Yamaha DVD-S1500 User manual

Yamaha DVD-S1500 DVD Player
Manufacturer: Yamaha Electronics Corporation, 6660
Orangethorpe Avenue, Buena Park, CA 90620; 00/
492-6242
Price: $450
Source: Manufacturer Loan
Reviewer: Howard Ferstler.
This review is a bit longer than usual (even for
me), because it will deal not only with an SACD/DVD-
A player but will also discuss the viability of those
two technologies in general. Consider it as a
combination player review and one of my regular
Skeptimania columns lumped together. In addition, Dr.
David Rich will offer up a tutorial on DAC design,
including comments about the converter in this player.
A number of my upcoming Scoping Software
recording review columns will deal with specific
SACD releases and will involve the use of the player
being reviewed here. Some of those will also critique
the technology in general.
I reviewed the Yamaha DVD-S795 DVD player
back in issue 0 and reviewed the more upscale DVD-
S1200 in issue 90. I liked them both, although I did
point out that one could at that time get video and
audio performance from lower-priced versions that
was about as good as what they each offered. The
Yamaha units had some notable features that set them
apart from lower-priced models from the competition
available at the time, however.
OK, now we have still another player from the
company and one difference between those earlier
Yamaha players and this new one involves price. The
DVD-S1500 costs considerably less than both of the
others, while at the same time delivering everything
that they could and more in terms of picture quality
and sound. It still is not dirt-cheap, but the price is in
line with what serious audio enthusiasts who would
be reading this “get sensible” magazine might care to
pay for a good machine.
In addition, the DVD-S1500 can do something that
neither of the earlier Yamaha players could do: deliver
SACD and DVD-A playback. Its versatility goes well
beyond these audio formats, however, because it can
also play Video CD, Super Video CD, CD-R and CD-
RW (MP3 and JPEG supported), DVD+R, DVD+RW,
DVD-R and DVD-RW materials that have been
finalized. What’s more, it can play back European PAL
video DVD source material, in addition to standard,
US source NTSC releases. Admittedly, the Euro-disc
ability is something that would only matter to a
handful of enthusiasts – and probably to only a very
small handful indeed when it comes to those who
would be reading this magazine.
The player is notable for its very low profile, being
only 2.25 inches high. It is a standard 17 inches wide
and is a bit more than 12 inches deep, and weighs in at
a modest 7 pounds. This is in considerable contrast to
the almost elephantine, but still very fine performing,
Onkyo DV-S939 player that I reviewed in issue 6. The
DVD-S1500 has a big edge even over the earlier
Yamaha models when it comes to space/weight issues.
The small front panel is sparse and includes an
on/off button and the usual stop, pause, and play
buttons. However, it has no scan or skip buttons and
leaves it up to the remote control to deal with those
and other more esoteric functions. There are also
several mode indicators, including one that shows that
the “audio-direct” feature punched in via the remote
has been activated. (This function, which the Onkyo
player also had, disengages the video circuitry to
possibly enhance the sound with audio-only source
material.) Other front-panel indicators include those
that tell you that a multi-channel source is playing or
that you are playing a disc that allows auto down-
mixing from multi-channel sources. In addition, there
is a special indicator that lets you know when a DVD-
A or SACD release is being played, as well as an
indicator that tells you when the unit enters the
progressive-scan video mode.
The rear panel is a bit more expansive than the
front. In addition to a detachable power-cable hookup,
it includes the usual composite-video and S-Video
outputs and also includes the now common, three-jack
component-video hookups. There is also a “scan
mode” switch back there that would be used if one
had an HDTV monitor that accepted progressive-scan
inputs. Optical and coaxial outputs for digital signals
are also included (for Dolby Digital, DTS, or PCM), as

are two-channel analog outputs for a standard audio
hookup to a CD player input and a separate six-jack
bank of connectors for multi-channel audio outputs.
These output left, center, right, left-surround, right-
surround, and subwoofer signals.
The latter should be hooked up to the six-jack
analog inputs of a suitable processor or receiver and
normally they would carry the player’s decoded-to-
analog SACD or DVD-A program material. These six
jacks can also output player-decoded-to-analog Dolby
Digital, DTS, and even MPEG signals, mostly from
movies. And very interesting indeed, they also are able
to output Dolby Pro Logic II decoded signals derived
from two-channel programs, at least if the sampling
frequency of any SACD or PCM sources is below .2
kHz.
