Comparing DSD recordings/downloads with PCM

[Dave2002]

A discussion has emerged about DSD recordings and comparisons with PCM over on the New Releases thread in CD Review - http://www.for3.org/forums/showthrea...486#post353486

This might be a more appropriate place to continue the discussion.

So far it has been found that there are now some cheap DSD DAC converters, but also that DSD
downloads are available, but cost about three times that of equivalent PCM versions. Also there appears
to be little difference in sound quality between SACD sound and high resolution downloads (PCM).

Over to you!

[Gordon]

In 2007 the AES published [JAES,2007, Vol 55 No 9, pp775-779] an interesting paper that reported some tests to compare DSD/SACD with CD and concluded that noone could tell the difference between the STEREO ie 2 channel only version of SACD/DSD and CD/PCM at 44.1/16. A point being made is that with properly engineered equipment 96/24 is no better than 44.1/16. Gets tin hat and makes hasty retreat to bunker.

Some will pooh-pooh that notion but the paper is very convincing and needs reading before coming to any conclusion. It is available for free if you are an AES member but if not it can be downloaded for $20 as a pdf. However someone has breached copyright and has published the paper here:

http://www.drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf

Drew Daniels was one of the respondents to the paper commentary.

Clearly the extra dimensions of multichannel in SACD /DSD provide a perspective that stereo CD cannot match. There is a commentary and a synopsis of the paper free to view here:

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/online/search.cfm

the item you want is second in the list then look for the comments link button, the first item is a letter in response to the paper itself but the letter is not available for free! There is also more detail on the tests and how they were done here:

http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/explanation.htm

Whilst we're at this sort of subject, look in this thread for another AES paper published this month that looks at an in depth comparison of FM and DAB+:

http://www.for3.org/forums/showthread.php?9399-DAB-Report/page7

[richardfinegold]

In 2007 the AES published [JAES,2007, Vol 55 No 9, pp775-779] an interesting paper that reported some tests to compare DSD/SACD with CD and concluded that noone could tell the difference between the STEREO ie 2 channel only version of SACD/DSD and CD/PCM at 44.1/16. A point being made is that with properly engineered equipment 96/24 is no better than 44.1/16. Gets tin hat and makes hasty retreat to bunker.

Some will pooh-pooh that notion but the paper is very convincing and needs reading before coming to any conclusion. It is available for free if you are an AES member but if not it can be downloaded for $20 as a pdf. However someone has breached copyright and has published the paper here:

http://www.drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf

Drew Daniels was one of the respondents to the paper commentary.

Clearly the extra dimensions of multichannel in SACD /DSD provide a perspective that stereo CD cannot match. There is a commentary and a synopsis of the paper free to view here:

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/online/search.cfm

the item you want is second in the list then look for the comments link button, the first item is a letter in response to the paper itself but the letter is not available for free! There is also more detail on the tests and how they were done here:

http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/explanation.htm

Whilst we're at this sort of subject, look in this thread for another AES paper published this month that looks at an in depth comparison of FM and DAB+:

http://www.for3.org/forums/showthrea...B-Report/page7

I've seen that paper referenced before. I love the sound of DSD on the more than 200 SACDs that I own. They have so much presence and a smoothness that seems to preclude listener fatigue. Blu Ray Audio is also very nice but I prefer DSD from SACDs.

[Dave2002]

Apologies to several here, but some of us are getting older, and that may very well have an impact on how we hear things. It may be that younger people, or some older people who still have very good hearing may still be able to hear the differences between different types of recordings, while older people may not. Actually as I get older I have also wondered whether there can be other effects. I now wonder whether some digitally compressed audio sounds worse to me now than it did a decade ago. I surmise that there are some interactions with our hearing which are different with compressed audio than "straight" audio. For quite a while in recent years I have disliked the sound of string music except live or over very good equipment.

