SACD/DVD-A/MP3/DVD-V for 179$!!!

And that's my point.

But no one believed that standard TV resolutions were anywhere near the optimum (i.e., the point beyond which no increase was perceptible). In other words, there was clearly theoretical and actual room for improvement.

Such is not the case for redbook. Theoretically, redbook should do the job.
Proponents of hi-rez claim that in practice, it does not. I await the non-anecdotal proof.

You're mixing up two issue here -- frequency range, and resolution. Hi rez extends both, unequivocally. The *audibility* of that the resolution extension, within the audible frequency range, is what's in question. If you admit that beyond a certain point, there is no perceptible improvement, then the question is purely: how do we know that redbook *had not* already reached that point?

 

I'm very new to this "Hi-Rez" world so If you are looking for details on how the SACD playback sounds converted to pcm, you're looking at the wrong guy .

The Unit
Silver...nice looking thin, not heavy

Remote
Very simple and easy to use....not universal

Set-up
So many cord and wires.....
Once that was done I followed the on-screen instructions
And in just a few minutes I was confused...
But I think I had It figured out soon enough

SACD playback

Well since this my first SACD player I have nothing to compare it to....1st disc was The Stranger-Billy Joel. I like my music in 5:1 and boy did this sound sweet....next up was Let it Bleed-Stones...
Now my jaw is hitting my chest, It sounds so raw and fresh
Then I took a time out to get the proper "head" for DSOTM
Now I'm sitting there in stunned disbelief, this can't be my equipment, it sounds too good.


DVD-A playback

At first I wasn't that impressed...I had in Everything Must Go-Steely Dan and it didn't sound like I thought it would. But I did some adjusting and it sounded a bit better. But I'll probably wind up getting an ICBM unit...


DVD playback

Looked fine to me... I bought this Unit for the audio so I didn't really test it out with many DVD's

Other Features...

I don't have any MP3's handy so I can't tell you how it works
but I did have a CD-R of jpegs and that really worked well..looks great on my Wega.

Sorry I'm not that technical but I'm sure someone will judge this player a bit better than me.

Well worth the 180$ I paid but as in all my "tech" purchases I'll wind up spending more on hardware and software in the weeks to come.

 

I am not mixing up two issues. I am well aware of the difference between resolution and frequency range. Hi-Res adds to both, obviously. However, just as you argue for proof that 'redbook', or, more precisely PCM digital recording at a sampling rate of 44,100 sample per second with a bit depth of 16, or 65,536 potential values per sample, had not 'reached that point', I can argue for proof that it has or that 'Hi-Res' hasn't exceeded it, in the audible range. As far as I see it, there is a big difference between 're-shaping' large amounts of a continuously changing sound-wave through extrapolation, and having the actual sound-wave captured more precisely to begin with.
IMO, no one has been able to universally prove or disprove anything pertaining to either.

 

You may *see* that as being a big difference -- and in terms of visualizing the actual *analog* sound wave that results, I highly doubt you would see any bigger difference than you would with a purely analog chain, much less a PCM vs hi-rez -- but the question is whether you *hear* that difference, big or small.

 

Yes, that is the question, so I go back to what I said before. Nothing has been universally proven or disproven either way. So, the question also entails if you do not hear that difference, big or small. The question cuts both ways.

 

I dont' understand why 'universal' proof or disproof is required. Scientific proofs are actually *likelihoods* in essence. Given the ferocious resistance to rather routine psychoacoustic facts I often encounter in forums like this, I have to wonder if 'audiophiles' would really be convinced by controlled listening experiments ? What would consitute adequate 'proof' that that two treatments were not likely to make an audible difference?

 

That's an odd thing to say.

In order to have a proof, you first need a postulate or theory. Once the terms of the theory are clearly stated and agreed upon by all concerned, the search for a proof can be undertaken.

For example, say I postulate that there are an infinite number of primes separated by 2 - e.g. 3 and 5, 11 and 13, 17 and 19, 29 and 31 etc. In order to set up the theory so that a proof is possible, we need to first agree on the meaning of an infinite number of and prime. Now that we have defined the terms, one can attempt to find a proof.

