Oppo 970 sacd playback question

[acjetnut]

awesome awesome awesome player.

One question: On the few sacd's ive tried, i can't seem to change the default sacd playback from being multi-channel. I have tried this on a few bob dylan titles (blonde on blond included). BOB definitely was playing back in multi-channel, and mixing down to stereo.

I updated the firmware - does anyone know why this is happening?

[acjetnut]

I emailed this question to OPPO and


FOUR MINUTES LATER

I get my answer:

Press Eject.
Press Setup.
Select SACD.
Select Stereo.
Press Eject to exit.




Their customer service is incredible!

[DustinTaj]

Wow. I had heard they had great Customer Service, but that's FAST!

I contacted Denon once about a defective dvd player and they got back to me, well, NEVER. And it cost 5x as much.

Kudos to Oppo for good Customer Service

[Billy Budapest]

If only they'd "fix" the SACD playback so it'd be pure DSD I'd buy this player for sure!

[Feisal K]

Billy, did I miss the thread where you tired one and hated it, or is this a matter of principle that you don't want DSD -> PCM conversion?

what if they called it DSD-wide instead?

[Billy Budapest]

i haven't heard that particular player. however, I have heard players that do DSD --> PCM and, generally, I do not like the sound--less "analog," less warm, less alive.

If "DSD-wide" involves conversion to PCM, I doubt I would like that either. :(

[Feisal K]

I think DSD-wide is used for bass management/time alignment in players that don't do DSD->PCM conversion

[SiriusB]

I think DSD-wide is used for bass management/time alignment in players that don't do DSD->PCM conversion


DSD wide generally means 8-bit DSD, used in production. As per wikipedia

Because it has been extremely difficult to carry out DSP operations (for example performing EQ, balance, panning and other changes in the digital domain) in a 1-bit environment, and because of the prevalence of studio equipment such as Pro Tools, which is solely PCM-based, the vast majority of SACDs, especially where rock and contemporary forms which rely on multitrack techniques are concerned, are in fact mixed in PCM (or mixed analogue and recorded on PCM recorders) and then converted to DSD for SACD mastering.

To address some of these issues, a new studio format has been developed, usually referred to as "DSD-wide", which retains standard DSD's high sample rate but uses an 8-bit, rather than single-bit digital word length, but still relies heavily on the noise shaping principle. It becomes almost the same as PCM (it's sometimes disparagingly referred to as "PCM-narrow") but has the added benefit of making DSP operations in the studio a great deal more practical. The main difference is that "DSD-wide" still retains 2.8224MHz (64Fs) sampling frequency while the highest frequency in which PCM is being edited is 352.8kHz (8Fs). The "DSD-wide" signal is down-converted to regular DSD for SACD mastering. As a result of this technique and other developments there are now a few digital audio workstations (DAWs) which operate, or can operate, in the DSD domain, notably Pyramix and some SADiE systems.

In other words, many of the more recent SACDs you've heard have probably already gone through a 'PCM narrow' stage. And many older ones were mastered (or mixed) in the PCM domain before final conversion to DSD -- possibly even ones that were recorded in DSD in the first place. So really, DSD -->PCM conversion is not something to worry too much about. Modern AV receivers and uniplayers, if they do the conversion, probably convert DSD to something like 88.1 kHz/24 bit PCM, which should be more than sufficient to retain all the purported 'analog' nature of DSD.

And if the AVR does DSP such as speaker delay or EQ it will be taking any input 'pure' DSD through a PCM stage anyway before conversion to analog.

[Jerryb]

I have an Oppo 970.What does the eject button have to do with changing things on the menu?I changed sacd to 2 channel from multi channel just by hitting the setup button.Why eject the tray?

[Feisal K]

I think its just to make sure the disc is not in play when you press the setup button. On my pioneer, hitting setup during play won't let you change the SACD layer

[Billy Budapest]

DSD wide generally means 8-bit DSD, used in production. As per wikipedia



In other words, many of the more recent SACDs you've heard have probably already gone through a 'PCM narrow' stage. And many older ones were mastered (or mixed) in the PCM domain before final conversion to DSD -- possibly even ones that were recorded in DSD in the first place. So really, DSD -->PCM conversion is not something to worry too much about. Modern AV receivers and uniplayers, if they do the conversion, probably convert DSD to something like 88.1 kHz/24 bit PCM, which should be more than sufficient to retain all the purported 'analog' nature of DSD.

