adamslim wrote: > Anyway, can I presume that ripping SACDs with this would: > - have some dodgy conversion that may introduce errors, even if it is > at high bit depth > - be a real PITA to actually do - something about using the CD CUE file > over the SACD extraction, or searching for gaps
I'd expect it to be a PITA, but using the analog loophole. Just get a multi-chanel audio input, say a M-Audio Delta 1010. Cable it up, play the SACD, record the output at 88.2/24 then mix and play. > What is the quality of SACD? How is it converted to LPCM? Can we > suggest how transparent thee process would be? Sony claims that SACD is great. It is true that either 88.2/24 or 96/24 can sound better than RedBook. Whether SACD actually sounds better than DVD-A or other high-wide recording is open for argument. The big problem is that a lot of hi-res recordings are made from old recordings which were made old res. Lots were made on ADATs, which are 48/16. Others were made 44.1/16. To get any advantage, you have to have signal up there, or wide there. Stereophile did a study a while ago where they bought a bunch of DVD-A and SACD products, played the output, and measured the above 20kHz signal. The majority had zero signal about 20kHz. There are recordings made directly to DSD, or at high/wide rates. But you have to check. I am sure that if either SACD or DVD-A had been popular, the studios would have followed. But both failed. -- Pat http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
