Who still makes SACD players?

[brodricj]

..PS audio did something especial with their DMP transport which would transmit DSD signal encrypted over I2S (therefore abiding Sony's licensing crap) but that also means you can only play using with their DS DAC..

Nothing special about it at all. My Esoteric does the same thing, but it works properly (PS Audio still have some difficulties with their DMP). MSB, dCS and others as well have SACD transports that connect via a cable to a DAC. You're right about the 2 box solutions, they must remain within the brand to transmit the DSD.

Even though I have the Esoteric Grandioso disc transport spinner, I do find myself more often streaming Spotify than spinning a physical disc.

 

[Devg]

Nothing special about it at all. My Esoteric does the same thing, but it works properly (PS Audio still have some difficulties with their DMP). MSB, dCS and others as well have SACD transports that connect via a cable to a DAC. You're right about the 2 box solutions, they must remain within the brand to transmit the DSD.

Yeah, I am sure others have done this before. My point was SACD transport + DAC is a closed door solution which I am not very interested, given how fast DAC technology advances these days.

 

[Devg]

To me the best and easiest solution is to rip my SACDs and play them from my music server. This allows the files to be played using T+A's amazing DSD 1-bit processor instead of Oppo's ESS 9018. Also, and definitely as important the files can then be up-sampled by HQPlayer. In my experience files originally in DSD up-samples are superior to PCM files up-sampled!

The up-sampling is very very much dependent on the design of the DAC, especially their choice of clock and pll's. T+A is a very good example of up-sampling and so are others, like the Holo Audio. I have 3 DACs out of which two are capable to playing native DSD1024. Up-sampling to none of them makes the sounds better - its just sounds slightly different.

For my preference, I don't like DACs who like to feed them with up-sampled bit stream since it puts enormous requirements on a general purpose PC (the only h/w that is capable of up-sampling at higher bit rates) - the more the power, the bigger the noise generated. This is the reason why commercial music servers like SGM (capable of up-sampling to DSD512) has gotten to great lengths in isolating and eliminating noise, needless to say it also comes at a big cost!

 

[brodricj]

...My point was SACD transport + DAC is a closed door solution which I am not very interested...

Not as closed door as a SACD player...you're locked in to the in-built DAC with the player. At least with the 2 box solution you can upgrade your DAC hardware over time without needing to upgrade the transport.

 

[Devg]

Not as closed door as a SACD player...you're locked in to the in-built DAC with the player. At least with the 2 box solution you can upgrade your DAC hardware over time without needing to upgrade the transport.

true but you can only upgrade the DAC h/w from the same manufacturer (if and at all an upgrade is available) in order to use the SACD transport. If you think about it, they aren't that much different from a SACD player...

 

[brodricj]

But at least you have the option to upgrade, you can't do that with a standalone player. For example, I can upgrade from Esoteric Grandioso D1 DAC to Grandioso D1X DAC and still use the same Grandioso P1 SACD transport.

 

[Devg]

But at least you have the option to upgrade, you can't do that with a standalone player.

Why ? What's the issue with upgrading the SACD player itself ? if you upgrade the player, not only you get the an upgraded DAC but also an upgraded transport.

 

[Randy Myers]

The up-sampling is very very much dependent on the design of the DAC, especially their choice of clock and pll's. T+A is a very good example of up-sampling and so are others, like the Holo Audio. I have 3 DACs out of which two are capable to playing native DSD1024. Up-sampling to none of them makes the sounds better - its just sounds slightly different.

For my preference, I don't like DACs who like to feed them with up-sampled bit stream since it puts enormous requirements on a general purpose PC (the only h/w that is capable of up-sampling at higher bit rates) - the more the power, the bigger the noise generated. This is the reason why commercial music servers like SGM (capable of up-sampling to DSD512) has gotten to great lengths in isolating and eliminating noise, needless to say it also comes at a big cost!

Of course it is very much a personal preference. For me a PC is ideal. In essence products such as SGM are PCs designed to work as an audio component. Yes, they really concentrate on low noise, etc. I have nothing but good things to say about these companies, and if you do not like working with computers and have money to spare they are solid choices. However, a very capable computer can be had for give or take $2000, therefore a fraction of items such as SGM.

