What would you set up for DVD-A/SACD only?

[nightflier]

OK, I've been toying with the idea of setting up the ultimate surround sound system that I can afford. I'm staring with a HK 5.1 receiver and Axiom M22Ti speakers, but I'm sort of going with the idea that a system set up for movies isn't going to be accurate and that a system set up for surround sound needs a different configuration. In that vein, here's what I'm thinking:

- five identical bookshelf speakers
- two passive subs
- individual amps for each speaker
- one of the better universal players out there
- I'm still struggling with the preamp/processor part

So just out of curiosity, keeping things within budget somewhat, what would you buy if you could set up a similar dedicated surround sound music-only room?

[topspeed]

I would choose three floorstanders for the front stage and monopole monitors for the rear. While
there is more info in the surround channels in hi-rez than movies, the vast majority of information is still from the front three and I like the coherence of full range speakers. If this is cost prohibitive, monitors all around like you said. Recommending brands is tough because I have no idea what budget you're talking about.

After that, I go with an active, not passive, sub. If you get two, make sure you have some kind of eq. I could be wrong, but I seem to remember someone quite knowledgeable on the subject noting how two subs in the same room can actually cause more problems than they solve. Room nodes and standing waves can be a b!tch.

I would toss the HK receiver and get a dedicated 5 channel amp from Adcom, Parasound, or another bang-for-buck manufacturer (you know who they are). The other option would be Outlaw mono's, which are priced right but I have yet to hear them.

Finally, most universal players should have enough gain to drive the amp directly (whether they have variable output is another thing). As this is a hi-rez, mc, music only rig, you're only going to have one source, right? Why even bother inserting another link in the chain. If you must have a preamp, get a passive one. You won't need a pre/pro. What's to process?

[accastil]

i agree with topspeed. there is nothing to process for SACD and DVDAs. you might consider amps with gain controls if you are planning to have 1 amp for every speaker..these are normally studio post recording catergory amps..very clean sounding i think. in this way, you can forget about using a preamp. just feed your signals directly from the plyer to the power amp. just make sure you have a good player/DAC and cables on this.

[N. Abstentia]

Yeah definitely scrap the HK idea. I wouldn't even go that route in a mediocre setup :)

I like topspeeds idea of 5 mono Outlaw amps. Mate them with the Outlaw 990 and a Marantz DV6500 for your source and you'd be hard pressed to beat that setup.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

5 mono blocks is great to shoot for, but another alternative with be stereo amps that utilize a discrete dual mono design. It just two mono blocks in the same chassis. Same principle, same benefits.

I also like the suggestion of using three floorstanders across the front, powerful and seemless. Also you could set them to large and avoid any post processing on your three front channels(that what I have done)

[Woochifer]

I agree with the others. A good dedicated setup for DVD-A/SACD would entail three floorstanding speakers up front, standmounted monitors, and a good active subwoofer. From my experience, the bass management with SACD is too inconsistent from player to player, so you will want something that has a reasonably wide range. With DVD-A, the bass management seems to work better, so if you lean more towards DVD-A, then it might be a good setup to try five identical bookshelf speakers all the way around.

When picking a preamp, definitely make sure that the signal does not go through any redundant A-D/D-A conversions. Some lower end receivers digitize all incoming signals, including the multichannel analog inputs.

I think you definitely want to put an active sub into a dedicated multichannel music rig because so many multichannel music discs use the LFE channel, including classical titles (for example, Telarc will direct bass through the LFE channels on a lot of its recordings). The active sub also gives you the most options with using parametric EQs to address room-induced problems in the low frequencies.

In my listenings, multichannel music that has a lot of directional cues in the surrounds seems to fare better with the surround speakers placed closer to ear level than the ideal alignment with a lot of movie soundtracks (at least 1' above ear level and diffused by pointing them towards one another). But, you might also want to consider going with adjustable tall stands so that you can lower the surrounds with more directional recordings, and raise them for recordings that use the surround channels more for ambient cues. Floorstanding speakers as surrounds will provide the best timbre match for floorstanding speakers up front, but they limit the placement flexibility that comes in handy with certain types of recordings.

