The reason why there is a lot of classic rock is because there are a lot of quadraphonic sound masters from the 70s that can converted to digital and pressed onto an SACD pretty quickly.
Yeah wasn't that why Quadrophenia was named that in the first place? Because it had 4 channels rather than 2. But unfortunately it never really caught on because nobody had quadrophonic sound on their hi-fis at home, they only had stereo. So any subsequent re-release of Quadrophenia was in stereo instead. I don't think it makes much of a difference. Mono is not inherently worse and stereo isn't inherently better, and the same applies for 4 channel sound. It's all about how they're mastered Like there's a reason why, with the remasters of the beatles albums, the better versions are the mono versions. Because originally, with the original releases, the beatles themselves only focused on the mono versions. They didn't care whatsoever about the stereo versions. And as a result the mono versions are much better than the stereo versions overall, because they were mastered by the beatles themselves, and the stereo ones weren't.
@@duffman18 Multi-channel audio is an easier sell now, because a lot of people bought multi-channel audio systems for their home DVD systems. Of course multi-channel SACD requires either a receiver that can do DSD, or a SACD player with audio-out. I like the idea of SACD having multiple layers, and multi-channel audio, but the average home user is going to have an easier time with DVD-Audio or Blu-Ray Audio. We also have the obvious fact that most of the wold has moved on from physical media.
Very interesting. you can tell that I am seventy-four years old because I actually remember the word "quadraphonic" which is a word that I have not heard or read since 1967. LOL.
@@AndyP126 Re >We also have the obvious fact that most of the wold has moved on from physical media.< Correct. But also most people do not drive brand new Porsches or Maseraties... Streaming, storing music and videos on NASs, cellphones, PCs, etc. is convenient but not necessary better in terms of quality. And there are lots of people who appreciate quality over easy of use. >Of course multi-channel SACD requires either a receiver that can do DSD, or a SACD player with audio-out.< I don't think it's a problem. Most modern AVRs can handle mutli-channel DSD (dsf, dff file formats) or DoF ((DSD Over PCM). "Higher" tier Blu-Ray players can do it too. You don't need to buy a dedicated SACD player for you home theater / music system. I have Sony UBP-X800M2 paired with Marantz AVR and I've never encountered any of those problems described by OP (@Modern Classic). This Blu-Ray player can send DSD over HDMI, unfortunately my 5 yo AVR can't decode it from HDMI input. So I set it as DoP 176kHz/24bit. But newer AVRs can do DSD over HDMI. Another way to deal with it is just rip off the SACD into a ISO image or to flac files and play it this way. >but the average home user is going to have an easier time with DVD-Audio or Blu-Ray Audio.< Correct. But having a decent Blu-Ray player gives you an option to play more digital formats, including SACDs. Also worth to note, that Blu-Ray discs are region coded while SACD are kind of easier on that. I have SACDs from Europe, Japan and Hong Kong - no problem playing them at all. But one of my Blu-ray discs from UK is no go. So just be carful when you order discs from overseas. cheers
Interesting video. I have been buying SACDs since 2003 and I must say that this format has given me many hours of sonic pleasure. Issues I have had with this format? Zero! Over the years I have seen my collection grow and I have upgraded my hi-fi components.
Mobile Fidelity is a label that specializes in remastering classic LPs from the original analog masters. The sound quality of their releases is usually amazing. They are currently releasing the Eagles catalog on vinyl and SACD. They fully embrace SACD and actively support the format. If you're looking for SACD or vinyl titles, I highly recommend them.
@@lynnhenson3042 If you collect vinyl and it's important to you to have analog-only vinyl masterings, you should know that MoFi makes a digital dub of the analog master. They do their mastering work from that digital file, so the process is not pure analog. The mastering itself is done in the analog realm, but they start with a digital source.
Great Video! Thanks for sharing this, however: 3:38 -> your brain doesn't piece the samples together, that's what the DAC (Digital to Analog Converter) is for.
And the low-pass filter makes sure even the highest-frequency waveforms don’t look like a stair step any more by the time it gets to the amp and speakers, but rather a 20khz sine wave. (Any waveform shape other than a sine wave would show up as frequencies higher than 20khz on a frequency graph.)
@@ModernClassic I just ordered a used Pioneer Elite DV-47A. Is that the machine you have and what are your thoughts? I paid $167.00 cdn for it with machine, shipping and import fees included.
One nit: most dvd players do not support dvd-audio. Dvd-audio was a competing audiophile format to SACD but using PCM instead of DSD. Many Dvd-audio discs also included a compatibility segment using standard dvd. That's why these releases work in standard dvd players. However you're hearing dolby digital and not the true dvd-audio tracks. The BD audio format does not have this issue since the audio tracks are in the standard for Blu ray.
JustWasted3HoursHere Firstly DRM did not prevent any of that even for an inch. Secondly, how in the world does copying harm labels? Selling copies, maybe. Thirdly, maybe it would matter to make material that anyone is willing to pay for first of all?
*Firstly DRM did not prevent any of that even for an inch.* Casual copiers, maybe, who don't want to put too much effort into getting what they want might be foiled. But, of course you can never completely eliminate piracy, only slow it down or delay it. *Secondly, how in the world does copying harm labels? Selling copies, maybe.* I think you just answered the question yourself! What other way would the labels be harmed except by lower sales? *Thirdly, maybe it would matter to make material that anyone is willing to pay for first of all?* I partially agree, although why are people copying things that are not worth having? I know several people who have thousands of mp3s without owning a single album, disc, cassette or any other storage method. They have no motivation to buy them now that they have what they want....for free. What is the market value of those, let's say, 5000 songs (that is not going to be collected by the record labels)? Just food for thought.
JustWasted3HoursHere I definitely was one of those people owning gigabytes of mp3's, none of which were bought. And I still don't see how that could damage any profits. Well, let me explain myself a little bit. Most probably you come from a place where life is and always was for your generation like a middle class in US. You buy a CD or a record in a store instead of extra fries to your burger or whatever, just an example. I come from a wildly different place and background. For a perspective, where I live everyone middle to low class had a pc of sorts in early 2000's and everyone ran Windows. While literally nobody would be able to afford a licensed version of said operating system. It was in the range of three monthly family incomes a piece. Nobody in their mind would even allow the slightest idea of buying it. NO ONE. There was no market for it, people would just use whatever 'nix was available back then or play Dizzy on their commodore. Same with music records of any format. As a young lad I did not even buy pirated cassetes and CDs. Well I did, like three pieces out of half a basement worth of stuff. An original licensed cassette was something I would get as a Christmas present from my parents, if I was begging enough for all the year and they managed to save for one(Genesis I Can't Dance was one of them, I recently bought a decent cassette deck just to listen to it). And if getting my friend to record me a copy cassette wouldn't be an option, well, I would just knock my fingers on the table or hum and whistle. It's not often a motivation, but means that are not there to buy stuff. So, what is the market value of 5000 songs that an eastern-European boy would've never bought, label issued or pirated? I can tell you, it is really close to $0.00 There are a lot of places like this. And to redeem my dignity a little bit - I have bought nice original CD's of most influential stuff I was listening to back then. Fun fact - one of the albums just did not sound/sit with me right in CD quality. It was ass backwards and did not evoke emotions I was expecting. Then in a drunk ebay crawl I got a worn through cassette of same album and BOOM - instant teleportation to the sweaty dance floors of my youth years. It suddenly appeared to me that vinyl can make sense to some in some context.
My experience is different. I currently play SACDs on an Oppo 105. I only use the two channel layer and over the last 5 years or so I have not had a single problem. Sound quality is generally better. I have noticed this not only with SACDs but also .dff files on hard disc. Whether this is due to better mastering, larger sound range, or the superiority of the DSD format I do not know. The format is took off in Japan and is still strong there. Japan itself is a sufficiently large enough market that it does not matter if it is perceived to be dead elsewhere. As an aside I stick to 2-channel. Quality sound depends very much on quality speakers. All those extra speakers and extra amplification cost dosh that could go into just two speakers. Most concerts have the players in front of you so this side-speaker notion does not seem natural to me.
"Your brain pieces these individual samples back together to make music, in basically the same way it does for video that's made up of static frames." No, your Digital-to-Analog-Converter interpolates/oversamples/filters the samples and converts them to a continuous analog signal, so that it may be fed to analog equipment, like speakers and headphones.
Yes, placement of good stereo speakers can give 3D sound. Another thing I’ve discovered after buying a subwoofer, is that my Monitor Audio, or any other speaker, cannot play bass sounds that are not there. What I mean is, I thought the bass from my speakers was lacking until one day I played a really good recording that contained really good bass (Jazz...big surprise, not!). I don’t always switch on my subwoofer and when I checked, found to my surprise and delight, that the excellent sounds were coming from just my stereo speakers. I’m sure my bass drivers have loosened up a bit too and that they are even better now. As for 3D sound, sometimes I can hear a saxophone from directly to my left. When I moved my speakers into position, I found that a little goes a long way.
Well said, Mike. Thumbs up. A pair of speakers spaced well can give the effect of three dimensional sound, anyway. It is not that difficult to sit, or stand to hear music playback from my hi fi audio stereo system.
Great informative video, I have a Yamaha DVD-S1700 which plays DVD, SACD and CD, it has a HDMI output for the DVD and a multi channel output for the SACD, I use it through a Yamaha amp, I play "The War Of The Worlds" on SACD and make sure I sit in the middle of the sound field, oh man does it blow me away, I find it amazing to listen to it up loud and with the lights off!!
