Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: SACD Backup? (Read 11091 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

SACD Backup?

I was reading a forum, and somebody mentioned that he downloaded a Depeche Mode SACD, and that it was only 536MB.

I don't want links, or anything like that. I'm just curious, is it possible? Aren't SACDs like DVDs in capacity? And besides, how do you play a downloaded SACD?

Thanks, I hope this is the right section.

SACD Backup?

Reply #1 –
Unless there have been several extraordinary breakthroughs in cracking the different problems surrounding this in the last few days, it is not possible. The rip is more than likely the CD layer of a hybrid SACD.

SACD Backup?

Reply #2 –
Quote
I was reading a forum, and somebody mentioned that he downloaded a Depeche Mode SACD, and that it was only 536MB.

I don't want links, or anything like that. I'm just curious, is it possible? Aren't SACDs like DVDs in capacity? And besides, how do you play a downloaded SACD?

Thanks, I hope this is the right section.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=377163"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


If you heard of people having SACDs in a digital version it's always the
CD layer of the SACD.  Speaking of that, what characterizes a SACD - the
SACD-layer  - I can tell you a clear 'NO' .
It is not possible, it already fails thanks to music industry not having the balls to
release drives for PCs, which support SACD. Needless to say, that consequently
there is no software player, not to mention audiograbber, available, which
supports SACDs ... but, that's not the problem, as soon as there would be
at least one SACD-able drive available, the appropriate software would follow...
the problem is really Sony and Phillips, who intentionally don't provide
their drives - and both do sell pc drives - with a SACD support since almost 3
years now. Ironically they are the creators of this technology, so they boycott
their own invention  ...

SACD Backup?

Reply #3 –
I don't see much point in SACD, or DVD-A for that matter.  The only "benefit" to these formats is that the major labels can slow down legitimate copying of their music.

I mean, sure, sometimes 5.1 surround might be cool, but personally, I listen with headphones.  If you're a musician or a DJ doing remixes, having extra fidelity, 96 KHz 24 bit audio is handy, but the average listener wouldn't be able to abx the difference.

Since virtually all my listening is done with a computer or DAP of some sort as source, it's really impractical for me to have to buy and try to implement some kind of a special CD player just to listen to an odd specialty format audio recording.

It's also unlikely that publishers would take advantage of the increased storage capacity and lossless compression of these formats to give consumers great big collections of music on a single disc any time soon either. 
All in all, the disadvantages far outweigh the advantages of these formats.  I bought one DVD-A just to see what it was all about, but I never ever use it anyways.  Other than that, I don't imagine I'll be buying into this stuff anytime soon.  And I don't think that the music industry can force us to switch, like they did back with DVD.  I think that today the consumer is far too strong to be swayed that easily.

SACD Backup?

Reply #4 –
Quote
Unless there have been several extraordinary breakthroughs in cracking the different problems surrounding this in the last few days, it is not possible. The rip is more than likely the CD layer of a hybrid SACD.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=377184"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


also possibly a re-digitization of the 2-channel analog output of the SACD layer

SACD Backup?

Reply #5 –
[deleted]

SACD Backup?

Reply #6 –
There are already consumer SACD-Multi players that work internaly at a pure PCM level and transform the DSM Signal to PCM 24bit. There is the possibility to grab this.
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!
 

SACD Backup?

Reply #7 –
[deleted]

SACD Backup?

Reply #8 –
Is it eays? I don´t know. I once read about adding a digital output mod for a Pioneer DVD-SACD player that didn´t look to complictaed or expensive.
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

SACD Backup?

Reply #9 –
[deleted]

SACD Backup?

Reply #10 –
There are guides on google to modding SACD players to output unencrypted data.

SACD Backup?

Reply #11 –
[deleted]

SACD Backup?

Reply #12 –
Quote
DSD/PCM conversion is not a lossless process.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Right. But if you ask me, such a backup doesn't have to be lossless. As long the conversion is of high quality it's fine.

Quote
To convert the DSD data to high-quality PCM, another $2000 or so would likely be necessary for a quality conversion unit.