[nightflier]

A good dedicated setup for DVD-A/SACD would entail three floorstanding speakers up front, standmounted monitors, and a good active subwoofer.

Wouldn't the recording engineers follow the spec for surround sound and use five identical speakers? I suppose that if they recorded for smaller rear speakers (i.e. not according to spec), I would still want a setup that would make this apparent.

I should probably clarify a few things about what I already have. To begin, the HK receiver is only a starting point so that I can at least enjoy the SACD's I already have. I definitely intend to replace this component.

Also, I already have four Axiom M22Ti speakers, these are easy to drive, has a fairly decent frequency graph, can handle 200W, keeps things simple by only having two speaker posts and would be easier to move around than towers. I would need to buy just one more to have a 5-speaker system. I'm shying away from purchasing a sideways center channel here, again, to keep to the spec.

For the bass, I was thinking that a passive sub with a good quality sub amp would give me more configurability, but this would also would increase the cost a bit. I think I'll stick with a powered one for now. I initially though of using two because I am thinking of the setup in a circle and two would even out better, but since it would also complicate the setup, I'll stick to one sub. I'll just need to keep the cross-over low enough to eliminate any directionality.

I like the idea of skipping the preamp altogether, and going straight from the source to the amp, but how would I do that & control volume conveniently? I was thinking of adding five Creek OBH-10's but these are out of production and cost an arm & a leg. What I really need is a five channel passive preamp. Is there such a beast out there?

Then for the source, I definitely need a player that has configurable bass management across the 5.1 outs. I could use an ICBM but that raises the cost again. This limits my choices a bit if I want to keep the cost down, I know.

Any suggestions?

[accastil]

Wouldn't the recording engineers follow the spec for surround sound and use five identical speakers? I suppose that if they recorded for smaller rear speakers (i.e. not according to spec), I would still want a setup that would make this apparent.

I should probably clarify a few things about what I already have. To begin, the HK receiver is only a starting point so that I can at least enjoy the SACD's I already have. I definitely intend to replace this component.

Also, I already have four Axiom M22Ti speakers, these are easy to drive, has a fairly decent frequency graph, can handle 200W, keeps things simple by only having two speaker posts and would be easier to move around than towers. I would need to buy just one more to have a 5-speaker system. I'm shying away from purchasing a sideways center channel here, again, to keep to the spec.

For the bass, I was thinking that a passive sub with a good quality sub amp would give me more configurability, but this would also would increase the cost a bit. I think I'll stick with a powered one for now. I initially though of using two because I am thinking of the setup in a circle and two would even out better, but since it would also complicate the setup, I'll stick to one sub. I'll just need to keep the cross-over low enough to eliminate any directionality.

I like the idea of skipping the preamp altogether, and going straight from the source to the amp, but how would I do that & control volume conveniently? I was thinking of adding five Creek OBH-10's but these are out of production and cost an arm & a leg. What I really need is a five channel passive preamp. Is there such a beast out there?

Then for the source, I definitely need a player that has configurable bass management across the 5.1 outs. I could use an ICBM but that raises the cost again. This limits my choices a bit if I want to keep the cost down, I know.

Any suggestions?
yes you are right..volume control would be too inconvenient for this setup. i believe there are multi-channel passive pre-amps around. this would be a good solution.

[drseid]

OK, I've been toying with the idea of setting up the ultimate surround sound system that I can afford. I'm staring with a HK 5.1 receiver and Axiom M22Ti speakers, but I'm sort of going with the idea that a system set up for movies isn't going to be accurate and that a system set up for surround sound needs a different configuration. In that vein, here's what I'm thinking:

- five identical bookshelf speakers
- two passive subs
- individual amps for each speaker
- one of the better universal players out there
- I'm still struggling with the preamp/processor part

So just out of curiosity, keeping things within budget somewhat, what would you buy if you could set up a similar dedicated surround sound music-only room?

VMPS makes some reasonably priced passive subs. They may be worth a look.

