Article: At Long Last! Listen To Your (Physical) SACDs Through an Outboard DAC

[bobbmd]

@gmgraves I also like Sinatra and big bands etc am just now listening to DVD-A I have of Sinatra (at the Sands)- got a kick out of your reply.

@fas42 thanks- your term 'sludgy' better describes Stone's mixes going all the way back to my vinyl but these recordings don't check my replay status as my system which I think is pretty pristine but I always felt it was how their recordings were made/mixed some of their albums are 'edgy' but that may be the way they intended them to sound because the 3 times I heard them in person Syracuse fall of 1965 Carrier Dome 1989 and then again at Carrier Dome early/mid 2000s they sounded sludgy edgy(and at the last one very old like I have become!) Thanks again

[Stradivarius3]

Very interesting article!

I am testing the association OPPO 205 (as SACD player) - BRYSTON BDA3 (DAC) via HDMI; it is fully functional and the sound is excellent (pre Audioreaserch REF5- 2 amp. REF210).

However I am the lucky owner of two EMMLABS CDSA e one SONY SCD777ES, having a huge collection go SACD; so my opinion is that the EMMLABS CDSA is still the best player for SACD.

Thanks!

 

[gmgraves]

4 hours ago, Stradivarius3 said:

Very interesting article!

I am testing the association OPPO 205 (as SACD player) - BRYSTON BDA3 (DAC) via HDMI; it is fully functional and the sound is excellent (pre Audioreaserch REF5- 2 amp. REF210).

However I am the lucky owner of two EMMLABS CDSA e one SONY SCD777ES, having a huge collection go SACD; so my opinion is that the EMMLABS CDSA is still the best player for SACD.

Thanks!

 

The Oppo UDP-205 as a stand-alone SACD player is mediocre at best, but it does seem to be an exemplary transport for streaming DSD data to an outboard DAC. I’ve tried several Sony Blu-Ray players and an Oppo 105, and the UDP-205 sounds superior playing SACDs through the I2S converter to the Denafrips Pontus via HDMI with the Oppo 105 as a close second.

[davide256]

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

The Oppo UDP-205 as a stand-alone SACD player is mediocre at best, but it does seem to be an exemplary transport for streaming DSD data to an outboard DAC. I’ve tried several Sony Blu-Ray players and an Oppo 105, and the UDP-205 sounds superior playing SACDs through the I2S converter to the Denafrips Pontus via HDMI with the Oppo 105 as a close second.

I'm wondering if transport has the same effect on the bass with DSD as it does with PCM? The bass from my Linn Genki feed via coax to DAC far surpasses

the bass  octave reach from an Oppo 103 feed coax to same DAC for CD/HDCD material. Can't do an SACD comparison.

[gmgraves]

5 hours ago, davide256 said:

I'm wondering if transport has the same effect on the bass with DSD as it does with PCM? The bass from my Linn Genki feed via coax to DAC far surpasses

the bass  octave reach from an Oppo 103 feed coax to same DAC for CD/HDCD material. Can't do an SACD comparison.

Can’t say for certain. The differences in presentation between the transports I’ve tried seem to be pretty much across the board; bass, mids, treble, image specificity, overall sound-stage etc.

[Daveyu]

Have you compared Oppo thru Pontus to ripped SACD streamed to Pontus, I have ripped most of my SACDs using the method described on HiFiHaven (only requires Blu Ray player and memory stick with software) and was wondering if transport would be superior

[gmgraves]

11 hours ago, Daveyu said:

Have you compared Oppo thru Pontus to ripped SACD streamed to Pontus, I have ripped most of my SACDs using the method described on HiFiHaven (only requires Blu Ray player and memory stick with software) and was wondering if transport would be superior

That’s next. I have a friend’s Oppo 105 (from which SACDs can be ripped with the proper software). Just bought a new Windows laptop and am waiting for it’s delivery. When it arrives, I will install the needed software, and rip some SACDs for comparison.

[beerandmusic]

I thought i have heard for many years that hdmi was an inferior interface because of jitter and why no one uses hdmi in the "audiophile" world?