Next up, some of the tests which have been done have been done using small sections of music. I don't deny that attempts have been made to carry them out scientifically, but in my experience in a recording of a symphony perhaps an hour or so long, there may only be a few moments where there is a real tingle factor (maybe JLW will get tingles all the way through, with her equipment), and much of the rest can sound acceptable or good even with only an "average" level of quality of recording and replay equipment, but those short moments may work on some equipment, and not at all on other equipment. The effect of this is really very striking, IMO. Doing any kind of "scientific" testing which works with "most" people and "most" music and "most" of the time is very probably likely not to show up any such significant features. Averaging will tend to diminish the measured differences, and yet a lot of the claims which are made for different sound and distribution systems are based on this kind of analysis. That is why some people are able to push for DAB, and in commercial terms they are right. If most people can't tell the difference between really high quality sound most of the time then why not simply produce a system which "satisfies" them? Who cares about the remaining 5%-1% who would really value having better quality sound anyway - if they want it and they're rich, they can pay for it, and if not ....!
[This is perhaps the basis of Quentin Howard's (Digital Radio) reasoning - and commercially he's right, and I hate it! Worse than that, it then gets taken up by politicians and others such as Ford Ennals, who possibly understand the issues a lot less than Quentin does.]

Yet there is a further problem, which is that equipment and systems which are supposedly better do tend to cost more, and if the differences between different systems really are small, then it becomes very hard to tell whether one person's opinions are more or less significant than anyone else's. We can perhaps discount measurement methods, because it's hard to show any direct correlation between measurements and subjective perceived quality once the quality level becomes high enough. On the other hand, measurements are very useful for showing up poor systems - so should not be disregarded.

Consumer bias also comes in, with yet more factors influencing our advice and decisions. Someone who has spent £10k on audio systems may be unwilling to admit that some of the system components are not good, or do not perform as well as a cheaper system. However, it is also possible that someone who has spent £10k on several different occasions may be willing to admit that some kit is better, some worse etc. Most of us have neither the time nor the money to do that.

For my part I bought an SACD player years ago, and it hardly ever gets used. Partly it's a faff thing - I had hoped to be able to use it to play CDs, SACDs and also experience surround sound. I found I could barely tell the difference between SACDs and good CDs - though I do think the SACDs sound smoother. Surround sound is interesting, but also problematic because of room and living constraints, and is not a very fair comparison.

A further complication with my system is that as some SACD enthusiasts will know, it's next to impossible to get a digital feed out to a DAC using an optical or coax link (I believe some early models of PS3 Play Stations will do this!), so early SACD players won't work with external DACs except in CD mode (PCM). Some newer SACD players and some multi-standard Blu-Rays can output via HDMI, and I think the SACD constraints might not apply there. That constraint, imposed by various members of the recording company community, seems to me to have been very damaging to the development of SACD, and has limited the market for SACDs and SACD recordings. However, it hasn't all been a waste of time, as some companies have persisted, and at least now have a decent range of high quality master material which even if not distributed on SACDs may make future high quality downloads or Blu Ray discs possible. Not being able to get digital outputs form an SACD player means I can't compare SACDs using the same downstream components (DAC, amplifier, loudspeakers), so a fair comparison is not possible.

Re the faff factor, my SACD unit really needs my TV on in order to control it, and that just adds to the faff. I suppose now that we have iPads etc. it would be possible to control an SACD not only via using the TV display, but also controlling via a portable device, rather like the (nla) Squeezebox systems, and that would make things very much simpler. I suspect that SACD sound quality may be very slightly better in my system, and others may like it even more - I agree about the smoothness, but then again, a very good CD player with good quality CDs, or a high quality media unit might do just as well or even better.

Yet another factor for me is cost. In recent years many CDs have been issued at low prices - and can often be picked up in boxes at prices of £2/CD or less - some are well under £1/CD. Most high res downloads or SACDs cost at least 5 times that, and with the extra cost of equipment needed it's debatable to me whether it's worth it. Perhaps I can afford it all, but then I'd have to give up holidays and maybe even live concerts! Many people would not be able to afford the downloads or SACDs and the relevant kit.

To rfg - if you can hear the differences, and it's affordable for you, go for it, but many, certainly in the UK, would possibly not find this worthwhile. Some might find the extra money could be better spent on other kit - amplifiers, loudspeakers - who knows what!

[DublinJimbo]

I love the sound of DSD on the more than 200 SACDs that I own.

