[steve in jersey]

I don't want to stir up any trouble (well maybe just a little) because most people seem to like these DACs (like Liver & Lima beans; eat them they're good for you; yeah so ?). Do any SACD players exist that are'nt using Oversampling on PCM native material .

I think SACDs sound great .Do I think it's vastly superior sounding to CD rate material competently played back with out being processed to make them appear to have more ambient information, probably not. DSD
will always sound a bit better due to fact it does'nt leave the artifacts that PCM does behind, but when you Oversample PCM you add more artifacts to the music all for the sake of the "numbers" game. More is usually
better ,but you have to consider what that more consists of. Is it real musical information or another example
of thinking "smoke & mirrors" fix anything

Competently recorded CDs are fine (I have no idea about popular music though). SACDs/DSD files are better
the real question is how much of your collection is Redbook rate, I would bet a fairly large proportion. I would
bet the popularity of Computer Audio is increasing now that people are discovering how music files can sound
a bit better than playing discs optically. I still think PCM is flawed ,but I'm able to avoid a lot of the "commercial" means of playback that "amplify" these flaws

[smargo]

steve - what is your point? - by the way - i love lima beans

 even if there are ways/devices to avoid those flaws in PCM - what will it matter to you anyway?

[walkern]

I'm pretty sure the OPPO BDP players (103 and 105 are most current) do not upsample or oversample SACDs (or anything else for that matter).  Just use the analog outputs from either of those players and no worries about PCM conversions or up/over sampling.

Neil

[Diamond Dog]

Do any SACD players exist that are'nt using Oversampling on PCM native material .

My understanding is that the Esoteric K-03 would allow you to send the signal directly to the D/A converter(s) without applying any upsampling. Or mucho upsampling depending on your preference. DSD signals are automatically sent directly to the D/A converters.

I think SACDs sound great .Do I think it's vastly superior sounding to CD rate material competently played back with out being processed to make them appear to have more ambient information, probably not.

My experience would be "Not necessarily the case..." A lot of variables come into play here, most notably the quality of the source material and the playback devices. You're painting with a pretty broad brush. I own some really exceptional Redbook and some pretty mediocre SACD. And vice versa of course. Even the junky stuff sounds better on a higher-quality playback device.

I would bet the popularity of Computer Audio is increasing now that people are discovering how music files can sound
a bit better than playing discs optically.

I readily understand the attractions of discless audio for many people. I have also seen the reaction of people that have gone that route who then experience hearing what a really good disc spinner sounds like in a well-sorted system - it really challenges the now widely-accepted dogma that "discless is superior and that is that". But there's a cost to having that both monetarily and in terms of living without the conveniences offered by say, a server-based system. Much like the malaise that afflicts this hobby as a whole. Many are willing to sacrifice ultimate sound quality for convenience or are unable or unwilling to sink the money ( I almost said "invest" but that would just be crazy talk... It would be like "investing" your cash into a bonfire.) into getting that level of sound quality though an above-and-beyond player.

Some of the folks who still spin discs are not necessarily Luddites. I think that it's similar to the way that the turntable tribe was viewed by the majority who were moving to CD's. And just like there are turntables/cartridges and then there are turntables/cartridges, the same holds true for CD/SACD players. I've heard lots of OK CD/SACD players and a few exceptional ones. And a bunch of crap, of course. I've heard some really awful-sounding discless systems. I've heard some really good ones too. Until I hear one that consistently sounds as good or better than what I'm doing now, I guess I'll have to keep hoisting my ass up off the davenport of despair periodically to change the odd disc. Oh the humanity...

Or I could just put on The Bends and set it on repeat. Infinite, glorious repeat.

You do it do yourself. You do.
And that's what really hurts.
You do it to yourself. Just you.
You and no-one else.
You do it to yourself.


D.D.

[steve in jersey]

Well seeing as how I lost my Barnes & Noble internet feed , I'll give an abbreviated version of my responses & try to cover most of the points others have made.

1) because those PCM flaws/artifacts mask ambient information that is on recordings, I am so annoyed by high frequency artifacts introduced on densely dynamic acoustic (orchestral) recordings that I'm not hearing on the
native rate recording (noise is not resolution)
2) well a least Esoteric was thinking
3)I thought that was what I was saying . It's not "vastly" superior, because of all the factors you've mentioned
4)I did'nt go far enough into detail on this one. I don't think that using the Computer itself as the "player"is the best way to go unless you are REAllY well versed in EVERY adjustable parameter of Computer Audio. There are other means to play your files at Component quality level. There are a few examples in other. Circles here
5) If you play the CD layer or an actual CD unless you attach a digital out cable non SACD material is upsampled if they are still using the Sabre DACs. SACD was never upsampled because they're DSD
6) "I" still don't like Lima beans

I think the order of my answers may be backwards. (Or if you compare your points to your comments you'll figure it out)

[charmerci]

My experience would be "Not necessarily the case..." A lot of variables come into play here, most notably the quality of the source material and the playback devices.