Once you get past the loudness wars, a standard CD is gonna sound just as good as you need. Just don't crush the dynamic range. Or else it'll sound bad on any format.
Yeah, there's something to be said for a good surround master but that's about it beyond CDs. I suppose it's almost lucky that most good music is old enough that there exists competent CD releases, but still the loudness war has claimed far too many victims, including that dark spot in the 2000s where not only was compression rife but vinyl was dead, so otherwise great material only exists in borderline unlistenable form.
A well mastered 16/44.1 mix without clipping is nice, but when you move up to 24 bit you don't have to worry about dithering. Good 16 bit with a good dithering method is needed as a minimum, but a clean 24 bit without added dithering is really very wanted. Have a great one!
SACD is only better on paper. A properly mastered standard CD and a properly mastered SACD are guaranteed to sound exactly the same as one another because nobody can actually perceive anything higher than 44.1 kHz. Why not, you ask? Easy. Because 44.1 kHz allows the full human hearing spectrum of 20 Hz-20 kHz to be recorded and played back perfectly. The idea that higher sampling rates sound better is only a myth because, once again, humans cannot hear higher than 20 kHz at their best, and even then the majority of human adults can't even hear higher than 16 kHz. Therefore the sampling rate of SACD, 2.8224 MHz which is exactly 64 times the standard CD sampling rate, is 64 times overkill because not a single person can hear anything higher. The only actual advatanges SACD has over normal CD is surround support, but that's useless for the majority of people, and longer playback time (110 minutes on a stereo SACD compared to 80 minutes on normal CD) but again, that's mostly useless because most albums are not longer than even 40 minutes. To top it all off, those two mostly irrevelant advantages are immediately ignored by many people simply because SACD has the dreaded DRM cancer that screws over paying customers.
6 років тому+5
Wow, this channel is really good. I'm glad I've found it in a suggestion. Subscribed.
Mastering is always overlooked and it annoys me that some of my favorite music gets over compressed and becomes a headache to listen to without using a sound level plugin that decreases the overall volume by 7-10dB for my music player. CD-quality audio is also just fine for nearly 99.9999999% of the human population for stereo, but I hope Blu Ray Audio can gain more traction with a lot of my favorite artists.
What you hoped Blu-Ray Audio to achieve had already achieved with SACD with new releases almost every month it pretty much alive and well but not in a mass market. Blu-Ray Audio is just too mainstream for either the mass the audiophiles and record labels to be taken seriously,early poor show from Universal's own HFPA Blu-Ray didn't helped either. The problem is most Blu-Ray players don't have good enough DAC to take advantage of the so called better sound of the format.
Best and easiest (and economical) way to get a surround disc music set up: Sony AV Receiver with DSD Direct > HDMI < Sony Blu-ray player (UBP-X800M2). Plays all surround disc formats and allows for native DSD playback.
Fantastic watch mate! This video should be used as a template for folks who want to make video reviews that are informative to boot. Simple, practical & lucid. You nailed every thing on my list that makes a video supremely amazing in this genre. The best 21 minutes I spent on UA-cam in a long time.
This comparison setup is all but right: using small home theater graded speakers, a basic receiver and a couple used and beaten players? It is like trying to judge a Tesla car driving it on the farm and then declaring that there is no difference between it and the old grandma's chevy.
Your setup might be typical for someone that owns a Blu ray player that just happens to play SACDs but it is definitely NOT typical for someone that goes out and buy SACDs. Those speakers are a joke.
I agree, having been an audio enthusiast for many decades now, I find that most people talk being but when you check their audio system in person they have gear that is comparable (or worse) than what was used this video, making this video completely relevant. And yes, people with run of the mill audio systems do go out and buy crazy disc formats, like SACD, regardless of their system being able to play them, that's just what people do (its also ho wI get those discs for free when they give up on them LOL). Mastering of any music media has aways made a difference, even back of the days when we only had vinyl, there were huge differences between various pressings that ordinary people could hear. I inadvertently had an ideal setup to test this, because people would give me their vinyl that they would give up on for one reason or another. Visitors would play one record then switch to the same album that was pressed by a different company and they were shocked at the major improvement they heard themselves (I didn't prompt them in any way, in fact they were trying t show me that they all sounded the same and wound up proving that the difference is real, significant and enjoyable). Check for the reviews on which "pressing" sounds best and try that to see if you can find a version that is pleasing to you (this also happens with CDs as well).
Once there was a guy telling me that cassettes sound better than CDs. I was telling him that this just isn't true, then he brought me to his place to hear the comparison for myself. He was using a boombox!!!
We've listened to high res audio files on high end planarmagnetic headphones and never heard any difference from the same audio resampled to CD quality. So, I am very skeptical, and I've successfully convinced people through this ABX'ing that CD is audibly transparent. Sony tried to sell people an unneeded technology because it would extend their intellectual property rights and get people to buy hardware. That is frankly unethical, no different than what we used to call "snake oil salesmen", and it's good that some people raise questions about SACD's allegedly superior performance.
I've been an audiophile for awhile. You mainly focus on SACD as a surround format for regular small kit speakers. One note about DSD decoding is that I've seen many new Denon and Sony receivers list DSD decoding. It has always been a task, though, to try to get a transport that can output DSD (without spending $30,000+ on player and amp). My primary SACD player is a high end stereo model that has optical out for CD (and for CD, its DAC can upsample to 192khz), and analog stereo output for SACD. If I listen through speakers, I keep it stereo through my full range towers. For critical listening, I also have a high end tube headphone amplifier. I'm a bit of a purist in that I've found that "the best medium" depends on mastering. I've collected classic rock albums on vinyl, as I found CD masters could be coming from the 80s: where they reduced the dynamics to eliminate tape hiss. With the double blind study that was conducted for CD vs SACD, there was a note that there was a perceived difference in noise floors. I started collecting SACDs for live classical music: classical is the main genre that has had titles natively recorded on DSD. Most rock titles have come from different masters, converted to DSD (so it's more questionable about any clear difference). With a good classical SACD, I do hear a good soundstage and great dynamics. One recording I have is Ravel's Bolero: I saw a vid from Techmoan where he showed a backwards playing Bolero record (because a record's dynamics can actually improve with the outer portion of a record...and that particular piece starts off extremely quiet and then gradually gets loud). Some of the SACD titles I've collected are now out of print: one that could be a sonic treat for surround is Bach's The Four Great Toccatas and Fugues (recorded with 4 separate organs in a cathedral...that can dip below 10hz). For the best quality, I'd listen through my SACD player....but if I want to listen to the SACD surround track, I can listen through an Oppo player that converts to PCM (A/Bing them, the converted PCM doesn't sound nearly as good though). There's still some classical SACDs coming out, but there is a much larger collection of CDs out there....there's also artists and interpretations that I prefer that might be on CD. I also enjoy live blu-ray concerts (many are in high-res). I do think it's rather asinine to debate DSD vs high res PCM: they're both intended to be able to produce higher harmonics for faithful sound reproduction: and a well mastered album will do that (PCM or DSD). I do agree about the "loudness wars", but with rock, that isn't new: raising loudness and compressing was started in the 80s. So in short, how the music is engineered is one of the most important aspects: as well as getting the best medium for that particular title/artist you're looking for.
The loudness war does seem to be the real reason why old vinyl sounds much better. I have found that many new vinyls are still being mastered with a better dynamic range than digital formats. Even hi-res 88/96kHz 24bit releases can be brickwalled and often un-listenable which is ridiculous. The loudness wars are a real problem, I've been only listening to SACD and hires digitized vinyl to get around it. I don't have any experience with blu-ray audio and the dynamic range that gets mastered onto them yet. Great video on SACD, thanks.
nmeunier There's tons of interest within the high-end audio industry to improve on vinyl playback. Hundreds of mechanical engineers and wanna-bes have puzzled over how to suspend a tiny diamond between groove walls to minimize unwanted vibrations and speed changes while perfectly tracking the undulations in the those walls, and many dozens have turned their ideas into turntables and arms, usually with insane ($10,000 and up!) prices. I love my vinyl and I've considered upgrading from my 30-year-old Rega Planar 3 turntable (still sold, still a phenomenal value). But getting these hi-res DSD and DVD-A remasters and listening in surround sound would probably be more satisfying.
nmeunier Ha, I forgot about laser. There's also Carl Haber and Project IRENE, who make 3D scans of old wax cylinders and records (even if in pieces!), then "play" the scan. Some day audiophiles will trade 750 GB scans of classic albums and tweak groove pattern recognition software :-) . It may be bad for other formats, but purchasing vinyl is great for musicians and recorded music. And paying attention to the media will get some people interested in better music reproduction. It will suck if the digital master gets brick-wall loudness war mastering and you have to buy the vinyl to get a decent master, but smart artists will release a better hi-res master to HDtracks.
Vinyl is only better if it was mastered properly, directly from the original mixes. Sadly, most current vinyl releases are just copied from CD masters (I made a video about how people can be fooled by them).
You got that right. Cassettes can sound amazing, so can vinyl, so can CD and SACD. Even MP3 can sound pretty good when handled properly (which most aren't).
The SOUND of vinyl is fine, but the _durability_ and _longevity_ of it is something else. Even if you are super careful with it, never touching the faces (but only by the edges), you'll still pick up dust and other particulates. Drop it on the floor and it might break (old records were even worse, made out of shellac or shellac resin, which was extremely brittle: Just watch an old 1940s comedy as one person smashes a record over someone else's head: It disintegrates into a million pieces).