And if the AVR does DSP such as speaker delay or EQ it will be taking any input 'pure' DSD through a PCM stage anyway before conversion to analog.

Actually, the whole "DSD-wide" controversy is a red herring. Sonoma DSD workstations are commonplace and they don't require conversion to PCM. When certain operations *require* conversion to PCM, in many cases the conversion is minimized to only that particular part of the song. For example, Bob Ludwig remarked about how he "punched in" de-essed sibilants (with the de-essing done in PCM) into an otherwise DSD master for one of the songs on one of the Rolling Stones SACD's.

I have heard it said that the only operations that can be done in DSD are recording, playback, and parity inversion because of DSD's one-bit nature, and that mixing needs to be done in "DSD-wide." I don't buy that, but in any event none of this concerns me because all the SACD's I own are re-releases, remastered but not remixed (I listen to the stereo and not multichannel mixes).

Luckily, my SACD player offers "SACD Bass Management Bypass" which keeps the data in pure DSD.

I figure, what's the point of DSD if your player is going to convert it to PCM? Really . . . and that's why I refuse to purchase a player that converst DSD to PCM. It's a cheap way out that compromises sound quality, IMHO.

[Philo]

Except the sources for the Rolling Stones SACDs are 96KHz PCM, not analog masters....

[Billy Budapest]

Not according to the interview I read with Bob Ludwig. He states that the analog tapes were backed up DIRECTLY to DSD. What's your source for this?

MusicTAP: Why did you choose the controversial option of transferring the Rolling Stones to Direct Stream Digital instead of mastering from the original analog masters?

Bob Ludwig: I did not choose a thing, I had zero to do with that decision.

ABKCO had embarked on an archiving program of their master tapes to DSD. When they decided to do the Stones re-mastered set they decided to send me masters that were already quality controlled for no drop-outs, no sticky splices, best source, etc. etc. It took about 4 months of fitting it into my schedule as it was, if I had be given the analog sources, which I would have been glad to work with, it would have been intolerably expensive and much longer. I was pleased to work with the SACD tapes, it kept me much more fresh for the important creative work and not bog me down with the physical decisions. With the Meitner converters on the most high resolution monitoring system one can not reliably pick the master vs. the copy.

Please, if you are going to make statements like this, be sure you can back it up.

[Billy Budapest]

Or how about Ludwig talking about the *analog* playback electronics use in the mastering of the Stones SACD's:

In addition to their considerable expertise, top mastering engineers also bring to bear an arsenal of specialized audio tools. “We have six different kinds of analog playback electronics,” says Ludwig. “It's that important to me. I feel that playing back the tape with the appropriate electronics does a lot of the mastering sound for you and is a crucial starting point. We have Studer electronics, Ampex electronics, ATR-Services tube electronics, Cello Class A electronics, Tim da Paravicini's Esoteric Audio Research tube amps, and most recently the famous Aria pure discrete Class A electronics that were used in the Rolling Stones hybrid-SACD reissues.”

[Billy Budapest]

Jody Klein also remarks about conversion of the analog masters *directly* to DSD:

“We were determined to transfer this material only once and go to three formats with it,” says Klein. “We wanted to go to half-inch, 30 ips analog tape. Then there was the PCM world, which we knew how to do. And then there was this DSD thing, which I'd heard about. We set up a chain where we could listen to all three. We played the analog against the original master as it was transferring, and it sounded okay; the PCM was better. The DSD button didn't work, because I didn't hear any difference between the source and the DSD! Then, I finally got it. The DSD sounded like it didn't work because it was exactly like the master.”

The three destination recorders were the Magic Shop's Ampex ATR-102, a Sonic Solutions 24-bit 96kHz system with Mytek converters and a Sonoma DSD workstation with Ed Meitner converters. The switching system that allowed the engineers to toggle between each format at the monitoring level — and perform all three transfers simultaneously — was also designed and built by Meitner.

