Ned, Stevem2 is correct, SACD must be encrypted when output over HDMI or another proprietary link. Esoteric and Meitner are a couple of manufacturers that use a proprietary link to send raw SACD data from their transport to their DAC. PS Audio never brought it up since it is in violation of Sony’s patent to send the data unencrypted. NO ONE sends it unencrypted in a production unit. The only exception,which Paul says is illegal (but I have not seen stated elsewhere), is with the Vanity board upgrade for the Oppo 103 (not the 105). Do a search if you’re curious. There are also ways to rip an SACD with a hacked PlayStation 3, but that too is of questionable legality (Computer Audiophile has a Very long post on this). Paul and/or others here have also said to allow the DS to accept an encrypted data stream would require a license from Sony and possibly for the HDMI receiver if they chose that route. This would entail significant cost and was not what PS Audio wanted to do. Now if someone could just convince Sony the encryption is no longer a necessary requirement (unencrypted DSD files are easy to find now, which wasn’t the case when SACD was introduced) we would be golden (yup, I’m dreaming).
I think that I understand what you all are saying. I was misled by OPPO’s response as follows;
“Most DACs are using digital coaxial and optical, which will not allow you to get SACD DSD or PCM due to DRM. If you use HDMI, however, you can send DSD or PCM to a compatible receiving device, which would include any de-embedder or DAC which has HDMI inputs”.
I thought this meant that OPPO was sending the signal un-encrypted allowing the DS DAC to read it w/o a license. Thanks for clearing this up.
No problem. The trick is what they mean by “compatible receiving device,” which means a licensed HDMI receiver. It’s far from obvious.
peterrudy said I ordered a DS with bridge today. I wish the bridge was made user friendly so that it will replace my Sonos unit with ability to access and control my library. I keep hearing lots of problems setting it up with audio delays etc.,One way to test the veracity of break in claims is to listen every couple of days after the DS has been fed a signal. It never sounded worse than the PWD MKII to me, but significant shifts in sound were obvious every 100 hours...all the way past 500 hours. After about four months, I can say that this is the best digital anyone has ever heard in my room. Friends who are unafraid of pointing out some of my past questionable equipment purchases are unequivocal in their praise of this unit. These friends are partial to vinyl but the DS has forced them to reassess some of their prejudices...like "no DAC is really musical." I hope to be hearing some considerably more expensive DACs later this year and I will be surprised if they "blow the DS away." I know what music sounds like and the DS gets it right in a way the PWD MKII and other similarly priced DACs almost did but couldn't quite pull off. I can't wait for Ted's further refinement of an already outstanding creation.I am hoping to be impressed after putting 400hrs on DS. I never believed in break-in period till this moment.
If DS requires such a long seasoning, I don’t understand why it is not done at the factory (like Bryston).
Thank you for all your comments
P
I’ve had my DS for 8-9 months at this point, and I must say the difference between it and the PWD II it replaced is night and day. I notice the difference most when I play a CD I haven’t listened to in a while (PWD audio memory) – the sound is nothing at all like what I expect or remember. Right now I’m listening to Marcus Roberts’ “In Honor of Duke” CD – a CD I didn’t particularly like, having listened to it through the PWD.
I like the CD now – 'nuff said.