Do you listen in 5/7:1 surround? Or just conventional stereo?

[drogulus]

The benefits apply to the CD layer too.

     If both stereo layers are better that's still good. It might dampen my enthusiasm for SACDs a little. But having a really good DAC for headphones on my PC will still be worth it. I see Topping has a basic DSD-64 model for $199. If it's true SACD isn't beyond anything it wouldn't pay to go higher.

     

[drogulus]

    I want to archive the files untouched and see no reason not to play them that way since I have plenty of space.

   

But I am a former database administrator, so the concept of losing data (even data I cannot perceive) is anathema to me (and why I rip to FLAC in the first place, of course). Hence I always rip the hi-res 2-channel layer.

    You do understand me! I won't give up any data if I don't have to, and I don't have to. The AVR I'm looking at plays DSF/DSDIFF/2.8 MHz, 5.6 MHz, 11.2 M "as is" from a player through HDMI or from the USB. So why convert?

   

[71 dB]

You are, of course, correct. In the sense that no ear of mortal man yet born can tell the difference between a remastered recording in 2 channel 88.2KHz/24-bit and the same remastered recording in 2 channel 44.1KHz/16-bit. So, on that basis, ripping the CD layer is fine.

It's just that many people don't know or believe this.

But I am a former database administrator, so the concept of losing data (even data I cannot perceive) is anathema to me (and why I rip to FLAC in the first place, of course). Hence I always rip the hi-res 2-channel layer.

It is completely okay to make these decisions for whatever reasons if you know the facts and what you are doing.

I realise that in doing so, I have just lost some data (the surround sound stuff), but most of my SACDs are of things recorded back in the 50s and 60s and contain the standard warning that 'the 5.1 signal will only sound on the front righ and front left outputs' anyway, so no real harm done.

My SACDs are more of less 21th century productions meaning they were originally made to be released on SACD format. The surround sound stuff in them is not just "some data", it is very important and the reason why these SACDs are "better" than CDs on technical point of view. It is clear that in recordings done back in the 50s and 60s things are different.

Anyway, whilst you are right from an acoustic point of view, from a data nerd's perspective, I would still rip the SACD 2-channel layer.

From a human hearing/perception point of view rather, but I get your point and perspective.

[71 dB]

If both stereo layers are better that's still good. It might dampen my enthusiasm for SACDs a little. But having a really good DAC for headphones on my PC will still be worth it. I see Topping has a basic DSD-64 model for $199. If it's true SACD isn't beyond anything it wouldn't pay to go higher.

What I mean is that a recording made for a SACD release is likely to have a production philosophy were the sound quality is maximized in every step. The 2-channel SACD layer is a careful downmix of the multichannel layer and the CD layer is a downmix of the that, altho I have heard people say in some releases the CD layer can actually be from different master, so one should check that the 2-channel layers are indeed from the same master. SACD is a very nice format, but not for the reason people often think. Hi-rez as such isn't a benefit for consumers. Instead SACD benefit from:

1) Support for multichannel sound (compared to CD)
2) Niche market status => Attention to sound quality throughout the production.

SACD format also suffers from the niche market status. The players are rare and expensive. The releases are few (the format has practically been death for long except in classical music genre)

A really good DAC will be good with everything you throw at it. It is the analog part that makes the difference, so it doesn't matter if its 44.1 kHz/16 bit or DSD64 you feed it with.

[71 dB]

Another reason for ripping the SACD layer (into whatever format) is that the two layers may have been mixed differently.  An example is the Bruckner recording below.  Recorded live in concert in a large hall, the vivid sonics on the SACD layer seem to place you right there in the front few rows, whereas the distant sound on the CD layer puts you so far back, it's like you're outside and listening through a doorway.  Only the SACD mix does the performance justice.

Yeah, it sucks when they do this. I have never ripped SACDs. What is demands to do that is absolutely insane. I would need to buy a lot of new hardware and download software. I have an old DVD-player and an Blu-ray player that can play SACDs, but either of them are good for ripping.  So I am content in just playing the SACDs instead of ripping them. I don't rip music much anyway.

[71 dB]

I have an old Oppo DVD player which will output SACD audio via the HDMI port in 24/88.2 PCM, which can be captured on a PC and stored as whatever.

I don't use PC. I have a Mac mini. I don't understand how to connect a Blu-ray player to it with a HDMI cable. It is impossible as far as I know.

[drogulus]

   
    As another project I could convert all the DSDs to FLAC. I'd do it then think of a reason why I did, something like learning how to do it at the highest bit/sample rates that my equipment can play.

    The AVR I'm looking at is the Onkyo TX-NR6050 ($499 at Costco). It weighs over 21 lbs, which in this price range is a good sign. Most AVRs at this price are 17-18 lbs. Stay away from them.

[71 dB]

I don't connect HDMI directly to a PC but use an HDMI "de-embedder" to split out the audio feed and connect that instead.  The model I use is a Kramer FC-46XL (pictured below) which was surprisingly expensive though there are many cheap Chinese clones around which claim the same functionality.  As (I hope) you can see, you plug the HDMI cable from the DVD/BD player into the input, and have a choice of digital and analogue outputs - I use the SPDIF signal into the digital input of an M-Audio 24/96 soundcard and capture it with Audacity - like I say, a bit of a faff.