Once a proof is found, it is subject to intense scrutiny by experts in the field, and this may go on for many years. If the proof stands up, the theory can be promoted to a law.

I give the mathematical example because this recently theory was "proven", but in fact another person found a fault in the proof; so back to the drawing board.

I don't believe a "*likelihood*" would be acceptable.

This has nothing to do with audio - I'm just querying your statement.

Regards,
Geoff

 

I agree with Geoff and I say to you krabapple that your argument is a weak one. Personally, I have no problem with 'controlled listening experiments', because I believe in them. It is you that seem to have a problem accepting the idea that there has been no semblance of proof offered that high resolution digital recording does not make an audible difference, all the while asserting that we should all somehow accept it as fact or, in your words, a 'likelihood' that it doesn't make a difference. You argue that 'Hi-Res' is redundant, and I ask where is your evidence to support your claim? at this point in time, I don't believe I have been presented with any evidence falling on either side from any parties to convince me completely over to either side of the debate. Through my personal experiences, what I have heard and what I have read, I am convinced that there is a high 'likelihood' that high resolution can make a difference.

Perhaps you are holding back some information from a 'controlled listening experiment' that you feel somehow disproves a need for high resolution recording?

 

Not really. It's basic philsophy of science.

Youa re talking about proofs of mathematical logic; I am talking about proofs from empirical evidence. All scientific facts are contingent on such evidence. Built into the scientific method is the idea that if new evidence warrants it, even the most solid *fact* must be discarded. Thus a scientific claim is in essence one of likelihood, i.e., 'the current evidence indicates that the most likely explanation is X'. A scientific fact is one that has held up well to reality testing, such that the likelhood of being discarded appears very low. But it's never zero.

 

It's not just me that has a problem with that logic; it's science. There is no proof that giant invisible unicorns DO NOT push the planets around in their orbits.
But anyone claiming that they do, would be required to demonstrate it somehow.

That's an extreme example. The quesiton here is, what reason does a scientifically-informed empiricist have to believe that hi-rez would or would not make an *audible* difference. What's the evidence on either side? On the one hand we have psychoacoustic and physical *data* indicating that humans aren't likely to hear the increase in frequency range beyond 20 kHz and aren't likely to hear an increase in resolution beyond redbook standard, assuming proper dithering and filter implementation.

On the other hand we have unscientific claims from sighted listening that the hi-rez formats, of themselves, make an audible difference. Could these be right? Yes. Has it been demonstrated that they are, and that the psychoacoustic data can safely be ignored? Not as far as I know. The proper comparisons simply haven't been done. Which means that, for now, the scientifically better-founded likelihoods are more reasonable.

Then I suggest you read up on human hearing, psychoacoustics, the Nyquist theorem, etc. This is where the argument against audibility of hi-rez comes from. You will not find any direct controlled tests of the audibility of hi-rez, AFAIK. But these aren't necessary for *reasonable doubt* to exist.
I won't find any direct tests of the invisible unicorn hypothesis in astrophysics literature, yet the *existing* data are enough to raise doubt about it.

Do these personal experiences, and what you've read, include any properly controlled listening tests where the only difference was hi-rez versus redbook?

AFAIK there haven't been any properly controlled listening experiments involving direct comparison of redbook vs. hi-rez. The most rigorously controlled comparisons would be double-blind, randomized, level-matched, time-synched.

 

Actually, there is a lot of proof that giant invisible unicorns do not push the planets around in their orbits, but that's an entirely different discussion. Comparing high-resolution recording to invisible unicorns is an argument bankrupt from the start. I need not be instructed by you nor anyone else to acquaint myself with psychoacoustics, the Nyquist theorem and human hearing as I spent 4 years studying them. Nothing exists in the literature at this point that contradicts there being the possibility that high resolution recording can result in audible differences or, subjectively, audible improvements. Obviously, you feel differently. The thing about science, which you are so fond of heralding, is that there is always debate and differences of opinion, even concerning theories that are seemingly accepted as a rule. With that, I gracefully withdraw from this rather trivial debate that is doing nothing but go around in circles and has gone completely off topic anyhow.

