SACD Hybrid CDs*

Discussion in 'Audio Hardware' started by RJD1954, Feb 4, 2019.

  1. Bill Mac

    Bill Mac Forum Resident

    Location:
    So. ME USA
    I know you describe yourself as the "Sultan Of Snark". But the above posts are past that and make absolutely no sense IMO. Maybe that's your objective. Maybe a change to the "Sultan Of No Sense" would be better suited :D.
     
    bdfin, Optimize and George P like this.
  2. Dillydipper

    Dillydipper Sultan Of Snark

    Location:
    Central PA
    Or...it just sailed over your head...? :idea:
     
  3. McLover

    McLover Forum Resident

    Location:
    East TN
    Wasn't the artists who wanted double mechanical royalties, blame the Harry Fox Agency for this (in the USA, the official clearinghouse for mechanical licensing rights for many years)
     
    Grant likes this.
  4. To be fair, artists had been getting screwed over royalties for decades by the labels. I understand why they fought that particular issue, though it permanently crippled SACD in the United States.

    Royalty rates should have been paid out for each layer on a hybrid SACD, but at significantly lower rates beyond the first layer.
     
    TheKevster likes this.
  5. scobb

    scobb Forum Resident

    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    I don't think HDMI had much to do with the failure of SACD as SACD pre dates HDMI and was intended to be used with the analogue out of the player (yes they blocked Coax and Optical). In fact it wasn't till HDMI 1.2 (late 2005) that SACD could be played via HDMI and by which time the ship had already sailed on SACD. Perhaps if HDMI had come out 5 years earlier then SACD may have gained more traction?
     
    Kyhl, Sterling1, Galley and 2 others like this.
  6. Yes, HDMI would have been a big help to the fledgling surround formats if it had been around before SACD and DVD-Audio first appeared. It was a big hassle running analog outs for each surround channel.
     
  7. TheSaltman

    TheSaltman I am not throwing away My Shot.

    Location:
    Italy
    Now that I think about it, does this mean that true DSD was impossible to hear before HDMI came out?
     
  8. Pancat

    Pancat Senior Member

    Location:
    Still EU. For now.
    No. The point made in an earlier post about HDMI was inaccurate.
     
    scobb likes this.
  9. Pancat

    Pancat Senior Member

    Location:
    Still EU. For now.
    This is incorrect.
     
  10. TheSaltman

    TheSaltman I am not throwing away My Shot.

    Location:
    Italy
    That's what I've always read and heard. Not trying to be confrontational here, actually I'd like to know if the contrary is true, hence my question.
     
  11. Pancat

    Pancat Senior Member

    Location:
    Still EU. For now.
    As long as the DAC in the player (such as the one in my Oppo 105) supports native DSD you will get DSD through the audio analogue output.
     
    TheKevster likes this.
  12. JMCIII

    JMCIII Music lover first, audiophile second.


    When passing blame around, let us not forget that Sony, big company that it is, never ordered its music division to cooperate with its hardware side. So despite the marketing done by the hardware division, there simply wasn't enough content available to the consumer as the music division refused to play along and help launch the format.....
     
    Kyhl and soundboy like this.
  13. Bill Mac

    Bill Mac Forum Resident

    Location:
    So. ME USA
    The below is from the Oppo 205 manual:

    DSD – SACD Direct Stream Digital (DSD) data is output over HDMI without any conversion. For the analog audio outputs, DSD data is converted into an analog signal directly by the internal DAC. If you use a receiver that supports HDMI v1.2a with DSD over HDMI, or you prefer the sound quality of straight DSD to analog, please select this option.
     
  14. TarnishedEars

    TarnishedEars Forum Resident

    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    I like your quip, but disagree with your point.

    SACD failed for four reasons:
    1) It was in a format war with DVD-A almost from its inception, and many of the people who actually were interested in trying it, were waiting until there was a victor (after all we had all lived through the Beta vs VHS format war, and there was a clear victor in that battle).
    2) Ripping CDs was becoming common by the time that SACDs came out, and people who wanted to rip SACD couldn't do it (until almost 10 years after its inception, the hacked PS3 method was invented) because SACDs were encrypted, and no computer drives existed which would read them.
    3) The SACD standard disallowed any form of unencrypted digital transmission from an SACD player. And this made it impossible to have a separate Transport and DAC which annoyed people like myself (until many years later).
    4) But the biggest reason was that the Public just didn't care about higher quality. And many were satisfied with pirating low-bitrate MP3s off of Napster.
     
