Marantz <vs> Cambridge Audio DVD

shack

Well, the problem lies in the fact that almost every studio uses Pulse Code Modulation, so they have to convert before laying anything into ProTools. That is flawed. Not my understanding.

That has been why some have felt that DVD-A was the better high-rez format since it was based on direct PCM recording. Comparing the direct DSD vs direct PCM, DSD is most often the preferred format. As you stated, there are few DSD recorders in use. However, many have found that the PCM converted to DSD is still a superior format. There is some school of thought that PCM recording at 192kHz or higher at 384kHz in the future might bring PCM closer to the superior sounding level of DSD. You might think the process/science is flawed but the end result is not.

dorokusai

SK - Here's some stuff to read on SACD.

SACD Explained

SKsolutions

I'll check it out. I'm always a skeptic. I'm also not always right.
Thanks Shack, Doro.

Danny Tse

My opinion is that as long as recording is carefully remastered, it will sound good on either SACD or DVD-A. Take Dire Straits' "Brothers In Arms"....an early 80s digital recording that was recorded in PCM with resolution nowhere near what can be done nowadays. However, it sounds unbelievably good on SACD (import) and I am sure it sounds just as good on DVD-A (domestic). I read that the whole remastering process took 3 months.

I also have a number of SACDs sourced from vinyl records and they sound excellent as well.

dorokusai

Here's some further discussion with a heavyweight in SACD/DSD development.... Ed Meitner. He's been a pioneer in digital/sound processing for many years. Lush can probably expound upon him more in depth, as he's a EMM fanatic.

There is a Part I of that same interview, DSD/SACD Revolution, with Sony's David Kawakami, but I can't find it as a link.

Another good read for both sides....High Fidelity Review

heiney9

Here's another small link that's interesting about SACD

http://www.canadapromedia.com/Articles/sacd/sacd.htm

SKsolutions

Looks like I have some Sunday reading, as I saved those links, Thank you.

I ended up picking up the new Cambridge Audio DVD87 which plays everything. I called the store back after getting home because I thought I made a mistake in not picking the 540D, and they said I have 30 days to decide. I have a Tool CD in now, and my AVR is stating "HDCD" in it's panel. So, I'm assuming that it is getting a 20-bit signal, meaning that the DVD87 plays that in it's true form. Not too shabby for $269. More money left for the Shandling CDP.

heiney9

More Sunday reading

http://sound.westhost.com/cd-sacd-dvda.htm

shack

I've felt that the Cambridge DVD-87 would be a good choice for someone wanting an all-in-one player that does music well. I'll be interested in your overall assessment.

As opposed to the mega mfgs like Sony, Panasonic, Pioneer, Toshiba, etc....the smaller guys seem to have a knack for audio first...that BTW...also does video. NAD, CA, Rotel and obviously the "high end" mfgs. seem to have DVD players that fall into this category. My NAD DVD player is pretty impressive with music...moreso than any other DVD player I've owned.

audiobliss

Reading this thread got me to thinking about getting a nice CDP for my system, again. I've been considering the CA D500SE, AMC CD8b, and CA 540C, but a universal player certainly would be nice.

Where did you get the DVD87? I've searched through CA's website, and the only player they have listed from the DVD80 series is the DVD89. One thing that worries me is I noticed that the 540D (that doesn't do SACD) weighs 10.1 pounds (nice and hefty...should be solid) whereas the DVD89 only weighs 5.5 pounds. That could be a point of concern.

heiney9

shack wrote:

That has been why some have felt that DVD-A was the better high-rez format since it was based on direct PCM recording. Comparing the direct DSD vs direct PCM, DSD is most often the preferred format. As you stated, there are few DSD recorders in use. However, many have found that the PCM converted to DSD is still a superior format. There is some school of thought that PCM recording at 192kHz or higher at 384kHz in the future might bring PCM closer to the superior sounding level of DSD. You might think the process/science is flawed but the end result is not.

Shack, you might want to take a look at this article for a different perspective.

http://sound.westhost.com/cd-sacd-dvda.htm

I still feel an excellent multi-bit DAC is superior to 1 bit DSD and it's associated noise shaping filtering. But the jury is still out for me, even though I haven't bought into anything other than superior Redbook performance. From many of the things I've read SACD just doesn't do it for me. I've heard some SACD's also and I'm not convinced.

H9

dorokusai

H9 - You do get around to other sites right? You seem to be addicted to Westhost....just wondering. The article is filled with the usual, but aren't they all.

heiney9

dorokusai wrote:

H9 - You do get around to other sites right? You seem to be addicted to Westhost....just wondering. The article is filled with the usual, but aren't they all.

