Copying My SACD's ....

AudioFilet

A while back I bought a digital recorder, Zoom model H4. I bought it mainly for taking to shows and recording a friend's band and making a demo. It does an outstanding job of that, and sound quality is outstanding. It has 3 selections for recording:

44.1khz @ either 16 0r 24 bit
48khz @ either 16 or 24 bit
98khz @ either 16 or 24 bit

I can use the line inputs on the thing, connected to my preamp to record the SACD's

I realize that I would need to record at 44.1 & 16 bit to get this on to a standard CD. My question is whether or not that is sufficient to provide any benefit there when copying SACD's to redbook CD's.

Would there be any benefit to recording at the higher resoloution and converting?

At the very least, I should be able to get SACD quality recordings on my hard drive at least??

I am also thinking that this might be a good way to copy vinyl as well??

What do you guys think anout all this?

AudioFilet

Is this one just too absurd for consideration?

ben62670

Actually no. I know a person who has one of those, and the recordings are phenomenal. In a good room, and with real good equipment the possibility of getting a great recording it there for sure.

Systems

Keiko wrote: »

To my knowledge there is no way to copy the hi-def SACD layer.

He will be using the line outs so he will be making an analog copy,not a direct digital copy which as you note is not doable.

AudioFilet

GV#27 wrote: »

He will be using the line outs so he will be making an analog copy,not a direct digital copy which as you note is not doable.

Yes, I am using the line-out connections. I have an adapter cable for the purpose.

shack

AudioFilet wrote:

Is this one just too absurd for consideration?

Yes...SACD was designed with copy protection in mind. You will not be able to get the anywhere near the resoulution to reap the benefits. Not even on your HD.

madmax

You are recording, not copying. And yes, I believe you will have a recording which is very close to the SACD output analog outputs. I doubt we could tell a difference. Same with recording LP.
madmax

Edit: I am refering to recording at higher resolutions than CD.

Systems

madmax wrote: »

I doubt we could tell a difference.

Maybe, maybe not.The signal will be subjected to more processing,a stage of analog to digital conversion at the input of the recorder then another stage of Dto A conversion at its outputs if using the analog outs.

AudioFilet

I don't think there would be too much additional processing. The signal comes straight from the preamp record outputs right to the recorder.

Systems

AudioFilet wrote: »

I don't think there would be too much additional processing. The signal comes straight from the preamp record outputs right to the recorder.

The additional steps of processing take place in the recorder.

madmax

Yes, it certainly goes through an A-D, gets stored then through the D-A when played back. It all depends on the quality of the recorder as to what it sounds like. It should be really good though.
madmax

AudioFilet

I will know soon, I am doing one now. The SACD is Keb' Mo', The Door. I chose that one because it is a very well done recording, and I also have the standard redbook CD as well. This way I can make some direct comparasons, hopefully with some positive results

furball

You are going through 2 unnecessary intermediary steps, D/A conversion, then A/D conversion. There is bound to be some quality loss. The quality loss may not be audible, but it is definitely there.

Don't SACD's come with a CD layer as well? Why can't you just copy that CD layer?

furball

A while back someone came up with a way to digitally copy DVD Audio (the other HD audio standard) discs. But the volume of data takes up way too much hard disk space, and it is slow.

AudioFilet

Not all SACD's are dual-layer (hybrid). The only to way copy the SACD layer is through the analog outputs. The idea here is to use the SACD layer to produce a copy that is superior to the standard redbook CD. Some quality loss is to be expected due to the methods that have to be used.

My first attempt was OK, but I need to do it over due to some problems with the preamp and incorrect level settings on the recorder. This time I will run everything through my Outlaw RR2150. The recorder is new to me, so I am still geting familiar with it.

furball

Have you thought about purchasing a professional ADC for the job? It'll probably give you much better results.

AudioFilet

What is an ADC??

The recorder only cost me about $300, and can be used for all sorts of other fun stuff. I only do this stuff for fun.

Refefer

hmm. Would it be possible to have a player decode the disc and send the signal into a computer via it's optical/spid in? That way you could get an (hopefully) digitally identical copy.

AudioFilet

SACD players are engineered to output only to the analogs when playing SACD. There is no such animal as an SACD computer drive. This is why the format is almost dead.

furball

SACD's wont output digital output, the signal only outputs to the analog out.

DAC stands for digital audio converter. ADC stands for analog digital converter. You already have an ADC. I was just wondering if you use a higher grade ADC you can get better results.

Benchmark makes an amazing DAC (Benchmark DAC1). Benchmark also makes an outstand ADC.