If I bought a decent hi-fi streaming device, would it automatically identify all these various Hi Res formats and deliver the best available results ?


[All I usually need to know is whether its 33 and a bit or 45 RPM ]

Quote
Spud

If I bought a decent hi-fi streaming device, would it automatically identify all these various Hi Res formats and deliver the best available results ?

Yes, a really decent HiFi MultiSource-Player detects automatically the various digital formats and can deliver best results. It should support HiRes-PCM up to 768kHz/32bit and DSD up to 22.5MHz/1bit (DSD512).

DSD/DXD on Qobuz is by the way download only - no streaming (probably due to the very high data rate).

Thanks Irix .

I've got to dip my toe in at some point...but having no hands on experience of
specialist streaming devices, their functionality remains a bit of a mystery to me.

Quote
Irix

Quote
liddas

Stupid questions: if I buy a Stones Decca/London era album on a hi-res store, say quobuz, am I getting the SACD version or the only way to listen to the SACDs is get a SACD player?

On Qobuz, there're only TSMR, LIB and BB in DSD (same format as on SACD) - [iorr.org] . Other RS albums are in HiRes-PCM (up to 192kHz/24bit), e.g. also on HDtracks, HighResAudio, ProStudioMasters.

There're dedicated Network- or MultiSource-Player which play DSD/PCM from local HDD-/SSD- or USB-Drives. Software player like Audirvana Origin can play DSD/PCM via USB from the computer to a DAC/Amplifier.

Listening to physical SACDs requires an SACD-capable player. There're MultiDisc-Player and there're also dedicated SACD-Player, e.g. the new Marantz SACD 10.

SACDs can also be ripped to files via special drives and special software. Files of ripped SACDs can also be found in the depth of the Internet.

Quote
liddas

How does the Apple music lossless version compare to the SACDs?

Apple Music Lossless (ALAC) is basically the same as FLAC. But SACD uses the DSD format which is pulse density encoded 2.8MHz/1bit. In case of the RS albums from the ABKCO era, DSD (SACD) is the best format.

Thank you!

Guess I'll knock on the door of deep internet ...

C

Quote
Irix

Quote
liddas

Stupid questions: if I buy a Stones Decca/London era album on a hi-res store, say quobuz, am I getting the SACD version or the only way to listen to the SACDs is get a SACD player?

Listening to physical SACDs requires an SACD-capable player. There're MultiDisc-Player and there're also dedicated SACD-Player, e.g. the new Marantz SACD 10.

and the amplifier would need to have a coaxial or lightning input or would the normal chinch connection from the player be sufficient ?

Quote
Dorn

and the amplifier would need to have a coaxial or lightning input or would the normal chinch connection from the player be sufficient ?

SACD-Players have analogue outputs: connections via high quality cables would be unbalanced RCA (Cinch) or XLR (balanced). Digitally, HDMI (or i2s) would work. But digital S/PDIF (Toslink) doesn't natively work for SACD due to insufficient data rate (only up to 192kHz/24bit) and due to missing data encryption. Accuphase uses its own proprietary, digital & encrypted HS-Link for the connection to other Accuphase devices (like their DACs). Denon has a similar solution (DenonLink).

The very first SACD-Player, Sony SCD-1 in 1999, had only analogue outputs (XLR/RCA) for SACD - so no digital connection for the SACD-Layer is required.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2024-12-16 18:15 by Irix.

Quote
Irix

Quote
Dorn

and the amplifier would need to have a coaxial or optical input or would the normal chinch connection from the player be sufficient ?

SACD-Player have analogue outputs - connections via a high quality cables would be unbalanced RCA (Cinch) or XLR (balanced). SP/DIF (Toslink) doesn't work for SACD due to insufficient data rate (up to 192kHz/24bit) and due to missing data encryption. Accuphase uses its own proprietary, digital & encrypted HS-Link for the connection to other Accuphase devices (like their DACs).

i used to have a Sony DVD player supposedly being able to also play SACD. He had both digital outputs - but my amplifier did not have any of those inputs hence analog connection (cinch) had to be used. I could not tell whether the SACD or CD layer was actually transferred (display only showed "disc") so i assumed that digital connection was mandatory.

Quote
Dorn

I could not tell whether the SACD or CD layer was actually transferred (display only showed "disc") so i assumed that digital connection was mandatory.