 

[gmgraves]

5 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

I thought i have heard for many years that hdmi was an inferior interface because of jitter and why no one uses hdmi in the "audiophile" world?

 

I don’t see how a “wire” can introduce jitter, anyway, I’m not sure that would matter in this case. Anybody know for sure?

[The Computer Audiophile]

If it's the termination that causes jitter than sure it could be an issue, but if it's the protocol, then that's irrelevant because you aren't using HDMI protocol.

[gmgraves]

9 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

I thought i have heard for many years that hdmi was an inferior interface because of jitter and why no one uses hdmi in the "audiophile" world?

 

I don’t see how a “wire” can introduce jitter, anyway, I’m not sure that would matter in this case. Anybody know for sure?

[beerandmusic]

5 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

If it's the termination that causes jitter than sure it could be an issue, but if it's the protocol, then that's irrelevant because you aren't using HDMI protocol.

but isnt the hdmi protocol used in the conversion?  How else would the audio signal be translated?

To be honest, to my ears, I have many times thought that hdmi sounded pretty damn good (at least compared to typical bluray internal dacs).

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, beerandmusic said:

but isnt the hdmi protocol used in the conversion?  How else would the audio signal be translated?  Not doubting what you are saying, just trying to figure it out?  How does hdmi signal get to analog in an avr vs how it is converted from hdmi to i2s?

To be honest, to my ears, I have many times thought that hdmi sounded pretty damn good (at least compared to typical bluray internal dacs).

I could be mistaken with respect to this specific case. Many I2S implementations use HDMI ports and cables, but not the HDMI protocol. 

[beerandmusic]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I could be mistaken with respect to this specific case. Many I2S implementations use HDMI ports and cables, but not the HDMI protocol. 

i am referrring to the "box" that gmgraves purchased that converts the hdmi signal to i2s for the dac.  I would think that some hdmi protocol would be needed to convert it.

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

i am referrring to the "box" that gmgraves purchased that converts the hdmi signal to i2s for the dac.  I would think that some hdmi protocol would be needed to convert it.

Ah yes. 

[beerandmusic]

17 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Ah yes. 

But who knows what "jitter" is audible anyway (grin).  I still say for my ears, many times hdmi sounds much better than analog out of many/most universal disc players that i have heard.  They usually sound more dynamic and better bass, but i guess that just means that the dac in the avr (in my case, i use a marantz sr6013 as a preamp) is better than the dac in the universal disc player regardless of hdmi jitter.  I don't argue on these sites much anymore as my hearing has continued to get worse  (smile)....seems like not much i throw at my system makes it sound "next level" in my budget anymore.  I will always try new amps and speakers though (grin)....i just found out nelson reed made a vintage low end speaker with an ATC midrange...that might be interesting.

[fas42]

1 hour ago, beerandmusic said:

But who knows what "jitter" is audible anyway (grin).  I still say for my ears, many times hdmi sounds much better than analog out of many/most universal disc players that i have heard.  They usually sound more dynamic and better bass, but i guess that just means that the dac in the avr (in my case, i use a marantz sr6013 as a preamp) is better than the dac in the universal disc player regardless of hdmi jitter.  I don't argue on these sites much anymore as my hearing has continued to get worse  (smile)....seems like not much i throw at my system makes it sound "next level" in my budget anymore.  I will always try new amps and speakers though (grin)....i just found out nelson reed made a vintage low end speaker with an ATC midrange...that might be interesting.

 

You should check out some of the newest digital speakers out there - remarkably good value for value. Currently, I'm using ridiculously cheap Edifier speakers, driven through the digital optical input from an equally cheap DVD player - and at the current state of tune, ticks most boxes. Biggest problems for this level of gear is that they are very sensitive to noise on the mains - if you go this route, all efforts to isolate the setup from crap coming over the power feed will be rewarded 🙂.

[LarryMagoo]

Maybe we could start a club....I also have a Sony SCD-777ES that is faulty....Wish it could be repaired!   I do have a Oppo 105....and I've quit listening to Multichannel since I joined Roon...and miss the audio that is provides....since it sounds so good!  

