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

[bogi]

1 hour ago, tlp said:

Another update.  I was able to create a custom column in MP3Tag that finally exposed the catalog number.  The field was not part of the index of available fields to choose from.  Time to uninstall "Tag & Rename".

 

 

 

bingo! Good to know it functions this way with custom metadata fields!

[bogi]

The same variable %comment catalog number% can be used also in foobar2000 to show catalog number in playlist view. My playlist view on the picture shows also bitrate, codec, no. of channels and dynamic range.

 

[bogi]

35 minutes ago, Hikmer said:

I suppose my fallback hack is to rip to FLAC then compare DR in foobar2000 as well?

 

DR can be evaluated also for DSD content in Foobar2000 (see picture in my previous post). But I don't know how the DR utility really works in this case ...

[audiventory]

1 minute ago, bogi said:

 

DR can be evaluated also for DSD content in Foobar2000 (see picture in my previous post). But I don't know how the DR utility really works in this case ...

 

Dynamic range is not criteria of identity of files.

 

If files are identical, them have similar dynamic range.

 

But if files have similar dynamic range it may be different files. Even with different musical stuff.

[bogi]

1 hour ago, Hikmer said:

Not completely off topic, but do folks see different file sizes using different tools to rip an SACD?  The ISOs from my old PS3 don't match the same file size as from my Oppo...I thought they should be identical.  The ISOs and the DSF files are not exactly the same size when ripped form different players.

 

I understand that DSFs can differ in metadata depending on tool used to extract ISO.

 

But ... How can be ISOs of different size when ripped with different hardware? Do you have an explanation? ISO should contain exact binary content of disk. What's the variable here?

[bogi]

5 minutes ago, audiventory said:

 

Dynamic range is not criteria of identity of files.

 

If files are identical, them have similar dynamic range.

 

But if files have similar dynamic range it may be different files. Even with different musical stuff.

 

True, my post wasn't about comparing audio files. I'm curious how DR is evaluated on DSD data by foobar plugin.

[CatManDo]

2 hours ago, bogi said:

 

True, my post wasn't about comparing audio files. I'm curious how DR is evaluated on DSD data by foobar plugin.

 

Could it be that foobar2000 always converts DSD to PCM when using the DR meter plugin? 

 

I played around with the settings.

 

When PCM output is selected in the SACD plugin, the "Samplerate" line in the DR result changes according to the samplerate setting in the SACD plugin. When DSD output is selected, the PCM samplerate indicated is that of the last setting used for PCM conversion.

 

Number of tracks:  2
Official DR value: DR12

Samplerate:        2822400 Hz / PCM Samplerate: 88200 Hz
Channels:          2
Bits per sample:   1
Bitrate:           5645 kbps
Codec:             DSD64

 

Anyway, conversion between DSD and PCM doesn't alter the DR value.

[audiventory]

6 hours ago, CatManDo said:

 

Could it be that foobar2000 always converts DSD to PCM when using the DR meter plugin?

 

As far as I know (after learning available me patents and publications), for any processing DSD should be converted to PCM. Mere PCM is not meant 352 kHz / 24 bit only.

 

 

6 hours ago, CatManDo said:

Anyway, conversion between DSD and PCM doesn't alter the DR value.

 

If conversion DSD to PCM done correctly, dynamic range PCM and DSD music stuff is same.

[bogi]

2 hours ago, audiventory said:

for any processing DSD should be converted to PCM

 

Any processing of DSD data should evaluate series of DSD bits, but it doesn't need to be necessarily in the form of PCM standard. Moving window of any size (one bit in, one bit out) can be evaluated without lowering DSD bitrate and arithmetic operations can be performed also on unary coded data. I don't think that all forms of possible data representation and processing can be called PCM. But I don't wish here to be offtopic and I really don't expect that foobar DR plugin could use some special arithmetic for DSD.

 

CatManDo showed that the foobar DR plugin relies on foo_input_sacd. Most probably the DR plugin uses raw PCM data for DR evaluation. I expect it relies in the same way on all other foo_input_* plugins to decode all audio file formats to raw PCM.

[audiventory]

52 minutes ago, bogi said:

 

Any processing of DSD data should evaluate series of DSD bits, but it doesn't need to be necessarily in the form of PCM standard.

 

I deliberately noted above, that PCM is not 352kHz/24 bit.

 

PCM is not standard. So there no certain limitations by sample rate or bit depth. It is kind of coding of analog signal as digital in general terms.

 

WAV, AIFF may be considered as standard and implementations of PCM.

 

When you process DSD there may be no conversion to WAV or AIFF.

 

PCM is coding of each sample as discrete (multibit) or non-discrete (zero quantization error) value, independent on sample rate.

 

DSD for processing is presented as sequence of multibit samples with/without keeping sample rate.

 

Hence DSD for processing should be converted to PCM and altering sample rate is not matter in this context.

 

May be there is some other way. But absence of publications during no one tens of years, allow me suspect, what currently no way process DSD other way.

 

As far as I know, DSD may be processed without conversion to PCM for merging/splitting operations only. But I don't sure what there wil not appear DC shift.

 

P.S. As example DXD is PCM, though called as DXD.

[Curves]

On 3/29/2017 at 10:06 AM, Hikmer said:

Not completely off topic, but do folks see different file sizes using different tools to rip an SACD?  The ISOs from my old PS3 don't match the same file size as from my Oppo...I thought they should be identical.  The ISOs and the DSF files are not exactly the same size when ripped form different players.

The MD5 checksum of the ISO (and hence length) are identical on my PS3 and Oppo rips. I tested with about 10 different discs.