This is something to take seriously if one has a
DVD-S1500, because it allows those with older
processors or receivers that lack DPL II decoding, but
which still have six-channel analog inputs, to now have
DPL II playback decoding from their CD and other
two-channel source materials.
The Yamaha DSP-A1 processor/
amp I reviewed in issue 72, and
which I still have installed in my
middle system is this way, as are
a number of other receivers and
processors I have reviewed. I
consider this feature the DVD-
S1500 offers to be a fairly big deal.
Yep, why opt for two-
channels only with CD sources
when you can get surround sound from them this
easy? DPL II surround synthesizing is nearly always
superior to standard two-channel playback, unless the
center-channel speaker quality or the position of that
center speaker stinks. With a player like this, one
would hook up the device thusly to get optimum
flexibility:
1) Connect the player’s two-channel analog
outputs to the CD input of their receiver for “pure”
two-channel playback from compact discs. One could
also use any DSP surround-synthesis modes their
receiver offers for a faux surround effect.
2) Connect the optical- or coaxial-digital output
to the receiver’s digital input, primarily for DD or DTS
playback. This would mostly be used for movie sound,
although nearly all DVD-A music discs also have DD
and DTS alternate sound tracks. This hookup could
also be used for CD sources, of course.
3) Connect the six-channel analog outputs to the
5.1 analog inputs of the receiver for SACD, DVD-A,
and DPL II playback, or for DD and DTS playback if
an older receiver does not have those decoding
functions via a digital input.
It is hard to imagine a better hookup arrangement,
particularly if that older-model receiver lacks on-board
DPL II decoding. The only fly in the ointment is that
the DVD-S1500’s on-board DPL II processing is factory
set and does not offer the fine tuning the technology
included in some upscale receivers. Still, it works well
and was superior to standard two-channel playback
with all of the source material I tried.
The DVD-S1500’s remote is pretty basic. It includes
some cool special-function buttons: audio direct, page
turning for DVD-A still pictures, subtitle, angle, zoom,
on-screen and front-panel status, shuffle, and an auto-
scan feature to check out the first ten seconds of each
track. And of course it offers the usual group of
standard controls that must be included for decent
control of the player: play, pause, skip, menu, etc.
However, there is one exception: there are no slow
or fast “scan” buttons on the remote. Instead, if one
wants to scan forward or backward they have to hold
down the “skip” button for two seconds and then the
skip feature is bypassed and scanning takes place. (The
manual mentions this fast-scan feature on the remote
control’s description page, but indicated that it only
works in the forward
direction. Nope, it can work
backwards, too.) Hitting
“play” stops the scanning
and returns the speed to
normal. Unfortunately, there
is no way to easily control the
scanning speed. To do this
one has to access the on-
screen menu and awkwardly
make the changes.
The minimalist front-panel readout is one of two
things that bothered me about the player. For example,
if one plays a compact disc the player’s readout will
briefly indicate which track is playing right after it is
selected and then delete that information and present
a continuous time-play readout. To check the track
being played one has to press the “status” button on
the remote. If one wants a continuous view of what is
going on with any kind of source material (track that
is playing, track-time readout, and total time of the
disc) they have to turn on the TV set and read the
information on the screen. The menu was at first
awkward to navigate (the way the icons shift around
is odd), no matter what kind of source material was
involved, although after a while I got the hang of it.
Still, it was anything but intuitive.
The second sore spot with me involved the
player’s cue-up time. No matter the source material,
it took the device quite some time to access the data
and begin playing.
One is normally used to this with movies and
SACD and DVD-A sources, but the player was also
very slow when initially dealing with compact discs. I
mean, when typically accessing a CD after closing the
tray the unit whirred and clicked and went on and on

like this for a full 20 seconds before the music started.
