SACD Player/Transport Choices

@mahler123 I don’t know why my feelings would be bruised. I’m not here for a debate. I’m just trying to understand how to get the best out of SACDs. Maybe you are getting native DSD over HDMI. Or maybe it’s DOP, but still sounds sublime. Maybe it doesn’t really matter! Peace, pal!

Here’s a question: Does anyone have a DAC that indicates a difference between DSD native and DOP? Does the Bryston DAC3? Again, maybe it doesn’t really matter, but I’m curious. 

Boy am I every glad I stumbled across this thread. A lot of knowledgeable members on the very subject I am curious about. 

Currently own both an Oppo BDP-95 and a UDP-205. I love them both but I do wonder how long they are for this world. Right now the 205 is serving as both my Blu-Ray player and my CD/SACD transport. I have had difficulties getting the UDP to talk to my DAC, a Ferrum Wandla, with an eBay HDMI/I2S converter in between (similar kind as @big_greg mentioned) but that is very much a WIP due to an outstanding DAC support issue. So I can’t yet confirm what @mahler123 has reported - that the UPD-205 is definitely sending true DSD info over the HDMI out. (Going PCM via coax to my DAC, np.)

On the future proofing side I am looking at getting a backup SACD/CD transport in the event Oppo will no longer support my spinners. Based on the above I’m on the fence as per the Onix Zenith that @hifipassion has or the Reavon X110 that @richardbrand mentioned. Prima facie it would look simple - the Reavon - given that I plan to play all kinds of discs. It’s also half the price. But two considerations remain...

1) How long will the Reavon company be around to support said product (Shanling I do not believe is going anywhere any time soon - they big.)?
2) So do I purchase the Onix and just find a cheap 4K spinner down the road and own two types of transports?

Now if I had to distill down my shotgun post down to an ask I guess it comes down to which of these two will be the better SACD/CD transport for DSD over I2S and info on this is not easily found out there. This is where I would welcome some input from the thread (And no I am not going to fight 199 other people to buy one of Paul’s $8500 swan song signature machines.)

Look forward to what others have to say here. Hope it’s not a silly ask. Thx in advance.

@bergenma

Great questions that probably bother silver disk fans! 

I bought a Reavon UBR-X200 on a whim after my Marantz Universal Disk Player (UDP) carked it.  Just went to a couple of HiFi shops nearby, The first told me I did not want to play SACDs (I have hundreds) and the second had just taken delivery of their first Reavon, which I had never heard of.  I bought it anyway, because functionally it appeared to do everything I wanted.  

There was also the Reavon UBR-X100 but it did not support SACD at all.  The UBR-X110, which functions as a SACD transport, had not reached the market at that time.

My main left and right channels were played through Quad electrostatic speakers (2905) powered by a Krell class A amplifier (KSA-80) with an 18" Velodyne subwoofer.

My Reavon is connected by one of its HDMI outputs to my Audio Visual (AV) preprocessor, a Marantz AV8802.  The Marantz tells me exactly what is being input including the connector, format and bit rate.  The Reavon absolutely can output DSD 5.1 (Direct Stream Digital) natively over HDMI, as well as PCM from Pure Audio Blu-rays, Dolby Atmos, etc.

I also hooked up the seven analog output pairs to the Marantz using RCA connectors, as well as the two channel analog output using balanced XLR connectors.

The HiFi store promised me that CD playback would be as good as my venerable Sony player over balanced XLR, that Pure Audio would be as good as my old Marantz UDP, and that SACD analog output would be as good or better than the Marantz.

No problems with CD and Pure Audio playback, but when I switched to SACD I got full volume white noise (or pink?).  The manual was wrong!  Once sorted, the multi-channel SACD sound was way below what I was used to.  I checked the specifications of the two-channel and multi-channel Burr Brown DACs.  Neither mentioned DSD which is a good indication they cannot natively process DSD.  I wrote to Reavon and they confirmed multi-channel DSD is down converted to CD quality PCM.

The two-channel Reavon DAC has better specifications, so I thought 2-channel DSD might be down converted to a higher resolution PCM but no, still just CD quality.  No review that I have read mentions this, but to me the poor sound quality was almost instantly apparent.

My Marantz AV8802 on the other hand has 8 AKM 2-channel DACs similar in specification to the ESS Sabres used by Oppo.  They process DSD natively. Using the Reavon as a pure transport works a treat when the Marantz is doing the analog conversion.

By the way, changing the output formats on the Reavon is painful: the machine has to be restarted.  Now I just leave it on HDMI output, no problems.

I don’t know how good the Reavon UBR-X110 is - the power supplies are not as advanced as the X200 for a start.  The addition of a 3-mm thick steel baseplate makes both machines feel like quality though!

There are other derivatives now on the market including Magnetar which use the same Mediatek System on a Chip (SOC).  I believe Cambridge Audio has one as well.  Pioneer seem still active, as is Panasonic but pride stops them offering rival Sony’s SACD format!  There was also a Chinese-brand but I have forgotten its name.

