• Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

SACD Player + miniDSP Flex

I just meant its mostly comparing vinyl to redbook....at least last I looked and it's been a while. Does it particularly have an SACD section now?
I have seen SACDs tested, maybe for bigger acts like the Rolling Stones. I don't see how to search only for SACDs; I only see search fields for artist and album.
 
I have seen SACDs tested, maybe for bigger acts like the Rolling Stones. I don't see how to search only for SACDs; I only see search fields for artist and album.
It's not something over the years I've found as a go-to source of something that helps me make a decision. Is it still a user-driven database and has some possible questionable data?
 
It's not something over the years I've found as a go-to source of something that helps me make a decision. Is it still a user-driven database and has some possible questionable data?
I think the users who submit data run a standard script on each file. I have never done it myself.
 
I think the users who submit data run a standard script on each file. I have never done it myself.
I've read of potential misinfo in that regard but haven't delved deeply into it. Mostly I just don't care about vinyl (even tho I still have my tt and a large vinyl collection)
 
I've read of potential misinfo in that regard but haven't delved deeply into it. Mostly I just don't care about vinyl (even tho I still have my tt and a large vinyl collection)
It is the digital sources that more often tend to have low dynamic ranges, because of the loudness wars. So that is what I am trying to avoid by using the site.
 
It is the digital sources that more often tend to have low dynamic ranges, because of the loudness wars. So that is what I am trying to avoid by using the site.
I'm more about listening to what I want to rather than how a digital mix was mastered (let alone recorded). I never thought of using it as a filter for particular recordings/performances I wanted to own.....
 
I'm more about listening to what I want to rather than how a digital mix was mastered (let alone recorded). I never thought of using it as a filter for particular recordings/performances I wanted to own.....
Fair enough!
 
I just meant its mostly comparing vinyl to redbook....at least last I looked and it's been a while. Does it particularly have an SACD section now?
The Dynamic range Database does not necessarily works well with vinyls. See this enlightening video in which the sound engineer that has mastered both the CD and the vinyl edition of a particular song demonstrates that fact with the TT DR software :


There are analysis of the DSD content decimated in PCM from many SA-CD on the Dynamic Range Database. You have to use the search engine to find them.
 
Last edited:
Interestingly, this review by a fellow forum member finds that the CD layer of the 2003/2011 Analogue Productions SACD of Dark Side of the Moon is inferior to the SACD layer on the same disc.




I think you have confused the 2003 SA-CD reissue by Capitol Records (USA, also distributed under the EMI label elsewhere) : https://www.discogs.com/release/4876269-Pink-Floyd-The-Dark-Side-Of-The-Moon

With the Analogue Productions reissue : https://www.discogs.com/release/19615816-Pink-Floyd-The-Dark-Side-Of-The-Moon

It's the 2003 reissue by Capitol Records whose CD layer sound markedly less dynamic to @Jean.Francois's ears.

In fact, the 2003 reissue of Dark Side of the Moon on hybrid SA-CD by Capitol is one of the rare properly documented cases where a different digital transfer was made for the CD layer and for the stereo high density layer of an hybrid SA-CD. John Atkinson wrote about that fact in Stereophile at the time : https://www.stereophile.com/news/11649/index.html

This genuine case of different content on the CD layer and the HD layer is the founding fact of the urban legend that the CD layer and the SA-CD layer are always mastered differently to deceive listeners about the superiority of SA-CD over CD if a difference between the two layers is audible.
 
Last edited:
I have the Sony and I like it a lot - YMMV, so caveat emptor!

Tillman
 
The Dynamic range Database does not necessarily works well with vinyls. See this enlightening video in which the sound engineer that has mastered both the CD and the vinyl edition of a particular song demonstrates that fact with the TT DR software :
That was informative; thanks.
 
I think you have confused the 2003 SA-CD reissue by Capitol Records (USA, also distributed under the EMI label elsewhere) : https://www.discogs.com/release/4876269-Pink-Floyd-The-Dark-Side-Of-The-Moon

With the Analogue Productions reissue : https://www.discogs.com/release/19615816-Pink-Floyd-The-Dark-Side-Of-The-Moon
Yes, thanks for correcting my mistake. The 2021 AP SACD uses the same mastering for the stereo SACD layer as the 2003 Capitol SACD but different mastering for the CD layer. The article you linked to was also quite interesting.
 
On the obscure topic of SACDs with different mastering on the Redbook/CD and SACD layers, this 2011 Japanese SACD of Machine Head by Deep Purple seems to qualify, based on the dynamic ranges.

Redbook / PCM layer

DSD / SACD layer
I have a multich SACD from Rhino that appears different from the sacd mentioned, as it has copyright dates of 1971 and 2001. Not sure I ever listened to the 2ch layer, tho....it was updating my well worn vinyl copy :)
 
I have a multich SACD from Rhino that appears different from the sacd mentioned, as it has copyright dates of 1971 and 2001. Not sure I ever listened to the 2ch layer, tho....it was updating my well worn vinyl copy :)
Multichannel is almost by definition different than stereo as it must be a remix, not just a remaster, I think. But the same mastering / mixing engineer, with the same audio preferences, could do both the two channel and multichannel mixing and mastering.
 