I got similar results with SACD material and DVD-A
sources often took even longer. One, Big Phat Band’s
Swingin’ for the Fences (Silverline DVD-A 2002) took
a full 35 seconds, because the player actually had to
access two menus (automatically bypassing the first
after pulling it up) before the disc started to play. It is
not a great big deal, and probably involves the player’s
ability to deal with so many different kinds of
recordings. However, some users might wonder if the
player is having some kind of initial hang-up problem
when playing CDs or any other audio-only source
materials.
In addition, after installing a disc most CD players
and other DVD players give a total-time readout on
their front panels and then go into a hold mode and
wait for the operator to press play. In contrast, when a
CD is first installed in the DVD-S1500 no total-time
readout appears and the player begins playing after
the lengthy cue-up procedure. This is not all that
critical (unless you are a reviewer wanting to put total-
play-time information into his review and it is not
included on the CD box information package), but it
might bother some users. Sure, I can turn on the TV to
get the on-screen menu info, but who wants to turn
on a big-screen TV monitor just to get total-time info
about a CD?
Player idiosyncrasies aside, for most of us audio
nerds the big deal with this player will be SACD and
DVD-A performance. Unfortunately, both of those
formats are nearly stalled when it comes to marketing,
and it is quite possible that they will never amount to
much more than niche formats. It is also possible that
they both may end up being involved in a long and
drawn out DOA situation, at least when compared to
hotshot technologies like the CD, DVD-video, and
MP3.
If we are going to discuss DVD-A and SACD
as practical technologies instead of their sales successes
or failures, we first need to come to grips with the bass
management and distance compensation issues that
involve the DVD-S1500. This can be important, because
most surround processors and receivers do not offer
these emendations with their 6-channel analog inputs.
The signals are passed through unaltered.
With the DVD-S1500 you get full bass
management from the six-channel (5.1) analog outputs
with SACD source material. The subwoofer crossover
points and slopes are user selectable: 60, 0, 100, and
120 Hz, with slopes of 12, 1 , and 24 dB per octave.
This is a great feature for those with sub/sat systems
that have smallish satellite speakers. For those with
full-range satellite speakers in combination with a
subwoofer, the player offers an SACD “direct” mode
that automatically bypasses all bass-management
settings from the six-channel outputs. I really like these
options.
Unfortunately, there is no bass management with
DVD-A source material, no matter what speaker-size
settings you choose from the player’s menu, meaning
that if you use the above-noted (and typical) small-
satellite sub/sat system the small satellites will be
getting full-bandwidth bass right along with the
subwoofer. Strangely enough, there is also no bass
management with CD source material when using the
six-channel output’s stereo-only mode, although the
DPL II mode, which is a more viable option in every
way I can think of, does manage the bass.
Fortunately, full-bandwidth signals from the
player’s standard two-channel outputs from CD
sources also allow one’s receiver to apply bass
management in the usual manner. Interestingly, with
the six-channel outputs playing CD and DVD source
material you do get the ability to independently
balance the volume levels on each channel. However,
you do not get this with SACD sources.
While DVD-A is shortchanged when it comes to
bass management, it is SACD that is shortchanged with
distance compensation. DVD-A gets the ability to
adjust for different speaker distances to the listening
position and full compensation abilities are also
provided for DD and DTS sources. SACD gets no
compensation at all. For it to work at its best with
SACD, the five satellite speakers all need to be similar
distances from the prime listening location. This is a
weird situation and is probably related to the political
machinations that occurred when the parameters for
these new technologies were being worked out.
I mentioned above that most processors or
receivers do not offer bass management or distance
compensation with their six-channel analog inputs.
Even the Yamaha RX-Z1 receiver I reviewed in issue
93 lacks these features, because it does its bass
management in the digital domain, independently
from the six-channel analog inputs. It manages bass
from standard, two-channel analog inputs, because
those are digitized prior to being run through the
amplification and any DSP surround functions.
However, the six-channel analog inputs are run
directly to the amp sections via the volume-control
circuits.
One exception to the bass-management situation
with receivers and processors (there are more
exceptions, I am sure, but I have no experience with
them) is the above-mentioned Yamaha DSP-A1
integrated amp that I use in my middle system. That
unit does its bass managing in the analog domain, after
digitizing and DSP operations are completed and the
signals converted back to analog prior to basic
amplification. When you set up the DSP-A1 to bass
manage digitally connected DD and DTS sources after
they are converted back to analog for amplification it
also applies the same manipulations with the six-
channel analog inputs.