..and if not the most important part, the mastering.

I've just been thinking that rather than endlessly debating which recording medium type is best, if we make a push for better mastering and re-mastering of the recordings - that the differences between the mediums (analog/digital, redbook/DSD, etc.) would be quite minimal or at worst, a different choice of flavors.

[Diamond Dog]

..and if not the most important part, the mastering.

I've just been thinking that rather than endlessly debating which recording medium type is best, if we make a push for better mastering and re-mastering of the recordings - that the differences between the mediums (analog/digital, redbook/DSD, etc.) would be quite minimal or at worst, a different choice of flavors.

Absolutely, the mastering plays a large role in the final sound quality of the source material.That being said, if the mastering engineer's hands are tied because he's been handed a hot mess of a recording or is given marching orders by the record company or for that matter, by the artists themselves, that's that. I know it's a popular conceit among audiophiles that mastering engineers are generally idiots, incompetents, deaf or some combination thereof but I think they should just admit to themselves that outside of MoFi, AF, the Japanese and a handful of others, the industry is just not that into audiophiles. Those recordings that we find so disappointing were never mastered with us in mind. We are a tiny and often contentious market that has next to no clout with the big guys ( including iTunes who I think have done tremendous damage to music ). And even when someone tries to cater to the audiophiles, they get whaled on. Look at the slagging Neil Young has been taking on the Net forums since the Pono launch from people who should be hoping this is a tipping point that might actually start turning things around. Yeesh...
So if you're waiting for the music industry to bend to the will of a tiny, shouty and greying demographic, best get a comfortable chair to sit in while you wait. You're gonna need it. In the meantime, my thought is this : build your system with a mind to making mediocre recordings bearable, savour the good ones that come down the pipe and try to stay focused on what matters most - the music.

D.D.

[steve in jersey]

I guess if there is any point that I'm try to get across (& I'll have to try leaving less references to my interpretations of things ,we've all heard ,out of my postings) is that there is no "1 size fits all" for listeners
of every different genre of music.

In the long run we all do eventually find the source material & means to play that material that works for us.
I've been making the mistake of posting things  as a distraction to non "Audio Hobby"things that may be bothering me. My thinking is if I go online & make a new point or two about what I may have been doing
that may be different in my hobby I will have at least accomplished something. The trouble is most people see
different for what it is. Once again I make the wrong assumption the same things will work for them.

I'm being totally serious when I say , I'll try to limit posting my "off the grid" opinions  (well the "off the grid" ones anyway) . They're pretty hard things to "sell" & it seems some people react to them as an attack on what
they might believe. The bottom line is ,I know what works for me. ( Remember, I said me).

[Quiet Earth]

Don't feel too bad about it Steve. I also make regular assumptions that what I hear as being better (or more correct) is what others will hear too. Oops! I totally forgot that my preferences and needs are my own. We can still discuss what's different about certain things, and describe why we might prefer the character of one thing over the other. For example, I prefer my redbook sampled once, or zero times oversampled. As soon as I discovered the difference between "zero times" and "over" sampled, I could no longer un-hear it anymore. And it means enough to me that I cannot just take it or leave zero times anymore, even for a very well done oversampling DAC which may otherwise be a very fine music making machine.

I feel the same way about single ended triodes. I cannot un-hear a push pull amp having lived with SET for so long now. But that's my own preference (or problem) and I acknowledge it. It doesn't make it right or wrong for everyone else.

So your original question is a good one. Unfortunately, I don't have enough experience with the SACD format or hardware because I have always been satisfied with redbook CD ever since I got on the zero times oversampling train. That was about ten years ago. I think I own all of three hybrid SACDs.

rather than endlessly debating which recording medium type is best, if we make a push for better mastering and re-mastering of the recordings - that the differences between the mediums (analog/digital, redbook/DSD, etc.) would be quite minimal or at worst, a different choice of flavors.

I think you make a good point that if a recording is made to sound good in a certain format, it will sound good period. When that happens it doesn't really matter how it is done, only that it does sound good and you don't have to think about the technology behind it.

.....build your system with a mind to making mediocre recordings bearable, savour the good ones that come down the pipe and try to stay focused on what matters most - the music.

This is excellent advice. The only thing I would change is to substitute the word "enjoyable" for "bearable". I believe that you can enjoy just about any recording on a system that is well sorted.

And I really liked your comments on discless audio D.D. Very well said. You have the talent to describe in words what I can only think in my brain.