And we don't need an expensive studio hardware thingy for that conversion either. It can be done with [a href="http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=37717]this[/url] piece of free software. I'm certain about it being a high quality process.

Sebi

SACD Backup?

Reply #13 –
[deleted]

SACD Backup?

Reply #14 –
It only reads raw mono DSD (least significant bit first IIRC) at the moment.

Sebi

SACD Backup?

Reply #15 –
Quote
Quote
There are already consumer SACD-Multi players that work internaly at a pure PCM level and transform the DSM Signal to PCM 24bit. There is the possibility to grab this.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, but a DSD player that works with PCM internally is adding many conversions to the process, and, in the end, missing the point of the DSD based format in the first place, so I didn't even think of it... but with a little soldering skill, you could certainly could (possibly easily?) pull out the PCM signals.


Actually the point of DSD was originally to be an archiving format that could be easily converted to other formats, including standard PCM.

Btw, I'm reading on another forum (though not the most reliable one) that some Sony VAIO computers do/are going to include SACD playback....but then I see this and it looks like not

[a href="http://www.micromart.co.uk/default.aspx?contentid=a43c7a42-e0d9-4351-a5cc-e6f5763ff53b&newsid=2357]http://www.micromart.co.uk/default.aspx?co...53b&newsid=2357[/url]

SACD Backup?

Reply #16 –
Quote
Quote
There are guides on google to modding SACD players to output unencrypted data.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=377271"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

None of these output a clear DSD RAW signal, however, at least as far as I know. 

I think think this thread may be starting to head into "uncertain" territory.

I think it is safe to sum it up and say that SACD ripping is a possibility but requires special hardware modifications, and would give you 24/96 PCM.  DSD/PCM conversion is not a lossless process. 


Within the *audible* band, it could be perceptually (and perhaps actually) 'lossless'.

SACD Backup?

Reply #17 –
[deleted]

SACD Backup?

Reply #18 –
Quote
http://www.micromart.co.uk/default.aspx?co...53b&newsid=2357
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=377527"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Woah, that would be amazing, but ain't this the first step we are all waiting for ? ^.^
I'm so eager at involving SACDs into DAE workflow.
Over and over again I find myself in this situation recently:
Watching what small discography will be the next victem of my shopping
madness  , and suddenly bump into two versions of an album, the normal one
and the SACD version. The latter with overwhelming critics, and this is the
point where I start asking myself 'hmmm... you have no possibilities (but an
appropriate pc-soundsystem) to playback an SACD yet... but is it nevertheless
advisable to grab the SACD version ? Who knows what happen in future...*thoughtful* '.

SACD Backup?

Reply #19 –
Quote
Quote
Actually the point of DSD was originally to be an archiving format that could be easily converted to other formats, including standard PCM.


True, but it was also designed so that DSD was a master format -- using a lossy conversion many times is not the best way to maintain quality inherent in that master.  When you are playing back an SACD made in a "normal" studio on most equipment, your audio pedigree looks something like:

Recording or "master" -> DSD -> PCM -> SACD DSD -> PCM -> (possibly some) Sample Rate Conversion -> Analog

If you are very unlucky, it looks something like:

so-called "master" -> PCM -> Sample Rate Conversion -> DSD -> PCM -> (likely some) Sample Rate Conversion -> Analog

If you are "very" lucky, playing back a fantastic SACD from a great studio on a DSD-capable hardware:

Recording or "master" -> DXD (DSD-nnn) -> DSD -> Analog

Most studios that work with DSD are beginning to move to DXD now, which is essentially DSD which uses more than a single bit.  Pyramix developed DXD as a standard, and it is now recognized by Sony and Philips.


Actually, >1bit processing as 'DSD-Wide' has been in use almost since the beginning, AFAIK.  Also known waggishly as 'PCM Narrow'

PCM conversions and sample rate conversions aren't necessarily audible.  It's all a matter of implementation.

Quote
If SACD data ends up "making the rounds", being converted, then a generational loss will occour.