Lets compare:

SGM server for about $18,000 -vs- my new Falcon for about $2400

Software: HQPlayer and Roon -vs- HQPlayer and Roon
CPU: Intel i7 7700 4 core 4.2 GHz max turbo speed -vs- Intel i7 9700 8 core 4.9 GHz max turbo speed
RAM: 16 GB DDR4 with heat sinks -vs- 16 GB DDR4 with heat sinks
OS: Windows 10 -vs- Windows 10
Storage: Optional 1 TB SSD -vs- included 2x 1 TB M.2
Power: Low noise internal computer power supply -vs- Low noise Gold level internal computer power supply
Case: custom metal case -vs- custom metal case
CPU Cooling: Heat pipe cooling system -vs- liquid cooling system

As you can see, more similarities then differences. The SGM looks like a great machine and certainly looks more like an audio component then my Falcon computer. I think it is a great choice for someone looking for a very nice pre-built music server. I assume that SGM can update the CPU they use to the new i7 9700. I would think this is critical because in my test I have verified that HQPlayer does indeed use all 8 cores that my CPU has, and it also does turbo the CPU up to about 4.6 GHz speed! CPU use is the single largest factor for HQPlayer according to test I have ran, followed by hard drive access. M.2 drives are vastly faster than SSD, although both are vastly better then HDD for speed, no noise, and no heat.

I know this has varied off the original discussion and I apologies and will not go down this path further. I simply wanted to address a topic that was brought up.

 

[Mikado463]

This little company still makes them today.
Will most likely be making them tomorrow too.

so, anyone with firsthand experience with the CD-S2100 ??

 

[Rms]

so, anyone with firsthand experience with the CD-S2100 ??

The CDS-2100 was bought as a spare in case an Accuphase DP -720 ever needed service. Comparing the two, the 720 blows it out of the water, although should try to use the digital out into the DAC and try again. The Yamaha misses out on soundstage and quite a bit of detail is missing, it’s not as enjoyable and engaging as the Accuphase product, for a tenth of the price though, it’s far better than any Sony BD or Oppo player. The Yamaha is in storage for a year, should power it on again and let it wake up.

 

[Mikado463]

The CDS-2100 was bought as a spare in case an Accuphase DP -720 ever needed service. Comparing the two, the 720 blows it out of the water, although should try to use the digital out into the DAC and try again. The Yamaha misses out on soundstage and quite a bit of detail is missing, it’s not as enjoyable and engaging as the Accuphase product, for a tenth of the price though, it’s far better than any Sony BD or Oppo player. The Yamaha is in storage for a year, should power it on again and let it wake up.

Thanks , but seriously, a 30k player and you had to worry about having a 'back up', LOL !

 

[GSOphile]

But at least you have the option to upgrade, you can't do that with a standalone player. For example, I can upgrade from Esoteric Grandioso D1 DAC to Grandioso D1X DAC and still use the same Grandioso P1 SACD transport.

Actually, upgrades to a standalone player may not always be 'closed' as represented in this thread. Some players may be upgraded by adding an external clock (e.g., Esoteric); others by adding an external power supply (e.g., Simaudio). Still others by software updates. In a few instances, DAC upgrades have been offered (Esoteric, on a limited basis).... but often it's more cost effective to trade in the old player for a newer model (which may still cost about the same or less than upgrading only the DAC of a DAC/transport pair).

 

[Mike]

Of course it is very much a personal preference. For me a PC is ideal. In essence products such as SGM are PCs designed to work as an audio component. Yes, they really concentrate on low noise, etc. I have nothing but good things to say about these companies, and if you do not like working with computers and have money to spare they are solid choices. However, a very capable computer can be had for give or take $2000, therefore a fraction of items such as SGM.

Lets compare:

SGM server for about $18,000 -vs- my new Falcon for about $2400

Software: HQPlayer and Roon -vs- HQPlayer and Roon
CPU: Intel i7 7700 4 core 4.2 GHz max turbo speed -vs- Intel i7 9700 8 core 4.9 GHz max turbo speed
RAM: 16 GB DDR4 with heat sinks -vs- 16 GB DDR4 with heat sinks
OS: Windows 10 -vs- Windows 10
Storage: Optional 1 TB SSD -vs- included 2x 1 TB M.2
Power: Low noise internal computer power supply -vs- Low noise Gold level internal computer power supply
Case: custom metal case -vs- custom metal case
CPU Cooling: Heat pipe cooling system -vs- liquid cooling system

As you can see, more similarities then differences. The SGM looks like a great machine and certainly looks more like an audio component then my Falcon computer. I think it is a great choice for someone looking for a very nice pre-built music server. I assume that SGM can update the CPU they use to the new i7 9700. I would think this is critical because in my test I have verified that HQPlayer does indeed use all 8 cores that my CPU has, and it also does turbo the CPU up to about 4.6 GHz speed! CPU use is the single largest factor for HQPlayer according to test I have ran, followed by hard drive access. M.2 drives are vastly faster than SSD, although both are vastly better then HDD for speed, no noise, and no heat.