Wow! 200 is a lot. I have accidentally bought SACDs, to the extent that I don't have a surround system and listen to the CD encoding. Before investing, I would dearly love to experience good surround, especially in cases where the productions have been re-thought with surround in mind — which brings me to ask: are there any 2L recordings among your 200?

[Dave2002]

For info - http://www.2l.no/

[richardfinegold]

Apologies to several here, but some of us are getting older, and that may very well have an impact on how we hear things. It may be that younger people, or some older people who still have very good hearing may still be able to hear the differences between different types of recordings, while older people may not. Actually as I get older I have also wondered whether there can be other effects. I now wonder whether some digitally compressed audio sounds worse to me now than it did a decade ago. I surmise that there are some interactions with our hearing which are different with compressed audio than "straight" audio. For quite a while in recent years I have disliked the sound of string music except live or over very good equipment.

Next up, some of the tests which have been done have been done using small sections of music. I don't deny that attempts have been made to carry them out scientifically, but in my experience in a recording of a symphony perhaps an hour or so long, there may only be a few moments where there is a real tingle factor (maybe JLW will get tingles all the way through, with her equipment), and much of the rest can sound acceptable or good even with only an "average" level of quality of recording and replay equipment, but those short moments may work on some equipment, and not at all on other equipment. The effect of this is really very striking, IMO. Doing any kind of "scientific" testing which works with "most" people and "most" music and "most" of the time is very probably likely not to show up any such significant features. Averaging will tend to diminish the measured differences, and yet a lot of the claims which are made for different sound and distribution systems are based on this kind of analysis. That is why some people are able to push for DAB, and in commercial terms they are right. If most people can't tell the difference between really high quality sound most of the time then why not simply produce a system which "satisfies" them? Who cares about the remaining 5%-1% who would really value having better quality sound anyway - if they want it and they're rich, they can pay for it, and if not ....!
[This is perhaps the basis of Quentin Howard's (Digital Radio) reasoning - and commercially he's right, and I hate it! Worse than that, it then gets taken up by politicians and others such as Ford Ennals, who possibly understand the issues a lot less than Quentin does.]

Yet there is a further problem, which is that equipment and systems which are supposedly better do tend to cost more, and if the differences between different systems really are small, then it becomes very hard to tell whether one person's opinions are more or less significant than anyone else's. We can perhaps discount measurement methods, because it's hard to show any direct correlation between measurements and subjective perceived quality once the quality level becomes high enough. On the other hand, measurements are very useful for showing up poor systems - so should not be disregarded.

Consumer bias also comes in, with yet more factors influencing our advice and decisions. Someone who has spent £10k on audio systems may be unwilling to admit that some of the system components are not good, or do not perform as well as a cheaper system. However, it is also possible that someone who has spent £10k on several different occasions may be willing to admit that some kit is better, some worse etc. Most of us have neither the time nor the money to do that.

For my part I bought an SACD player years ago, and it hardly ever gets used. Partly it's a faff thing - I had hoped to be able to use it to play CDs, SACDs and also experience surround sound. I found I could barely tell the difference between SACDs and good CDs - though I do think the SACDs sound smoother. Surround sound is interesting, but also problematic because of room and living constraints, and is not a very fair comparison.

A further complication with my system is that as some SACD enthusiasts will know, it's next to impossible to get a digital feed out to a DAC using an optical or coax link (I believe some early models of PS3 Play Stations will do this!), so early SACD players won't work with external DACs except in CD mode (PCM). Some newer SACD players and some multi-standard Blu-Rays can output via HDMI, and I think the SACD constraints might not apply there. That constraint, imposed by various members of the recording company community, seems to me to have been very damaging to the development of SACD, and has limited the market for SACDs and SACD recordings. However, it hasn't all been a waste of time, as some companies have persisted, and at least now have a decent range of high quality master material which even if not distributed on SACDs may make future high quality downloads or Blu Ray discs possible. Not being able to get digital outputs form an SACD player means I can't compare SACDs using the same downstream components (DAC, amplifier, loudspeakers), so a fair comparison is not possible.