Consequently, when using the DSP-A1 you can
zero out the DVD-S1500’s bass management with all
SACD sources (remember, DVD-A is locked in with
no bass management to begin with) and then get
uniform bass management from all inputs, analog or
digital: CD, DVD-A, SACD, DD, and DTS. The result
is that a reviewer like me can not only enjoy the musical
sounds of these new formats the way they were meant
to be enjoyed, but can also do critical comparative
listening without being haunted by the prospect of
mal-adjusted (or non-adjusted) bass management
screwing up my conclusions.
Unfortunately, the DSP-A1 does not have distance
compensation with the six-channel analog inputs. (It
obviously has them with all DD and DTS digital
inputs.) However, and fortunately, in my middle
system all of the speakers are nearly the same distance
from the listening position, so the distance-
compensation adjustment (with DVD-A, in particular)
can be zeroed out. Yes, my middle system is ideal for
evaluating these new surround technologies. OK, why
waste more time. Let’s cut to the chase: Yamaha vs.
Yamaha.
What does this last sentence mean? Well, it means
that I took a very good CD recording (one that I still
consider a reference standard for two-channel PCM
audio sound), and after applying some very good
Yamaha DSP surround enhancements that the DSP-
A1 offers, compared it, A/B style, to the same
recording produced with SACD surround technology.
The recording was the Heinrich Biber and Johann
Schmelzer recording Seventeenth Century Music and
Dance from the iennese Court (Chesky CD173 and
SACD 262). One advantage with this particular
comparison was that the relative levels between the
two presentations were very close, thereby eliminating
the typical “louder sounds better” phenomenon.
The main-channel speakers were Dunlavy
Cantatas, reviewed by me in issue 7, and still installed
in my middle system, with the Cantatas pulled out
from the front wall several feet and positioned about
9 feet apart. The surround speakers were wide-
dispersion Allison Model Fours, located well out to
the sides, somewhat behind the listening position and
about six feet from the floor. (Room-power response
curves I ran on all of these speaker systems can be
found in issue 95.) The contest also included the front
“effects” channels the DSP-A1 offers with its hall-
simulation modes, and the speakers up there (on the
front wall, six feet up and essentially flanking the
Cantatas) were a pair of modified Radio Shack mini-
speakers. (I had modified them by replacing the
tweeter and crossover network with Allison versions
and using better acoustic stuffing inside of the box.)
The subwoofer in this system is a Hsu TN1220,
reviewed by me in issue 67.
The listening room is roughly 17 x 22 feet, with an
-foot ceiling and the listening position was about 10
feet from the axis between the main speakers. If this
face off were not able to highlight the surround,
bandwidth, and noise-level advantages of SACD,
nothing else would be able to, either.
In this case, the SACD release was a 4.1 job, with
no output from the center channel. Because of this,
rather than let the DSP-A1 apply surround
enhancements to the CD that included a derived center
feed, I chose to make use of one of its standard Yamaha
DSP hall simulations, notably the one labeled “Hall
C.” (The processor’s manual says that Hall C simulates
a European, “classic shoe-box type concert hall with
approximately 1700 seats.”) This function has the left
and right channel signals go to the left and right main
speakers unaltered, with DSP applied to the side/rear
surrounds and the front “effects” channels. This is in
contrast to the SACD version playback, which had only
the left and right mains and the left and right side/
rear surrounds active. This channel-count difference
will mean a lot, as we shall see.
The results? Well, the surround-sound SACD
sounded better than the CD when the latter was played
back with only two-channels in operation. (It is easy
to switch to straight-stereo CD playback from any of
the Yamaha DSP modes to compare processed and
unprocessed playback.) It would be hard to see how
the result could be otherwise, given the impact of the
surround channels with the SACD version.
However, I think that the CD won the contest by
a slight margin when the Yamaha DSP hall-simulation
circuits were engaged.
Yep, with the CD, I believe that the incorporation
of those two “effects” channels up front, in addition
to the standard hall ambiance applied to the rear/side
surrounds, managed to simulate a concert-hall sense
space better than what the SACD release could deliver.
