I think most or even all of the forum members can be described as 'more than average' Naim enthusiast. Wouldn't it be nice to now what Naims' opinion, vision and /or strategy is regarding the emerging new digital formats like SACD and DVD-A?
I got triggered by this subject reading an interesting article about it in a Dutch audio mag with interviews with David Chesky (Chesky Records), Mark Levinson (Ermm...), Jonanthan Scull (senior editor 'round earth' Stereophile) and Thomas Gessler (head designer at Audionet from Germany).

SACD might not be superior to top flight 16 bit technology like the CDSII yet but it's a promising format with DVD-A creeping into the world a little behind it too. Obviously smaller specialised manufacturers like Naim cannot jump on every bandwagon that comes along. As someone said in another thread, it took Naim nearly 10 years to come with the ultimate CDSII. On the other hand, looking at the developments in the multi channel arena and the acceptance of the general public, at least DVD looks like a format that's here to stay. This doesn't mean that DVD-A is going to beat SACD as the future audio format (although personally I think it will).

From a marketing point of view manufacturers in general are not to keen on talking about future developments or strategy for obvious reasons. I for one would still appreciate a little peek through the keyhole!...

Richard.

As I don't follow the audio Mags, and maybe other members don't, can you please tell with some technical details about the new formats ?

Arie

About a year and a half ago I raised this issue. I recall that JV's response and stance was to "wait n' see".

I also recall that JV said that because of the higher data rate of these formats, it is much more difficult to obtain low levels of jitter.

Having said this, I've heard the Technics DVD-A and it is fab. It does things that even the Naim CD5 cannot do. Also, it was the first time I've heard a Technics system do good timing. If anyone on this forum can take one on loan, then do so!

So is Naim looking into DVD-A or SACD? I'm sure they are, and are probably formulating their battle plans. Although I'm 99.9999999...% certain that they'll wait until the dust has settled. In fact I would be willing to put a tenner on them producing an all-in-one DVD-V player before hand.

After that, we might see a DVD-A/SACD head unit for an XPS and a CD5-style box too.

All speculation of course, but I'd laugh if this was the way they did it.

Any news of improvements on the software front? I might go to HMV Oxford Street to see if any titles have emerged.

Andrew

Andrew Randle
2B || !2B;
4 ^ = ?;

quote:

---

can you please tell with some technical details about the new formats ?

---

Pfoe... That's not an easy question Arie!

I'm not a technician and would take pages to explain but in essence both SACD and DVD-A in theory offer a much, much higher resolution as they are based on 24 bit resolution with a sampling rate of 192 Khz opposed to the current 16 bit / 44.1 Khz CD standard. In the digital world this means a tremendous increase in bandwidth to convert & reproduce musical information up to the smallest (or at least smaller) details. Also there is less need for radical 'brick wall' filtering as the current format needs. DVD-A uses Pulse Code Modulation (PCM) encoding method much like the current format with separate data-words while SACD works with a continuous 'bit-stream like' data stream which is called Pulse Density Modulation I believe but I could be wrong on the name. Most 'experts' say that SACD technology is superior to DVD-A. I don't know and it doesn't say much. I can recall a video system called 'Video 2000' which was by far superior to both Betamax and VHS and we all now what happened.

There is A LOT more to tell about these standards but these are some basics. I'm sure other forum members know a lot more about this than I do.

Richard

You could look at the Philips Digital Cassette v. Sony Minidisc and see that both lost the battle, but Minidisc was resurrected and won the war.

Will this happen with SACD? Some are saying that both are likely to lose - although Minidisc had a niche and SACD does not (maybe until it becomes recordable).

Andrew

Andrew Randle
2B || !2B;
4 ^ = ?;

24bits of resolution means more headroom and
dynamic range and persumably less quantization
error.

Higher sampling rate means better frequency
response, fewer aliasing/imaging artifacts.

I'm curious to see how this stuff pans out. But
in order for anyone to really appreciate the
gains afforded by the new standard, artists must
takes pains to engineer their recordings with the
higher data rates in mind. Not sure if this is
the case already, or will be any time soon.

You won't get much benefit by upsampling a
44.1KHz recording to a higher rate. In fact, the
associated filtering would likely degrade the
recording audibly.

My $0.02.

S

[This message was edited by Severin on SUNDAY 26 November 2000 at 04:07.]

Video is definetly where all the money is going, but the formats will change so often (DVD will be screwed in another year or two) that it's difficult for a company like Naim to get involved as the market never matures, it's all change, change, change.

****

SACD and DVD-A should have better Bandwidth than CD. This tempered by the fact that SACD uses noise shaping (sometimes also called re-quantization) to re-distribute the noise power caused by the one bit PDM quantization that is at the core of SACD, from audible frequencies into the ultra-sonic band (20 kHz +) - this is also the basis of Super Bit Mapping etc. This is fine and dandy if your playback system is has amplitude linearity at the ultrasonic frequencies. I don't know of any that are. The up-shot is you are now running the risk of intermodulation products cropping up in the audible band. I haven’t seen ultrasonic performance charts for SACD but I would be surprised if it were that different then for a bitstream CD player, after all the technology is basically the same except that the bitstream oversampling filter can be omitted. Musical signals could also end up causing the same trouble. On the overhand easing the specification for a brick-wall digital filter can only be a good thing.

As far as dynamic range and noise, these are where the advantages could crop up! I don’t believe 24 bits of bandwidth is needed per se (or can even be achieved – I can only imagine that inherent Johnson noise would swamp any signal at the 23 and 24 lowest bits’ levels). However all this does allow extra dynamic range over CD does leave some room to manoeuvre in recording and mastering of discs – less rough-sounding quantization distortion should be audible on mass-produced disks.

