SACD Ripping using an Oppo or Pioneer? Yes, it's true!

[mansr]

Try this to find ip address on osx

 

4 Ways to Find Your IP Address on a Mac - wikiHow

 

Most NIC these days are clever enough to work out the flow of data without a crossover cable. Problem is there's no label on the RJ45 to tell you how clever it is

All gigabit interfaces auto-detect the cable.

[mansr]

That wikipedia description isn't written well. Single or Dual layer refers only to the SACD component of the disc and should have nothing to do with whether or not there is a CD "layer".

 

Hybrid describes that a disc has both CD and SACD layers.

Single/Dual layer describes the SACD layer and is should not relate to whether or not it works on a CD player.

I don't think it's possible to have three data layers, which is what a dual-DSD + CD hybrid would be.

[mansr]

For folks who were still following the story of iso to dsf conversion rates:

 

- I did an optimized compile of sacd_extract on OS X (2009 2.53GHz Core 2 Duo CPU), and got exactly no speed boost with Sonore's iso2dsd. Still a steady .7MB/s.

 

- Using Audiophile Inventory with a *non*-optimized sacd_extract, I got a conversion rate about 3x faster on OS X, about 2.1MB/s.

 

- Using iso2dsd with an optimized (compiled with -O3) sacd_extract on Linux on my desktop (i7-950 CPU overclocked to 3.7MHz), I got a conversion rate of *937*MB/s - a complete iso converted in a couple of seconds.

 

I guess it's something with the difference between the CPUs, eh?

Did you use the same iso for all these tests? Decompressing DST takes considerable processing power, whereas converting an uncompressed iso should be as fast as the storage medium can manage.

[mansr]

Yes, the iso of my hybrid SACD from Jordi Savall and Hesperion XXI, "Altre Follie - 1500-1750."

Does this disc use DST compression?

[mansr]

How would I tell?

Doesn't sacd_extract tell you?

[mansr]

Very possibly - where in the output would I look? (AuI is chugging along at 2.1MB/s with the iso as I write, and I am looking at the running log. It uses sacd_extract.)

 

I thought it printed this information, but apparently it doesn't. It's been a while since I used it.

 

Now I did a quick test on my i7-940 2.93 GHz Linux system with both the ISO and output in RAM. When not decompressing DST, the whole disc completes in less than a second regardless of compiler options, sacd_extract reporting "infinite" speed. With DST decompression enabled, I get about 2.8 MB/s without optimisation (default build options) and 9.5 MB/s with -O3. I suspect your slow results are doing decompression and the fast one isn't. The speed of the latter is consistent with an SSD.

[mansr]

That makes perfect sense. The next question is why the same ISO is treated on Linux as not requiring decompression and on OS X as requiring it, or is that impossible and something else must be going on?

 

Maybe you made a mistake with the settings. Do you have the exact sacd_extract command used in each case?

[mansr]

Passing strange, but far more "normal:" Same settings in Sonore's iso2dsd gui wrapper for sacd_extract in Linux and OS X, this evening OS X is steady at .7MB/s on two different isos (one of which is the Altre Follie iso I referred to before), and on Linux the speed is 7-9MB/s, so 10x the speed or a little more.

 

But I do know it is the Altre Follie iso that converted at lightning speed on Linux the other evening, because I still had the DSF files it produced when I went back to test today.

What type of storage are the inputs and outputs on? Do you have enough memory to put it all in a ramdisk (tmpfs on Linux)? That would remove the possibility of any disk related anomalies. I'd also suggest running sacd_extract directly, without the GUI wrapper.

[mansr]

5 minutes ago, hfl said:

For these three discs it was either an "e" with an accent or an umlaut.

I think you mean diaeresis, not umlaut. Same two dots, very different meaning. Sorry for the nitpick.

[mansr]

3 minutes ago, Dick Darlington said:

Someone smarter than me (and there are many) will need to explain the underlying reason, but AFAIK that which is true for Redbook CDs is not the case for SACDs. It is my understanding that SACD rips are bit perfect, ie the checksum is repeatable. At least insofar as full ISO image rips are concerned. 

SACD has more in common with DVD than CD, including the structured filesystem. The main difference is the low-level copy-protection preventing the disc being read by an unauthorised drive. The difficulties affecting CD rips do not apply to SACD. It is of course still possible to suffer an undetected read error, but chance of this is much lower than for CD.

[mansr]

12 hours ago, mindset said:

Some people have mentioned file system in SACD, but the way the album is separated into track is similar to that of Audio CD.  The entire audio of an album is linearly recorded (which is essential for smooth read operation), and the TOC at the beginning of the disc contains pointers (offsets) to tracks.

The disc contains a filesystem that is carefully laid out such that the audio data is in one continuous block, same with DVDs. The data on audio CDs is less structured, which is why otherwise identical rips done on different drives can, for instance, have track breaks shifted by some constant amount.

[mansr]

14 minutes ago, hyendaudio said:

yes. I'd probably use USPS though as other options are likely to be expensive. What country?

With USPS international the correct question is "what century?"