Now, this is obviously a matter of subjective
opinion and some listeners would have no doubt
preferred the SACD version, mainly because of the
somewhat tighter soundstage focus. However, I felt
that the front “effects” channels opened up the sound
and allowed the CD to sound better than the SACD
version, particularly with tight-focus main speakers
like the Cantatas. Please note that no matter which
version might be preferred, the contest was no
walkover. We are discussing a taste-related issue here.
OK, let’s think about this a bit. It is possible that
the SACD was not originally mastered with surround
sound in mind, being engineered by the very talented
Miguel Kertsman way back in 1997. My guess is that
the Chesky engineers had to work with the material
in such a way when producing the later multi-channel
version that they essentially had to simulate surround
sound from a mix that was originally set up to deliver
a fine two-channel program. That with their obviously
very good studio processing hardware they still could

not match what the DSP-A1 could do at home (at least
in my room) with the CD version is a credit to the
Yamaha DSP technology.
Of course, it is also possible that the master tapes
were indeed configured for future surround-sound
productions, and in that case the Yamaha DSP
ambiance simulation processing looks even more
impressive.
I do have to make one point. Yes, with multi-
channel materials that use the surround channels only
for simulating hall ambiance, I believe that good,
home-based DSP ambiance-generating technologies
(this would also include DPL II and DTS Neo:6
ambiance-extraction technologies) in combination with
good two-channel source material will be as successful
at simulating a live-music space as good SACD and
DVD-A surround source materials. This certainly
would apply to most classical material and a lot of
acoustic jazz, too. However, with recorded pop music
all bets are off.
Most pop music is not recorded with the intention
being to simulate a live performance in a hall, club,
auditorium, etc. Rather, they are typically engineered
to be ends in themselves. This means that the engineers
often place performers (vocalists, drums, horns, and
even pianos) in all of the channels, essentially putting
the listener into the middle of a musical soundfield.
With that kind of material, SACD and DVD-A
surround recordings (as well as music recorded with
DD or DTS technology) have a major advantage over
synthesized ambiance from two-channel inputs.
There are classical-music exceptions, of course.
Think of some of the stuff Berlioz did, as well as some
church-choral music, and of course something like the
1812 Overture, would probably sound really
impressive with the cannons coming from all around
you. And if the listener also wants audience sounds
(applause, chair squeaks, coughing, etc.) around him
when listening to classical performances recorded live
then obviously surround-sound recordings have an
edge. Still, for most acoustic-music recordings that are
to simulate live performances, DSP ambiance
simulation working with good two-channel inputs will
almost always sound as realistic as the surround-
sound versions.
Now, this leaves only one other item to deal with
regarding the supposed superiority of SACD
compared to the compact disc: per-channel sound quality.
Well, if it was there I did not hear it. The results were
similar to what I experienced with DVD-A materials.
The extended bandwidth and lower noise floor of the
SACD simply did not mean anything as best I could
tell. The CD was more than quiet enough (the major
background noise involved non-obnoxious hall
artifacts and possibly very low-level microphone noise
and not the digital technology) and the extended
bandwidth above the top audible octave provided by
SACD technology remains, in my opinion, laughable
overkill.
Of course, this only involves one comparison. It is
possible that other contests would lean in favor of the
SACD versions. However, I have pointed out before
that this particular CD is one of the very best sounding
concert-hall recordings I have ever encountered (I often
use it when doing my speaker testing A/B
comparisons), as well as one of the best baroque-
ensemble performances that you will ever hear. I think
that the technological excellence of any CD is
important in a face off of this kind, because it reduces
the chances that it would sound worse than an SACD
because of poor mastering done with the former. If
SACD is to better what CD technology can offer it has
to be able to surpass the very best example of that
technology.
In this case, the only way the SACD surpassed
the two-channel CD version involved the additional
channels. However, once the Yamaha DSP-A1’s
ambiance-simulation circuits were called into play to
assist the CD by simulating additional channels the
contest was over. The processor/CD collaboration
delivered the superior goods. The good news about
this is that this kind of assistance can be applied to
every CD already in one’s collection if one is willing
to spring for a good DSP device.