 

And this discussion is Ok, but SACD vs. DVd-A isnt?

 

For the average music fan with low-fi to mif-fi equipment this player is a fantastic buy ( Imay get one as a second player).

People who have upper mid-fi to audiophile equipment would be better off with a Sony SACD player (as Steve has noted) or one of the better Universal Players like the Denon 2900 or the Marantz 8300.

Personally I use a combo of the Sony 775 and the Panasonic RP91 for DVDA.
I'm very interested in the new Marantz 8400 universal player which has DVI out. Since I'm in the market for a DLP HDTV which accepts DVI inputs, this player may be my answer. Solid sonics and hi-def like quality video thru DVI.
Hey the price is only $1400!

 

I agree! The possibility exists. The question is, how big a possibility is it? How *likely* is it, in the face of the literature...and the *lack* of reliable data to support the likelihood?

The main reason why no scientist believes giant unicorns push the planets around, is that we have alternate theories that are testable, have been tested, and found to be consistent with the data. Giant Unicorns would require a rather extensive reworking of well-founded models, and are essentially unnecessary to explain the verifiable data.

In the realm of Hi-rez, the verifiable data so far is on the 'skeptical' side, and comes from the sources I cited., which I'm happy to see you have spent some years studying. If and when the hi-rez industry provides verifiable data about the instrinsic audibility of the formats, it will be a welcome and much-needed addition to the corpus. But currently they need more than measurements and anecdotes. Early redbook advocates, for example, could point to measurements of S/N, frequency response, and pitch stability, that were better than some analog formats; but unlike hi-rez, there was also the good preexisting physical and experimental foundation to believe that the magnitude of such differences were *within the realm of audibility*. That's what's lacking in hi-rez. The things that hi-rez unquestioningly does *measurably* better -- is there good reason, either from 'theory', or from comparisons specifically done to test the formats, to believe they 're likely to translate into audible difference?

(Please, anyone, do not use this as jumping off point to start arguing abotu whether the measurments translated into *better* sound. I'm only talking only about difference.)

Well, I've enjoyed our little roundelay, then, even if you haven't. I realize that some find the whole topic irritating. But then again, I don't think these *questions* get raised often enough.

 

Its funny, the 47a big selling point here has been that it doesnt convert DSD to PCM for SACD playback.

However, in reading the actual listening reviews of the unit, the feedback has been "great for DVD and DVD-A, SACD not so great".

 

Well, count me in. I found this topic an interesting read. I'm all for these types of discussions. Hmm, I think I'm one of the few krabapple fans around here. And I think I'm about to get Gorted for it. J/K!

For the record, I wouldn't buy a unit that converted DSD to PCM...just to be on the safe side. Hey, what can I say? OCD.

 

Please, don't get me wrong. I enjoyed the debate, but it really just ended up going around in circles with nothing really being settled. The fact that it veered way off topic from the spirit of the original post was/is good reason to 'jump off board' AFAIC. I agree though, it's good to have these kinds of discussions, but in their proper place. It is very hard to discuss topics such as these on this particular site as certain, shall we say, 'contentious' topics are banned or otherwise considered taboo. So, in the grand scheme of things, what's the point, really, of a somewhat shallow debate?

 

I'd be wary of the Panasonic RP serries...from what I've read online, some of them seem to have insurmountable problems accessing the non-DVD-A tracks of DVD-As . Make sure you research them. (I don't recall offhand if the RP82 is one of them.)


As for the 47a, you might want to get the 47ai instead -- IIRC it has a DAC 'upgrade' (from Cirrus to Burr-Brown, though whether this a actually audible I don't know)), and additionally offers the possibility of full-digital proprietry interface to Pioneer's current and future top-line receivers. I've read conflicting reports about whether the Cirrus-loaded version converts DSD to PCM (if that matters to you). I'm told the Burr-Brown-loaded version does not; it has a Sony DSD decoder chip inside (!), and there's seperate data streams for PCM and DSD all the way to the final D-to-A conversions.