Multichannel is almost by definition different than stereo as it must be a remix, not just a remaster, I think. But the same mastering / mixing engineer, with the same audio preferences, could do both the two channel and multichannel mixing and mastering.
Seems its original 2ch mix and remastered for this disc, different crew for remix/mastering for multich Many multich SACDs are old quad mixes, tho.
 
I played the Mobile Fidelity SACD of Thriller on the Sony Blu-Ray player, outputting to 48 kHz PCM on SPDIF to the miniDSP Flex. I compared the title song on the CD/PCM layer to the same song on the SACD/DSD layer. I thought the SACD layer was more balanced, meaning Michael Jackson's vocal was not overpowering the other instruments, including what I think are congas or synthesizer congas on the right channel. I will keep playing the SACD layer of hybrid SACDs.

I have the Mobile Fidelity one step of Thriller on vinyl and I thought the sound quality was similar between the SACD and the vinyl on my setup.
 
I currently don't have an SACD player or any SACDs, but I just ordered the Sony UBP-X800M2 Blu-Ray player. However, I can send it back unopened if I get negative feedback on it here.

Right now I have a miniDSP Flex with balanced analog inputs, for a phono amp / turntable, and the usual three digital inputs. I have a computer plugged into the USB port. I use Dirac Live for room correction. My recollection is that the miniDSP does the room correction internally using PCM at 48 kHZ.

The obvious approach is to output the SACD from the Sony UBP-X800M2 as PCM on SPDIF. But this sounds like I might be downconverting the SACD / DSD to CD quality. Would it be best to limit the Sony UBP-X800M2 output to 48 kHZ, to match how the miniDSP Flex operates internally?

Also, if I am exporting PCM on SPDIF from the UBP-X800M2, should I just play the CD layer on a hybrid SACD and skip the entire SACD / DSD thing?

Is there a better option to get closer to DSD / SACD quality? Either a better SACD player or a better way to configure the output / input relationship between the Sony UBP-X800M2 and the miniDSP Flex?

I think I can help boil down and clarify some of the great comments you've gotten from other members - and FYI, I have a Sony UBP-X800M2, and before I had active speakers with built-in DSP, I too used a MiniDSP unit (an SHD in my case) as my preamp.

1. You don't need SACD for sound quality reasons. DSD64 - the format of SACDs - has frequency extension and noise performance that make it roughly equivalent to a hypothetical 56kHz, 20-bit PCM. Of course such a PCM format doesn't exist. But SACD's noise floor is about 20 bits, and its noise-shaping usually results in a huge amount of ultrasonic noise starting around 28-30kHz (a PCM sample rate that could go up to 28kHz would be a 56k sample-rate system). So don't bother with an HDMI de-embedder or anything like that. SACD does not sound different than PCM, and 24/48 PCM is more or less identical in capability to SACD - slightly better noise floor, slightly less ultrasonic frequency capability. But it doesn't matter, because we can't hear the difference between 20 vs 24 bits, and usable frequency response up to 24kHz vs 28kHz doesn't matter since we can't hear past 20kHz anyway.

2. You "need" SACD only for a relatively small number of specific masterings. There are a few masterings of some albums that have only appeared in SACD format. For example, the two 2003 Talk Talk SACDs used a then-new mastering on their SACD layers, but for the CD layers they re-used an existing 1997 mastering which IMHO doesn't sound as good. (Of course, each of those SACDs will cost you $100 or more on the used market, so why bother.) There's also a series of Universal Japan SACDs from 2009-2011 that are reputedly flat transfers from the original master tapes. These are single-layer discs - they don't have a CD layer at all. But many of these flat-transfer masterings have subsequently been released on hybrid SACDs and/or on plain old CDs - not to mention that not all of these particular masterings are the best-sounding ones out there anyway. I do find the 2010 Universal Japan SACD of the Who's Who's Next to be the best-sounding version I've heard, and I don't think it's ever been reissued on a hybrid SACD or a CD. But there are multiple other very good versions available on CD.

3. The UBP-X800M2 is an excellent disc player for other reasons. In addition to its ability to play Blu-Ray and DVD-A discs, it's also the most mechanically quiet player I've ever heard - or, I should say, not heard. :) I don't know what your preferences are or what the ambient room noise in your listening space is, but the X800 does not emit any of the little beeps or chirps that most CD and DVD/Blu-Ray players do periodically when playing discs, especially when moving from one track to the next. The X800 also shows nothing on its display when playing discs, because it was designed not to be distracting when hooked up as part of a home theater system. I personally love this even though it's in my audio-only setup, because I don't like the distraction of a bright LED display when I'm listening to music in a dimmed or darkened room.

Given that the 800M2 costs only about $250, and part of that cost is the heavy metal chassis that is responsible for the fact that none of the mechanical spinning and track-seeking noises escape the player where you might hear them, I view it as an excellent value, and so I would suggest you consider keeping it even if you go for a simple digital TOSLINK connection to the MiniDSP, which would prevent you from being able to play SACD layers through your system.

So my recommendation is to keep the 800M2, connect it directly to the Flex with a single TOSLINK or other digital cable, and don't worry about anything else.
 
Back
Top Bottom