Thread: Could the Cambridge Audio BD751 be the ultimate SACD player?

Posts: 105
Page: prev 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 next

Post by Peter February 8, 2012 (81 of 105)
hiredfox said:

Totally agree. As good a summary as I've seen on here; the answer to the final conundrum has in my view always been in the quality of the playback equipment. Getting it onto the disc in the first place is vital but it has also to be read off the disc intact and at least to the same level of precision.

No doubt you have noticed that those who most appreciate DSD recordings usually enjoy the benefits of higher resolution playback...

who-a-r, incoming missiles!

I hope for your sake you're not bending, tying a shoe-lace.

Post by Ubertrout February 8, 2012 (82 of 105)
tailspn said:

When DSD is transcoded to PCM at say 88.2KHz, thirty-two sample intervals at 354 nanoseconds each are averaged into a single sample, once every 11 microseconds. Noise shaping filtering not withstanding, the frequency band pass content of each format is more or less the same. But the time resolving advantage of a sample every 354 nanoseconds is lost by a factor of 32 times to the slower sampling rate of the 88.2KHz PCM. The amplitude changes are averaged together to the new sampling rate period, but the faster sample time granularity is discarded.

Thank you for the sophisticated explanation.

So, effectively, the benefit of using a sample rate above 88.2 khz has nothing to do with preserving the frequency, and everything to do with increased granularity of the sampling rate (the same way 24 bits is preferable to 16 bits for increased detail of amplitude?). This is why percussion benefits especially from higher sample rates, because the fades are more natural?

Post by Kal Rubinson February 8, 2012 (83 of 105)
Ubertrout said:
So, effectively, the benefit of using a sample rate above 88.2 khz has nothing to do with preserving the frequency, and everything to do with increased granularity of the sampling rate (the same way 24 bits is preferable to 16 bits for increased detail of amplitude?). This is why percussion benefits especially from higher sample rates, because the fades are more natural?

All inference.

Post by tailspn February 8, 2012 (84 of 105)
Percussion, as well as all instruments benefit spatially from increased amplitude and time resolution, by preserving the finer details of the lowest level sonic tails. An analog mic(s) feed could be considered an infinitely fast sampling rate. Our ear/brain is primarily a defense system, and therefore is particularly sensitive to spatial cues. To the degree that the DSD format has any advantage, outweighing its many disadvantages, is in its superior phase linearity (impulse response) due primarily to its higher sampling rate.

The point of this micro sub thread is to point out that in the not too distant future the consumer will benefit from a greater selection of faster formats, and will be able to choose those that satisfy better their audio reproduction longings. $95,000 Rockport turntables will seem even a sillier waste of good money.

Post by Ubertrout February 8, 2012 (85 of 105)
Kal Rubinson said:

All inference.

It's perception, that's why I asked...and I appreciate the response.

Post by rammiepie February 8, 2012 (86 of 105)
Kal Rubinson said:

All inference.

So when can we logically expect the fully modded Rubinson Audio multichannel SACD/BD player with the absolute sound of the 3 piece Playback Design MPS~5 ($43K) for under $1000?????????????