  15. TarnishedEars

    TarnishedEars Forum Resident

    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    I've sometimes wondered about this myself, but I've never heard of anybody who noticed a difference in sound quality between a one or two layer disk. Although the Japanese SHM SACDs were single layer presumably for this reason.
     
    MichaelXX2 and soundboy like this.
  16. TarnishedEars

    TarnishedEars Forum Resident

    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Absolutely not. All dedicated SACD players contained DACs which could natively decode both DSD and PCM. Although some of the very early "universal" players did transcode DSD to PCM before DACs became available which could natively decode both high-res PCM and DSD.
     
    Pancat likes this.
  17. Dillydipper

    Dillydipper Sultan Of Snark

    Location:
    Central PA
    I'm not sure what point you thought I making, but, thank you for underscoring the ones I have consistently been making anyway, in different words.
     
    TarnishedEars likes this.
  18. Optimize

    Optimize Forum Resident

    Location:
    EU
    Yes the SACD layer is exactly the same between single layer SACD and the hybrid disc.
    But let us look more closely what the presence of the CD layer take away from the SACD layer.

    SACD are like the DVD made in half discs. The CD and DVD/SACD are 1.2 mm thick.
    The difference is that the CD laser need to travel the whole 1.2 mm to reach the aluminium layer.

    Think of the polycarbonate as a optical component with its own refractive coefficient. That is a some of the explanation of how optical media can withstand some scratches. Because the laser is not in fucus when it enters trough the surface of the polycarbonate and focus 1.2 mm further in (at the aluminium layer underneath the printing).

    The SACD/DVD layer is in the middle of the disc, 0.6 mm in so there are two half discs and are glued together to 1.2mm. That is why a DVDs feel stiffer than the CD even if they have the same thickness and are made of the same material, sandwich.

    Here the interesting part come.
    How can we play the CD layer when the SACD layer is in-between the laser and the CD layer?

    The SACD layer is made semi transparent. So the laser that focuses 0.6 away from the SACD and on the CD layer had to sacrifice some light that reflected back when passing through the SACD layer to reach the CD layer.
    But after reflecting back from the CD layer, the light need to go true the SACD layer again on its way back and loose some more light..

    So the what the CD layer need is that the SACD layer have to become semi transparent. And test equipment at plants measure the "reflectivity" of the layers to meet the specified levels that the specifications said.

    All that said it do not affect CD/SACD playback when there are error correction algorithms and so forth. But that semi reflecting SACD layer need to meet the specifications. To thick the CD layer will not play or to thin the SACD layer will not be played.
     
    danielbravo likes this.
  19. Michael

    Michael I LOVE WIDE S-T-E-R-E-O!

    yup, they just combine both on one disc...I love my Hybrids! much more than single SACDs...best of both worlds.
     
    duneman and Sterling1 like this.
  20. Michael

    Michael I LOVE WIDE S-T-E-R-E-O!

    photo's please!
     
  21. Dillydipper

    Dillydipper Sultan Of Snark

    Location:
    Central PA
    ...:confused:...you want a photo of a...metaphor...?
     
  22. Sterling1

    Sterling1 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Louisville, KY
    You are getting analog output from the OPPOs DAC, which can process DSD direct or convert to PCM Only via HDMI output would you be sending DSD or PCM. I convert DSD to PCM for multi-channel analog output, since that permits me to use my OPO 205's bass management function.
     
    bradman likes this.
  23. Sterling1

    Sterling1 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Louisville, KY
    I purchased an early DVD player, which could also play stereo SACDs (Sony DVP-S9000es). I still enjoy that player for SACDs; but, not being able to discern that stereo SACDs sounded better than CDs in general and not being stocked by retailers at that time, my interest in SACDs faded. Today, I have the ability to enjoy multi-channel SACDs from my Home Theater System and, these deliver a sound having more depth and breadth than stereo SACD. I enjoy them more than any stereo format.
     
    Audiowannabee likes this.
  24. Sterling1

    Sterling1 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Louisville, KY
    HDMI has given SACD and multi-channel SACD a second chance, since many Sony Universal Players output SACD via HDMI to modern AVRs and Prepros having HDMI inputs. This is added value for anyone already into surround sound movie pleasure.
     
  25. siebrand

    siebrand Forum Resident

    Location:
    Italy
    as usual, there are music lovers who send wrong messages.
    The SACD has by no means failed. Absolutely not!.
    Lately Human being prefer to go streaming, purchases on physical media are decreasing more and more.
    And this is a fact.
    But getting to say that the SACD is at its end ... well, no ... don't give this kind of information around, because it's not true!
     
    Sterling1 and bradleyc like this.

Share This Page