SACD Players

Rcprince, have you listened to the Accuphase? If so did you compare it to the Sony's or the Marantz? Simon, I seem to recall an item in Stereophile recently (I don't remember which issue, but I could find it) in the industry update indicating that SACD is recorded and mastered in PCM and is only stored and read as DSD. I may be wrong on this but it is what I remember. I don't know if this helps, maybe Myles can shed some light.

Myles, Doug: FRAUD or FROG? DSD->PCM or vice versa. As far as I know: many many years ago digital recording became single bit (in most but not all studious) x64 or x128 oversampling. Lets count, 44.1 kHz x 64 = few MHz. in other words its very similar (if not mathematically identical) to... SACD. For Red book CDs these single bit signals are converted into PCM (24/192 is only "hot rod" of 16/44.1 PCM. I am not distinquish them here due to their identical mathematical principals). This is what you probably read, Doug. Myles, you claim actual FRAUD in Sony 9000ES by stating, as I, and apperently, Doug understood you that "they" take "pure" DSD signal and then convert them into the "dirty" PCM (here is not A/D but D/A so you must imply mode called by Sony in this machine as "SACD"). PCM converted from DSP has huge amount of artifacts, as discussed by Ed Meidnter (spelling?) as oppose to PCM created directly from the sound waves in A/D process. Not that SACD is without a problem... BUT that you are saying is a fraud by Sony. Are you sure about that? It is hard to swallow, really - PLEASE respond - Simon

Doug, I know what you read. Multi-channel SACD is said by "experts" in Stereophile (in the issue where Scull reviewed Technics A10 DVD-A Player) can be done only by using PCM process, if it is so in Sony/Phillips units or not we, really, don't know. But its entirely different from Myles statement that on 2-channel SACD part of 9000ES Sony Player SACD signals are converted into PCM format. If he is corrrect and I wish him to respond VERY MUCH then sound quality is compromized, indeed. It is very serious matter for me, I own 9000ES and send it to modify analog stage, however, if digital part is "dirty" it will not help much and it is huge waste (emotional at least).

Simon, I know what you mean!! This is part of the reason that I have not jumped into the High Rez Digital arena. Although I do not have a deep underatanding of PCM and digital I understand enough (probably enough to be dangerous)to know that there are some issues that are being discussed that put a dark cloud over the whole discussion on the two formats. I listened to SACD at the Chicago Hi-Fi Show two years ago and was impressed enough to be ready to spend th cash then. Now I am waiting. It appears to me as though SACD has the lead. There are more music titles and players on the market, I continue to see more Audiogon members raving over SACD and most of the Audio reviewers now list a SACD player as a part of their "reference system". I truly hope someone can shed some light on the more technical aspects of the SACD format. I started the thread in hopes of getting two things: (1.) Actual side-by-side comparisons of different players by people that have bought and (2.) Some detailed discussions on the technical aspects as well as mods. As I said in a previous post maybe, hopefully Myles as well as others will continue to post Thanks Gang, Doug

What the hell does it matter? SACD players sound so much better even paying redbook cds. I just do not understand the argument at all. A $2000 player sounds better playing my existing cds than the $10,000 unit it replaced. Is it that you are so into the engineering and mathamatics of it all that you really don't care what it sounds like? LIKE I ASKED BEFORE, WHAT THE HELL DOES IT MATTER?