As for the individual monoblocks... Those ain't going to come cheap for some good ones. I like Topspeed's recommendation for the Outlaws which sell for a very reasonable price, but I should warn you that they truly sounded awful when I tried using them with my Tylers (my speakers are very finicky on electronics though). That said, they could be a much better match with your speakers, so at their price point you would be wise to consider them. The next step up could cost you 3-4 times as much.

---Dave

[nightflier]

I auditioned the Outlaws in my home (albeit not with the Axiom speakers) and I thought they were very capable. That said, I've read several reviews that say they are rather univolving. But yes, they are definitely within my budget. I was also considering Marantz MA500 or MA700 amps. Those seem to be quite readily available second hand.

It looks like I will definitely need a passive 5.1 preamp. Actually even finding a regular 5.1 preamp is more difficult than I thought. There are lost of processors out there, but they also have video switching and a bunch of other features that I don't want in the chain. I wouldn't mind spending a little more for this component to find a good one.

Any suggestions?

[nightflier]

I was doing some searching online and ran across the Audio Refinement Pre5. It has a very simple configuration with the YBA pedigree and it's about $1000. So here's what I was thinking:

Source: Marantz DV7600 ($800)
Pre: Audio Refinement Pre5 ($980)
Bass Management: Outlaw ICBM ($300)
Speakers: Axiom Audio M22Ti's

I haven't decided on the subwoofer or the cables yet, but I do want to keep the cost under control. I would like the most transparent uncolored and revealing cables I can find so I may spring for the Mapleshade stuff.

[Woochifer]

I was doing some searching online and ran across the Audio Refinement Pre5. It has a very simple configuration with the YBA pedigree and it's about $1000. So here's what I was thinking:

Source: Marantz DV7600 ($800)
Pre: Audio Refinement Pre5 ($980)
Bass Management: Outlaw ICBM ($300)
Speakers: Axiom Audio M22Ti's

I haven't decided on the subwoofer or the cables yet, but I do want to keep the cost under control. I would like the most transparent uncolored and revealing cables I can find so I may spring for the Mapleshade stuff.

That seems like a good all-analog multichannel setup. But, to add another wrinkle into the mix, you could also consider waiting a few months for the first HDMI 1.3 components to start rolling out in conjunction with HD-DVD and Blu-ray, since you're basically starting from the beginning. HDMI 1.3 components will support the higher res and lossless versions of Dolby Digital and DTS (both of which will be capable of audio quality at least as good as DVD-A), and allow for digital connections with DVD-A and SACD (the current HDMI 1.1 spec already passes the DVD-A signals digitally). By keeping everything in the digital domain, you don't have to worry about any analog bass management or choosing from the very limited number of 5.1 analog preamps out there.


Wouldn't the recording engineers follow the spec for surround sound and use five identical speakers? I suppose that if they recorded for smaller rear speakers (i.e. not according to spec), I would still want a setup that would make this apparent.

Keep in mind that the ITU-775 spec is a multichannel reference for studio monitoring, and only refers to the placement of the speakers, and the downmix equations. It does not specify the height of the surround speakers, nor anything about the size and frequency coverage of the surrounds.

Using identical speakers is more a matter of practicality because you get the best timbre match that way. But, if you use floorstanding speakers up front, it may not be feasible to use floorstanding speakers as surrounds, especially if your room has a large sofa and/or not a lot of space behind the listening position.

Dolby's placement recommendation for multichannel systems used with both movies and 5.1 music is to point the surround speakers directly at one another and raise them about 2' above ear level. This creates enough diffusion with the ambient cues in a lot of movie soundtracks to avoid sounding like point sources, but retains enough of the directionality used in newer movies and with a lot of multichannel music. In my setup, a lot of multichannel music tends to sound better with the speakers lowered to about 6"-12" above ear level (but, conversely this lowered setup tends to overly close in the ambient sound on a lot of movie soundtracks). Floorstanding speakers don't really allow for this kind of placement flexibility, and when you have a multichannel setup playing music, you might find that different recordings sound optimal with a different toe-in and/or height.