I found a good combination: In 2006 i bought a Sony DVP-NS92V. He has 6 analog Outputs. His sound is amazing. As AVR at that time i had a simple Denon AVR 1801. And this device has a 6 analog input! So it worked perfect..it was the pre HDMI Time. And some years ago i bought a second hand Denon AVR 2809. It has HDMI and (!) analog inputs. I had problems with the HDMI playback, so i choosed once again the analog way...it works and sounds perfect....after all this years i never had one problem with the Sony Player...really brilliant. As soundsystem a have some Tannoys combined with a very expensive and good REL Subwoofer...I recommend SACD highly! I'm a fanboy of this format...
While I don't disagree with anything you've said, I have found that overcoming the hurdles of all the modern surround formats to be worth the rewards of having a very large and enjoyable collection of surround sound music. As you said, it shouldn't be this difficult, but the fine folks on the QuadraphonicQuad forum have helped tremendously.
The NiN disc is one of the best. The 5.1 surround changes the music in very interesting ways. I really don't understand why more music didn't go in this direction at least for experimentation if nothing else.
Even professionals could not tell the difference (about a 50% success rate), which means that the material presented to the ears does not make it past the auditory circuits into the brain due to limits in human hearing. It does not matter if the material is there if no one can hear it. Regular old CDs already carry all information hearable by 99.9% of the population. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD
There are of course differences between SACD and CD. You can simply look at the technical specifications and objectively count and measure the improvements. The capacities and limitations of human hearing are however also well known and researched and outside audiophile religious cults, there is absolutely no dispute among competent researchers that no person is able to hear the better resolution, dynamic range or frequency response of the SACD format. 16 bit linear PCM with a 44.1kHz sample rate, as used on regular CDs, is already 'beyond' the capabilities of human hearing and any alleged 'improvements' will simply not be audible.
Hi, In 2011 I bought a Sony BDP S590 Blue Ray player because after having heard an electrical engineer's master tape on a professional reel to reel tape player I knew I had been missing a lot and wanted to try the SACD format. The reason for the Sony model is that even today any Phillips or Sony $80 - $100 Blue Ray player will be able to decode the SACD format and you can always read the symbol indicating so on the box it is packaged in. It set up nicely and worked well and I always used straight from DSD format to Analog without converting to a PCM format. Did I hear a difference? Yes and no. First with the Super Audio format you can turn off all compression and get a remarkable dynamic range by doing so and that alone is worth the effort. On the other hand on well sound engineered recordings I heard SACD as sounding much better with a more expansive image than normal CD quality, but, if little effort was placed on creating a wide stereo image by the sound engineer and more or less just blaring heavy metal music I heard no notable difference. I don't place much value on the statistical test you mentioned and as a mathematician I did examine it and found it lacking and the general inference that it indicated a result similar to randomly selecting answers on a multiple choice test is off the mark too because I doubt that equally likely for selecting yes and no is the case for any participant in the test which leads to all kinds of possibilities as inferences. Additionally a more recent statistical test was performed in Europe and while I have not examined the methods used the result was that the difference between SACD and normal CD was very notable. I would not give up the attempt to actually hear DSD to Analog without conversion to PCM because when all is good including sound engineering it is remarkable from my experience.
I was fortunate enough to get into SACD earlier when it was just peaking in the market, and the selection of discs and players was greater. I used the multichannel analog inputs on my receiver from day 1. DSotM was my first SACD and first multichannel SACD, and the experience was phenomenal. I got it all hooked up about 2 in the morning and was like Wow! this is what a stereo is supposed to sound like. I have since acquired Dire Straits' Brothers In Arms which is if anything better yet and in 5.1 as well. Oh my speakers are not a box system, Design Acoustics PS-10 with Morel woofers boxes converted to ported instead of sealed and new crossovers. Also supertweeters added, and a Klipsch subwoofer. I'm using a Cambridge CXU all in one player. I used it with my onkyo receiver through hdmi, which worked fine but i wanted to see what the players converters sounded like. I hooked it to my old Denon receiver which has multichannel analog inputs. That also removes any DSD to PCM conversion. I like this setup the best. You might be running into version differences in your various hdmi components when it won't play.
I have a Sony Blu Ray player that also plays SACDs. It has been used in conjunction with a Sony Bravia TV and a Sony AV amplifier via HDMI. Last year I purchased a Bose 650 Lifestyle . SACDs and Blu Ray Pure Audio play multichannel seamlessly without any of the hassles that you have described. Sony still market Blu Ray players with SACD capabilities. The beauty of SACDs is they play in the same way as a regular CD without having to access menus and having the tv display irritating, repetitive video content which can distract from listening pleasure.
I have a number of albums on SACD and DVD-Audio! Some of my favorites are 'Rumours', 'Running on Empty', and of course Dark Side. On Rumours you can hear Lindsay Buckingham's guitar and Christine McVie's keyboards *much* more clearly than on the standard stereo release. If you have a hi-fi system, high-fidelity music mixed in a surround setup sounds really nice!
In case people don't stay around to watch, he made a really good point around 16:00 in regards to 'loudness wars' and dynamic range, which SACD may be a 'better' medium for audio-enthusiast, not because of the technical aspect but how it was mastered and targeted/marketed towards.
I got a converted - multi-regional Sony 3D Blu-Ray player a couple years ago for a little over hundred bucks on Amazon and when I got it, to my surprise, I discovered that it played SACD CDs, a benefit I wasn't even aware of until I got the player. I got a couple SACD CDs and their impressive but they didn't blow me away. Like every thing else, it's all in the mastering of the source material. I also own a DVD Audio player that to me, sounds better than the SACD format IMHO. I think the two formats are very similar but actually work differently in the ways they produce sound. I just listen to my movies and music through the blue tooth connection that came in my 3D Blu-Ray player, it has nothing to do with the connection to my Sony 3D Flat Screen. Great video, thanks
Excellent video - the most important thing to take from this is that multi-channel sound can be awesome when listening to a properly mastered SACD. The number one disc currently available from the Kansas based company Absolute, is Pink Floyd ‘Wish You Were Here’ and it is absolutely stunning although to import it to England costs £50. Other multi-channel discs out there are by Dire Straits, Elton John and Propaganda. My system is based on a Denon Universal Disc Player with a Denon-Link cable to a Denon 6300/6400/6500 surround amplifier (the model numbers are just the updates for the 2015, 2017 and 2019 model variants. I agree that BLU-Ray can replicate the experience of multi-channel SACD but I suspect Sony Entertainment etc are witholding both current and back catalogue issues for anti-piracy issues -completely unfounded as discs are relatively cheap these days and not worth going to the trouble of copying.
Modern receivers are so complicated that it was easier for me to build 5 vacuum tube amplifiers and connect the outputs of an Oppo universal player than to try to figure out how to operate what you can buy.
Robert Vincelette i have an analog Technics SA-AX6PP-K has 6 rca channel input. I have it adaped to everything no problem! And it all sounds A W S U M !!! 6.1 DESCREAT AUDIO DRIVING 8 SPEAKERS @ 100watts RMS PER CHANNEL INTO 6ohmS . My sub rattles things off of shelves, and the dishes in the neabors houses a block away! 2 Technics 12 in. Four way speakers 2 gnp shelf speakers for the front and 2 fisher 4way audiophile rear channels i dont remember the center channel speaker but it weighs 17 lbs and i recall looking it up and it sales for about 300$ on eBay. Its mounted on the ceiling so it's hard to look at the back of it. My sub i built for a 15" rated at 70 watts 8ohm in an apropreatly matched and tuned 3 chamber Helmholtz resonater about 12 cubic feet in total volume. It makes my cats crazy ! Giggles. Especially jungle movies on blue ray with dts surround! 😼
Robert Vincelette I honestly can't tell if you are serious or not. An idiot like me still has an easy time setting up and using a modern receiver and I'd never know where to begin if I was tasked with building a tube amp (well, yes I do, I'd Google it and learn how to do it, but you know what I mean, lol).
I always have greater difficulty setting up a receiver than almost anyone else, who seems to need a cerebral cortex the size of a watermelon to pull it off. There are several very simple circuits ion Google that are incredibly easy to build. Just go for the single ended triode amlplifier ones with sensitive speakers, or, if you dare with less sensitive speakers, use a SET to drive an 833-A SET that consists of only a transformer, the tube, the input transformer, and the two power supplies. An 833-A is a very ballsy amplifier that runs on 1000 or more volts for the simplest circuit that connects the grid through an input transformer directly to ground, but the cathode heater has to have very well filtered 10 volts DC at 10 Amperes. But an 833-A is more advanced and you should let someone guide you in building such a thing. But trust me, you haven't lived till you've seen at least pictures of an 833-A SET on Google. My favorite ones are the steampunk 833-A SET aMPLIFIERS.
Well, i have a simple receiver here - Toslink/HDMI in, 7.1 out. 2 terminals for each channel. You can't get much simpler than that. Also - if you are already building an Amp, why waste time on tubes? I can understand it for the looks of it, but as a functional unit they offer no benefit.
Tubes are easier to work with. Also, check out some pictures of 833-A single ended triode amplifier amplifiers on Google. They capture that steampunk look in an almost exhibitionist way. I will not get into the argument over that tube sound because I have heard some fine sounding amplifiers in both tubes and solid state. But if something goes wrong with a tube amplifier it is easier, at least for me, to trouble shoot and fix it.
A few years late here. But from my exsperiance. You need extreamly resolving equipment to hear higher bitrate quality. The higher amount of detail, dynamic range, and speed, your equipment can handle the more information will be sent into sound.