Re the faff factor, my SACD unit really needs my TV on in order to control it, and that just adds to the faff. I suppose now that we have iPads etc. it would be possible to control an SACD not only via using the TV display, but also controlling via a portable device, rather like the (nla) Squeezebox systems, and that would make things very much simpler. I suspect that SACD sound quality may be very slightly better in my system, and others may like it even more - I agree about the smoothness, but then again, a very good CD player with good quality CDs, or a high quality media unit might do just as well or even better.

Yet another factor for me is cost. In recent years many CDs have been issued at low prices - and can often be picked up in boxes at prices of £2/CD or less - some are well under £1/CD. Most high res downloads or SACDs cost at least 5 times that, and with the extra cost of equipment needed it's debatable to me whether it's worth it. Perhaps I can afford it all, but then I'd have to give up holidays and maybe even live concerts! Many people would not be able to afford the downloads or SACDs and the relevant kit.

To rfg - if you can hear the differences, and it's affordable for you, go for it, but many, certainly in the UK, would possibly not find this worthwhile. Some might find the extra money could be better spent on other kit - amplifiers, loudspeakers - who knows what!

I think you need a new player. I have 3 systems in my home, 2 multichannel and 1 two channel. I have 4 SACD players in these three systems and none requires a monitor to play SACDs. I suspect that your SACD player must be an early prototype, and probably it only outputs in PCM as well
In my two channel system I have a Denon "Anniversary Edition" SACD/CD player that does 24/192 and has digital ins (coax and optical). I added an Oppo 105 Universal Player wihich has a 32 bit cirrhus Logic decoder. It has multiple digital ins and outs (coax, optical, USB, HDMI, and probably a few that I can't think of.
It plays Blu Ray, DVD-A without requiring a monitor and it sounds so good that I sold off my DAC and use the Oppo as a DAC with other digital sources.
One surround system has a highly regarded Sony SACD/CD Player that outputs to the receiver via HDMI and does not require the television to work. The other surround system in the basement has an ageing Pioneer Elite Universal Player (pre Blu Ray--DVD-A, SACD, CDs no digital ins on these last two players). The Pioneer has an "i-link" that connects to a compatible Pioneer AVR (this is essentially a firewire connection) that sounds fantastic despite the humble nature of the electronics, and plays fine with the TV off. Both the surround systems have inexpensive Sony Blu Rays that feed the receiver via HDMI and again sound far better than one would expect at the price.
Back in my two channel system, both the SACD players sound so good that I can't imagine how a DAC that accepts DSD from an SACD could improve anything, but of course until I actually hear such a piece of kit I shouldn't be judgemental.
I generally prefer the sound of SACD compared to Blu Ray

[richardfinegold]

Wow! 200 is a lot. I have accidentally bought SACDs, to the extent that I don't have a surround system and listen to the CD encoding. Before investing, I would dearly love to experience good surround, especially in cases where the productions have been re-thought with surround in mind — which brings me to ask: are there any 2L recordings among your 200?

I don't have 2L SACDs. I do have the Trondheim Soloists "Divertimenti" in Blu Ray and the Mozart violin Concerto disc as a high resolution download.
Most of my SACDs are PentaTone or RCA (3 channel) recordings. I have several Channel Classics CDs and I am also smitten with the Mozart Piano Concerto Series on MDG, which may be the most gorgeous recordings that I have ever heard. I have the Mahler Cycle from the San Francisco SO and several SACDs of my hometown Orchestra on their "Resound" label (and these arethe least impressive SACDs of all). THe LSO Live SACDs also have not impressed me. BIS makes wonderful SACDs as well.

[richardfinegold]

I'd like to address the multichannel issue. i do think that both SACD and DVD-A were hurt by being tied to multichannel. I happen to be a fan of multichannel, as you could tell by my having two multichannel systems in the house, but these discs also sound wonderful in a good two channel system. By being linked to multichannel, most consumers were turned off, due to the sheer bother and expense of having speakers all over the room. They aren't willing to give two channel
SACD a chance.
High Resolution downloads avoided this trap by only being available in two channel. People who owned a computer and a two channel system could easily experiment and hear the superiority vs REd Book or mp3 quality

[Dave2002]

I think you need a new player. I have 3 systems in my home, 2 multichannel and 1 two channel. I have 4 SACD players in these three systems and none requires a monitor to play SACDs. I suspect that your SACD player must be an early prototype, and probably it only outputs in PCM as well.