Interesting. I did not know such devices exist. In Finland it costs 449 euros.

[71 dB]

It's about the same here - needless to say, I did not pay anything like that ... but it was still pricey (for me. )

So you got yours from eBay at half the price?

[drogulus]

     I took a baby step towards learning about DSF files and playback. I downloaded a test DSF from somewhere and tried to play it on my PC using the software I have. Nothing played it. Then I put the file on a drive and plugged the drive into my fake Oppo. It played, and it showed the tags. I pressed the info button and it said "DSF" and showed sample rate info (whatever it was supposed to show with unconverted files it showed).

     Here's the maximum fun part. The "Chinoppo" is plugged into my Sony TV which ARCs the signal to my Sony receiver. My receiver manual says DSD plays over HDMI. Not every source will do this, but mine does, and so do Sony BD/SACD players made currently.

     Later that day:

     I DL'd a plugin and now Winamp plays my test file! Winamp!!

   

[drogulus]

     I now have a small collection of files from SACDs falling into 2 categories. One is files ripped to hi rez FLAC and other is DSF pure as driven snow.

     Oddly I find audiophiles for the most part hear no difference and focus their energies on the playback chain instead. Hearing no difference isn't ordinarily a thing, either in money terms or bragging rights. I have no explanation other than something about how birds flock.

     As far as PC playback goes, the only upgrade that makes sense to me is a PCIe USB card for the DAC.

[DavidW]

Oddly I find audiophiles for the most part hear no difference and focus their energies on the playback chain instead. Hearing no difference isn't ordinarily a thing, either in money terms or bragging rights. I have no explanation other than something about how birds flock.

Actually Paul McGowan, head of PS Audio, strongly prefers DSD.  That is the kind of preference only a subjectivist could have, but most subjectivists prefer vinyl to digital anything.

[71 dB]

Actually Paul McGowan, head of PS Audio, strongly prefers DSD.

Don't believe everything Paul says. He tells whatever fiction putting it between two truths. It is all about marketing for PS Audio products masked as audio wisdom.

That is the kind of preference only a subjectivist could have, but most subjectivists prefer vinyl to digital anything.

Preferring something is different from what is objectively/technically best. In audio transparency is the objective goal, but it doesn't mean everybody prefers it. Vinyl adds distortion* to the sound making it more pleasing to many, but those pleasing distortions should be added to the sound in the studio while producing and mixing, not by commercial music formats that thanks to digital technology are transparent these days.

* This distortion has interesting characteristics because of the way sound is stored on vinyl: High frequencies are emphasized (RIAA-curve) and for mechanical reasons the distortion is different in horizontal and vertical directions meaning the mono-part (horizontal) and stereo-separation part (vertical) get distorted differently causing interesting spatial effects.

[DavidW]

Don't believe everything Paul says. He tells whatever fiction putting it between two truths. It is all about marketing for PS Audio products masked as audio wisdom.

I don't believe anything he says!  It seems like we both realized that his videos are just advertising for his companies products.

So yeah who knows if he really likes dsd or if it was a convoluted way to sell yet another PS Audio product.

[71 dB]

I don't believe anything he says!  It seems like we both realized that his videos are just advertising for his companies products.

Well, a lot of things he says are true (whenever the truth doesn't hurt their business model), but that's the danger of it all. It all seems so truthful so the lies can be bold.

So yeah who knows if he really likes dsd or if it was a convoluted way to sell yet another PS Audio product.

Not only products but also DSD recordings (Octave Records).

[DavidW]

Well, a lot of things he says are true (whenever the truth doesn't hurt their business model), but that's the danger of it all. It all seems so truthful so the lies can be bold.

That is truly frightening.

[71 dB]

That is truly frightening.

There are much more frightening things in the World than audiophools paying $39 for DSD256 downloads.

[drogulus]

    I'm happy I can play any file on my PC as well as my "Chinoppo". Getting 100% pure DSF is more of a project than anything else. If even the terminally audiophiliac can't tell the difference between hi rez PCM and DSD that's good enough for me. I only want to get the green light on my Fiio lit and declare victory.

[DavidW]

I'm happy I can play any file on my PC as well as my "Chinoppo". Getting 100% pure DSF is more of a project than anything else. If even the terminally audiophiliac can't tell the difference between hi rez PCM and DSD that's good enough for me. I only want to get the green light on my Fiio lit and declare victory.

Ha!  We must have the same FiiO!  I forgot it changes colors.  I use it for standard 44.1-48/16 so much.  My Dragonfly Red also changes colors.

[Daverz]

I don't believe anything he says!  It seems like we both realized that his videos are just advertising for his companies products.

So yeah who knows if he really likes dsd or if it was a convoluted way to sell yet another PS Audio product.

Paul is just a salesman and business owner, not an engineer. That gives him a good knowledge of what sells well and for what kind of profit margin.  Whenever he ventures into actual factual information, he's often just plain wrong.

See also Hans Beekhuyzen, another salesman who likes to pose with expensive measurement equipment that he never uses.