[Billy Budapest]

Finally, the Audio Media interview with Bob Ludwig:

Starting at the top, how were the original
masters transferred?
“There was a lot of effort put into making the
best transfers possible. The Decca UK transfers
were done on a Studer A80 1/4-inch deck with
original Decca electronics. In the US, most were
transferred using either a vintage Ampex 350 or
ATR-102 rebuilt by (US company) ATR-Services
and outfitted with Dave Hill discrete, pure
class-A Aria electronics. These electronics
reveal details in a master like no other I have
personally heard.
“All tapes were converted from analogue to
DSD using emm labs converters. I used the
Sony ‘super bit-mapped Direct’ software and
dCS 974 digital-to-digital format converters for
the down-conversions from DSD to PCM for
the standard CD layer.”
What was your process in referencing
earlier vinyl releases?
“During the whole project we had access to
pristine (and occasionally not so pristine)
original ABKCO, London, and Decca pressings.
We often checked the London and Decca
singles as well if the original was mono.
“My vinyl reference system consists of a
Well-Tempered turntable and Grado reference
cartridge, reproduced through a Manley
‘Steelhead’ phono pre-amp.
“First I would put up a song and EQ it the
way I thought it should be. Then I checked it
against the vinyl pressings as they were
originally intended and approved. Next, the
1986 CD would be checked, as this was
the source for probably 90 percent of the
people who know these songs.
“Often we had the originals beat right away,
but occasionally there was something magical
about the vinyl pressing that took a lot of effort
to duplicate, and then better.”
What equalisation did you use?
“The Primary equaliser was the Manley
Massive Passive tube equaliser. Also, the GML
Labs (George Massenburg) Mastering Equalizer
was a god send. The combination of the two is
very powerful.”
How did you approach the use of dynamic
processing?
“Even 35 years ago, records were compressed
to make the music rock. For some tracks I used
my vintage Neumann Disk Mastering console
and Manley Vari-Mu, Millennia Media Twincom
TCL-Z or NTP179-120 analogue compressors
to make get the ‘correct’ sound. The TCL-2
Stereo Compressor/Limiter has a special
common voltage control modification originally
made for us so six channels of the compressor
can be ganged together for surround
applications without weird image shifts.
“Compressing them further for mere level
sake alone was not done. Thus, they are
compressed as needed, but not squished.
I wanted these re-issues to have as much
musical longevity as possible, and high
compression tires the ear.”
Did you use much noise reduction?
“Very little. When there were spots that required
its use, if it was possible in the analogue world,
I would do it there. If not, we went to the
high-resolution PCM world. If neither sounded
that great, we just let the noise be.
“The only PCM in the whole series are those
parts that were really necessary. Each
corrected part was meticulously excerpted and
edited back into the DSD master.
“One song had some significant sibilance
problems, and I think 23 individual de-essed
attacks of a word were edited back in by hand.
A true pain in the neck, especially on the
Sonoma DSD workstation, but it kept
the ultimate quality we were striving for.
“The quality and ‘sound stage’ of the SACD
layer is stunning. But it should also be mentioned
that the CD layer sounds far and away better
than any previous releases I’ve heard.
“The down-sampling from SACD to PCM
used the latest Sony sbmD (Super Bit Map
Direct) process, so the CD layer sound is a
break-through as well.
“Being that everyone who buys a
re-mastered Stones CD will have automatically
purchased an SACD disc, I hope that they will
seek out a friend who owns an SACD player,
audition the disc on that and hear even more
analogue-like warmth and clarity than the CD
layer affords.
“The resulting clarity of the new masters
revealed things in the records I personally never
heard before: vocal doublings I never noticed,
bass pedal squeaks, even talking during the
takes I never heard before.”

A great interview, by the way.

[Billy Budapest]

Except the sources for the Rolling Stones SACDs are 96KHz PCM, not analog masters....

I think we can safely put this misinformation to rest.

[triple]

If only they'd "fix" the SACD playback so it'd be pure DSD I'd buy this player for sure!

Hm, didn't people like Alex Peychev find that pure DSD converted to PCM and upsampled sounds better? I think Esoteric does it that way, too.

Goran

[soundboy]

Hm, didn't people like Alex Peychev find that pure DSD converted to PCM and upsampled sounds better? I think Esoteric does it that way, too.