Absolutely, yes 👍 Working in a studio environment for years has taught me the value of high quality uncompressed sound. I find only people who have never experienced what genuine high end recordings sound like played back on a high resolution system, and of course those with cloth ears, or just don't care, will object or not hear/see the stunning quality possible. SACD, CD's will get you closer to the master, but (yep there is one) avoid badly mastered recordings on CD ... High compression sparked a loudness war, which thankfully is changing. Read reviews and look out for new releases with natural dynamics. Even older issues are now being given TLC. Some of this change is due to the popularity in an old format returning - vinyl 😉
I mean you're preaching to the choir here in this comments section. But yeah, people are genuinely satisfied with the quality that Spotify outputs, for example. Even though it's terrible quality I remember a study like 15 years ago where they found out that inexperienced music fans actually preferred the sound of over compressed mp3 files over the uncompressed ones. Because the compressed ones are all they've ever heard, and so they all have that weird white noise that mp3 files produce, but the poor fools think that's just how music is supposed to sound. Which explains why in studies, people supposedly can't tell the difference between mp3s and FLAC files. Because none of them have heard a FLAC file before. Listening to compressed music files and thinking it's OK is like going to the Louvre and seeing a very low resolution heavily-pixellated version of the Mona Lisa and being satisfied with that.
I bought a home theater in a box system years ago that also could play SACD - the Sony DAV-FR1. The SACD was a bonus and I figured if I liked it I would by a couple of SACD's and enjoy them in 5.1 surround. Because of this I never had the compatibility issues since the player, receiver and amp were all in one unit. Since the system was Sony it decoded the SACD's, amped it and sent it out on the analog speaker outs - no DRM issues. So I never knew there was issues with this. I still enjoy putting in a SACD from time to time, sitting in the middle of all the speakers and just listening to an entire album like I used to back in high school.
It actually goes even deeper than the hardware. It really comes down to what the original master is and who/how they are remastering it. Early SACD releases like Journey Greatest and Michael Jackson's Thriller were pretty big rush jobs and you can barely tell the difference between the SACD and CD. The Police had their albums remastered into SACD by AM Records and they sounded very week. However, they were also remastered in Japan using the SHM-SACD format and they sound incredible. SHM is supposedly using a different type of material to make the CD sound better. Actually, many of the Japan remasters sound better then what was released stateside. For The Police and Steely Dan, stay away from the western releases. (minus Gaucho, as that has 5.1, while the import only is stereo). Also, it can make very old recordings sound brand new. Belafonte at Carnegie Hall is the perfect example. Recorded in 1957, but sounds like it was recorded today. For 5.1 multi channel discs I highly recommend any from the Warner Premium series. Especially The Nightfly by Donald Fagen. Been into SACD for a couple of years and there are some real gems out there. There is also lot of garbage sounding discs as well. Prices stink, but sometimes you can get lucky. I hope the info helps and doesn't discourage you from SACD in general.
Interestingly enough, I purchased the original LP containing the song Don't Stop Believin'. I could hear the squeaks from fingers on guitar strings. I thought this was kind of bad. Later, I lent the album out, and did not get it back. At any rate, I was in a used record store the other day and purchased another copy of the album. Playing it I noticed the squeaks were gone. This made me think the album must have been remastered at some point. Now, I wish I had the one with the squeaky guitar sounds.
There’s nothing as rewarding as multi-channel SACD. Buy an OPPO UDP-203 and enjoy any media on any legacy analog or modern digital amplification. Best multi-channel SACDs:: Living Stereo 3 channel classical recordings at $10 to $15 on Amazon. One more thing, BD multi-channel could possibly be really great; but, for the most part, there's no record label out there putting out anything other than concert videos. So, as it is now, multi-channel and stereo SACD are the defacto State-Of-The-Art in music listening pleasure. Finally, Diana Krall's Love Scenes is a multi-channel SACD I highly recommend. It is a quite novel surround experience and is also an ideal recording for use in making proper subwoofer adjustments.
Charles Ludwig strictly two channel but you are right about the 203, I love the interface and the downmix capabilities, multichannel music is just weird to me
You know I've got some really weird multi-channel SACDs too. One of those is the Diana Krall Love Scenes album. When Diana sings "pop me a cork" in the song Peel Me A Grape, the sound of a popping cork can be heard from the rear right channel. When I heard that I thought the engineer of this album is having some fun with it; but, it kind of reminded me of the first stereo albums which came out with a ping pong effect. It's all kind of sophomoric. At any rate, multi-channel for the most part just makes the sound stage much bigger, airy, or very open. I've come to like it more than stereo. Listening to The Firebird in multi-channel as from the Seattle Symphony Orchestra you too will want more of the experience.
I recommend The Police ... Their music is truly very well mastered. considering that DSD/SACD is truly all analog, using the conversion on hdmi, there is a true sound lost that can't be enjoyed. I have tried listening to both. true analog is the way to go using the 7.1 direct input setup.
Can you give some details, are you implying that since SACD is digital it will not satisfy? Also, you do know that multi-channel SACD is up to 5.1 not 7.1 and if you have a 7.1 player and analog out you will need to set the player to downmix from 7.1 to 5.1. Also, whether you are using the player as a transport outputting from HDMI or using the players DAC there is a conversion to analog somewhere, so you do not have as you said a " truly analog" experience.
Oppos are ok....but, they just use a typical blu ray transport with larger caps and a decent transformer. Just a glorified blu ray player IMO. Marantz SA8005 make a very good entry level SACD player IMO.
The brain doesn't piece those samples back together to make the samples sounds like audio. The CD Player does that with the DAC (Digital to Analog Converter) using quantization.
I stumbled across SACD purely by accident in 2006 when I bought a Sony DVD changer with SACD support, not knowing of the format. One of the first SACD’s I bought was Dark Side of the Moon. The only audible difference I can tell from standard CD’s is that they sound less harsh. Now I have several SACD’s in my collection. Also, I upgraded my player to an Oppo BDP-93 in 2012 and I have had a SACD capable PS3 since 2009, but unfortunately my old Onkyo TX-SR805 with DSD bitstream support over HDMI died and my current Marantz SR-7005 doesn’t support it, so I have to use analog multichannel again.
For those persons interested in the SACD functionality of early PS3's, there is a website dedicated to this: www.ps3sacd.com. There is a ton of information on there, including a lot of new SACD releases.
19:05 - An exception to the 5.1 analog audio pathway there with the PS3 as there were no console AV cables that accommodated extra audio cabling beyond the red, green and blue component video and stereo audio connections. ....had to be output via Toslink digital or HDMI?
Great video! Thanks! I consider myself a bit of an audiophile... I have nice headphones (one pair rather expensive), and I do use a tube amp on my desk because it does have a warmer sound.. that being said, I went through the same experience you did... just back when that Dark Side of the Moon SACD came out! I bought the disc, then a player, it wouldn't work with my system, so I did a lot of research to find one that would work... it was a pain.... the disc did sound great! I never bought another... I eventually sold the SACD player.... the Bluray discs in the Pink Floyd Immersion sets are also outstanding! I agree with your assessment on sound... I have some GREAT sounding regular CD's... and some bad ones... I also buy high resolution audio files... some are fantastic... some I can't tell the difference... I believe the recording and mastering process is more important than bit rates etc... it is just that many of the high resolution formats have been treated better than the files for streaming services or download services.... that is my opinion!
If you're ever going to make a part 2 for this video, I would recommend you to look into the SONY UHP-H1 Universal Player witch does support DSD, and can play them through HDMI and even USB sticks. PS. For those who are interested: The DAC-chip used in the SONY UHP-H1 is an AKM4452 - 549A.
Zero problems with SACD since it came out in 2002. Have owned many machines since 2002. ALL great. No comparison to cd. Only vinyl can exceed or equal. You seem new to this.
I entered the wonderful world of SACD playback about 15yrs ago, circa '03. I find well executed multichannel material playback is a revelation. I bought a Sony ES universal player and enjoyed it for many years. However, when Oppo introduced the revolutionary BDP-95, I purchased one and the comparison was no contest, ... the Sony began quickly gathering dust. I owe so much to multichannel SACD. I didn't abandon my two channel system. But assembling a proper surround rig was and experiencing discrete 5.1 material was a trip down the rabbit hole that has served me well. Like many enthusiasts I too have been involved in various audio pursuits for most of my 55yrs, both professionally and as an enthusiast. My interest in all things audio has grown immensely over time. My primary focus at any one time typically changes through my exploration. From high end car audio in the late 70's/early 80's, diy loudspeakers, studio acoustics, ... as well as small room acoustics of home audio, to pro audio reinforcement and FOH mixing in the largest scale. From to live 2 channel analog recording, all the way to live multichannel surround recording! MOST IMPORTANTLY, my home audio interest and pursuits received a HUGE revitalizing shot in the arm via the advent of multichannel SACD. My interest and purchase of a source player and subsequent purchase and implementation of a ITU 5.1 system rejuvenated my home audio enjoyment like nothing else!
Hi Great video as always. I seem to remember that in a system setup video by "my life in gaming" they found that while passing the signal from a ps3 through a HDMI splitter to connect their systems, it actually stripped the copy protection from their ps3 and enabled HDMI capture. Might a HDMI splitter do the same for your SACD player and help with the problem your having? Just a thought.