And Steve,,, what you said about knowing the computer inside and out in order to use it effectively as a player...... I think you are right about that. I think that is why computer audio is such a crap shoot for most of us. If you don't live and breath computer speak, you don't stand a chance. (Unless you have never experienced a fine disc spinning machine.)

Great topic guys.

[Diamond Dog]

I believe that you can enjoy just about any recording on a system that is well sorted.

You know, for all the times I've read someone in a forum belly-aching about how their system has reached such a level of immaculate refinement that they can't stand to listen to most recordings because all the flaws are revealed, I think that the better my system gets, the easier it is to enjoy pretty much anything...and I own some pretty hairy recordings. You make an excellent point that seems to run counter to accepted hifi dogma, QE. Refreshing.

D.D. 

[steve in jersey]

You know, for all the times I've read someone in a forum belly-aching about how their system has reached such a level of immaculate refinement that they can't stand to listen to most recordings because all the flaws are revealed, I think that the better my system gets, the easier it is to enjoy pretty much anything...and I own some pretty hairy recordings. You make an excellent point that seems to run counter to accepted hifi dogma, QE. Refreshing.

D.D.

What you're talking about is the old Audiophile creed. Ideally each new incarnation of your playback system,
should be made for the purpose of bringing a higher level of balance to the system. I can't help but think,some
people consciously (or unconsciously) make changes to tailor the sound a certain way ,raising the overall balance may only be "slightly" on their radar,if at all

Even keeping recordings that have poor sound quality is something very "foreign" to me. Being a Classical Record collector for a number of years I learned to become very "Label" conscious. Making consistently
High Quality recordings comes down to having a repeatable production formula in place.

You're going in the right direction when the music that does'nt generally match up to your best sounding start
sounding closer to that material. When I was listening to vinyl exclusively ,quite often I could tell which label made the recording from the distinctive "house sound" the recording team captured on the record. I'm starting to be able to sometimes make these subtle recognitions with digital.

[Diamond Dog]

What you're talking about is the old Audiophile creed.

I'm not that old and I'm pretty sure that most of the folks around here will vouch for me not being much of an audiophile, either...

But seriously, folks... I think you raise an excellent point about the overall system balance being an ultimate goal. Couldn't agree more. I don't go through anywhere near the amount of gear as a lot of the AC'ers but what changes I do make are pretty thoroughly considered in terms of moving towards a better-balanced overall sound. At first glance the combination of equipment which makes up my system might appear curious to some but as a functioning whole in this particular room it has come together in a way which I quite enjoy. I have pretty eclectic tastes and I think that effort towards building a well-balanced system allows me to enjoy a wide range of music as my system isn't really emphasizing any one thing at the expense of others. Move it into another room and it might be a trainwreck. I am in the process of making one final major change ( speakers ) and as I have been fortunate enough to actually hear these speakers function as a part of this system for a decent period of time, once this is done I will want for nothing. And as I have no intention of leaving this home ( except on a gurney  ), the room will remain a constant so job done.

Or... is it? 
Yeah, it is.

D.D.

[steve in jersey]

I'm not that old and I'm pretty sure that most of the folks around here will vouch for me not being much of an audiophile, either...

But seriously, folks... I think you raise an excellent point about the overall system balance being an ultimate goal. Couldn't agree more. I don't go through anywhere near the amount of gear as a lot of the AC'ers but what changes I do make are pretty thoroughly considered in terms of moving towards a better-balanced overall sound. At first glance the combination of equipment which makes up my system might appear curious to some but as a functioning whole in this particular room it has come together in a way which I quite enjoy. I have pretty eclectic tastes and I think that effort towards building a well-balanced system allows me to enjoy a wide range of music as my system isn't really emphasizing any one thing at the expense of others. Move it into another room and it might be a trainwreck. I am in the process of making one final major change ( speakers ) and as I have been fortunate enough to actually hear these speakers function as a part of this system for a decent period of time, once this is done I will want for nothing. And as I have no intention of leaving this home ( except on a gurney  ), the room will remain a constant so job done.

Or... is it? 
Yeah, it is.

D.D.

Yeah right,

You appear to be way too perceptive, my friend. to ever actually completely stop striving to find that last "Holy
Grail" of SQ ,nor should you. If you do however reach that plateau(sp ?) (whether you care to admit it or not, you appear to be a "Audiophile" by default without any of the normally associated ego or BS issues) (What the "Frig" was I going to say next ? Ok got it together) I would kindly ask how you reached that "peaceful place".

(You sound like a perfect candidate for some latenight Mahler listening ; there I go again placing my values on
others, sorry). Enjoying your insights, thanks

[carmagff]

What about products offered by TotalDAC? These non-oversampling DACs are based on R2R technology. But there is no uncompromising decisions in audio world. So their research showed that non-oversampling signal has to be filtered to compensate sinus loss of frequency response. Meanwhile there is already DSD support (DoP).