HDMI, it is and I do it every day. There are several players that will convey SACD (as well as other formats) as digital by HDMI to prepros/AVRs that will accept/decode these formats and (via a PCM conversion) permit DSP/RoomEQ. And, yes, you can use Audyssey (or ARC or Trinnov or MCACC.....) for two channel as well as multichannel. (To do this with analog signals, superimposes additional A/D/A conversions but is doable, if one insists.) All the options? Too many to list and I'd miss a few anyway but I have detailed the idea and discussed some of them in my column over the past year or two. http://www.stereophile.com/musicintheroundKal |
"(via a PCM conversion) permit DSP/RoomEQ. And, yes, you can use Audyssey (or ARC or Trinnov or MCACC.....) for two channel as well as multichannel. (To do this with analog signals, superimposes additional A/D/A conversions but is doable, if one insists.)" Kr4
Thank you kr4 for your response. Without the time, however, to go through your entire postings, I'm pressuming from your response above here that there has to be a "down-covnversion" or some sort of compression of the original SACD source material (transmitted via HDMI/Coax digital) to a lesser rez output, when processing these EQ circuits? And in the case of analog connections, as you said, a digital to analog to digital to analog conversion chain?
I do know that, if I'm going to be playing SACD's (or other hi rez digital or analog soucres, I'd like to keep the original signal as pure and uncompromised as possible, lack of compression, conversion, etc. So, is there only compromise available foing doing what I'm trying to do? - and thus can only run pure dirrect, without EQ for my SACD to get the purity here? Or am I mis understanding something here? |
I'm pressuming from your response above here that there has to be a "down-covnversion" or some sort of compression of the original SACD source material (transmitted via HDMI/Coax digital) to a lesser rez output, when processing these EQ circuits? First, I was talking about HDMI in which case there is conversion to PCM but no compression or loss in the process. Second, you cannot get SACD via coax/digital at all. And in the case of analog connections, as you said, a digital to analog to digital to analog conversion chain? Yes. Many believe that the advantages of room EQ entirely justify those additional conversion, if they are done well. This is something that can be easily tested with a bypass switch and only you can determine if a particular A/D-EQ-D/A device is transparent enough for you. I think what you are missing is that there is no compromise (loss of purity) in converting SACD to PCM, imho, and that the advantages of room EQ are so significant that they would outweigh any compromise, if such existed. In fact, the conversion is done (and almost always necessary) even to effect bass management, interchannel level and interchannel delay setups. You should go out and hear these things rather than prejudging them from the opinions of others (including mine) or from archaic presumptions. Kal |
Kr4, again, thank you for your response.
Actually, I don't know if I'm prejudging anything. I'm first trying to gauge the be best approach to wiring up a HT/multi-ch music system in a smallish room, that will most definitely need to take full advanteage of Room DSP/EQ. That said, I'd like to use SACD in that system/room and, of couse, would like the best sound quality possible - and fully assuming that utilizing the EQ will be very beneficial. Basically, I'm just trying to weigh all the equipment choices, hook-up options, and potential compromises I might be forced to deal with, if any. Ya know, get a game plan, and a little "pre-education" refresher.
I will, most certainly be testing things out with what I end up with, to see what does what sonically. (yes, no substitute for hands-on experience) But again, a little forseight will help.
So, what you're suggesting is an HDMI connection between sacd source component to my receiver/pre choice, which will convert to PCM to be played/processed on the processor/amp end? Also, are there any AV pre's or receivers that process SACD internally (thus passing pure SACD signalfrom the source - unconverted - to the processor for processing) for me to simply pass the SACD signal through to be processed down the line for possible superior sound quality? Or are you insistent that there's no real degredation in sound when converting to PCM via HDMI?
Thank you. |
BTW, if you feel any of this discourse dragging on, how about the option of pointing me to your specific threads where you cover anything pertinent to this thread,kr4? I don't have time to read through them all, unfortunately.
Thanks in advance, again. |
|
All 40 articles, ey? Um, can't narrow it down, no? |
Sorry. I would have to search/google to find the relevant articles, as you would.
Kal |
I think a call to Audyssey would be easier to answer all this. Dunno what I was thinking - lol. |
Sure but I do not see a question unanswered. You want to know, a priori, what will sound best in your system and to your ears. No one can answer that.
On paper, and in my opinion, using Audyssey (or other room EQ) as well as bass/channel management is superior for multichannel audio despite the need for conversion to PCM. That conversion is inevitable for all formats other than SACD, anyway. I am certain that Audyssey will tell you the same story. Moreover, any decent equipment you purchase will afford you all the options to try for yourself.
There is a very lively Audyssey thread on AVS [url]http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9598968#post9598968[/url]
and there is, also, a lively thread on using an all-analog chain. [url]http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=17481521#post17481521[/url]
All the possible arguments on all sides have been discussed ad nauseam there.
People will disagree for their own reasons, some good ones and some not. It is impossible to predict what camp you will fall into after you make your own evaluation of the options based on personal experience.
Kal |
I guess I researched my own answer. Apparently the DSD single bit enconding that SACD uses needs to be changed into a multi-bit PCM format for the DSP functions, such as EQ, Bass management, sound modes, etc, to process. So, whether it be an analog signal - which would have to go through an A to D to A conversion - or digital signal - that, at some point along the chain, needs to do a PCM conversion - some trade-offs will be on the table with SACD and modern day pre's and receivers, to take full advantage of DSP processing.
Of course, a Rives PARC in the analog domain is an option. But not a reasonably cost efficient option here for most mid-fi/entry hi-fi ambitious systems. |
Hmm. I thought that I said all that.
Kal |
You did kr4. I'm simply talking to myself now. |
Good. Just eavesdropping.
Kal |
HOWEVER! Am I to understand that there are some potential issues that might need to be adressed by using HDMI to tranport SACD/ converted PCM material? I think I read that there are some "jitter" issues in separating the signal and recontructing it, whatever? Is it better to use someother digital connection, like Coax, or can you even use coax, for connecting and playing SACD to my reciever/pre? |
HOWEVER! Am I to understand that there are some potential issues that might need to be adressed by using HDMI to tranport SACD/ converted PCM material? I think I read that there are some "jitter" issues in separating the signal and recontructing it, whatever? Not that anyone has demonstrated objectively. In fact, Charles Hanson of Ayre addressed this recently at AVSforum. Is it better to use someother digital connection, like Coax, or can you even use coax, for connecting and playing SACD to my reciever/pre? First, coax is not possible for SACD. Second, analog would either prevent any DSP/EQ or, alternatively, require redigitization of the signals (and, of course, another DAC process). Kal |
This has been a very interesting thread, Queefee, thanks!
Appreciate all of the excellent info, Kal!
Queefee, I would be interested to see what you determine to be the best sounding SACD playback option. Many times in these threads, there are interesting questions asked but contributing members never find out what happened with all of the info that was provided. If you could please compare the two options for yourself and let us know which one you preferred, it would be appreciated:
(1) Analog SACD outputs passing through the preamp/processor and straight through to the amplfier
or
(2) Digital PCM SACD outputs sent to the preamp/processor where Audyssey or some other room calibration system (e.g. Anthem's ARC) is applied to the signal before it is sent to the amplifier
Any others that are interested in contributing could provide their own inputs, and if we get enough data, we can have a very interesting 'survey' of data.
If each contributor could please state the equipment they used: SACD player, preamp/processor, room correction system, amplifier, and speakers, and then state which SACD playback format preferred (1) Pure Analog through Preamp/Processor or (2) PCM w/Room Correction Software
Thanks,
Dave |