Alternately you can try the DV-45a -- essentially the same as the 47ai, but no proprietary interface. It costs a few hundred bucks less. For the 45a I've confirmed (by looking inside mine, and by obtaining the service manual) the Sony chip/separate streams story.

The 47a/ai and the 45a both can be set to '2 channel ' playback for various media' ...to a degree. For SACD you can indeed specify playback of 2 channel tracks by default whenever an SACD is loaded. It's in the SACD options menu. For DVD-As, you don't get that default as a player option (just another quirk of the SACD vs DVD-A implementation process, I guess); you only get the option of DVD-A vs. DVD-V layer playback. To specify the dedicated 2-channel track playback of a DVD-A you'll have to choose it in the DVD-A's menu (using a TV or the 'group' button of the remote). To confuse the issue slightly more, elsewhere in the player menus you can set the player to default to '2 channel' Audio Output (versus '5.1 channel')...but that only means it will try to downmix multichannel material (and bypass bass management/time alignment/speaker level settings)..it doesn't mean it automatically *selects* the 2-channel group of any medium.


As for 'listener reviews' that claim SACD doesn't sound as good as DVD-A on these players....here's a spoon, the salt is over *there*.

 

47a

>>>>>>Laugh all you want, but more than one magazine reviewer has mentioned this, particularly in Sound and Vision . They thought to put that into the review. To me, that means something.

 

Re: 47a

S&V is great because they always have a nice 'bench test' box that gives some objective, useful-to-know information, like the different crossovers in the case of the Pioneer 45a> They're also pretty good (though not flawless) at saying what sort of bass management the boxes offer. And David Ranada, to his everlasting credit, is a strong advocate of objective measures and of controlled comparison, as is Tom Nousaine. Unfortunately controlled comparison is not *policy* at S&V , any more than it is at any other home audio magazine.

In the Dec 2003 bench test report of the DV-45a in Sound & Vision, Dave Ranada reports these data with all speakers set to small and channel levels set to 0 (i.e., using the 'variable' setting). Dolby Digital was used as signals with a custome test disc, but results supposedly apply to DTS, DVD-A SACD, CD and MP3 as well (except as noted below):

subwoofer low-pass frequency response:
-12 dB/octave rolloff above -3-dB point of 100 Hz.

Main-channel high-pass frequency response:
-12 dB octave rolloff below -3-dB point of 100 Hz
(EXCEPT for SACD, where the slope changes to -6dB/octave)

max subwoofer output:
913 mV, 0.08% THD+N

Ranada also notes that time alignment (speaker distance settings) apply to all channels (including sub) and all media except SACD.

So there are at least two notable objective differences between the SACD and other playback, at least when BM and TA are engaged. Could these account for audible difference between SACD performance and other? For multichannel in non-equidistant surround setups, I'd expect the lack of time alignment to make a possibly significant audible difference. The gentler rolloff of SACD below 100 Hz could also audibly affect output from the mains. Would these differences *necessarily* translate into SACD sounding worse? No. It would depend on the system, the room, and listener preference. Possibly a gentler bass rolloff for small mains could result in a 'muddier' sound for SACD. Or maybe it would make them sound more 'robust'! Note that this is an effect of the choice of crossover slope, not anything to do with SACD decoding or D-to-A conversion. Univesral players needn't all use the same slopes.

That several reviewers *occasionally* concur on some opinion *could* mean that the opinion is founded in objective reality (e.g., a function of the measurable differences above) -- or it could mean they read each other's stuff. You never know what a reviewer has been told or had heard about the device under test, beforehand. I see this phenomenon online all the time...people 'know' that A sounds better than B because it has become audiophile lore. When you look around to find out who's actually
done anything like a good comparison....you come up empty.

The sighted S&V review of the 45a was particularly frustrating for me because the reviewer actually mentions comparing it blind to the 47ai (which he said sounded better). But *no* details about the blind comparison were offered. Why go halfway?

 

agreed!!

 

Burr Brown PCM1738s for the 45A I believe (same as the 47Ai)...