[gmgraves]

17 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

You should check out some of the newest digital speakers out there - remarkably good value for value. Currently, I'm using ridiculously cheap Edifier speakers, driven through the digital optical input from an equally cheap DVD player - and at the current state of tune, ticks most boxes. Biggest problems for this level of gear is that they are very sensitive to noise on the mains - if you go this route, all efforts to isolate the setup from crap coming over the power feed will be rewarded 🙂.

Irrelevant (as is usual for Frank)!

[gmgraves]

27 minutes ago, LarryMagoo said:

Maybe we could start a club....I also have a Sony SCD-777ES that is faulty....Wish it could be repaired!   I do have a Oppo 105....and I've quit listening to Multichannel since I joined Roon...and miss the audio that is provides....since it sounds so good!  

I hear you. The SCD-777ES is so well built, sounds so good, and is so elegant, that it’s a crying shame to have to have to relegate it to a closet, throw it away, or sell it on EBay for parts.

[jxo]

On 1/10/2021 at 11:02 AM, gmgraves said:

The Oppo UDP-205 as a stand-alone SACD player is mediocre at best, but it does seem to be an exemplary transport for streaming DSD data to an outboard DAC. I’ve tried several Sony Blu-Ray players and an Oppo 105, and the UDP-205 sounds superior playing SACDs through the I2S converter to the Denafrips Pontus via HDMI with the Oppo 105 as a close second.

Great thread, thanks.  Also have hundreds of SACDs and have been procrastinating on the ripping project.  My OPPO bluray died and was going to replace it with a Panasonic DP-UB820 (frequently compared to the Oppos).   The Panny has an audio only hdmi output (like many of the Sonys) but unlike the Sonys you may have tried it is not designated as an SACD player. 

 

Stupid question, does a blu ray player need to have SACD playback designation in order to be an SACD digital transport with these Chinese adapters??

[Kal Rubinson]

1 hour ago, jxo said:

 

Stupid question, does a blu ray player need to have SACD playback designation in order to be an SACD digital transport with these Chinese adapters??

If it can't play SACDs, you cannot expect that it will rip them.

[jxo]

9 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

If it can't play SACDs, you cannot expect that it will rip them.

I have a couple of flimsy Sony BX510s for ripping and I can see why these may not be the most well made transport devices.   I assume bits are bits but I was asking whether using a bluray player for digital transport to a DAC would be different for any reason (as distinguished from a Sony player for ripping purposes).  I assume a solid blu ray player with a dedicated audio hdmi output would be unable to read an SACD (unless its a Sony).   Just checking.    Btw, those cheap Sonys regularly used for ripping are not feature designated as SACD players.

[gmgraves]

1 hour ago, jxo said:

Great thread, thanks.  Also have hundreds of SACDs and have been procrastinating on the ripping project.  My OPPO bluray died and was going to replace it with a Panasonic DP-UB820 (frequently compared to the Oppos).   The Panny has an audio only hdmi output (like many of the Sonys) but unlike the Sonys you may have tried it is not designated as an SACD player. 

 

Stupid question, does a blu ray player need to have SACD playback designation in order to be an SACD digital transport with these Chinese adapters??

I believe that it does. As I understand it, there is more to the SACD standard than just a DSD audio file.

[gmgraves]

19 minutes ago, jxo said:

I have a couple of flimsy Sony BX510s for ripping and I can see why these may not be the most well made transport devices.   I assume bits are bits but I was asking whether using a bluray player for digital transport to a DAC would be different for any reason (as distinguished from a Sony player for ripping purposes).  I assume a solid blu ray player with a dedicated audio hdmi output would be unable to read an SACD (unless its a Sony).   Just checking.    Btw, those cheap Sonys regularly used for ripping are not feature designated as SACD players.

First of all, your player does not need to have a dedicated audio-only HDMI output connector to output DSD over HDMI but the Blu-ray player itself must support playback of SACD to either rip or play (through an outboard DAC) an SACD disc.

My experience is that those “cheap” Sony Blu-ray/SACD players don’t make very good sounding rips (stands to reason, they don’t sound very good as transports to play SACDs through outboard DACs via I2S, so why would a rip from these players sound any better?).