As shown on the previous page, there should be at least an onscreen display which layer is actually played - or there's a display on the SACD-Player itself for that. You could also test it with a true (non-hybrid) SACD if it is played correctly since there's no CD-Layer. Otherwise, you should hear the difference between the SACD- and CD-Layer: SACD (DSD) sounds more detailed, transparent and spacious.

Normal DVD-Players do not play SACDs - they only play the CD-Layer of Hybrid-SACDs.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024-12-16 19:10 by Irix.

You don't need anything fancy shmancy to listen to them. I have most of them, and originally listened to them through an SACD player. I only have a Blu Ray now and they still sound just as good.

Well, to my untrained ears, the DSD remasters sound just fine on Spotify!

...and now that we've had all that love poured on to these wonderful hybrids, how do they hold up to the CD Mono box set, or the individually released SHM's from the last year or two?

Just keep in mind that, due to licensing restrictions, the SACD "information" will not be sent from your player through optical or coax.

Quote
treaclefingers
...and now that we've had all that love poured on to these wonderful hybrids, how do they hold up to the CD Mono box set, or the individually released SHM's from the last year or two?

CD Mono box set was on sale in DSD (SACD) format as download only for very short period of time. Not too many have it to compare to 2002 remasters.

The other thing is that the box was not properly compared on track by track basis with 2002 remaster even in CDDA format.

As far as I remember, it is a mixed bag with respect to 2002. Some mono tracks were used for In Mono box from 2002 remaster. The others represent new transfer with very minor differences with respect to 2002. A few strange decisions and tricks were made (19th Nervous Breakdown, Under assistant West Cost...). New unknown mono versions of Backstreet Girl and Please Go Home appeared.

But again, the complete and comprehensive analysis was not made. I believe, overall evaluation is positive. Especially for Aftermath, Between The Buttons and TSMR. Sure, Japanese only No.2 (which is exclusive to the box) sound much better compared to old mono/stereo Japanese only version from P33L/P25L series.

Quote
downagain

Just keep in mind that, due to licensing restrictions, the SACD "information" will not be sent from your player through optical or coax.

It's due to content protection (no 1:1 copies) than licensing restrictions. Plus, the data rate of optical/coax isn't sufficient for Multichannel-SACDs.

So I don't know if you mean the DSD-MONO-Box that I have (see picture)
EAN number: 018771834526 ?
But I think that there is no other one in CD form (sorry, I don't collect vinyl)

Comparing these two versions is not easy, it's like comparing apples and oranges.
For me, the SACDs from 2002 (listened on a player that can read the SACD layer track correctly and listened to with speakers or headphones that are suitable) sounds better than other CD editions in the album range from the ABKCO years (1964 to early 70ies).

The early albums are a little better than the later ones, in the ABKCO-SACD-Box.
I can't prove this with measurement data or anything like that, it's just my listening experience.
Around 10 years later, the sound spectrum is even a little better with Japan SACDs of the SACD-Albums "Sticky Fingers" to "Dirty Work".

The DSD-MONO-Box albums usually sound pretty good (to me), but just different.
I feel like something is missing, for my taste most of the albums are a bit unbalanced, difficult to explain.
I basically agree with ironbelly, there are some highlights, but also some negatives like "19th Nervous Breakdown" and "Under assistent ..." plus a few others.
The highlight of the MONO-Box is the "Stray Cats" CD with some nice single versions.
I would probably prefer some CDs from the MONO-Box to some CDs from the 80s.
For me the first choice remains the ABKCO-SACDs.

Quote
Nankstone

So I don't know if you mean the DSD-MONO-Box that I have (see picture)

Aren't these just normal CDs? The Mono-Box wasn't available on SACD.

Yes, these are normal CDs (not SACDs), but these MONO-CDs are mastered with the DSD audio source. Here is the last page in the booklet, where you can read some information about it.

Quote
Nankstone

Yes, these are normal CDs (not SACDs), but these MONO-CDs are mastered with the DSD audio source.

It's correct that the master tapes for the Mono-Box were transferred to / mastered in DSD - but normal CDs do not provide the maximum sound quality of SACDs or DSD files.

Some time ago someone mistook the SHM logo (Japanese SHM-CDs) for SACD and thought the Mono-Box would have been available on SACD in Japan, which wasn't.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024-12-17 22:10 by Irix.

Correct Irix, that's why I wrote that SACDs are my first choice.
Sorry if I expressed myself incorrectly, but I don't think I wrote anywhere that the mono box contains SACDs.
I only wrote about the DSD-MONO box.