[nightflier]

By keeping everything in the digital domain, you don't have to worry about any analog bass management or choosing from the very limited number of 5.1 analog preamps out there.

While this would be great in an ideal world, the reality is that the only HDMI processors we are going to see out there will be HT receivers, thus adding much uneeded complexity to the mix. My goal is to keep things as minimal as possible, and that means using the analog outputs from the source. The AR Pre5 is not exactly passive, but at least it is a very uncluttered path to the amp.

I just don't think that HDMI will ever have any audiophile applications. The reason that DVD-A is being piggy-backed on top of it is to provide some convenience to the HT crowd who have a few multi-channel disks, until they migrate to the growing number of standard 5.1 CD's that I see creeping out at all the record stores. Whether or not SACD's meager existence was the result of being lumped together with HT technologies over the past 5 years, I'm afraid that manufacturers really don't care to continue this symbiotic relationship. It's still not part of the HDMI spec and I speculate it probably won't be in the future either. Manufacturers are not reaping big profits from having added DVD-A, so there's no reason for them to push for SACD.

I see SACD becoming an audiophile-only path that will find a niche there like HDCD has. For my part I'm going to continue with SACD. I like it and it's something I can wrap my head around, especially since it is analog for most of it's path to the speakers. Who knows, maybe in the future there will be SACD outboard DA processors that will only require a transport of some sort. Wouldn't that be a kick in the pants! And maybe SACD disk and component prices will drop too, and pigs will actually fly... well I'm not holding my breath, but I am going to keep trying to get it to sound right...

And if anyone can recommend a better preamp option than the AR Pre5, please don't hold back, I'm still looking for options....

[Woochifer]

While this would be great in an ideal world, the reality is that the only HDMI processors we are going to see out there will be HT receivers, thus adding much uneeded complexity to the mix. My goal is to keep things as minimal as possible, and that means using the analog outputs from the source. The AR Pre5 is not exactly passive, but at least it is a very uncluttered path to the amp.

Actually, I don't think that HDMI connections add any more complexity to the picture than any other source that would use a digital connection instead of an analog one. Keep in mind that SACD is an "analog" source only because of copy protection issues. My point is simply that with the HDMI 1.3 spec coming out in conjunction with the DD+ and DTS-HD formats, you will have more options on the table than just the few passive multichannel preamps on the market, and bass management choices no longer limited to the Outlaw ICBM. And if the high res market shifts away from SACD and towards lossless DD+ or DTS-HD, then at least you'll have a setup that can keep up with those changes. With a digital processor, you can make the path as direct or as complicated as you want. And don't think for a second that HDMI will be limited to HT receivers.


I just don't think that HDMI will ever have any audiophile applications.

That remains to be seen. All I do know is that movie soundtracks and concert videos coming out on the HD-DVD and Blu-ray formats will include markedly higher audio resolution than even the full bitrate version of DTS, and have the option of lossless 5.1 resolution, which is equivalent to MLP DVD-A.


The reason that DVD-A is being piggy-backed on top of it is to provide some convenience to the HT crowd who have a few multi-channel disks, until they migrate to the growing number of standard 5.1 CD's that I see creeping out at all the record stores.

The reason for HDMI 1.1 allowing for DVD-A is that it resolves the copy protection issues that had blocked digital outputs from DVD-A sources. The lack of digital connectivity has been a serious shortcoming with DVD-A and SACD from the beginning, and HDMI has finally begun to resolve that long-standing issue. Nearly all HT receivers and processors now come with 192/24 PCM DACs, and DVD-A is nothing more than a copy protected PCM audio stream with 192/24 resolution in two-channel and 96/24 resolution in 5.1 playback. HDMI simply provides a means by which to route the DVD-A signal to those high res DACs directly. Since most DVD-A (and SACD) players come with less than stellar bass management on board, having more flexible bass management options (as well as better time alignment) available thru a digital connection (and no longer limited to the analog outputs) make a very nice addition.

By standard 5.1 CDs, are you referring to DualDisc? If so, most of those discs come with either 48/16 resolution two-channel tracks (typically referred to as "enhanced stereo") or 5.1 DD. If anybody used to the resolution of DVD-A migrates to DualDisc, it certainly won't be by choice.