That *only* works with an original, non-updated PS3. To this day, that is also the only way to rip an SACD. I had actually mentioned that in the video but edited it out just in case Sony would have made some kind of copyright claim against the video because of it. There's no other player that you can strip the DRM from; it was a mistake in the original PS3's firmware. (Edit: I originally wrote "unoriginal PS3", ha!)
HDCP isn't the problem, or at least I don't think it is. SACD has various copy protection systems, including physical protections on the disk itself. I have various other components that use HDCP and all of them work fine in my setup. It's only players with SACD that don't work properly, and only when my TV is connected via inputs that have either ARC or HDR, or both. So I think it's probably something specific to SACD that nobody thought of at the time SACD was developed (or when ARC and HDR were developed, since there wouldn't have been much incentive to make sure these standards worked with SACD's copy protection).
You can now rip SACDs with some newer Pioneer Elite/Oppo players. I bought a BDP-80FD for this purpose, just don't update the firmware though. The capture is done over Ethernet from the player to a PC. www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/28569-sacd-ripping-using-an-oppo-or-pioneer-yes-its-true/ explains the process. I use a Sony BDP-S370 Blu-ray Player for playback since it will play backups and originals over HDMI, bit streamed in DSD to my Yamaha receiver. That was the hard part for me to figure out. The Sony player is a little cryptic about the settings to get it to stream in DSD, but the Yamaha decodes it very well and lights up the DSD symbol on it. I was surprised the Sony will play the backups, but the Pionner which can rip them cannot! Great video and thanks for sharing your experience!
Ive been into it from day 1.....quite a collection of SACDs ..... Bought a OPPO years ago analog 5.1....Parasound preamp.....reel to reel ...still use my Dual 1229...still for like going on30 years+ still play em all....its great
I jumped on this band wagon and the 5 elton john albums are definately worth finding sir....oh and pet sounds....well done i use pioneer sacd 757 into a yamaha natural sound Has analogue inputs....
Daniel Daniels You don't have to imagine it. If you haven't heard the original 1990s Mark Linett stereo remix, do yourself the favor. It's shockingly glorious.
I'll have to check that out. I streamed Love & Mercy last year on Amazon in Dolby Digital 5.1 and the scenes in the film of the Pet Sounds sessions (which used the actual music) in surround absolutely gave me goosebumps. I've only ever had Pet Sounds in mono and Capitol's Duophonic faux stereo.
Hi. First, your issue with your TV connected to tue receiver is not a limitation of the format or the copy protection scheme. I have an Oppo 203 connected to a Denon 6300H and I can stream DSD from the Oppo to the receiver without any pain using HDMI. Please do youself a favor and pick a copy of Dire Straits’ Brother in Arms 5.1 SACD. It is cheap, easy to find and it sounds amazing.
The other possibility I wondered about is if the Sony and Pioneer shared some chip or board that had the same particular incompatibility, but I didn't open the Sony player before sending it back. But it seems that it's also something shared with Onkyo players too in that case (that's what the guy in the forum post I quote had), and probably others. But Oppo players might have different hardware - I might try one out at some point. And I'll check out the Dire Straits multichannel SACD - I do like them.
I would like to chime in with the HDMI topic.... I TOO have the Oppo 203 and run that into the Marantz sr6011. One can toss ANY format at the 203 including DVD-R !!! Anyone discover that yet ?? Oppo is one of the few players that can play a DVD-R directly from the disc. I have a high res recording (special order) from Reference Recordings made in the DVD-R format, plays flawlessly.... Sometimes you gotta breakdown, spend a little extra and not suffer the headaches of incompatibilities .........
Those companies very often buy the same chips from the OEM so its very likely that you are correct, its just a flaw in a chip that was commonly used. OPPO doesn't use common ships since they were trying to build a high-quality brand (they just announced that they will be going out of business this year) so they put in a bit more effort to find a chipset that actually worked for all formats.
I find that classical is the most noticeable in sound quality. I can mostly hear the difference with good headphones. And using analog connectors. The reason is because each instrument needs its own un-interfered with sound space. That takes higher frequency so they don’t combine and blur each other. I can also hear the quality in bass through a good subwoofer because it is softer and plusher. The surround thing is a totally separate thing as far as I’m concerned. So, some disks are cool with headphones and some in surround. I find that surround is way better in a very small room with stuffed furniture and drapes.
I once had a copy of Jeff Wayne's War Of the Worlds 5.1 SACD. I lost one of the disks and I have searched for another ever since. The sound was utterly stunning and the 5.1 mix really brought it back to life like no other format.
"...regular CD audio is about as good as humans can hear..." Ooo, there's going to be some audiophiles shitting their pants after that one. Their golden ears can hear way better than us mere mortals, they *NEED* their ten trillion hertz sample rates played through solid unobtanium tube amps.
Yeah, surprisingly not that many comments to that effect yet, but I've noticed that the initial comments on any video are usually pretty positive, and the fanboys, trolls and rage commenters start coming out of the woodwork a week or two later. (I guess when UA-cam starts recommending the video to random people.)
Modern Classic It's actually very easy to hear the difference even with the average DAC in the ps3. For instance, that NIN disc you have there, you can use a ps3 to A/B between the redbook and the sacd layer on the fly. On decent headphones or speakers you'll notice an immediate difference in sound quality. It's not hocus pocus. And yes, this video popped up in my recommend feed. 😀
Like everything in audio, it is infinitely variable. At it's core there is the quality of the recording and the mastering, garbage-in garbage-out. Then if the SACD is well recorded and not destroyed in mastering then there is the quality of the equipment its played back on. Sure having sensitive hearing helps, but it doesn't make a difference if your electronics aren't up to snuff and your speakers aren't resolving enough. The fact is multi channel SACD will sound great on just about anything you play it back on, as long as everything is properly configured. Standard stereo SACD is a completely different animal. I would say stay well away, the investment won't be worth it.
Not this audiophile, but then again I'm a rationalist audiophile! The CD format itself is more than capable of covering the human hearing range. Its limitations come more from shoddy mastering than the format itself. While DVD-Audio, Blu-ray audio and SACD are all more resilient to shoddy mastering than CD, they are not immune. Some "high resolution" audio discs contains audio that is just an upsampled cd audio master, resulting in a disc that is actually worse than the CD version.
I have a few SACDs like Pink Floyd dark side 30th anniversary and nine inch nails. I used to have a dedicated SACD player but now my Sony Blu-ray player ($50) plays SACD. You can still find them on Amazon for $50-$99. This will play all of your SACD, DVD audio and Blu-ray and it has all the right output connections for surround sound. Your right about the audio, it’s a game changer for the experience.
I few thoughts: SACD over HDMI with a universal player requires two cables to get sound and video to work. You absolutely can hear better than standard CD on even a modest system (you do not really have a modest system because of your speakers). Up-sampling, then performing the digital to analogue conversion will sound like night and day. DSD essentially pushes the noise floor into the higher frequencies where they are not audible, this is the same idea as using 24bit depth in PCM even though the noise floor is at 14 or 15 bits. Some really high end DAC's like the PS Audio ones convert PCM to DSD before performing the conversion. This is because DSD is far easier to convert to analogue. So from a hardware perspective, DSD is vastly superior because the conversion is far simpler (though it can be more prone to jitter). All that said, PCM is awesome stuff, and I agree with that the better sound has as much to do with the mastering as the format.
I usually have better speakers/headphones than I do a device to play them from. Anyay, my issue was always that (just by chance) all of my sacds I was interested in back in the day were advertised as compatible with a normal cd player. How do I guarantee what format the player (which can also play both formats) is currently playing? Not every device had a potentially dubious indicator that it chose the sacd portion of the disk. Most of the time, I couldn't tell, even with some incredibly good speakers. DVD Audio however, did sound better than cd in the recording studio demonstration I was subjected to with Martin Audio speakers, an old Midas board, and a bunch of other fancy pro equipment.... but that could be due to stereo vs surround sound.
jonnda - Every SACD capable player will have an option in the menu where it asks which layer to play by default - multi channel or 2 channel or CD layer. You just choose the one you prefer and if you choose SACD it will never play the CD layer if you insert a hybrid.
Yes, and I'm editing my original comment because I'm actually not sure if a firmware update removed the player functionality. Firmware updates did remove the loophole that allowed for copying discs, but I'm not sure about the player itself. You definitely can use an early PS3 if it hasn't been updated.
It will work. The functionality was removed via hardware update, not software update. Check to see if the SACD logo is displayed on the unit. Only the early models have the capability.
You can get SACD albums on torrent sites. They're in .dff format and you'll need a dedicated player on your Android device, or PC (MusicBee works great on PC, and AIMP on Android). This is the full SACD experience without the headaches.
Another thing to bear in mind is that the lasers on multi-format players seem to be much more fragile. I have had a couple of blu ray players that both failed really quickly. I notice they got dropped from production quite quickly too, presumably due to high rate of warranty returns. Currently using a second-hand Oppo DVD/SACD player that will hopefully be more reliable. Luckily I had spare 5.1 analog inputs on my receiver, as even this doesn't output multichannel audio over HDMI - and an Xbox to play Blu-rays. Most non surround audio I listen to is ripped to files to save wear and tear on the laser - as this seems to be the weakest point. I adopted early enough to pick up most of the titles I wanted at retail prices - think I have about 15 SACDs - mostly Depeche Mode. I also have a few DVD-A. But most of the stuff I would be interested in never came out in multichannel. Only ones I really want that I don't have are Simple Minds "New Gold Dream", Roxy Music "Avalon" and Cardigans "Long Gone Before Daylight" - all going for insane money these days.