Oh yes I read many more sites/articles, I don't always agree with Rod Elliot but I do like his more technical articles sans his opinions. I was just throwing it out there as something to read. For me personally, I just post interesting links and just because I post 'em doesn't mean I always agree 100% unless I'm trying to support a specific POV. In this case I just put some more info out there to add to the subject for those who may not have seen it before.

H9

dorokusai

I was just wondering, as it's a 2002 article that gets brought up in the anti-SACD circles. It's interesting to see even experts can't figure out which is better.

I could care less who wins...I have enough SACD's to justify another 2CH purchase, and keep a Universal in the HT...just in case. By the time they figure it out, I'll be in the market for something new anyways.

heiney9

See...that's already more than I know. Didn't realize that article was making the anti-Sacd rounds. Just posted it for a different POV.

H9

dorokusai

I don't have any DVD-A information saved or I would post some as well, and I'm not interested enough to look. I would pay more attention to HD-DVD and Blu-Ray than SACD/DVD-A.

shack

heiney9 wrote:

Shack, you might want to take a look at this article for a different perspective.

http://sound.westhost.com/cd-sacd-dvda.htm

This article has been around for awhile and I've seen more "experts" discount it as opposed to embracing it. The 1 bit theory make sense to me..."It’s the least conversion of a conversion."

SKsolutions

Just sounding in.

With regard to the sound and availablity of the CA dvd-87, you can find it at www.Spearitsound.com for 269. without shipping. List is 359 ish.

I have been busy, so I haven't done my homework, but I can comment on immediate SQ improvement. I am using 630 series HK receiver as the pre-amp and DAC. I believe it has a Motorola DSP unit in it, but I don't think it uses the Moti for audio DAC. I think it uses a Wolfson, as that is what their DVD's use for audio conversion.
I have not used the analog outs on the Camb Audio unit to see if the Crystal DAC's (6 Channel) in the DVD87 sound better than the onboards on the HK. I don't have the IC's or any discs as of yet to play SACD, but I will get some soon.

As an inexpensive unit, this thing SOUNDs great. I'm using it as a transport since I'm utilizing the digital out at the moment, but the difference in the digital signal arriving to the same AVR is so superior that it is immediately noticeable. Bass has more latitude and articulation, and the high end has much less grain and sound almost natural.

On HDCD, it's hard to tell as I only played one disc. The disc I played had more dynamic range, and the mid-to-high end was smoother -especially noticable at higher volume. This could have just been the player, but the range increase would not be possible without the ability to read and transfer HDCD.

I can play a CD on this and not think, "OH **** I wish I had a decent CD player". Camb Audio has done a very good job at keeping the Video and Audio power supplies and processors separate and it's very evident when playing CD's.

I will keep it as my DVD after I purchase a stand alone player. My girlfiend even commented that the DVD picture was much brighter on the Panny plasma.

So, at this price point, I don't see the downside. I would say that you would have to spend close to $269 or better to get a stand alone CD player that stacks up to it. This one just happens to play DVD's too.

Caveat:
I was told at Spearit Sound, that the chassis on the 540D was stouter, and that he, "the sales-dude" could hear a difference in the low end between the two units. I did not demo, so I cannot confirm or deny and difference in SQ.

shack

Get some decent ICs....ASAP! I guarantee the DACs in the Cambridge are better that the ones in the HK.

reeltrouble1

Goodness gracious, this was sure a candidate for the rant of the day. But in a kinder gentler spirit I will pass.

SACD cant help itself in sounding better than redbook, of course the better the gear the more it shines. Even my beat up old ears can hear the difference. Redbook is dead, ok its not, but I like to say it is. MP people are watching!! oh yea and for the thousandth time, SACD has nothing to do with multi-channel its just one of things it can do.

RT1

SKsolutions

shack wrote:

Get some decent ICs....ASAP! I guarantee the DACs in the Cambridge are better that the ones in the HK.

IC's are being made by an old friend. They won't be anything super esoteric, but should be quality stuff for a pitance. Hoping to pick em up this week.

I think you may be right on the DAC account. Even though it would be choosing Crystal over Wolfson, I would say that I anticipate an improvement using the Cambridge DAC and analog output. I don't know this will work with HDCD, though (might it read and output digitally, yet fail to read, convert and output on the analog side?). I may have to pull everything out and lay it all on the floor so I can play around with it. . .Oh shame!

SKsolutions

Quick post. The Crystal DAC and analog out is quite superior to the onboard DAC's and DSP in the HK AVR. So to those using one as a 'pre-pro", try this configuration. It is a little brighter, but it offsets the warmness of the HK. After a few A/B's done on different inputs on the same material, I intially prefered the digital-out cofig because it sounded 'fuller', but found that while I was hearing more, I was getting less. It was very noticable on KT Tunstalls vocals on her latest disc. The vocals when run in the digital out had an overprocessed quality, and when I switched back to analog using the Cambridge DAC's, it was cleaner with more detail and nuance.