I have a couple of very cheap Sony UDP transports, but I have not done a direct comparison.  I suspect they are just as good, sonically.

Does I2S support multi-channel DSD?  Until recently I had never heard of I2S which dates back to 1957.

My final thought is that the value-for-money offered by big manufacturers like Sony and Denon/Marantz far exceeds what niche manufacturers can offer, unless they piggback on others R&D, such as the Mediatek SOC.

@hifipassion 

Since you are preferring the sound of your SACD's over I2S I am assuming that is through the Denafrips Terminator and which version do you have?  I picked up my Onix from Shenzhen and got it last week.  I can confirm the build is nice but I have not used it yet.  I was going to get a separate DAC and the Terminator is top of the list, followed by the Holo May.

 

 

 

@gimmer 

I'm running the Zenith into the original Terminator via i2s.  Also tried the Zenith paired with the Laiv Harmony DAC via i2s.

@richardbrand 

Thanks for the keystrokes. I mistakenly thot you had the junior Reavon. My bad sir. And yes I am familiar with the Magnetar.

Still waiting for what others have to say, but given the guts of the X110 are inferior to the model you have I might lean more to the Onix (Shanling) as I anticipate Blu-ray players will be manufactured for some time to come.

Honestly, all of this would just be so much simpler if Oppo would just start up transport production again and roll out another audio flagship. Like what's the big deal, it's not like it's soooo much to ask!

I can confirm mahler’s assertion. My OPPO UDP-205 sends DSD via HDMI to my ARCAM AVR30 receiver. ARCAM display shows “DSD” at 2.8 MHz, both for stereo and multichannel. Sounds great!😊

@f1a thanks for the confirm. Appreciated.

@bergenma 

but given the guts of the X110 are inferior to the model you have

To be fair to Raevon, most of the internals of the X110 and X200 are identical.  The X200 has the addition of analogue audio outputs and it looks to me that the power supply has been upgraded to suit analogue, with a well shielded toroidal transformer.

Both boxes have a pretty low component count which should enhance reliability of the electronics.  The MediaTek chips are in the highest classification of integrated circuit densities.

The Magnetar UDP800 is essentially a Raevon X200 without the second Burr Brown DAC, which delivers 7.1 and 5.1 channel analogue over RCA interconnects.  Raevon and Magnetar are a bit like Marantz and Denon - sister companies.

According to Reavon’s website

"DSD is natively transported via HDMI as a fully digital signal up to 5.1 multichanel"

But the website also claims

"The best possible picture and sound technologies for an incredible home cinema experience"

Down-converting SACD to CD quality on analogue playback is not the best possible sound technology but full SACD quality is delivered over HDMI to a suitable DAC or pre-amplifier. No disc player should output full volume noise though

@faustuss

Now that you have educated yourself, you may be able to appreciate that when we say that a transport delivers Direct Stream Digital (DSD) natively over High-Definition Multimedia Interface (HDMI), we really mean it!

DSD

To be absolutely clear, DSD is a brilliantly simple way of encoding sound waves.  Each successive bit indicates whether to notch the digital sound pressure level up or down by one quantum, when compared to the real analogue sound pressure level, Silence is represented by an endless series of (up, down) at Megahertz rates.  Rising sound pressure will have more ups than downs, while falling has more downs than ups.  The analogue to digital conversion should not be more than half a quantum out. 

Moreover the quantisation noise can be removed by passing the bit stream through a gentle low-pass filter rolling off in the MHz region.  In principle the output can be played as an analogue signal without further processing except for a volume control!

Conventionally geeks refer to ups as 1 and downs as 0 in the digital domain.

PCM

By contrast, Pulse Code Modulation (PCM) samples the sound pressure level about 44,000 times per second (using CDs as an example).  At each sample, it measures the sound pressure level on a linear scale from about -32,000 to +32,000.  This range can be encoded into 16 binary bits (0 or 1) where each bit represents twice the level of the previous bit.

PCM cannot encode frequencies higher than half the sampling rate, and the low pass filters needed to remove digital noise must operate close to audible high frequencies.

Binary

You can see how this works by counting in binary using your fingers.  Using only the four fingers on your left hand, you can count from decimal 0 to 15.  The first finger represents 0 or 1, the next 0 or 2, then 0 or 4 etc.  You add up all the fingers to get the decimal equivalent. Keep going with the four fingers on your right hand and you get anywhere from decimal 0 to 255.  (This is the range of one computer byte, and looks like part of a four byte Internet Protocol version 4 address, eg 192.255.1.201)

Add in four toes from each foot, giving you 16 bits, and you can count from 0 to 65535.  Or -32767 to +32768 if one finger represents the - sign, which is handy because sound waves go both up and down from silence (0).  Why didn’t our Neanderthal relatives invent counting this way?