 

[audiventory]

22 minutes ago, Curves said:

The MD5 checksum of the ISO (and hence length) are identical on my PS3 and Oppo rips. I tested with about 10 different discs.

 

Thank you for interesting information.

[HedgeHog]

Hi all,

 

Thx to this, I've been ripping from the 105 to ISO without problems. JRMC does a fine job playing these files.  Now I'm trying Roon and converted the ISO to DSF using the GUI ISO2DSD.  But all the DSF files are being recognized as DSD64.  Is there a way to make them DSD128?  I don't see that option in the GUI, perhaps I need to run it as a command line?

 

Thx in advance.

 

-H

[bogi]

The SACD ISO extraction tools do nothing more than extraction of SACD ISO content which is DSD64 by Scarlet Book Standard. No DSD128 content exists on SACD media. Your question is rather about playback possibilities of DSD64 content. Like PCM content, also DSD content can be upsampled. Perhaps better to ask in other threads dedicated to software players and upsampling tools.

[HedgeHog]

Thx @bogi!  That does clarify things for me.

 

Cheers.

[frfrtx]

Does anyone know if research is taking place to get the new OPPO UDP-203 able to rip SACD's. Have done some searching but I could not find anything on this.

I was planning on buying the new UDP-203  but am thinking that I should buy the older BDP so that I can rip my SACD's.

 

Thanks if anyone knows the answer to this question. 

[One and a half]

2 minutes ago, frfrtx said:

Does anyone know if research is taking place to get the new OPPO UDP-203 able to rip SACD's. Have done some searching but I could not find anything on this.

I was planning on buying the new UDP-203  but am thinking that I should buy the older BDP so that I can rip my SACD's.

 

Thanks if anyone knows the answer to this question. 

Been mentioned at least twice in this thread that the UDP-203 cannot rip a single SACD.

[frfrtx]

55 minutes ago, One and a half said:

Been mentioned at least twice in this thread that the UDP-203 cannot rip a single SACD.

Thanks for the reply.

[Dick Darlington]

1 hour ago, One and a half said:

Been mentioned at least twice in this thread that the UDP-203 cannot rip a single SACD.

Me thinks the poster was inquiring about future potential rather than the present state. Newcomers to this thread, who will naturally focus on the most recent several pages first, might find genuine answers to his/her question useful. Come to think of it, I, being an Oppo fanboy/girl nigh on the brink of taking the 4K flying leap, would also be interested to know if there is a Manhatton Project like effort underway to crack that nut. 

 

Page One, here I come. (start thinking Brave Heart now ...) FREEDOMMMMMMM!!!!

[ted_b]

Anything is possible, but to pin one's hopes on someone finding another way into the scarletbook keys is rather doubtful, and the current way (Mediatek chip backdoor) means the player either has the chip or it doesn't.  The Oppo 200 series doesn't.

[frfrtx]

24 minutes ago, ted_b said:

Anything is possible, but to pin one's hopes on someone finding another way into the scarletbook keys is rather doubtful, and the current way (Mediatek chip backdoor) means the player either has the chip or it doesn't.  The Oppo 200 series doesn't.

Fortunately there are still quite a few used BDP 103 and 105 players out there and even the occasional new one.

[andy1249]

On 29/03/2017 at 6:06 PM, Hikmer said:

Not completely off topic, but do folks see different file sizes using different tools to rip an SACD?  The ISOs from my old PS3 don't match the same file size as from my Oppo...I thought they should be identical.  The ISOs and the DSF files are not exactly the same size when ripped form different players.

For Reference , I Have re-ripped about 20 SACD's with My 105D that had previously been done with a PS3.

I have checked , and in all cases , both ISO and extracted DSF files using ISO2DSD are identical.

 

[1markr]

Hey folks, the latest firmware version for the OPPO 103 is BDP10X-83-1226 (from late January).  I haven't updated my player yet; is anyone using this firmware and successfully ripping SACDs? I just want to make sure it doesn't break that capability before I update my 103. Thanks!

 

[captainbrent]

35 minutes ago, 1markr said:

Hey folks, the latest firmware version for the OPPO 103 is BDP10X-83-1226 (from late January).  I haven't updated my player yet; is anyone using this firmware and successfully ripping SACDs? I just want to make sure it doesn't break that capability before I update my 103. Thanks!

 

Go ahead and update to the latest firmware, it won't affect the ripping capability.

[CatManDo]

I have now ripped over 1000 SACDs with my Pioneer 170, and a few with my Oppo 103D and I can sum up my long term experience.

 

Things went very smooth. I only failed to rip one SACD which has a scratch parallel to the data direction (with both players, the SACD extraction process just hangs at the same percentage), and the Pioneer failed to read the SACD layer of one hybrid disc (but it worked with the Oppo).

 

I keep my rips as ISO discs. I'm not scanning booklets (way too much work), but maybe I'll start downloading the booklets and back inlays for the many BIS and Chandos discs I have, which are freely available on the label website.

 

A huge disappointment comes from the spectogram analysis that I made for most of the discs (load the ISO into Foobar2000, select one representative track, convert it to 24/88 FLAC, load the file into Sonic Visualiser, add a spectrogram layer, check for a frequency cut-off). So many classical SACDs are sourced from 44kHz or 48kHz recordings. This has been publicly known for BIS, but it's also the case of many small european labels, such as MDG, CPO, Harmonia Mundi, Arts, Naxos, Capriccio and others. It's odd that labels releasing SACDs are recording at 24/44 or 24/48. It seems that their focus is on multichannel sound and less on high resolution.