Also I promised to let you know about the availability of DVD-A or SACD at HMV in London's Oxford Street. Well, they're non-existent. I even asked an assistant who said that HMV is usually the first to stock new formats and it was unusual for them to be waiting.

Andrew

Andrew Randle
2B || !2B;
4 ^ = ?;

Tony

PS JV was right, the comparitive timing accuracy of CD and SACD/DVD-A means that DVD-A and SACD are more susceptable to jitter. Also the improvement in timing may well be swamped by the inherent timing problems in filter networks of greater than 1st order (loudspeaker crossover etc etc). The noise shaping network used in SACD are also prone to oscillations that causes spurious idle tones.

On the subject mentioned above of DCC vs MD, DCC was always, IMHO, doomed to failure - poor access speeds, inherently less reliable technology, and a physical limit to the size reduction possible for portable players - MD wins hands down!

For the technically minded, the following info. may be of interest: -

Any CD or DAC manufacturer will tell you their bit-resolution, their oversampling rate, and how little THD they have achieved, using state-of-the-art chip sets. This is how we as a consumer can distinguish different products without having to try them out in real life.

THD is measured in percent or dB. Convertion from percent to dB is done with this formula: log ( 100 / [percent THD]) * 20. Ex. 0,1% = log ( 100 / 0,1) * 20 = log ( 1000 ) * 20 = 60 dB.

A modern converter technique uses 20 bits resolution and 8 times oversampling. In theory a 20 bit converter should give us a THD of log ( 2^20 ) * 20 = 120 dB. In real life, however, the best available converter chips will perform just 100 dB. (Burr Brown PCM 1702-grade K). This is because of problems with accuracy in the manufactoring process of the DAC chip. (It's also the reason 24 bit DVD recordings have no better specs than 16 bit CD's. But that's a whole different story.)
100 dB corresponds to 100.000 steps of accurate voltage output. ( 10^(100 dB/20) )=10^5=100.000. In order to use this precision, for anything else than a DC voltage, we need a sampling rate with an equal precision in the time domaine.

We can calculate how much jitter in picoseconds is acceptable if a 100 dB THD+S/N DA-converter is to be fully exploid. We have a sample rate of 44,1 kHz which is oversampled 8 times. 8 * 44,1 = 352,8 kHz D/A sample frequency, giving each sample a duration of 2,83 microseconds. A 100 dB S/N ratio on a 2,83 microsecond period allows for just 2,83/100000 uS or 28 picoseconds.

A typical factory installed reference clock would give you 200 - 500 picoseconds of jitter. This allows for just 75 - 85 dB of your DA-converter potential to be used. This dB level is about the same as can be found in a CD-blaster or CD carstereo.

Andrew L. Weekes
alweekes@audiophile.com

I had only one SACD disc to hand, which was a Szell recording of Dvorjak Slavonic dances originally recorded in the '60's. I found the sound to be much inferior to my LP12/Lingo/Ekos/Prefix/Hicap/Lyra Clavis, but with only one disc, I cannot draw any conclusions.

As to standard CD, the object of the exercise was to assess the machine as a possible upgrade from my CDI, at the price of a CDX, plus some. While it is in many ways a fine player, the CDI knocked it flat, for me.

So, no solution in this direction....

on the old conference someone quoted JV as saying the CDS-II achieves 10ps of jitter.

cheers, Martin

Richard.

I don't have the model number of the Technics DVD-A player to hand, however it should be fairly easy to find.

Regarding the advantages of the DVD-A sound over the CD5. The DVD-A player presented a more integrated sound with less grain. What was astounding was that it was the first I've heard a Technic system time so well. Overall, it presents the music in a more believable fashion, the performers are more palpable and the system communicats more of the music is a more solid way than from a CD source.

Also, the system presented far far less of that annoying CD glare (that even exists - to a lower than usual extent - on something like a CD3).

A couple of years ago I heard the EMI direct comparison of CD and 24bit/192kHz PCM discs. The results backed up my feelings about the Technics DVD-A demo.

Don't let this deter anyone from buying a CD5 though, particularly if you own >100 discs.

Regarding SACD, I heard the Marantz demo at the Novotel Show this year. Their top line CD player gave a much better sound than the SACD (!!!).

Andrew

Andrew Randle
2B || !2B;
4 ^ = ?;

For what it's worth, I found some comments that I scribbled down after briefly hearing the Sony SCD-1 at the Montreal "Festival du Son et de l'Image" back in March:

I must admit that Sony’s marketing puzzles me. When I entered the room, the system was playing……. symphonic arrangements from The Lion King? Wow, there’s an audiophile pleaser! A more meaningful demonstration came next from the 2-layer Telarc disc of Dvorak’s Stabat Mater played by the Atlanta Symphony and Chorus. The CD Redbook layer sounded like choral recordings usually do on CD, confused inner voices, a small presentation (despite big speakers!) and a tendency towards screechy sopranos. The SACD layer was world’s apart from this: the sound stage extended well beyond the speakers, the inner voices were easily recognizable and there was a greater sense of ease to the whole presentation. I’d conclude tentatively from this that SACD is superior to Redbook CD. But I’ll wait, thank you very much, until the format war has run its course and companies like Naim start working with whatever survives.

Cheers,

John Schmidt
"95% of everything is crud" - Theodore Sturgeon

when I heard a Sony demo at the London (UK) show this year the SACD layer sounded massively better than the the CD layer.

But the CD layer replay through this player was so BAD! All you could tell was that the SACD layer was much better than something awful.

cheers, Martin