My player is an Oppo, which was one of the models designed as a DVD/SACD player. I suppose it could be set up to play CDs without the TV on, but I've tried before, and it's quite difficult.

There's also a limit to how many pieces of kit I can store and/or use, plus of course cost factors. We don't live in a mansion. Probably I keep equipment longer than necessary - older equipment doesn't normally get discarded until it actually fails. I'd guess that many people in the UK don't have the space for multiple systems, nor the funds to replace kit, and optimise the sound quality very frequently. Many households may only have one listening room (if that) which may be shared with other people, and compromises have to be made.

You appear to be making a passionate case for SACDs, which is interesting. Currently a lot of the music that I play comes from CD or a direct digital source (either a download or ripped media), and it's either played directly from the CD, or a media server. I had thought of putting more emphasis on SACDs, but for practical reasons that could have meant playing all discs on an SACD player. Clearly dedicated CD players won't play CDs, while not all SACD players play CDs as well as some dedicated CD players. If there are good universal players, then they may be a way forward. However, I surmised a few years ago that whether music comes in via storage media (CDs,SACDs, DVDs, Blu Rays) or not, that gradually we'd see various forms of disc players give way to computers or media servers, and that the sound quality would be as good or better than using media based players. Consequently I haven't even considered buying any new CD, DVD, Blu Ray or SACD players in recent years. Music is played via a DAC, and that isn't really compatible with my SACD player because of the constraints mentioned earlier. Another possibility would be to go via an AV amplifier, but that just adds yet more kit, and complication, and only a few AV systems provide good quality audio.

I don't now know which are considered good SACD players for audio reproduction available in the UK. In the relatively early days there were some, though they were differentiated between 2 channel and multi-channel. They tended to cost more than a basic CD system, and over time I think even most specialist "hi-fi" retailers have lost interest. They're probably still available, but now pretty much a niche item. For all sorts of reasons, partly due to the way consumers buy and use kit, but also due to changes in manufacturing, most specialised audio only devices (CD, SACD) are now very specialist interests, with a small market, and many manufacturers aren't going to waste a lot of time and money developing and making new audio units - video focused and games products dominate.

There were products I thought I wanted, such as CD recorders, and there were a few very good ones available for a while, but many of us didn't bother, perhaps because of financial reasons, and then we discovered that they'd been obsoleted by computers. SACD players may have fitted into a similar market niche, with many of us not buying them, so that now they're really a specialist "hobby" area with a very small following. It's a shame, but that's probably what has happened. CD, DVD, Blu-Ray manufacturers often include extra features in their kit because it's relatively easy to do with modern chip systems (e.g Blu-Rays will play DVDs and CDs, even if quality is compromised because of mass production versus specialised design), but few manufacturers bother to include the capabilities to play SACDs, which further restricts the SACD market.

I don't see easy solutions.

[richardfinegold]

My player is an Oppo, which was one of the models designed as a DVD/SACD player. I suppose it could be set up to play CDs without the TV on, but I've tried before, and it's quite difficult.

There's also a limit to how many pieces of kit I can store and/or use, plus of course cost factors. We don't live in a mansion. Probably I keep equipment longer than necessary - older equipment doesn't normally get discarded until it actually fails. I'd guess that many people in the UK don't have the space for multiple systems, nor the funds to replace kit, and optimise the sound quality very frequently. Many households may only have one listening room (if that) which may be shared with other people, and compromises have to be made.

You appear to be making a passionate case for SACDs, which is interesting. Currently a lot of the music that I play comes from CD or a direct digital source (either a download or ripped media), and it's either played directly from the CD, or a media server. I had thought of putting more emphasis on SACDs, but for practical reasons that could have meant playing all discs on an SACD player. Clearly dedicated CD players won't play CDs, while not all SACD players play CDs as well as some dedicated CD players. If there are good universal players, then they may be a way forward. However, I surmised a few years ago that whether music comes in via storage media (CDs,SACDs, DVDs, Blu Rays) or not, that gradually we'd see various forms of disc players give way to computers or media servers, and that the sound quality would be as good or better than using media based players. Consequently I haven't even considered buying any new CD, DVD, Blu Ray or SACD players in recent years. Music is played via a DAC, and that isn't really compatible with my SACD player because of the constraints mentioned earlier. Another possibility would be to go via an AV amplifier, but that just adds yet more kit, and complication, and only a few AV systems provide good quality audio.