Not sure about the Esoteric players, but Accuphase players does the DSD>>>PCM conversion.

[SiriusB]

Actually, the whole "DSD-wide" controversy is a red herring. Sonoma DSD workstations are commonplace and they don't require conversion to PCM. When certain operations *require* conversion to PCM, in many cases the conversion is minimized to only that particular part of the song. For example, Bob Ludwig remarked about how he "punched in" de-essed sibilants (with the de-essing done in PCM) into an otherwise DSD master for one of the songs on one of the Rolling Stones SACD's.

I have heard it said that the only operations that can be done in DSD are recording, playback, and parity inversion because of DSD's one-bit nature, and that mixing needs to be done in "DSD-wide." I don't buy that, but in any event none of this concerns me because all the SACD's I own are re-releases, remastered but not remixed (I listen to the stereo and not multichannel mixes).

Luckily, my SACD player offers "SACD Bass Management Bypass" which keeps the data in pure DSD.

I figure, what's the point of DSD if your player is going to convert it to PCM? Really . . . and that's why I refuse to purchase a player that converst DSD to PCM. It's a cheap way out that compromises sound quality, IMHO.


If it requires a Sonoma workstation at home to enjoy all the now-routine perks of home audio technology, like speaker delay and bass management, then I'd say that's rather a lot to ask.

The subjective hit my SQ would take from turning off room correction, would be FAR, FAR, greater than a supposed 'hit' that converting DSD to 88.1/24 PCM would be (much less a Pyramix workstation, which IIRC does DSD editing at something like 300 kHz PCM). I know of no good data that supports the idea that there should be a compromise to sound quality by such a 'hi rez' conversion (though of course, anythign can be done badly). Good data , for me , does not include anecdotal reports even from mastering engineers.

Rather than ask what's the point of DSD--PCM (to me the answer to that is clear, it allows us to take advantage of technology) I actually ask myslef, what is the point of DSD in the home? DSD was devekoped as an archiving (and patent-renewing) format, with features making it easy to convert to more common formats like PCM. But I'd rather that the DSD mastering practices simply be made mandatory for PCM, and do away with the megaherz sampling rate silliness altogether.

[SiriusB]

I think we can safely put this misinformation to rest.

However, for all his comparison to vinyl, Ludwig did seem to miss a few things, like the rather different mix of 'Ruby Tuesday' he gave us versus the LP .

[Billy Budapest]

However, for all his comparison to vinyl, Ludwig did seem to miss a few things, like the rather different mix of 'Ruby Tuesday' he gave us versus the LP .

It's an underdub, missing some of the background vocals. Somebody made a mistake--it wasn't Ludwig, though, as he had nothing to do with picking out the tapes. There are a few other instances of similar mistakes as well, and certain dubious "fixes," but on the whole it was a great reissue program, IMHO.

But yeah, he should have spotted it. Maybe he did and ABKCO never got him the correct tape.

FYI, Jody Klein said that some of the masters were obtained by ABKCO off of eBay!

[SiriusB]

just fyi, Oppo has recently released firmware updates that fix the SACDgapless playback, and the track-display glitch.

Now they're working on one to fix gapless DVD-A playback (e.g. for LOVE).

Very responsive company. The firmware updates are on their site, with instructions

http://www.oppodigital.com/dv970hd/dv970hd_support.html

[Jay Casey]

just fyi, Oppo has recently released firmware updates that fix the SACDgapless playback, and the track-display glitch.

Now they're working on one to fix gapless DVD-A playback (e.g. for LOVE).

Very responsive company. The firmware updates are on their site, with instructions

http://www.oppodigital.com/dv970hd/dv970hd_support.html

I just updated my firmware due to gaps in my Moody Blues SACDs. The update went flawlessly, and the update did exactly what it said it would do. I am extremely happy with OPPO and my 970, and I highly recommend it to everyone, especially at its price.:righton:

[unipanthers]

Does anybody have any comments regarding whether the Oppo compares favorably with the Denon (3910 or similar) in terms of sound quality? The Denon is certainly a better built player. The price difference is significant and I'm trying to assess whether there is a significant difference in sound quality when playing SACDs, DVD-As, and redbook CDs.