I know this has varied off the original discussion and I apologies and will not go down this path further. I simply wanted to address a topic that was brought up.

Great post.

 

[cmarin]

Of course it is very much a personal preference. For me a PC is ideal. In essence products such as SGM are PCs designed to work as an audio component. Yes, they really concentrate on low noise, etc. I have nothing but good things to say about these companies, and if you do not like working with computers and have money to spare they are solid choices. However, a very capable computer can be had for give or take $2000, therefore a fraction of items such as SGM.

Lets compare:

SGM server for about $18,000 -vs- my new Falcon for about $2400

Software: HQPlayer and Roon -vs- HQPlayer and Roon
CPU: Intel i7 7700 4 core 4.2 GHz max turbo speed -vs- Intel i7 9700 8 core 4.9 GHz max turbo speed
RAM: 16 GB DDR4 with heat sinks -vs- 16 GB DDR4 with heat sinks
OS: Windows 10 -vs- Windows 10
Storage: Optional 1 TB SSD -vs- included 2x 1 TB M.2
Power: Low noise internal computer power supply -vs- Low noise Gold level internal computer power supply
Case: custom metal case -vs- custom metal case
CPU Cooling: Heat pipe cooling system -vs- liquid cooling system

As you can see, more similarities then differences. The SGM looks like a great machine and certainly looks more like an audio component then my Falcon computer. I think it is a great choice for someone looking for a very nice pre-built music server. I assume that SGM can update the CPU they use to the new i7 9700. I would think this is critical because in my test I have verified that HQPlayer does indeed use all 8 cores that my CPU has, and it also does turbo the CPU up to about 4.6 GHz speed! CPU use is the single largest factor for HQPlayer according to test I have ran, followed by hard drive access. M.2 drives are vastly faster than SSD, although both are vastly better then HDD for speed, no noise, and no heat.

I know this has varied off the original discussion and I apologies and will not go down this path further. I simply wanted to address a topic that was brought up.

Hi Randy,

Was curious if you’d had a chance to listen to the SGM EVO or SHM Extreme, or had the opportunity to compare them with the Falcon?

Thanks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Randy Myers]

Thanks , but seriously, a 30k player and you had to worry about having a 'back up', LOL !

Lol, I was thinking the same thing. A CDS-2100 as a back up . I did try a Yamaha 1000 once and loved the look and feel of the machine. Unfortunately it was defective out of the box and there were no more to be had. I ended up purchasing a Marantz which I thought was a very nice machine. Maybe even better then my Oppo, however the Oppo serves one purpose. I never listen to CDs or SACDs now. I spin them once to put them on my server. Then matching the transport to the DAC is irrelevant. The DSD64 files get up-sampled to DSD512/48 and sound much better then the original SACDs.

 

[Randy Myers]

Hi Randy,

Was curious if you’d had a chance to listen to the SGM EVO or SHM Extreme, or had the opportunity to compare them with the Falcon?

Thanks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No I have not and my guess is, if updated to latest generation CPU, they might be better then my computer. They better be at about 9 times the price. But being a computer engineer I believe any differences would be extremely small.

 

[cmarin]

No I have not and my guess is, if updated to latest generation CPU, they might be better then my computer. They better be at about 9 times the price. But being a computer engineer I believe any differences would be extremely small.

Hi Randy,

I’ve played with a number of computers and modifications, and dedicated servers over the last few years. My current server is a SGM EVO (playing files from internal SSDs) upgraded from the original SGM 2015. I can tell you that in my case, the jump from standard computers to the SGM2015 was significant. And the jump to the SGM EVO was another not insignificant increment. I haven’t heard the latest SGM (extreme) iteration, but individuals that have the latest version report again non-significant improvements over the SGM EVO.

Emile Bok and company are doing some pretty innovative work with internal and external vibration controls that pays off in significant sonic improvements.

Nevertheless, I still primarily use a Kalista Dreamplayer CD transport (sitting on a vibration control platform developed by Emile Bok) for digital playback. The difference between the two is not day and night, but there is definitely magic in a mechanical transport.

But I’m looking forward to comparing the SGM extreme server to the Kalista in the near future.

Of course YMMV.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Randy Myers]

I am glad you enjoy the SGM machines. They sound like wonderful servers. Unfortunately I will never be able to afford a machine such as that. The Falcon is not a regular computer, to say the least. They are the oldest custom built PCs and in my view by far the best. I truly believe that the SGM would be better, but I also believe it would be only slightly better and probably not even noticeably better considering the rest of my gear (I don't own $170,000 speakers). If I owned that level of equipment the SGMs would be a no brainer .