I did manage to listen to a number of other SACD
recordings, and those will be reviewed in my Scoping
Software column, possibly in this issue. I also listened
to a number of DVD-A releases on the player, most of
them previously reviewed by me after being played
on the Onkyo DV-S939 installed in my main system.
The sound was notably good if the discs were recorded
well and often a major flop if they were not. (Flop
status is not uncommon at all with quite a few DVD-
A and SACD releases, due mainly to them being
remastered from rather old source materials.)
One excellently recorded DVD-A release, the
Swingin’ for the Fences jazz item noted previously, has
a genuine center channel feed and it actually sounded
terrific even with the NHT VS1.2 center speaker in my
middle system mounted fairly high up on a big-screen
TV monitor. (Fifteen inches higher up than the vertical
source center of either of my Cantata main-channel
systems.) The centered up trumpet section actually
sounded like it was at the back of the ensemble, located
fairly high up on risers.
However, speaker-location issues aside, SACD
and DVD-A sound quality will have far, far more to
do with the recording and mastering techniques
involved (particularly involving microphone quality
and placement, as well as mixing judgments) than with
the disc technologies themselves. And that’s a fact.
OK, so what do I think of this Yamaha DVD-
S1500 player. Well, I think it is a really nice unit. I went
over some of the problematic characteristics

previously, and while they might bother some users, I
think that most people will be thrilled with what this
device can do. For one thing, it can be shoehorned into
a squashed-down rack space that many other upscale
players can only dream of achieving. Yes, it is
expensive by Best-Buy budget player standards, but
it is cheap compared to some other upscale units and
it can almost certainly play SACD and DVD-A releases
as well as any of them. Actually, it probably can do
this better than most, due to the admittedly not quite
comprehensive bass-management and distance-
compensation features.
The video performance was first-rate, and so was
the DD and DTS audio performance. I gave it a defect-
tracking test with the Canadian CD Check disc and it
tracked cleanly to defect check level 3, with substantial
interference (clicking) noises at levels 4 and 5.
Level-3 performance will handle just about any
kind of defect one might encounter with a CD,
although I have to admit that some of the other players
I have reviewed in the past could track level 4 cleanly.
(The earliest Yamaha player that I reviewed, the DVD-
S795, could do this, and the later DVD-S1200 had only
minor problems with level 4.) Given that players I have
fooled with that could only track level 1 cleanly still
sounded superb with musical source materials, any
hair splitting over greater defect tracking abilities is
just that: hair splitting.
Yep, the DVD-S1500 is a fine player, and I have
no problem recommending it to individuals who want
to play back SACD and DVD-A materials, in addition
to compact discs and DVD movie releases. Topping
things off, its musical performance with compact discs
is equal to that of any other players I have auditioned.
I pulled the cover off of the unit and gave the
digital to analog converter (DAC) number and some
other internal information to Dr. David Rich to
research. The model CS43 2 DAC was built by Cirrus
Logic. These are the folks who now own Crystal
Semiconductor, a division of the company that does
data converter design work, and Dr. Rich checked the
Cirrus data sheet to come up with some info. He
indicated that the most important thing that separates
the great players from those that are merely good
involves the quality of the DAC. Below is some
technical info that is a review all by itself, courtesy of
Dr. Rich. You will not see technical summary like this
in our magazine very often, so pay attention.
-HF
Dr. David Rich on DACs, including he one
used in he DVD-S1500: The CS43 2 DAC delivers
better than average behavior. To make life easier for
our readers I am converting specification from the data
sheet into effective number of bits (ENOBS). From the
data sheet we find the CS43 2 has typical 19-bit
performance for noise, and with worst case 1 -bit
performance. When a manufacture states that a
parameter is “worst case,” this means that another
manufacturer using the part in his product can test
that part and expect it to meet the specification.
Unfortunately, a specification marked “typical” on
a specification sheet can be a problem, because many
manufacturers do not say what “typical” means.
However, any decent designer designs only with
worst-case numbers in mind if the parts performance
for what he is designing can affect the stated
specifications of the final system. For example, the
motor in a DVD player had better be able to spin fast
enough so the player can read the DVD. A “typical”
spin speed in the motor’s specification world not cut
it. In other words, the designer would want the motor
manufacturer to supply a worst-case motor spin speed
to make sure that the player can always meet minimum
standards.