It might, or it might not...assuming generational loss is defined as something *audible*


Quote
However, as an archival format as DSD was designed, where every "copy" is a first generation, none of this matters.  The SACD that you buy today is sadly not going to be "virgin" DSD stream,


well, it could be -- some companies like Chesky appear to go to considerably lengths to keep the DSD stream 'pure'  .  Assuming your playback gear applies no DSP, it can stay that way.  I doubt the 'benefits' are really worth all that, though.

Quote
I do believe that with proper studio and production technique, SACD is a superior format.



Unfortunately, to date there is *NO* body of experimental work that demonstrates that.  DSD and DVD-A were both essentially designed on a 'what if' basis -- what *if* humans really do hear
up and beyond 22 kHz, what *if* we encounter signals and playback environments that require
more than 102 dB of dynamic range (achievable with dither for Redbook PCM) ?  In practice
the advantages of >16 bit or all on the *production* side, while the advantages of > 44.2 KHz
sampling are in implementing filtering stages...it makes something that's hard (but not impossible) to do well, easier.

Quote
Edit: I'll add that when it comes to "perceptually lossless" quality or "Sony consumer DSD" hardware ... don't believe everything you read on the internet. =)



perceptually lossless, to me, simply means that all of the audible-band material is reproduced with enough fidelity that it's indistinguishable from souce in a blind A/B.  When it comes to the audible benefits of SACD and DVD-A, don't believe everything you read in Sony/Meridian literature, or in the audiophile press, or from sound pros who haven't done randomized one-variable, statistically valid double blind comparisons.

SACD Backup?

Reply #20 –
Quote
Quote
There are guides on google to modding SACD players to output unencrypted data.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=377271"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

None of these output a clear DSD RAW signal, however, at least as far as I know. 

[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=377275"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Sure, but do you really care?  The rounding errors going to 24 bit PCM are almost certainly going to be of lower intensity then the thermal noise in your system.  So even if your equipment can play DSD without converting to PCM first, it doesn't matter.  If you don't have the equipment to do that, then you'd be converting anyway, so again, no matter.

SACD Backup?

Reply #21 –
[deleted]

SACD Backup?

Reply #22 –
Quote
Anyway, the day a "consumer" PC SACD drive becomes available will be very interesting.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=377571"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


It's obvious. We all know why there is still no SACD-able consumer pc drive
available after 3 years, don't we ? 
But sometimes I have my moments where I'm asking myself 'How many
costumer requests addressed to the support or management will it take
to let sony's and philips greed for money rise some dollar signs in their
eyes, so that they suddenly do release such drives due to the potential
profit winking at them. 
Well, hard to deny for me, as you certainly already noticed it:
I'm an idealist.  I think that it's just a matter of showing these
weird companies the demand of such drives, if such drives got released or
not... actually pretty sad  ... they are all thinking of money, there is no
pioneer spirit existing in them  ...

anyway, I've already sent both a request, and they replied me, that they are
passing my request on to there developer team... ha ha ha  ... would
be interesting to know up to what number of same requests they really will
do this...

SACD Backup?

Reply #23 –
Quote
I agree on almost all points with you, actually. 

However, I just feel that when it comes to a "backup", even if backing up a format designed around many 'what-if's', it makes sense to backup the data as accurately as possible, losslessly if you can.


Sure, but within reason.  DSD is annoying to use, and "loss" from conversion is irrelevent, so theres no real reason to keep it.  IIRC even some DSD players convert to PCM before playback, so I don't think its a big deal.

Quote
When it comes to "ripping" the data (for whatever reasons, legitimate or not) I feel that transparency is the most important.  However, it is important to not turn this thread into yet another "What is the definition of lossless" thread. 


Conversion to PCM will be transparent.  It will not be lossless.  Theres really nothing to discuss here.

Quote
Lossless to me means "no loss", so while it does make perfect sense "perceptually lossless" would refer to no loss in frequencise that humans can perceive, I still feel it's an oxymoron.  I agree that for listening, it is more than good enough.


I agree 100%.  Its a really stupid word, and people shouldn't use it.  The correct word is "transparent".

SACD Backup?

Reply #24 –
[deleted]