I don't now know which are considered good SACD players for audio reproduction available in the UK. In the relatively early days there were some, though they were differentiated between 2 channel and multi-channel. They tended to cost more than a basic CD system, and over time I think even most specialist "hi-fi" retailers have lost interest. They're probably still available, but now pretty much a niche item. For all sorts of reasons, partly due to the way consumers buy and use kit, but also due to changes in manufacturing, most specialised audio only devices (CD, SACD) are now very specialist interests, with a small market, and many manufacturers aren't going to waste a lot of time and money developing and making new audio units - video focused and games products dominate.

There were products I thought I wanted, such as CD recorders, and there were a few very good ones available for a while, but many of us didn't bother, perhaps because of financial reasons, and then we discovered that they'd been obsoleted by computers. SACD players may have fitted into a similar market niche, with many of us not buying them, so that now they're really a specialist "hobby" area with a very small following. It's a shame, but that's probably what has happened. CD, DVD, Blu-Ray manufacturers often include extra features in their kit because it's relatively easy to do with modern chip systems (e.g Blu-Rays will play DVDs and CDs, even if quality is compromised because of mass production versus specialised design), but few manufacturers bother to include the capabilities to play SACDs, which further restricts the SACD market.

I don't see easy solutions.

I don't live in a mansion. Including our basement, our house is about 1700 sq feet, but it is on 3 levels. We have three bedrooms upstairs and one of them is my dedicated music room. I added a surround system to my living room, mainly for TV and movies, andthen cobbled together another surround sound system forthe basement when one of my adult children came to live there for an extended period of time (the goal was to keep the children in the basement and allow us some space elsewhere). The children bounce in an out of the house--for the past several months one has been living in the basement (his 4th time to bounce back in the past 5 years, by my count) and that system becomes inaccessible to my wife and me.
I'm surprised that your Oppo is difficult to play without a TV monitor. My Oppo 105 is in my two channel system that doesn't have a monitor. I put in a CD or SACD, hit play on the remote, and that's it. DVD-A or Blu Ray require hitting the play button two more times each but I don't listen to them in the two channel system very often. Have you done all the firmware updates on the Oppo? btw, Sony Blu Ray players will also output SACD via HDMI, which is another option.
SACD clearly did not become a huge success, but it has a dedicated base here in the states and will persevere in the market. There are about 3000 titles listed on Arkiv Music, and there is more popular music appearing on SACD as well.

[Dave2002]

I don't live in a mansion. Including our basement, our house is about 1700 sq feet, but it is on 3 levels.

So is it really approx 3 x 1700 sq feet? Are you writing about on the ground footprint? Our house is closer to 2000 sq feet, was originally a bungalow, but has been extended in just about every direction -
sideways, back, and probably about 30 years ago, upwards.

We have three bedrooms upstairs and one of them is my dedicated music room. I added a surround system to my living room, mainly for TV and movies, andthen cobbled together another surround sound system forthe basement when one of my adult children came to live there for an extended period of time (the goal was to keep the children in the basement and allow us some space elsewhere). The children bounce in an out of the house--for the past several months one has been living in the basement (his 4th time to bounce back in the past 5 years, by my count) and that system becomes inaccessible to my wife and me.

We have experienced bounce back a couple of times.

I'm surprised that your Oppo is difficult to play without a TV monitor. My Oppo 105 is in my two channel system that doesn't have a monitor. I put in a CD or SACD, hit play on the remote, and that's it. DVD-A or Blu Ray require hitting the play button two more times each but I don't listen to them in the two channel system very often. Have you done all the firmware updates on the Oppo? btw, Sony Blu Ray players will also output SACD via HDMI, which is another option.

Perhaps I didn't persevere long enough with the Oppo - but I do recall it being difficult to select tracks without seeing the on screen display. It's also useful for setting up the parameters - whether surround vs 2 channel, and some of the other options. My unit will output audio via HDMI, but I have nothing to feed into.
Could be worth checking this out more carefully again. It's not so good having the TV on, as that increases the background noise considerably - which we don't normally notice when watching video and TV. It's interesting also to see your comments re Sony Blu Ray players, though we have one as part of a TV surround sound system, and I'm fairly sure ours doesn't do SACD, nor DVD-A.