With some DA converter specification listings,
only the “typical” specs are given. If the final-product
manufacturer uses those chips and has done no
assembly line testing to insure that DVD players
delivered to consumers meet some minimum
specification, many of those players may not do so.
This is the case, unless the manufacture indicates the
specification is guaranteed, as is the case under federal
law for amplifier power output under a specified load,
frequency range and THD. To my knowledge, the only
hi-fi company that currently states that the all the
specifications they issue are guaranteed minimums (or
maximums) is Accuphase.
The noise figures I have just given in ENOBS are

measured by Cirrus Logic with an “A-weighted” filter.
That kind of weighting is applied by placing a filter
before the noise meter. The filter is said to allow the
measurement to better reflect how the ear perceives
noise level changes, meaning less sensitivity at the high
and low end. Weighting also makes DAC noise
performance look better since some noise has been
filtered away. However, it really has no application
here, since a properly designed DAC should have a
flat noise floor, although cheap DACs can have an
increase in noise at the low end. This is a sign of a
design compromise that we do not want hidden under
an A-weighted rug.
Even when no weighting is used, the DAC in this
player has a little more than 17-bit resolution.
Distortion at -20 dB input level is a little better than 1
bits typical. At full scale it drops back to 16.5 bits.
Worst-case, full-scale distortion is slightly below 16
bits. These distortion numbers are for 1 kHz. The
numbers usually get worse at higher frequencies, but
the data sheet does not list distortion results at higher
frequencies. The decline of the ENOBs with increasing
input signal level frequency at full scale is one of the
key benchmark tests for evaluating the usefulness of
a general purpose DAC in a particular application
space. For an application specific chip like the CS43 2,
the information sometimes does not make it to the data
sheet.
That said, Cirrus supplies almost all other dynamic
specification about this chip, whereas data sheets for
chips that do not perform as well, but are likely less
expensive, may contain no worst-case numbers, and
numbers without A weighting will not be listed by
manufacturers. Providing more detail on the data sheet
shows the company has confidence in the design’s
ability to deliver these numbers when the devices are
mass produced.
How many bits of noise level headroom do we
need? Well that depends on how quiet your room is
and the maximum loudness you will tolerate in that
room. (This is the all-digital-ones level of the CD – the
largest signal level the DAC can reproduce.)
Of course, other components in one’s audio system
must also have noise specs as good the DA converters.
Most home electronics will not hack it, since a
maximum signal to noise ratio of 110 dB is the
equivalent of 1 bits. And of course the recordings
must also have been created with very low microphone
noise. In addition, they must have low noise in the
analog signal path that follows the microphone (analog
level adjustment and equalization may sometimes be
used in the production of a modern CD), have low
noise in the studio or concert hall, and also have
sufficiently low A/D converter noise.
Data in conference and journals have presented
information that points to 1 -bit equivalent signal-to-
noise levels as the required minimum for a professional
studio (designed for very low background noise,
which may only be achieved with special construction
techniques and materials). I do not recall the maximum
signal level (all ones) was used for the tests but I
assume it was at least movie theater level loud.
With respect to distortion, again we must consider
the rest of the equipment in the system. Almost all of
you have seen THD vs. level graphs and will recall
they rise as the level gets higher. At higher signal
levels, more nonlinear effects of the electronics are
uncovered. This is true with the DAC as well as analog
components. In most cases the power amp will
dominate a systems-distortion level at maximum
signal level – the point where the power amp is about
to clip, which in a digital system should be set to
correspond to the all ones digital representation of the
loudest signal level on a CD. Only the very best power
amps could match this Cirrus converter’s distortion
level at its worst-case distortion specification.
Before we get too excited, please recall the DAC
in a DVD player is only in use in SACD or DVD-A
modes when the analog pass-through of your AV
receiver is active. In this mode, all the good things your
AV receiver can do (advanced digital bass
management, multi-band EQ, multi-channel synthesis
etc) are bypassed. When playing normal CDs (via the
digital hookups to the receiver and not the analog
outputs) and DVDs, it is the DA converters in the AV
receiver that count and not the one in the player.
