chain related, and not a difference between sources. YMMV.
 

jkeny

Industry Expert, Member Sponsor
Feb 9, 2012
3,374
42
383
Ireland
Aha, tailspin, good post.
Can you tell us something about the playback chain differences at Cookie Marenco's demo? I would have thought that she would be aware of any such differences?
 

tailspn

Member
Jun 28, 2011
169
0
16
The major differences in the Sony speaker demo setup were different DACs. SACDs were played through a EMM XDS1 Player, and the download file through a Mytek Stereo 192 DAC. The demo hardware was not front and center displayed, so the brand of laptop and software player were not evident. I believe it was a MAC PowerBook Pro with Pure Music Player, but others have reported differently. Regardless, it was a Mytek DAC and Meitner Player/ DAC being inputted into a common preamp, amplifiers, and Sony SS AR2 speakers.
 

jkeny

Industry Expert, Member Sponsor
Feb 9, 2012
3,374
42
383
Ireland
The major differences in the Sony speaker demo setup were different DACs. SACDs were played through a EMM XDS1 Player, and the download file through a Mytek Stereo 192 DAC. The demo hardware was not front and center displayed, so the brand of laptop and software player were not evident. I believe it was a MAC PowerBook Pro with Pure Music Player, but others have reported differently. Regardless, it was a Mytek DAC and Meitner Player/ DAC being inputted into a common preamp, amplifiers, and Sony SS AR2 speakers.
Oh yes, I forgot the details of the playback chain as reported.
The point that was being made in the article was that, by all accounts, the EMM XDS1 SACD player should have sounded better (or at least as good) as the Mytek USB 192 DAC based on EMM labs reputation for excellence! The conclusion being that something else other than just different DACs was afoot that explained the sonic differences. Bruce's testament using the same DAC does give credence to this premise, I feel.
 

tailspn

Member
Jun 28, 2011
169
0
16
What can I say? I was there, I listened, I reported. This is easy to over think, but my last posts say what I have observed, both at the Sony Booth, in various studios, and my own. But my observations were by listening, not measuring. Unspecified frequency products -39dB during program material would be far beyond my hearing ability to detect.

I will add that I have been using the Mytek 8X192 (different DAC chip than the Stereo 192, but like audio stages) for over a year now, replacing my EMM DAC8. The differences you've read reporting the Cookie/Sony demo sound differences are the same I experienced when I A/B compared my Meitner/Mytek DACs with the same DSD edit masters more than a year ago.

Also, as I suggested above, Andreas Koch could suggest reasons why Bruce observed what he did. That's not the test I performed, so will not comment on it, other than to agree with Bruce that it's probably uncorrelated noise. It's the total random HF noise product of DSD remaining after the program material has been nulled IMO.
 
Last edited:

tailspn

Member
Jun 28, 2011
169
0
16
I've just read the Computer Based Audio vs. Physical Media thread, and Barry makes a very convincing logical argument for differences between the edit master, and resultant CD. I have no idea if, or how this applies to SACD. My experience with SACDs compared to the Edit Master is different than his, or Bruce's doing an A/B switching listening comparison. I guess that's what makes the world go round :)
 

jkeny

Industry Expert, Member Sponsor
Feb 9, 2012
3,374
42
383
Ireland
I've just read the Computer Based Audio vs. Physical Media thread, and Barry makes a very convincing logical argument for differences between the edit master, and resultant CD. I have no idea if, or how this applies to SACD. My experience with SACDs compared to the Edit Master is different than his, or Bruce's doing an A/B switching listening comparison. I guess that's what makes the world go round :)
Yes, it was Barry, I had forgotten! He also made the point that when copied to HDD & played back from here all the differences disappeared & it now sounded like the master!
So, you are also involved in the recording business & this is not your experience with CD or SACD discs? As you say it makes the world go around
 

tailspn

Member
Jun 28, 2011
169
0
16
My experience is related to multi-channel recording and reproduction of classical music using 64fs DSD as my format of interest, at this time. I use five full range SoundLab electrostatic speakers in an ITU alignment for my home listening, with a Sonoma DAW as the primary source. I rip every SACD I purchase and play them out of the Sonoma, so I rarely listen to the actual SACD. I also have the edit masters of projects I was involved with, along with the actual session tracks.

Comparing all of those gets me to these conclusions, again, all by listening:

The largest change, by far from the session tracks occurs in mastering. Mixing and editing are pretty benign for DSD classical music projects, involving cutting/splicing of elements, and track level adjustments. The majority of those tasks are either performed in DXD on Pyramix workstations, or in analog. The mastering process however shapes the sound to the producer/conductor's wishes. This may be no adjustment, like is typical of Channel Classics and some other labels, to considerable sweetening with EQ, and reverb, and IMO, the subsequent loss of spaciousness and detail cues.

Comparing either the ripped SACD .dff file, or the final edit master (the file that is then authored by encoding to DST for the SACD manufacturing process) to the then decoded DSD stream prior to any player digital manipulation or DAC conversion, shows no difference to my ears. This is an easy test to do on a Sonoma, since the SACD transport and stored ripped or edit master file can play simultaneously, and be switched between. The same is not true when comparing two stored files. Only one can play/advance at a time with a Sonoma. It's therefore for me, much more difficult and inaccurate to compare a ripped SACD with the edit master.

But I do like what Barry said in that thread for CD. Makes sense, I just can't reproduce it with an SACD.
I'm all for computer audio, which I think is the future for the High-Res recording business.
 
Last edited:

jkeny

Industry Expert, Member Sponsor
Feb 9, 2012
3,374
42
383
Ireland
Great to have your expertise & experience on the forum!
Your conclusions are interesting although I don't know the pro equipment that you speak of & can't make any comments about it.
 

Bruce B

WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member
Apr 25, 2010
7,006
512
1,740
Snohomish, WA
www.pugetsoundstudios.com
A Sonoma system is a software editing program and includes a proprietary PCI card that can handle 8 channels of DSD data. We use ours with Playback Designs MPS-5, Grimm AD1 and EMM Labs ADC8 IV /DAC8 IV

Super Audio Center
 

michael123

Well-Known Member
Nov 17, 2011
75
0
246
We've known this for a few years.... We rip SACD's for HDTracks and can playback the SACD via the Playback Designs MPS-5 and the DSD file via Sonoma through the same DAC and they sound different.

Bruce
I am puzzled - I've had a blind test for several hours with few players - Burmeister, EMM XDS1, Playback MPS-5, Meridian 808.3, and few others - and MPS-5 was the cleanest sounding. I would say that since it is also future-proof, MPD-5 is on my shopping list..

Yet, I have only few SACD disks, and the majority of my collection is PCM and some are 24-bit

Going back to Atkinson's review
http://www.stereophile.com/content/playback-designs-mps-5-sacdcd-player-measurements

I indeed see that the measurements (of 24bit in particular) do not stand close to, say, Weiss DAC202

I did not audition high-rez material on MPS-5, so I would like to ask you:
is it really mediocre on 24-bit?
I do not care of that's -120db or -144db noise floor (I will not hear it anyway), but I do want to get the best out of 24/96 and 24/192 titles!
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing