Sony XA-5400ES

[Hopstretch]

I've been comparing the 5400 and 6400 receivers. Basically the 6400 has ten more watts amplification, ethernet, and something called H.A.T.S audio technology. Not sure if that justifies the price increase.

HATS would only be worthwhile if you had both the player and receiver.

HATS addresses the problems of simultaneously communicating six channels of digital data at 2.8224MHz, which would otherwise result in timing (jitter) errors.

HATS uses an algorithm that rejoices under the title of 'command-based rate control of isochronous data flow' and includes variable speed transmission from the player and a buffer memory in the receiver, an arrangement mediated by a command signal which controls transmission speed, so that jitter performance defaults to the inherent accuracy of the receiver and player master clocks.

No separate clock connection is required and HATS is unresponsive to the marginally different clock rates you can expect to find in the player and the receiver, which are typically a few tens of ppm (parts per million). An earlier version of HATS was available on the 9000, but using iLink rather than HDMI.

Even with HATS, the HDMI output is still compatible with the HDMI inputs on other equipment. But full-on DSD with HATS requires a compatible receiver/decoder, such as is fitted to the Sony STR-DA5400ES.

[aardvark baguette]

Sony STR-DA6400ES Owner's Thread - AVS Forum

http://pdf.crse.com/manuals/4104900111.pdf

It looks like you need a "DNLA-complaint' device, and have to go though a network. You can't straight from the computer to the receiver. It also sounds like it only does internet streaming. No mention of other types of players, like Foobar or iTunes.

More trouble than its worth...back to the disc player for me.

[postjack]

ah, that's right, KG was talking about the upcoming pre/pro.

[deepak]

Exactly why digital inputs are a necessity.

One of the big attractions is SACD playback that doesn't convert DSD to PCM. Unless SACD has been cracked and can work over a plain old digital input...

[atothex]

You can't straight from the computer to the receiver.

Weak weak weak.

Thanks for lookin that up.

[aardvark baguette]

lol, self at my grammar.

[atothex]

Not the grammar part, the Sony being retarded part. Heh.

[Dusty Chalk]

I looked at the receiver but with no balanced it's of little use to me. I've decided against DSD anyway. After my little DAC showdown next week I will likely be done DAC shopping for the foreseeable future.

I missed something -- what do you need balanced anything for? It's a receiver!

And: whut?!? Why? DSD rawks!

And: I was over at sa-cd.net looking up Epica SACD information, and one of the last threads I contributed to popped up, and someone had posted the following, which I thought might be of interest to (some of) you:

There is a sacd player from pioneer [which] can be modified with a cheap set to output the (internally converted dsd) pcm signal (24/88.2). This signal can go to a good soundcard and then be recorded into a dvd-audio.

How 'bout that??

I don't see why any universal player that converts DSD to PCM couldn't be hacked to give the PCM output. It was an article in the magazine that was the precursor to the current audioXpress (no, not Glass Audio or Speaker Builder, the other one...uh...Audio Amateur, I think).

I'm thinking this might interest anyone who is going entirely computer-based -- it gives them the option of digitally ripping SACD's to their computer. Which, now that I think about it, includes me*. So...anyone have any thoughts on this?

* -- I'd of course, keep the SACD's, as I would still want to be able to listen to them in their natural state

Edited April 24, 2009 by Dusty Chalk

[humanflyz]

The receive would be a great option, but all the reviews I've seen of it are focused on its feature sets, rather than how the actual amplifier sounds like, its circuitry, etc, etc.

If the amplifier in that thing is decent, it would make a decent all-in-one system.

[morphsci]

One of the big attractions is SACD playback that doesn't convert DSD to PCM. Unless SACD has been cracked and can work over a plain old digital input...

They could certainly have an HDMI input as well as output. However for me, the only reason to buy a disc player over a DAC is to play SACD discs and then use the internal DAC for my HD based files. Moot point for me now anyway as the Sabre32 has attracted my attention.

[Hopstretch]

Moot point for me now anyway as the Sabre32 has attracted my attention.

Does the Sabre somehow solve your SACD problem? I'm in the same boat.

[Dusty Chalk]

I don't see why any universal player that converts DSD to PCM couldn't be hacked to give the PCM output. It was an article in...Audio Amateur, I think.

I'm thinking this might interest anyone who is going entirely computer-based -- it gives them the option of digitally ripping SACD's to their computer. Which, now that I think about it, includes me*. So...anyone have any thoughts on this?

Thought about this some more: the article won't be so helpful, because it assumes you have access to the bitstream at a very specific point, so if the two chips are too close together (the one that converts DSD to PCM, and the DAC), or perhaps aren't separate at all, this could be more than difficult. But if one were to capture the bitstream post PCM/pre analog, then it could work.

[morphsci]

Does the Sabre somehow solve your SACD problem? I'm in the same boat.

I'm not sure as the spec. sheet is pretty cryptic so Its full capabilities are not easily deciphered. I also have to finish reading THIS PAPER

[Dreadhead]

Thought about this some more: the article won't be so helpful, because it assumes you have access to the bitstream at a very specific point, so if the two chips are too close together (the one that converts DSD to PCM, and the DAC), or perhaps aren't separate at all, this could be more than difficult. But if one were to capture the bitstream post PCM/pre analog, then it could work.

If you want your DSD in PCM form just buy an HDFury2 (I have one and it converts the DSD to PCM and goes to my DAC just fine) or this:

HDMI 3 in 1 Converter Switcher DVI YPbPr RGB HDMI v 1.3 + SPDIF L/F Audio

For the DSD all the way people I think you guys are S.O.L. In the end DSD is PCM and PCM is DSD just different sampling rates and bit depths. That said delta sigma DACS are essentially the same as DSD dacs but they do have some different filters and noise shaping fun.

[morphsci]

For the DSD all the way people I think you guys are S.O.L. In the end DSD is PCM and PCM is DSD just different sampling rates and bit depths. That said delta sigma DACS are essentially the same as DSD dacs but they do have some different filters and noise shaping fun.

No, the DSD stream can be gotten off the board at least on a Denon 1920 (probably just as easy on a 1930/1940). DSD and PCM are not the same though the results are the same. You are judging the outcome not the process. The implementation may simply make the outcomes equivalent.

Now getting the DSD out via HDMI may not be easy but at this point it doesn't look totally SOL. I do not think it is too much to ask to be able to determine for myself, and on a case-by-case basis if pure DSD all the way to DAC sounds different than DSD --> PCM --> DAC.

[Dusty Chalk]

In the end DSD is PCM and PCM is DSD just different sampling rates and bit depths.

DSD is not just PCM @ 2.8224 MHz/1 bit (or however you like to think of it). Think about what it would take to convert DXD to DSD (DXD was supposed to be a higher-grade format that downconverted easily to both DSD and PCM).

EDIT: And if you doubt, answer this question: why can't one convert an optimal square wave in PCM (I.E. 0-0-0-...-0-2^16-2^16-2^16-...-2^16-0-0-0-...) losslessly to DSD and back to PCM? (And substitute in for "2^16" whatever the equivalent equivalent amplitude is that DSD can handle [i.E. if DSD is "equivalent" to 10 bits PCM, then 2^10].)

You are correct in terms of delta-sigma DACs, though.

Edited April 25, 2009 by Dusty Chalk

[postjack]

anyone know if agon seller American_theater is an authorized Sony retailer? they seem sketchy to me, but their price is the best I've seen at $1050.

[Hopstretch]

Beware. The guy's a total tool. Plenty more bad vibes sprinkled around the Internet, most revolving around a similar approach to customer "service".

[justin]

Beware. The guy's a total tool. Plenty more bad vibes sprinkled around the Internet, most revolving around a similar approach to customer "service".