Whether or not SACD's meager existence was the result of being lumped together with HT technologies over the past 5 years, I'm afraid that manufacturers really don't care to continue this symbiotic relationship. It's still not part of the HDMI spec and I speculate it probably won't be in the future either. Manufacturers are not reaping big profits from having added DVD-A, so there's no reason for them to push for SACD.

Actually, 1-bit audio (which includes DSD/SACD) is already supported with the HDMI 1.2 spec, so no need to speculate -- it's already done. I'm not sure we'll see too many components with the HDMI 1.2 spec simply because the DD+ and DTS-HD support in the proposed HDMI 1.3 spec will be more eagerly awaited/hyped with the HD-DVD and Blu-ray launch, and would be backwards compatible anyway. But, the bottomline is that HDMI's support for SACD has been written into the specs, which ensures some degree of backwards compatibility so long as HDMI remains the veritable standard for secure digital connectivity.


I see SACD becoming an audiophile-only path that will find a niche there like HDCD has. For my part I'm going to continue with SACD. I like it and it's something I can wrap my head around, especially since it is analog for most of it's path to the speakers. Who knows, maybe in the future there will be SACD outboard DA processors that will only require a transport of some sort. Wouldn't that be a kick in the pants! And maybe SACD disk and component prices will drop too, and pigs will actually fly... well I'm not holding my breath, but I am going to keep trying to get it to sound right...

SACD is already a niche product, and Sony ensured that by opting not to build the Blu-ray format around DSD. But, the hardware support ironically will be on the upsurge in the near future because the Playstation 3 will support SACD, as will HDMI connected audio components from the 1.2 spec onward. Outboard D/A converters for SACD will now be possible because HDMI takes care of the copy protection issues that necessitated SACD going with multichannel analog-only outputs from the source. If these copy protection issues had all been worked out from the start, SACD very well might have had a better chance in the market. As such, SACD and DVD-A had the most botched product launch I've ever seen, and sadly, HD-DVD and Blu-ray are following in that path.

[nightflier]

Wooch,

While I can believe that SACD may find it's way into the mainstream by default (I didn't know that the HDMI 1.2 spec was out there), I still have trouble with routing that via a receiver that is doing so much else. I just can't accept that this will satisfy the audiophiles out there.

For my part I am looking to seperate the two entirely, leaving my movie-watching system alone and using a seperate SACD system in another room. What I am finding is that doing this cleanly and simply (just like the way I like my 2-channel system), is a lot harder and expensive than I had previously thought. Doing SACD with a receiver (my current starting point) is not really where I want to end up.

[Woochifer]

Wooch,

While I can believe that SACD may find it's way into the mainstream by default (I didn't know that the HDMI 1.2 spec was out there), I still have trouble with routing that via a receiver that is doing so much else. I just can't accept that this will satisfy the audiophiles out there.

For my part I am looking to seperate the two entirely, leaving my movie-watching system alone and using a seperate SACD system in another room. What I am finding is that doing this cleanly and simply (just like the way I like my 2-channel system), is a lot harder and expensive than I had previously thought. Doing SACD with a receiver (my current starting point) is not really where I want to end up.

SACD and DVD-A have been frustrating for me as well, because I'm at the mercy of whatever controls the player provides. With multichannel, things like bass management and time alignment can be very important to optimizing the playback quality, and unfortunately, those controls are generally implemented far better on receivers/processors than on the DVD-A/SACD players themselves.

I tried using the bass management on my SACD player, and basically gave up because no matter how much I tweaked with it, it never sounded right. Right now, I run the SACD player thru my receiver's six-channel analog input at full range, and the way that these inputs are designed with most midlevel and higher receivers, the signal is passed thru the preamp stage completely in the analog domain with no AD/DA conversion or signal processing applied. And even with high res digital sources such as 96/24 PCM DVDs, you have the option of passing the decoded signal directly from the DAC into the preamp stage.