SACD clearly did not become a huge success, but it has a dedicated base here in the states and will persevere in the market. There are about 3000 titles listed on Arkiv Music, and there is more popular music appearing on SACD as well.

There does seem to be more interest now, but I think it may all have come too late. Odd! I'm not sure if there is really much interest in the UK, or in other parts of Europe, now.

[richardfinegold]

So is it really approx 3 x 1700 sq feet? Are you writing about on the ground footprint? Our house is closer to 2000 sq feet, was originally a bungalow, but has been extended in just about every direction -
sideways, back, and probably about 30 years ago, upwards. We have experienced bounce back a couple of times.
Perhaps I didn't persevere long enough with the Oppo - but I do recall it being difficult to select tracks without seeing the on screen display. It's also useful for setting up the parameters - whether surround vs 2 channel, and some of the other options. My unit will output audio via HDMI, but I have nothing to feed into.
Could be worth checking this out more carefully again. It's not so good having the TV on, as that increases the background noise considerably - which we don't normally notice when watching video and TV. It's interesting also to see your comments re Sony Blu Ray players, though we have one as part of a TV surround sound system, and I'm fairly sure ours doesn't do SACD, nor DVD-A.
There does seem to be more interest now, but I think it may all have come too late. Odd! I'm not sure if there is really much interest in the UK, or in other parts of Europe, now.

We never received a square estimate footage on the house, despite my requesting one from the seller (who happens to be my next door neighbor, who had bought and rehabbed the house). We have three small bedrooms and a modest bathroom upstairs. The downstairs is a small powder room, one large living/family room, and a relatively small kitchen. We just converted a 3 season porch in the front to become part of the great room and we have a nice patio deck in back. Then there is the basement, nicely finished, with a bedroom, but unfortunately occupied by my slob of a 28 year old son, and previously occupied by both him and his sister for more time than we have been able to use it.
You must have had an earlier version of the Oppo. My BDP 105doesn't even a way to select anything without the remote. If I lose the remote, it's curtains, which is one reason that I didn't sell off the Denon SACD/CD player that I thought the Oppo would replace.
It is also nice to have the two different players, as the Oppo is more analytical and the Denon a bit more euphonic. My speakers are B+W 803 D and the treble is very hot; some poorly remastered recordings (Szell Brahms Symphonies, for example, and many Piano recordings) sound better on the Denon. At any rate, using the Oppo remote makes track selection a breeze, and no monitor required. My Oppo outputs sound from analog outputs into my Preamp, like any other CD Player.
Sony Blu Rays will absolutely not do DVD-A, as Sony tried their best, successfully, to kill that format. Most of them do SACD, but if you are running your Blu Ray directly into your television speakers, it isn't worth the bother.
Do you still have your Oppo? What is the model number?

[Dave2002]

We never received a square estimate footage on the house, despite my requesting one from the seller (who happens to be my next door neighbor, who had bought and rehabbed the house).

It's often a pain extracting this information, and some agents just don't know or care enough. There are different approaches in different countries. In the UK sometimes agents will try to emphasise the "character", while not pointing out that the houses are minute, and awkward to live in, or not provide a floor plan, or not give the full area - and making it clear whether garage and other space is included or not. Agents in some other countries seem better, and generally at least able to provide estimates of floor area - with or without additional store areas, garages etc.

We have three small bedrooms and a modest bathroom upstairs.

We used to have a house like that, on three floors. It wasn't bad, but that was before we tried to squeeze the equivalent of several house contents into one - for various reasons.

You must have had an earlier version of the Oppo.
Do you still have your Oppo? What is the model number?

I think it's a DV-980H - http://www.whathifi.com/review/dv-980hThis one will do DVD-A, and output the audio, but SACD output doesn't work at all. As noted in the link, it will do audio over HDMI including DSD, but that requires extra kit to make it work. I'd forgotten about the USB option.

