A few thoughts on this one and other posts.

The quote below/above (?) assumes that there is a need to actively process SACD or DVD-A information. This may be true for DVD-V, as it intermixes multichannel encoding in the stero signal.

For SACD, read listening to music, there is no need to do ANY processing. In fact, if you have SACD, you are probably thankful for a digital format that sounds like analog. Pushing it to a processor, regardless whose, is killing the resolution of the format, and thus taking all the fun out of the experience, especially when it comes to the low level acoustical information that, with SACD at least is present in full resolution in all (6) channels.

With DVD-A, only the front channels are in the higher resolution, the others are in lower resolution... This in itself is ashame, because the high resolution is especially needed for the lower level acoustical information (another reason beyong sound quality to 'need' a higher resolution). It is only in the application of the movie encoding in the multichannel disks when you need processing. I am not aware of any DVD-A disks that use such an encoding (as you may end-up with... 10 channels of information? Nice platform for experiments here, btw).

For DVD-V disks, the encoding is there in the stereo channels, and thus you would need a decoder to get it folded out to the 5.1/6.1/7.1/10/2 (haha, the last one not yet).

In another post it was suggested that the lexicon would fold-out the stereo tracks on an SACD to 5.1. This means that the multichannel on the SACD is ommited. Regardless of the quality of the processor, this would be a waste. Especially in classical recordings, special care is taken to make 2 and 5 channel SACD portion with dedicated balancing for each. I would never suggest taking a balance made for stereo through a lower resolution digital process to squeeze it into 5 channels using - IMHO suspect algorithms - while a fully balanced multichannel version is available at full difital resolution, that has a direct - artistic - link to the performers and balance engineers.

The fact that the formats are not made available in a digital form to go straight to the processor comes directly from the copy-protection side, and thus the music industry.

Hope this angle is constructive.


Snarf

Quote:
Originally posted by D'Arbignal:
P.S. One of the big problems with SACD (and DVD-A) is that they still haven't established a non-proprietary multi-channel digital connection That means that you're taking a digital signal, converting it to analog, converting it back to digital for processing, and then converting it back again to analog for amplification. Until there is a standard multi-channel connection, I think the formats are dead in the water.

I can hear the difference the conversions makes with my MC-12: imagine how must it must affect the owner of the average Sony receiver, whose DACs and ADCs will not be nearly the same quality as the Lex's.

I wish these paranoid dolts in the record industry would get off their duffs before SACD and DVD-A goes the way of Betamax.

Jeff
_________________________
If one hears bad music it is one's duty to drown it by one's conversation.
- Oscar Wilde