Keep in mind that, as an example, receivers from Yamaha and Denon that can decode the DVD-A and/or SACD signals by using digital HDMI or iLink connections do so using the same Burr-Brown DACs that are found in newer audio-only SACD players (and even some higher end CD players, such as the Arcam CD72).

I can see how an all-analog path would be considered simpler and if not for needing to have some sort of bass management in the signal path, it probably is. But, since receivers/processors can decode the signal and implement the bass management in the digital domain, I'm not sure if any signal loss/coloration issues would be any different than with an analog bass management device.

Another option is to just play the system at full range using whatever speakers you choose to go with if the simplicity of the signal path is one of your priorities. The subwoofers would only be used with those recordings that use the LFE track (and with classical recordings especially, this can vary a lot -- e.g. Telarc does its 5.1 mixes with the LFE track active, while most other labels don't).

[nightflier]

Telarc does its 5.1 mixes with the LFE track active, while most other labels don't).

I didn't know that. I was under the impression that all SACDs had an active .1 channel. This makes bass management much more important. I know I listed the Marantz DV7600 as my source choice, but maybe I should step it up a notch and go with the DV9600 or a Denon 3910. I believe they have fairly detailed bass management and time allignment. I'm also thinking about the Marantz SA-8260, a dedicated SACD player, but I can't figure out if it has bass-management. Does anyone have this player?

I do have to say that the bass management is an irritating issue (and the most audible) to my ears. Lately I have been very pleased with my 2 channel setup to the point that even my hybrid SACDs sound better on it than on my HT system or my current surround audio upgrade project. The problem is that for 5.1 everything will be 2.5 times as expensive (more cables, more amplifiers, specialized preamps, etc.).

And I also see the D/A conversion inside the source player to be a thorny issue. With 2-channels, I can use a transport and external DAC to bring the processing outside of the box. This allows me to try different digital processors and find the one I like best. But with SACD & DVD-A (probably because of paranoiac copy-protection), this is all hidden inside the player. I can pretend that I trust the manufacturer to do this well, but how will I ever know? Could it be that I have accepted that that little computer chip is the one constant that can't be changed? Or worse yet, have my ears become accustomed to a mediocre sound when listening to 5.1 audio? And so if I'm not satisfied I must resolve my efforts to other areas of the system. What if, despite the pedigree of that one chip's brand name, this is the real problem in the sound? The one thing I can't change is the one item that is perhaps the most crucial in the whole sound reproduction. That's a lot of faith to have in one chip.

I guess I'm thinking outloud a bit, here. But it really comes down to this: if can ensure that the rest of the path that the sound takes (pre - amp - speakers) is as uncluttered as possible (completely analog?), then the most important factor is the D/A conversion. And since I can't take this out of the player, the most important decision is selecting the best possible source.

[Feanor]

I didn't know that. I was under the impression that all SACDs had an active .1 channel. ....

And I also see the D/A conversion inside the source player to be a thorny issue. With 2-channels, I can use a transport and external DAC to bring the processing outside of the box. This allows me to try different digital processors and find the one I like best. But with SACD & DVD-A (probably because of paranoiac copy-protection), this is all hidden inside the player. I can pretend that I trust the manufacturer to do this well, but how will I ever know? ... The one thing I can't change is the one item that is perhaps the most crucial in the whole sound reproduction. That's a lot of faith to have in one chip.

...
To begin with an aside; I'm certain that many SACDs don't have a .1 channel. I also know that some don't have a center channel either.

Yes, I take your point about having to put a lot of faith in one chip, but I think we're going to have to get use to it. Key things can be done in the digital domain that can't be done in the analog at all, or not without degradation such as phase shifts.

Bass management
Crossovers (other than for bass management)
Equalization, which can at least partially offset various evils: timbre mismatchs of front/back/center speakers; baffle defraction effects; room resonances
Time delay which over come the difficulties of placing five or more speakers an equal distance from the listener.
And to the preceeding I might add one more ...

Where the power amplication is digital, the potential to avoidance the final D/A conversion, instead translating the digital signal, (PCM), signal directly to the amp's switching algorythm.
The potential to do all these things to the SACD digital signals out weighs the advantages of having an analog chain.