For me, the scariest thing is, perhaps, the passing of time. I was a teenager hen this set was released; now I’m in my early forties. I remember considering those who purchased Undercover upon release as being ‘old’ Christ, I’m older than they were then. Where does time go???

Quote
Nankstone
Yes, these are normal CDs (not SACDs), but these MONO-CDs are mastered with the DSD audio source.

But you can download the whole Mono-Box in 24bit/192 kHz for 54,89€ at qobuz.com

It`s nice to be here, .....

Quote
witterings

But you can download the whole Mono-Box in 24bit/192 kHz for 54,89€ at qobuz.com

That's down-converted PCM, not true DSD 2.8MHz/1bit. But the difference in sound quality is subtle, only hearable in direct A/B comparison (DSD is marginally better) - so the 192kHz/24bit is a good alternative.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024-12-17 22:30 by Irix.

Quote
Nankstone

I only wrote about the DSD-MONO box.

Yes, but it can be somewhat confusing since the DSD transfer/mastering was also used for the Vinyl-Edition of the Mono-Box. True DSD 2.8MHz/1bit is still something else.

There is a nice review about In Mono box
[theaudiophileman.com]
Once the master tapes were used to transfer the music, that music was then converted to DSD 2.8kHz for mastering. Why not PCM? “DSD most closely mirrors analogue in the digital world,” said Landi. “We really wanted to master in DSD, 24bit/192kHz just wasn’t close enough.”

Quite a change then from the recent Queen 24bit/96kHz vinyl box set digital masters and a bit of a shock from The Beatles’ vinyl box set masters that were transferred to 16bit/44.1kHz!

“DSD has come a long way in terms of tools, said Landi. “Bob [Ludwig] uses the Pyramix system that accommodates DSD and PCM. That has sophisticated editing tools in there. This is true DSD, incidentally, there is no inter-PCM conversion involved here.”

Quote
ironbelly
There is a nice review about In Mono box
[theaudiophileman.com]
Once the master tapes were used to transfer the music, that music was then converted to DSD 2.8kHz for mastering. Why not PCM? “DSD most closely mirrors analogue in the digital world,” said Landi. “We really wanted to master in DSD, 24bit/192kHz just wasn’t close enough.”

Quite a change then from the recent Queen 24bit/96kHz vinyl box set digital masters and a bit of a shock from The Beatles’ vinyl box set masters that were transferred to 16bit/44.1kHz!

“DSD has come a long way in terms of tools, said Landi. “Bob [Ludwig] uses the Pyramix system that accommodates DSD and PCM. That has sophisticated editing tools in there. This is true DSD, incidentally, there is no inter-PCM conversion involved here.”

I think that's mHz, not kHz, which is quite a significant difference!

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
ironbelly
There is a nice review about In Mono box
[theaudiophileman.com]
Once the master tapes were used to transfer the music, that music was then converted to DSD 2.8kHz for mastering. Why not PCM? “DSD most closely mirrors analogue in the digital world,” said Landi. “We really wanted to master in DSD, 24bit/192kHz just wasn’t close enough.”

Quite a change then from the recent Queen 24bit/96kHz vinyl box set digital masters and a bit of a shock from The Beatles’ vinyl box set masters that were transferred to 16bit/44.1kHz!

“DSD has come a long way in terms of tools, said Landi. “Bob [Ludwig] uses the Pyramix system that accommodates DSD and PCM. That has sophisticated editing tools in there. This is true DSD, incidentally, there is no inter-PCM conversion involved here.”

I think that's mHz, not kHz, which is quite a significant difference!

Yes. Obviously, a misprint in the text of the review.

Quote
treaclefingers

I think that's mHz

Actually it's MHz (megahertz). mHz would be millihertz - [en.Wikipedia.org] , [en.Wikipedia.org] .

Quote
Irix

Quote
treaclefingers

I think that's mHz

Actually it's MHz (megahertz). mHz would be millihertz - [en.Wikipedia.org] , [en.Wikipedia.org] .

LOL...I've been corrected on my post whilst providing a correction on a post.

That is an insanely accurately delivered bitch-slap and the right side of my face is sporting a red hand print and my head is ringing (could those be Christmas bells?).

Merry freakin' Christmas indeed!

Quote
downagain
Just keep in mind that, due to licensing restrictions, the SACD "information" will not be sent from your player through optical or coax.

-never mind someone else already answered it-



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024-12-20 20:08 by Reagan.

Has anyone here completed the full postcard set? I bought all except Big Hits and Through The Past since it's basically Hot Rocks.