But ... SACD (DSD) does sound great ... and superior to CD imho. Interesting point about having to buy new source devices etc - same with 4K video except you need source, target and potentially cables ... and yet it likely will take hold (?) due to a common drive by TV (target) manufacturers.
That DRM is HDCP: High Definition Copy Protection, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-bandwidth_Digital_Content_Protection Techmoan's and Databits channels on UA-cam, have had notes about it. Basically, your source SACD player detects 2 HDMI loads, hence cutting the audio. As you said, no other way, is disconnect the HDMI from TV. Would opening your receiver allow you to reroute that front HDMI output to the back?
Great video, but all this just seems like too much of a pain in the ass for me to invest in, but I'll say the loudness war should have never happened, and if I want my music louder over my headphones with a 3.5mm jack I'll pull out my portable Fiio E6 Fujiyama headphone amp that only cost me $25.
Oh I completely agree about the loudness war. It really drives me freakin' crazy, especially when my favorite bands succumb to it and put out albums with great music that are basically unlistenable because they sound like such absolute crap.
What's even worse is Google's Play Music that does not normalize their volume levels at all. For example I'll tell my phone when I'm in the shower getting ready for work in the morning to play some ZZ Top, and it will give me a ZZ Top radio station mix, and some of the songs will be so quiet I can barely hear them with my Philips BT3500 Bluetooth speaker, and then all of a sudden the next song comes up for example AC/DC Hell's Bells that nearly blows out my ear drums, and scares my cat.
That's exaclty the reason there is a loudness war. Try to listen to modern songs, especially EDM. You won't hear any difference in volume. And you don't want Google to mess with the volume of the songs. It will mess up the dynamic range of the songs.
Robbert van Rijsewijk It's nothing to do with dynamic range, but closer to something that happens at least here in the US with TV commericals being 10 times louder then the TV show you are watching, or another example is a car radio that has a range of 0 being silent, and 20 being it's max where one song is played at the volume level of 2, and the next at the volume level of 18, that's what Google's music service is doing with a lot of tracks, and you can normalize all tracks while still keeping the dynamic range, and not blowing out people's ears.
Commodorefan64 That's exactly what dynamic range is. TV programs, especially movies and TV shows, have quiet parts (dialog) and loud parts (sound effects, action scenes). TV commercials are always at full volume (and compressed). If Google or any music service for that matter, would normalize songs it will mess up the dynamic range of an entire album. For example Pink Floyd albums usually have quiet and loud passages in songs. If they would just normalize one song, that song would sound louder when played within the album. That's why many new albums or many remastered albums sound way louder in general. But they lost much of the dynamic range because of the sound compression (not to be confused with file compression like MP3).
I feel for you my friend😥 But if you buy bought some real speaker like some JBL'S or B&W you would hear the REAL MAGIC OF SACD, but sorry Johnny you went to Costco and did not do your homework. Stop buy crap
I have own SACD since the beginning, starting with the Sony SCD-1 to many different levels and types of players i.e. Blu-ray, UHD players. There is definitely a sound difference, but your right you need a great sound system to enjoy the difference. First, your problem with HDMI lock out is most likely your receiver, plus I have found that most early AVR that except DSD via HDMI convert it to PCM. Second, bandwidth in those same AVR's can not reproduce the amplifed sound benefits of SACD. I have used many of the Sony Blu-ray plays for a my SACD source using HDMI output to my preamp and have had zero problems. There are many great deals on Denon or Marantz AVR or preamps, these's companies (now one) have supported SACD DSD in its native form for many years across most of their product line. Plus with the recent upgrades to home theater i.e. 4K and Atoms there are many bargains out there. I would recommend Best Buy Magnolia Design Center stores, they blow out old open box items many times half off retail. Also avoid the analog outputs on the SACD and/or Blu-ray players even if their have multi channel out, most if not all AVR's convert the analog input to digital to control volume levels (degrades the sound) and this is true for most preamps, the exception I have found is Bryston. Bryston's gain controls is a true analog control so if your player has a better DAC (Oppo UDP-205) and you have a Bryston preamp your golden but otherwise use the build in DAC in your AVR/preamp. Other great SACD surround disks: Dire Straits "Brother in Arms", Roxy Music "Avalon (multi ch is $$$ and hard to find", Ray Charles "Genius Loves Company" and most of Peter Gabriel's titles were released in SACD and some Multi-CH($$$) but be careful there has been newer SACD titles re-released that are cheaper but are not Multi-CH. Theres a new type of CD/SACD's coming out of Japan SHM-SACD they have re-released many class rock titles (eagles, Queen, The Police etc)
HDMI is probably the worst thing to happen to audio in the last decade. Not only does it loaded with a ton of compatibility issues, it's highly vulnerable to electrical surges and can knock out your TV's entire video input card. Audio is best enjoyed through analogue connections - and I've found SACD delivers dividends through multi-channel analogue interconnects. I know it's cumbersome, but I strongly recommend people get off the HDMI teet wherever they can.
EmmperorDrax - I've never had any problems with HDMI and it does have definite advantages overall. But I agree, you must be careful in handling it and analog audio connections while more cumbersome and less common, are better if available on your equipment.
Too true. Someone in my house was vacuuming near my son's PS4, the HDMI cable got snagged by the vacuum cleaner...frying the HDMI input card on my Television. The replacement part costs as much as I paid for the entire TV, a bunch of crap all the way around 😠
EmperorDrax so how is three different conversions better than one? I don't understand why you would possibly hate HDMI. HDMI Objectively allows for better sound because it can let your receiver decode it then the only conversion you have is digital to analog instead of digital to analog to amplified analog. And it's significantly more practical to put all the money into a receiver since then you can use cheap players because there's no need for a high end DAC on the Bluray player and the receiver, just a high end DAC on the receiver. And since your optical disc player is much more likely to break than your receiver, well... Seriously, I really don't understand how you can think HDMI is worse when it OBJECTIVELY tampers with the sound less.
The major ptoblem in PCM is that samling is exponential, not linear. It was noticed alrteady in 80s, then 1-bit dacs were introduced. DSD offers 1-bit recording in higher resolution, so any signal improvements of dac is not needed anymore. Similar way as DSD follow class D amplifiers which offer huge improvement of quality in cheap devices.
Albert Max Carrion hey Albert, I respect that, but why not master your own material in 24/96 for safe keeping and then make a 16/44.1 copy for personal needs off of it?
I’m commenting not as a “rage commenter” but as a gear head who’s also an amateur electronics geek. Here are my takeaways and thoughts. Thanks for the “ hardly any horsepower, but a ton of torque” comment. This analogy helped me wrap my head around what you were talking about. Also the fact that I own a Ram Diesel Dually definitely helped. Having the ability to play sound at that higher level but our ears not being able to pick up the difference reminds of having the ability to switch from 1,000 horsepower to 2,000 horsepower in the rain on drag slicks all while trying to notice the difference in traction. But I totally understand the need in wanting to have bragging rights to those 1,000 extra ponies! In closing I truly appreciated the explanation even though I half the time I didn’t understand what you were talking about. I did however have interest in something new and I wish more people explained things using analogies that others may understand. Especially knuckle dragging Neanderthals such as myself! Cheers and happy holidays! ✌🏽
There are a few web sites that sell DSD direct downloads. Again limited amount out there but they also have a few demo tracks. I used to play SACD back on my old org fat ps3 but now i just use foobar2000 on my pc and play them back across hdmi using wasabi to my amp. no more hdmi handshake issues, simple and much easyer. It even auto switches between stereo and multi-channel depending on the track being played.
Thank you for that nice overview. Too bad SACD and DVD Audio set up a format war when could have found a common way to move beyond 44/16 stereo. I have a question, though: What is that software you are using to show frequency content of the different audio files/formats?
Why is this video on UA-cam? The unit on the table is not an SACD Player. It is primarily a Blu-ray player but is known as a Universal Player since one can also play SACD's and CD's. The rest of his system is a typical HT setup available from your local Best Buy. Actually it is rather pathetic if you pretend to be judging how much better the hi-rez SACD format sounds compared to the low-rez Redbook CD. Actually, components are available in the marketplace that are capable of making Redbook an enjoyable listening experience. The Japanese make the best Rebook CD's in the world. They also happen to make the best sounding SACD's. Audiophiles can readily tell the difference between an SACD and Redbook CD since they have the electronics, the speakers and the acoustically treated listening room. The goal of digital music is to sound as close as possible to the master tape. Tape is an analogue source but with an audiophile system and the acoustical problems inherent in almost every room properly addressed, a well mastered SACD comes damn close. The better the setup, the more the listener will notice the difference between hi-rez and low-rez. SACD is far from being a dead technology. Along with the Japanese, there are a few companies such as Mobile Fidelity, Audio Fidelity, ABKCO, and Analogue Productions that continue to release new SACD's every month. In 2002, ABCKO remastered the The Rolling Stones Brian Jones years catalogue to SACD. It was a revelation to listen to these discs as compared to the horrible sounding CD's available at that time. Recently, for the 50th Anniversary of its initial release, Universal Music Japan released "Their Satanic Majesties Request" using 2017 remastering in both mono and stereo. Frankly, the first listen was jaw dropping. So much more music was revealed that the experience was akin to hearing the album for the very first time. Brian, capable of playing a wide variety of instruments, is all over that album and now one can actually hear him playing everything that is on the tape. In summary, the vast majority of "music" listeners are not audiophiles which includes the gentleman above. Most people are either unable to afford or don't really care to indulge in hi-end audio. That's cool, if one is happy with MP3 and an iPhone with cheap headphones more power to ya. If the cat in the vid is satisfied with his cheap-ass HT setup for Blu-ray and CD's, knock yourself out. However, don't presume you have any credibility when bad-mouthing SACD. The real test is when one does a blind comparison of the master tape to a well mastered SACD. The results just might astound.