The video was good when it came out, but perhaps most modern Blu Ray players are now as good or better. Our Blu Ray is part of a Sony integrated surround sound system, which is OK, doesn't do SACD or DVD-A, and has limited input/output cababilities, which is a shame. As I recall, it is possible to take a feed from a digital radio or from a TV, and also DVD-As fed from the Oppo unit, and get surround sound on some programmes [some do have surround audio, though it's not always obvious] in the UK, though I can't remember all the details. My experiments with surround sound have not always been too successful. I believe I did manage DVD-As in surround sound - must have been fed from the Oppo.

Some Blu Ray films are just about unwatchable because of the overpowering sound tracks - e.g the War of the Worlds from a few years back. For music, although it can be quite exciting, better quality amplifiers and speakers are really needed. I tried putting better speakers on, but they didn't appear to match the system, so gave up.

I might go back to using the Oppo SACD, but it'll need reconfiguring, and also I don't use an amp with multiple inputs at present - mostly I switch sources on my DAC, which as I have repeatedly said, rules out SACD - at least with my kit.

I could also use the analogue outputs to drive one or more additional speakers using separate stereo amps which I have. At least that might liven up some of the 3 channel SACDs in our collection. However, the effort of rewiring could be considerable, and might not give much extra benefit, and could stretch domestic harmony to previously unreached limits. Doing more channels (that Oppo will do 7 - http://www.oppodigital.com/dv980h/do...h%20Manual.pdf) using analogue cabling is likely to cost quite a bit extra in interconnects, plus lead to an even worse rat's nest configuration of wiring.

[richardfinegold]

Dave, your Oppo was originally released in the States in 2007, and it appears as though it may have originally been released in the UK in 2011, from what I can tell by scanning Google. From what I read it should output SACD both via HDMI and analog outputs.
You never answered about whether or not you are using your TV in combination with a Receiver (or Pre Pro, or other combination). If you are not, then I would add an AVR to that system that accepts HDMI. These can be inexpensive. If you are using the TV speakers, then of course you will at the minimum want to add a pair of front speakers. If space is a factor then use small monitors or in wall/on wall speakers. Then configure the Oppo to play in 2.0 using the TV monitor and you will be able to listen to SACDs at least in that system with only an HDMI.
If you want to do a 5.1 (or more) set up I strongly suggest in walls for the surrounds. SACDs, unlike Quad, do not output the sound equally to all speakers. What comes out of the rears is mainly for ambience. I have was forced by my wife (who is ever patient and long suffering) to downsize my living room surround system recently. I had been using Tower Speakers with a matching Center and "book shelf" sized rears on stands behind the listening position, all from the same speaker manufacturer.
The equipment was on a rack, and after a few years the wife said she was tired of living in an AV emporium. We remodeled a few months ago to convert the 3 season porch and merge it with the great room, and at the same time we had a built in placed in the great room. The equipment is now out of site in the built in, but I gave up the two front tower speakers (they went into the basement system) and replaced them with the rears, which are now the front speakers and sit on shelves in the built in. I had inexpensive in wall speakers placed in the wall behind the listening position. The sub woofer now crosses over at a higher point to make up for the loss of bass from the Towers.
I was cringing at the thought that I would be sacrificing a lot of sound quality in this system but consoling myself with the knowledge that most of my listening is done in the upstairs two channel system. I was therefore very surprised to learn that I barely notice the difference. All the equipment and wires are invisible and the wife is ecstatic. Now if I can only get the bounce back out of the basement...
All of the above is just a way of relating how you can use the Oppo, either as a two channel or in a surround system, without a lot of wires, and without having AV Equipment clog up your living space.
Another option for rear speakers is to use wireless. These work on Blu tooth and the speakers plug into the mains but don't have to be connected to an AVR.

I have heard these and they sound very good. Blu tooth is an improving technology and since SACDs use surrounds for ambience and not for the main musical argument, they work pretty well for Multi channel.
If your Oppo just won't work, Cambridge Audio and Yahama both make Universal Players that are fairly similar. Oppo Customer support in the States is good but I don't know how it is in the UK. Or, check out your Sony Blu Ray player. If it doesn't do SACDs, consider getting one of the aforementioned Universal Players and dumping the Blu Ray.