PCM linearity

So what is the issue with PCM?  Well, the most significant bit represents a value 16384 times bigger than the least significant bit.  At some point, when the sound pressure rises by 1, all fifteen lower bits switch off and the biggest one switches on.  It is almost impossible to manufacture any analogue device, like a resistor, to this degree of accuracy.

Imagine feeding every number between -32767 and +32768 in sequence to a Digital to Analogue Converter (DAC). Ideally the output would increase with every sample – known as a monotonic increase.  But resistors cannot be made accurate enough.

Philips knew this from the get-go, and just used the top 14 bits in their early CD players.  It gets even more ridiculous with high resolution at 24 bits, which needs 256 times more accuracy still, or 32 bits which needs 65,536 times the accuracy in order to resolve every bit.

Sigma-Delta

Enter the sigma-delta technique.  If you take the difference between consecutive PCM  levels, you can in theory add or subtract that many quanta to get from one sample to the next. So in effect, you convert the differences between consecutive sample to a local DSD stream.  It is easier to add a number of near-identical charges than to accurately trim a resistor.

It is similarly easy to create a PCM sequence from a DSD stream – just count the net number of ups and downs over 64 bits (for DSD64) and add or subtract from the previous sample.  But you cannot go the other way without guessing where each up or down should fit in time.  You lose information.  This is why a DAC that handles a DSD stream natively is better than a DAC chip that needs DSD to be externally converted to PCM.

Transporting digital formats

Any digital format can be chunked up into packets.  The packets can be any size.

If you want to send say a DSD stream over I2S, just chunk it up into 16-bit chunks and push each chunk into the pipeline.  The receiving end has to know what format is being delivered so it can unpack the chunks into a new stream identical to the original DSD stream.  It is not really over but inside and nothing is lost. 

The network technology can be anything that supports chunks (known as packets).  Internet Protocol, Ethernet, Universal Serial Bus (USB); anything will do if it is error free and fast enough.

On the other hand, if the DSD stream has to be converted to the two-channel 16-bit PCM samples I2S expects, then the timing detail gets lost and most likely the conversion will not be monotonic.

 

No, it does not! Please note the following from my previous post, do with it what you will -

"DSD over USB

In 2012, representatives from many companies and others developed a standard to represent and detect DSD audio within PCM frames; the standard, commonly known as DSD over PCM (DoP), is suitable for other digital links that use PCM. The 1.1 revision added protocol support for higher DSD sample rates without requiring an increase the underlying PCM sample rate."

Native DSD
"The definition of native DSD playback is somewhat a matter of philosophy. Generally speaking, it avoids the conversion of DSD data into multibit PCM anywhere along the reproduction chain. Many commercially available DACs now support native DSD."

"Now that you have educated yourself, you may be able to appreciate that when we say that a transport delivers Direct Stream Digital (DSD) natively over High-Definition Multimedia Interface (HDMI), we really mean it!"

@richardbrand 

Thank you ever so much for your extra fulsomeness. That really helps inform my path forward. My gut check is pointing in the direction of the Onix (in focusing on getting a music transport sans DAC) based on your keystrokes. As it stands I think my UDP will soldier on for some time yet as I rip my CD collection / continue using streaming services and consequently draw down on spinning discs with the exception of SACDs & movies. So with that projected use case I don’t think I need a Swiss army knife, I need a scalpel. And if I ever need the toothpick attachment down the road (a replacement Blu-ray player) that will most likely still be easily found. 

@hifipassion I too received the ONIX transport several days ago, buying from Forte at the 10% off.  Do not have extensive time with it yet.  But you mentioned it is quiet.  At spin up, and lasting for a few seconds, do you not hear a mechanical noise (not just whirring)?  Mine does, but it only lasts several seconds.

I am running it into a Venus II-12th and found the optimal I2S pinout code to be mode 3 on the ONIX and mode 7 on the Denafrips (although modes 3 and 5 were, by the manuals, the matching ones--I got right channel background popping or static using those).

The "manual" by the way is on the French website "Audiophonics".

I like that this is a top loader and looks attractive.  I am not sure the sound is LEAPS above a higher end TEAC SACD player I have in a different system, or even the Yamaha in this system.

@armyslowrdr  I do hear a few seconds of mechanical noise at spin up which is typical sound heard from most transports as the disc loads.  I think this is normal.  As far as I2S pinout code settings my Onix was plug-n-play into my Terminator.  I am using the default settings and it works fine.  I just looked at the Audiophonics web page and the manual they link to is the Quick Start Guide that came with the Onix.  What I was looking for is a comprehensive owners manual with more information.  Regarding sound quality I noticed improvements after several days of break-in.  There may be better sounding transports available but at this price point I think the Onix offers a good cost/performance ratio. 

@hifipassion definitely agree on it being a great value.  It is heartening to know the mechanical noise at start up is normal.  Yeah, even what they term as the owner's manual in the shipped product is just nothing more than the printed quick start guide.

@gimmer 

@hifipassion

@armyslowdr

Please keep those impressions on Onix performance coming!
Very interested to see how you find it to be.
Thx.