For me the most critical hi-fi components have always been the speakers first and by a wide margin, followed by the amplifer, principally the power amp. Digital sources and DACs do sound different but the differences are small; the advantages of a comprehensive digital chain to achieve the things I mentioned above make these small differences a trivial issue.

[Feanor]

... Key things can be done in the digital domain that can't be done in the analog at all, or not without degradation such as phase shifts.

Bass management
Crossovers (other than for bass management)
Equalization, which can at least partially offset various evils: timbre mismatchs of front/back/center speakers; baffle defraction effects; room resonances
Time delay which over come the difficulties of placing five or more speakers an equal distance from the listener.
And to the preceeding I might add one more ...

Where the power amplication is digital, the potential to avoidance the final D/A conversion, instead translating the digital signal, (PCM), signal directly to the amp's switching algorythm.
....
I think it's like that an alternative to one-chip DSP will soon appear. It is clear that all of the above functions can be handled in software by today's faster personal computers. The audiophile of the near future will be able to find modular, multi-channel software programs for each or combinations of the functions I mentioned in my email, above.

These programs will provide many user-selectable choices within highly usable GUIs, making it a lot easier than it is now to understand and control what is going on. Sound cards will provide interfaces for quality measurement microphones, and real-time analysers will measure actual results and automatically adjust equalization programs accordingly.

Basically all these capabilities already exist but not necessary in the form of equipment and software that the amateur can understand and cope with.

Maybe audiophiles will soon worry less about rolling vacuum tubes and more sound cards and software. Could it happen :eek: ?!?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

To begin with an aside; I'm certain that many SACDs don't have a .1 channel. I also know that some don't have a center channel either.

Yes, I take your point about having to put a lot of faith in one chip, but I think we're going to have to get use to it. Key things can be done in the digital domain that can't be done in the analog at all, or not without degradation such as phase shifts.

Bass management
Crossovers (other than for bass management)
Equalization, which can at least partially offset various evils: timbre mismatchs of front/back/center speakers; baffle defraction effects; room resonances
Time delay which over come the difficulties of placing five or more speakers an equal distance from the listener.
And to the preceeding I might add one more ...

Where the power amplication is digital, the potential to avoidance the final D/A conversion, instead translating the digital signal, (PCM), signal directly to the amp's switching algorythm.
The potential to do all these things to the SACD digital signals out weighs the advantages of having an analog chain.

For me the most critical hi-fi components have always been the speakers first and by a wide margin, followed by the amplifer, principally the power amp. Digital sources and DACs do sound different but the differences are small; the advantages of a comprehensive digital chain to achieve the things I mentioned above make these small differences a trivial issue.

What you are saying is correct. However how it relates to SACD is troublesome. In order for DSD stream to be used with bass management and delay, it must be converted to a PCM bitstream. This process degrades the DSD signal as it must be converted for post processing, and then converted back to analog for reproduction. Sony completely dropped the ball by not including DSD based post processing which would keep the bitstream totally DSD all the way through the signal chain.

If you can avoid post processing DSD signals you are much better off.

[Feanor]

What you are saying is correct. However how it relates to SACD is troublesome. In order for DSD stream to be used with bass management and delay, it must be converted to a PCM bitstream. This process degrades the DSD signal as it must be converted for post processing, and then converted back to analog for reproduction. Sony completely dropped the ball by not including DSD based post processing which would keep the bitstream totally DSD all the way through the signal chain.

If you can avoid post processing DSD signals you are much better off.
Intuitively it's best to avoid conversions, including DSD to PCM. But then isn't it true that the majority of players, including almost all "universals", do a DSD to PCM conversion? Given this evil, it seems to me one might as well carry on and do the sort of DSP I was talking about.

[nightflier]

OK, here's one of those questions that's probably not going to have a simple answer:

Where along the path is it best to do the surround processing such as bass management, timing, etc.? After all, it can be done at the source, the pre-amp, and between the pre-amp & amp (e.g. with ICBM). If in the source, where along the path is this best done?