I called when looking to buy the XA-5400ES. A woman answered. They don't actually stock the unit, but say it doesn't take long to get it. Typical internet dealer. I wouldn't have cared but I wanted to send it to the NYC meet. I bought from United Online Shopping instead, same as KG. You might pay $50-100 more.

[Dreadhead]

DSD is not just PCM @ 2.8224 MHz/1 bit (or however you like to think of it). Think about what it would take to convert DXD to DSD (DXD was supposed to be a higher-grade format that downconverted easily to both DSD and PCM).

EDIT: And if you doubt, answer this question: why can't one convert an optimal square wave in PCM (I.E. 0-0-0-...-0-2^16-2^16-2^16-...-2^16-0-0-0-...) losslessly to DSD and back to PCM? (And substitute in for "2^16" whatever the equivalent equivalent amplitude is that DSD can handle [i.E. if DSD is "equivalent" to 10 bits PCM, then 2^10].)

You are correct in terms of delta-sigma DACs, though.

I'm afraid it is the same thing actually DSD is pulse code modulated audio (PCM), it just happens that if you're doing it with 1 bit you call it delta sigma modulated. You guys are calling PCM with higher bit depths and lower sampling rates as PCM but it just plain isn't. It's like everyone in my particular field calls RANS by the name CFD but in fact pretty much everything using a computer to solve fluid problems is CFD.

DXD is just high speed PCM and another label. The end products from DSD and PCM are different actually, because in PCM when they use a delta sigma DAC they low pass filter to get rid of the high frequency noise that a lot of DSD DACs just let through.

There are some really interesting AES papers on DSD (actually all delta sigma dacs) and noise shaping around too. There some links on the DSD wikipedia page: Direct Stream Digital - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. I went to the two authors web pages but the pro-DSD guy threw me for a bit of a loop because he's now changed to being a woman and that made it a lot harder to track her down.

Edited April 27, 2009 by Dreadhead

[postjack]

sounds like a total sketchball, thanks. and thanks justin for the United Online Shopping tip, looks good.

[postjack]

also, I'm going to start putting I DONT SELL ASS WIPES FROM CANADA in all my for sale ads.

[deepak]

I'm afraid it is the same thing actually DSD is pulse code modulated audio (PCM), it just happens that if you're doing it with 1 bit you call it delta sigma modulated. You guys are calling PCM with higher bit depths and lower sampling rates as PCM but it just plain isn't. It's like everyone in my particular field calls RANS by the name CFD but in fact pretty much everything using a computer to solve fluid problems is CFD.

DXD is just high speed PCM and another label. The end products from DSD and PCM are different actually, because in PCM when they use a delta sigma DAC they low pass filter to get rid of the high frequency noise that a lot of DSD DACs just let through.

There are some really interesting AES papers on DSD (actually all delta sigma dacs) and noise shaping around too. There some links on the DSD wikipedia page: Direct Stream Digital - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. I went to the two authors web pages but the pro-DSD guy threw me for a bit of a loop because he's now changed to being a woman and that made it a lot harder to track her down.

Good stuff, I didn't see the AES links before. Bizarre on the sex change though

[Dusty Chalk]

You guys are calling PCM with higher bit depths and lower sampling rates as PCM but it just plain isn't.

What? Who called that?

DXD is just high speed PCM and another label.

Agreed. Initially, when I first heard of it, I thought because it contained a higher sampling rate and bit depth than is used commercially in either DSD or PCM, that it was some sort of hybrid...but it's just high bit-rate PCM.

There are some really interesting AES papers on DSD (actually all delta sigma dacs) and noise shaping around too. There some links on the DSD wikipedia page: Direct Stream Digital - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. I went to the two authors web pages but the pro-DSD guy threw me for a bit of a loop because he's now changed to being a woman and that made it a lot harder to track her down.

And yeah, I've been having a hard time tracking down some of the papers that I've heard about. (Those last two don't appear to work -- or am I missing something?)

[morphsci]

Emm ... PDM ≠ PCM