Like I said Danny, most people aren't audiophiles. So get out your iPod and listen to some of that digitally recorded "music". Classic Rock is all on tape son.
Finally someone who makes sense here. People who can't even make the difference between a 160kbps mp3 and a CD, comment on how ''unnecessary'' SACDs are! Ignorance at it's highest...
Mark Roberts For 'regular' C D's the talent (or lack thereof) of the A to D mastering engineer is very important. The excact status of the source. Is it an umpteenth compressed, limited mixdown Reel copy? This is important! Was the old, 46k, 16 bit A to D equipment used, or the modern 196 k, 24 bit sampling rate utilized? Steve Hoffman is a talented A to D conversion engineer who has achieved excellent results for many years. I recently purchased a three C D set issued by Sony music called American Music as my sister likes the Hall and Oates song, included. I was shocked, taken aback when I played the first song on one of the sides, "Summer In The City" by The Loving Spoonful. There was complete seperation of the instruments, & the vocal is clear. Good master source!
If you're a music lover, then the better quality of mastering that is usually present on SACDs means that it is often worth getting a hybrid SACD version over the CD version, even if you are only ever going to play the hybrid SACD in a regular CD/DVD player. The other advantage of hybrid SACDs is that you can rip the CD layer to FLAC/MP3 for paying back on your computer, phone or other digital audio player. As for ARC on HDMI, prior to HDMI 2, ARC didn't have sufficient bandwidth to carry lossless 5.1 sound, meaning (just like 5.1 over optical) Blu-ray audio, DVD-Audio and SACD audio all gets degraded by it being lossy encoded to Dolby Digital by your TV. Similar compromises apply to optical inputs/outputs which also cannot carry lossless 5.1 audio.
I have an SACD capable ps3. I didn’t bother getting into SACDs because I don’t care about hi res audio but the multi channel thing is intriguing and I’m a big Pink Floyd fan 🤔
If you already have a player, then the DSOTM SACD is definitely worth it. I still prefer the Immersion set for the original quad mix, though, but that set is a lot more expensive. You can get the SACD with the newer 5.1 mix for $30-$35.
Modern Classic I agree. I have one of those old PS3 units, and although it only outputs PCM (not DSD), and although I don't have multi-channel capability on what is moreover a very mediocre sound system; it is very plain to me that what I am able to hear from the surround mix on that disc is much more clear sounding than the standard version. Definitely worth it if you have the equipment already.
I'm fortunate to have Pink Floyd - The Endless River on Blu-ray. Its 24bit/96kHz in stereo/5.1 PCM and 5.1 DTS Master Audio. Dim the lights, recline the chair ... and perhaps Hi-Res Audio will win you over 😎.
Andri You should check out the SACD of Wish You Were Here it's amazing in 5.1. Check out eBay you still might get a Dvd copy of The Divison Bell in 5.1 too.
It's kinda silly that people settled on lossy formats. I have several SACDs but it's more of a novelty since I don't listen to them that often anymore. Wow, your setup is like what I had when I was a young man! Now I'm using 2.1 with a 140w Kenwood receiver, 140w Sony 3 way speakers and separate powered subwoofer. I also have a DAC for my computer a Topping DX3 Pro+ which handles DSD natively.
The main thing that's stopped me from buying SACD is not seeing the discs for sale anywhere in stores. I've been interested in checking it out. Many of my disc players have the SACD logo on them, and I love music in surround. I've tried looking for SACDs on Amazon and eBay, but a search for "sacd" returns mostly results that aren't SACD. It's difficult to tell if the disc being sold is actually an SACD, and if it has a surround mix, which is discouraging since I know some SACDs don't. Amazon generally listing the SACD format as "Audio CD" the same way they do regular CDs doesn't help either. Searching through page after page of discs that aren't SACDs is frustrating. Most of the few SACDs I do find are either classical or jazz, which I'm not interested in. The rest are oldies (music over 25 years old) which I'm only marginally interested in. The few SACDs of oldies I do see that I like (Pink Floyd, Steely Dan, The Doors) are all way more expensive than I want to spend on albums I already own decent copies of. After seeing this video and learning of all the compatability and potential DRM issues, now I'm even more discouraged. I wish DTS CDs or DualDisc had caught on and continued to be made. Both deliver great surround-sound music with minimal compatability issues. I've never seen a player that could play DVDs that wasn't able to play the Dolby Digital 5.1 surround mixes on DualDiscs, and I've even played my DTS CDs on my 1988 Pioneer LaserDisc player through it's optical out. I expect surround sound music on SACD, DVD-A and BD-Audio are all going to die out for the same reason Quad-8 and Quad vinyl died in the mid-70s: general lack of interest from most consumers mixed with compatability frustrations and lack of available music for the niche consumers that are interested. You gotta love how history repeats itself. An interesting side note: I just recently started collecting SQ encoded Quad vinyl. I get nearly prefect decoding using the Dolby PLIIx Music setting on my reciever. With vinyl having such a resurgence, I'm surprised this hasn't caught on, although it does seem like most other people into vinyl don't have their turntable in the same system they use for surround sound home theater.
SACD has two advantages: The discs support CD-Text, which can be displayed on the unit itself, and they don’t have a menu system like DVD-Audio or BD-Audio, so you don’t need a TV.
The ability for SA-CD to playback in 5.1 is what originally attracted me to the format. I’d listen to the stereo layer first to compare to a standard cd or if I didn’t have anything to compare with I’d simply listen for quality of the recordings and how it was being reproduced on my system. As some of you already know, when you start listening to your system in this critical manner, it gets expensive. My opinion on SA-CD 5.1 is that some really good, a few have been amazing and, quite a few are not good(sound like rushed mastering)Also, many sacd releases don’t have 5.1. Some only use the front 3 channels, some don’t have the .1 for subwoofer output, they all have stereo out. I’ve been using 2 channel system for many years now and I appreciate knowing that many of my sacd can play in surround but I don’t need to hear it. I appreciate how sacd has inspired me to listen to genres of music I’d normally pass on. My most memorable experience with sacd 5.1 was with a classical recording. It was recorded using 5 microphones arranged like 5.0 placement in center of concert hall. My lights were off, volume knob was up, I’m alone in my listening chair. A few minutes into listening I suddenly freaked the f out because without a doubt someone was sitting and breathing right next to me. I actually had to get up and turn the light on to make sure there wasn’t. That’s when you know your speakers are placed correctly.
I use a Sony BDP-BX37 with a Sony STR-DH820 receiver and a Samsung LCD and never had any of these problems playing any SACD. I hear a huge difference in sound when using the 5.1 but no difference between the CD and the SACD in stereo. I cant figure out why, maybe using more channels make is sound better or is the SACD just playing back the 44.1 CD? Even listening to Wish You Were Here on SACD DSD Stereo vs DSD 5.1 is just completely different sounding.
I have a Pioneer SACD player. Let's look at Elton John's Yellow Brick Road album. I have it in CD, DVD Audio, Blue Ray Pure Audio and SACD formats. Not sure what the difference in mastering each album format, but the SACD is a far better listening experience. Channels are more defined and clear. I have A Sony Amp with 120W RMS and a JBL 310 Northridge speaker setup and a Sony 12 inch sub. I love an own many SACDs and for me, the sound quality is better than any other format I have of the same albums.
The thing about the hi-res formats sounding better is that, in my experience, the artists that are getting releases on hi-res formats already have EXCELLENT mastering on the standard CD. Pink Floyd being a prime example. No artificial loudness on any Dark Side of the Moon CD release that I know of. One of Floyd's contemporaries, Genesis, is a notable NONexample. Their remastered CDs are very noisy and I own most of their core catalogue on older discs from the 80s where the process was a lot closer to simply digitizing a crisp master tape and sending that to the CD press. But for the most part I would say artists that care enough about quality to do a surround mix also probably care enough to make a decent CD.
This is a clear and honest opinion! Too many people listen to the tech, and THINK they can hear differences. SACD and DVDA are amazing, i love them, but just to hear my favourite music in multi-channel audio. A different experience. But most cd discs sound amazing too. There are horrible things out there, like brickwalled cd and vinyl, where the volume knob is set to 1, and is already too loud and distorted, or just bad versions from bad masters. But overall all are good! Enjoy music, not the power of suggestion!
Great job MC. Enjoyable stories about your Ebay dramas. You told everything factually about what YOU experienced without drolling on and on. Nicely edited too.
The reason why there is a lot of classic rock is because there are a lot of quadraphonic sound masters from the 70s that can converted to digital and pressed onto an SACD pretty quickly.
Yeah wasn't that why Quadrophenia was named that in the first place? Because it had 4 channels rather than 2. But unfortunately it never really caught on because nobody had quadrophonic sound on their hi-fis at home, they only had stereo. So any subsequent re-release of Quadrophenia was in stereo instead. I don't think it makes much of a difference. Mono is not inherently worse and stereo isn't inherently better, and the same applies for 4 channel sound. It's all about how they're mastered
Like there's a reason why, with the remasters of the beatles albums, the better versions are the mono versions. Because originally, with the original releases, the beatles themselves only focused on the mono versions. They didn't care whatsoever about the stereo versions. And as a result the mono versions are much better than the stereo versions overall, because they were mastered by the beatles themselves, and the stereo ones weren't.