This Cirrus chip has a balanced output, and this is
found only on the better converters and requires more
analog electronics. The digital filter preceding the DAC
is a complex design providing a digital frequency
response of +/-0.01 dB and a 90-dB stop band for
digital signals at a 44.1kHz sample rate. Although the
+/-0.01 dB spec noted in the Cirrus info sheet may
look silly, it is an important indicator of FIR filter tap
length, and it correlates with the very important stop
band attenuation. The best chips are +/-0.002 dB with
more than 100 dB of stop-band rejection. The CS43 2
chip has a true DSD inputs for the SACD disks.
However, I cannot tell whether it passes it through to
the analog output directly or turns it first into PCM,
in which case any advantage of SACD signals having
no digital signal processing is rendered moot. The data
sheet is unclear—in one section on the frequency
response of the chip I find the heading “Combined
digital and on chip analog filter response -DSD mode.”
The chip also has a slow-roll-off mode that trades
stop-band attenuation for improved group delay
flatness in the passband (improved by a factor of 3).
In the 44-kHz mode the slow rolloff starts slightly in-
band, at 1 .3 kHz instead of 20 kHz. Both fast and slow
rolloff modes bring the signal level down 3 dB at 21.9
kHz. More significant is the change in the rejection of
the 20 kHz first-folding tone that results in the
reconstruction process of the sampled signal (24 kHz

for a CD). This is down only 20 dB, which is 10 times
the value of the 40 dB in the fast mode. (Remember,
decibels are in logs; hence a doubling in decibels is a
10x increase.) Maybe a teenage kid can hear it. The
slow mode will make the ringing of the filter to an
impulse look better in the time domain but at the cost
of a potential audible effect, at least for teens. In
addition I note that no scientific study has shown the
ear is not sensitive to group-delay flatness.
In the 96-kHz mode, the rolloff moves from 42 kHz
to 2 kHz. The -3db point is constant at 4 .9 kHz. In
the 96-kHz mode the first fold tone for 20 kHz is 7
kHz and this is well rejected with both fast and slow
filters (and your ears). In the 96-kHz mode, group
delay flatness is 14 times better than CD with the filter
in the same mode. As was the case for CD, the slow
mode makes things three times better. However, now
we are starting with very small variations in group-
delay flatness as a result of the reduced requirements
on the filter to have an extremely steep transition band
when the signal is sampled at 96 kHz.
The effect of the shape of the impulse response of
the filter in the time domain that results from moving
from 44 kHz to 96 kHz sampling is easier is to
appreciate directly in comparison to looking at group
delay curves vs. frequency. Some people I know who
are experts in sampled data systems (but not in audio)
say the reduction in the ringing before and after the
impulse might have some effect on the reconstruction
of signal in the time domain. Audio Engineering
Society conference papers have been presented giving
more details on this, but I have not seen them make it
to the society’s Journal, which critiques the materials
in greater detail prior to acceptance.
The fast and slow filter responses will change the
shape of the impulse. I have no recommendations on
which shape would be preferable. 96-kHz sampling is
such overkill that small details of filter rolloff become
inconsequential. From an engineering point of view,
that is a good thing. The difference between
reconstructing a signal at 96 kHz and reconstructing
it at 44 kHz is clear for all to see on a scope. Whether
the difference can be heard is still an open question,
but given a choice I will go for the thing that measures
well, if it does not cost me any more. In the case of the
hardware, the cost impact is small. Software costs are
still a major issue.
The bottom line with this DAC is that you lose
only a bit in comparison to the best. However, you
have at least an extra bit over the lower-cost universal
DVD players as well as the AV receivers I am currently
testing. The players I am currently testing are, under
worst case specs, just 16-bit engines. However, that is
all you need for CD playback, and that type of
performance in mid-line products would have been
impossible a few years ago.
Conclusion: at $450 this unit is a good deal without
question, assuming the analog stage is not messed up.
-DAR
T$S
Excerpted with permission from The Sensible Sound, Is-
sue 104, July/Aug. ‘05. Subscriptions to TSS can be pur-
chased by calling 1- 00-695- 439 or writing to: 403 Dar-
win Drive, Snyder NY 14226.