Post by Yoropiko1 February 9, 2012 (87 of 105)
I think its important to consider that a large part of the cost associated with mega bucks players and amplifiers has little to do with the technology within but the casework, audio specific componants and construction in addition to the almost bespoke method of manufacture these high end componants undergo. Thus no matter how advanced technology gets you'll never be able to build say a $1000 SACD player that can match todays very best when cost has been no object. The simple reason why some high end vintage transports still sound amazing today despite technology advancing fast is because no matter how good the basic underlying technology gets, the end result in audio is made up of every aspect of the products design. Certainly where SACD players are concerned the shortcomings that a 10 year old mega player has technology wise ( say 96KHz/24Bit Dacs ) would probaby still sound amazing because all the other internal and external componants in the chain were as good as was availible. Yes you can put a 32bit Sabre DAC into a modern cheap plastic cased Chinese made OEM transport and it would sound very good, far better than it has any right to be at its paltry selling price, but despite this I dought it would ever sound better than the high end vintage player despite being on paper technologically superior.
Players like the Cambridge and the ever popular Oppos look to meet that middle ground, combining the very latest technology with excellent build quality. OK, Krell and the likes have nothing to worry about, such companies as this will have build quality that can only be achieved at mega prices, but for me C.A. and Oppo strike the best balance between cost and performance thus the reason these two brands dominate and are always reviewed favourably when SACD is transmitted via analog or digitally.
Its testimony that many high end brands use the same basic internals as the Oppos, even the high end accept that in terms of technology there isnt much they can do to improve the basic ingredients, wrapping it up in a better box ( although I'm not suggesting the casework and transport are added purely for cosmetic reasons, they do make a difference to the sound ). There is a market for the mega high end, however many feel the cost difference between an Oppo and say a McIntosh SACD cannot be justified but I disagree. If every other aspect of your audio system is equally high end then I do believe those tiny improvements that high end transports can give would be worth it and are probably audible to some.
As to whether blind testing could prove that conclusively is a matter of opinion and is not part of this discussion

Post by rammiepie February 9, 2012 (88 of 105)
BTW, Yoropiko1, the fully modded Rubinson audio player must also be able to play 4K x 2K upscaled BD video, as well. Kal has his homework ahead if he hopes to be the Steve Jobs of Audio.........

But it's in his DNA!

Was playing my "ancient," by today's standards, Meridian 800 DVD~A player this evening and all I can say for under 10K it is an amazing, amazing machine and the discs sound astounding......and even the replication of regular DVDs is filmlike and the blacks are inky and the DTS and DD soundtracks sound better than they have a right to, as well.

So why not a state of the art mch and stereo SACD player at that price point........

But you're certainly correct in assuming that once you've heard state of the art there is No turning back.

Post by Yoropiko1 February 9, 2012 (89 of 105)
rammiepie said:



So why not a state of the art mch and stereo SACD player at that price point........

But you're certainly correct in assuming that once you've heard state of the art there is No turning back.

To be totally honest the only time Ive ever heard high end componants is at Hi Fi shows which by virtue of their location ( Hotel rooms usually LOL ) do little justice to the products given the room acoustics are likely to be worse than my own living room.
However despite my limited experience with high end equipment I could never realistically afford common sence is enough to tell me when the entire audio chain is made of componants where cost is no object those tiny percentiles of improvement awarded by each minor improvement will overall give a better sound to most people ( I say this because what is better to one person isnt always better to another, some might actually like what is considered by most poor sound!)
Certainly putting a $10,000 SACD player into my current modest system is unlikely to yield a night and day difference with my current SACD source componants, but that is a limitation of my system as a whole not the $10,000 SACD player.
So arguments as to the validity of mega price players is moot, yes the issue of diminishing returns will apply and the listeners sensativity to audio as a whole will also determine whether there is any audible difference, thus the reason there is so much difference of opinion amongst this and any forum.
It doesnt mean anybody is right or wrong, anymore than we could discuss the exsistance of God Ad Nausium, so long as you are happy with what you are hearing then ultimately thats all that matters. Now I'll readily confess I am a specifications fanatic, yes I do want to know what DACs a componant has because I want to be sure I am getting the best SACD reproduction I can afford. Now whilst I myself have stated that the sum of the parts is more important than the whole, even I accept that if my audio starts off badly then little can be done to repair that damage futher along the audio chain. So from my perspective and what brings me back to the original point of this thread, where a particular SACD player can maintain the best conversion from DSD to PCM then that has to be of interest to those hoping to acheive the best sound reproduction with the set ups they have already.

Post by Kal Rubinson February 9, 2012 (90 of 105)
rammiepie said:

BTW, Yoropiko1, the fully modded Rubinson audio player must also be able to play 4K x 2K upscaled BD video, as well

That is not a priority for someone who is anastigmatic and color-blind.

Page: prev 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 next

Closed