@@duffman18 Multi-channel audio is an easier sell now, because a lot of people bought multi-channel audio systems for their home DVD systems. Of course multi-channel SACD requires either a receiver that can do DSD, or a SACD player with audio-out. I like the idea of SACD having multiple layers, and multi-channel audio, but the average home user is going to have an easier time with DVD-Audio or Blu-Ray Audio.
We also have the obvious fact that most of the wold has moved on from physical media.
Very interesting. you can tell that I am seventy-four years old because I actually remember the word "quadraphonic" which is a word that I have not heard or read since 1967. LOL.
Hoo boy! I was just listening to the quad mix of Floyd's Echoes, that shit Is cool, very 70's though
@@AndyP126 Re >We also have the obvious fact that most of the wold has moved on from physical media.<
Correct. But also most people do not drive brand new Porsches or Maseraties... Streaming, storing music and videos on NASs, cellphones, PCs, etc. is convenient but not necessary better in terms of quality. And there are lots of people who appreciate quality over easy of use.
>Of course multi-channel SACD requires either a receiver that can do DSD, or a SACD player with audio-out.<
I don't think it's a problem. Most modern AVRs can handle mutli-channel DSD (dsf, dff file formats) or DoF ((DSD Over PCM). "Higher" tier Blu-Ray players can do it too. You don't need to buy a dedicated SACD player for you home theater / music system. I have Sony UBP-X800M2 paired with Marantz AVR and I've never encountered any of those problems described by OP (@Modern Classic). This Blu-Ray player can send DSD over HDMI, unfortunately my 5 yo AVR can't decode it from HDMI input. So I set it as DoP 176kHz/24bit. But newer AVRs can do DSD over HDMI.
Another way to deal with it is just rip off the SACD into a ISO image or to flac files and play it this way.
>but the average home user is going to have an easier time with DVD-Audio or Blu-Ray Audio.<
Correct. But having a decent Blu-Ray player gives you an option to play more digital formats, including SACDs. Also worth to note, that Blu-Ray discs are region coded while SACD are kind of easier on that. I have SACDs from Europe, Japan and Hong Kong - no problem playing them at all. But one of my Blu-ray discs from UK is no go. So just be carful when you order discs from overseas.
cheers
Interesting video. I have been buying SACDs since 2003 and I must say that this format has given me many hours of sonic pleasure. Issues I have had with this format? Zero! Over the years I have seen my collection grow and I have upgraded my hi-fi components.
Mobile Fidelity is a label that specializes in remastering classic LPs from the original analog masters. The sound quality of their releases is usually amazing. They are currently releasing the Eagles catalog on vinyl and SACD. They fully embrace SACD and actively support the format. If you're looking for SACD or vinyl titles, I highly recommend them.
@@lynnhenson3042 If you collect vinyl and it's important to you to have analog-only vinyl masterings, you should know that MoFi makes a digital dub of the analog master. They do their mastering work from that digital file, so the process is not pure analog. The mastering itself is done in the analog realm, but they start with a digital source.
@@batman.darthmaul DSD256 is basically analog.
I don't care for surround. Good old fashioned stereo with PROPER speakers that DON'T require a sub-woofer to produce lows is good enough for me.
SACD started life as a 2 channel stereo format; multi-channel is only an option.
I like subwoofers and I like surround.
CoolDudeClem
I totally agree! Without good speakers, expensive equipment is pointless.
@@mamaluigi0631 Not true. I have seen sizes ranging from 2.3 to 5 GB. They carry both 2.0 and 5.1 contents.
I do like SACD, but prefer Quadrophonic.
Great Video! Thanks for sharing this, however: 3:38 -> your brain doesn't piece the samples together, that's what the DAC (Digital to Analog Converter) is for.
Yeah, I got that part a little wrong, and kinda wish I could do it over. I know this stuff too. I'll add something to the description to clarify.
That really bothered me too, since your ears hear what the speakers reproduce, which would have to be analog.
And the low-pass filter makes sure even the highest-frequency waveforms don’t look like a stair step any more by the time it gets to the amp and speakers, but rather a 20khz sine wave. (Any waveform shape other than a sine wave would show up as frequencies higher than 20khz on a frequency graph.)
@@ModernClassic I just ordered a used Pioneer Elite DV-47A.
Is that the machine you have and what are your thoughts?
I paid $167.00 cdn for it with machine, shipping and import fees included.
One nit: most dvd players do not support dvd-audio. Dvd-audio was a competing audiophile format to SACD but using PCM instead of DSD. Many Dvd-audio discs also included a compatibility segment using standard dvd. That's why these releases work in standard dvd players. However you're hearing dolby digital and not the true dvd-audio tracks. The BD audio format does not have this issue since the audio tracks are in the standard for Blu ray.
Can we just get rid of DRM already?
Sure, as soon as people as people stop making copies without buying. ;)
As if DRM really prevents this
JustWasted3HoursHere
Firstly DRM did not prevent any of that even for an inch. Secondly, how in the world does copying harm labels? Selling copies, maybe. Thirdly, maybe it would matter to make material that anyone is willing to pay for first of all?
*Firstly DRM did not prevent any of that even for an inch.*
Casual copiers, maybe, who don't want to put too much effort into getting what they want might be foiled. But, of course you can never completely eliminate piracy, only slow it down or delay it.
*Secondly, how in the world does copying harm labels? Selling copies, maybe.*
I think you just answered the question yourself! What other way would the labels be harmed except by lower sales?
*Thirdly, maybe it would matter to make material that anyone is willing to pay for first of all?*
I partially agree, although why are people copying things that are not worth having? I know several people who have thousands of mp3s without owning a single album, disc, cassette or any other storage method. They have no motivation to buy them now that they have what they want....for free. What is the market value of those, let's say, 5000 songs (that is not going to be collected by the record labels)?
Just food for thought.
JustWasted3HoursHere
I definitely was one of those people owning gigabytes of mp3's, none of which were bought. And I still don't see how that could damage any profits.
Well, let me explain myself a little bit. Most probably you come from a place where life is and always was for your generation like a middle class in US. You buy a CD or a record in a store instead of extra fries to your burger or whatever, just an example.
I come from a wildly different place and background.
For a perspective, where I live everyone middle to low class had a pc of sorts in early 2000's and everyone ran Windows. While literally nobody would be able to afford a licensed version of said operating system. It was in the range of three monthly family incomes a piece. Nobody in their mind would even allow the slightest idea of buying it. NO ONE. There was no market for it, people would just use whatever 'nix was available back then or play Dizzy on their commodore. Same with music records of any format. As a young lad I did not even buy pirated cassetes and CDs. Well I did, like three pieces out of half a basement worth of stuff. An original licensed cassette was something I would get as a Christmas present from my parents, if I was begging enough for all the year and they managed to save for one(Genesis I Can't Dance was one of them, I recently bought a decent cassette deck just to listen to it). And if getting my friend to record me a copy cassette wouldn't be an option, well, I would just knock my fingers on the table or hum and whistle.
It's not often a motivation, but means that are not there to buy stuff. So, what is the market value of 5000 songs that an eastern-European boy would've never bought, label issued or pirated? I can tell you, it is really close to $0.00
There are a lot of places like this.
And to redeem my dignity a little bit - I have bought nice original CD's of most influential stuff I was listening to back then. Fun fact - one of the albums just did not sound/sit with me right in CD quality. It was ass backwards and did not evoke emotions I was expecting. Then in a drunk ebay crawl I got a worn through cassette of same album and BOOM - instant teleportation to the sweaty dance floors of my youth years. It suddenly appeared to me that vinyl can make sense to some in some context.
My experience is different. I currently play SACDs on an Oppo 105. I only use the two channel layer and over the last 5 years or so I have not had a single problem. Sound quality is generally better. I have noticed this not only with SACDs but also .dff files on hard disc. Whether this is due to better mastering, larger sound range, or the superiority of the DSD format I do not know. The format is took off in Japan and is still strong there. Japan itself is a sufficiently large enough market that it does not matter if it is perceived to be dead elsewhere.
As an aside I stick to 2-channel. Quality sound depends very much on quality speakers. All those extra speakers and extra amplification cost dosh that could go into just two speakers. Most concerts have the players in front of you so this side-speaker notion does not seem natural to me.
"Your brain pieces these individual samples back together to make music, in basically the same way it does for video that's made up of static frames."
No, your Digital-to-Analog-Converter interpolates/oversamples/filters the samples and converts them to a continuous analog signal, so that it may be fed to analog equipment, like speakers and headphones.
Check video description.
Nice! too bad youtube trashed annotations.
That's absolutely rubbish.
I really enjoyed this video, you're a very pleasant speaker ~
Factoid, stereo means 'solid' not two. A good stereo places sounds in 3D space with up and down and front to back as well as left and right.
Yes, placement of good stereo speakers can give 3D sound. Another thing I’ve discovered after buying a subwoofer, is that my Monitor Audio, or any other speaker, cannot play bass sounds that are not there. What I mean is, I thought the bass from my speakers was lacking until one day I played a really good recording that contained really good bass (Jazz...big surprise, not!). I don’t always switch on my subwoofer and when I checked, found to my surprise and delight, that the excellent sounds were coming from just my stereo speakers. I’m sure my bass drivers have loosened up a bit too and that they are even better now. As for 3D sound, sometimes I can hear a saxophone from directly to my left. When I moved my speakers into position, I found that a little goes a long way.
Well said, Mike. Thumbs up. A pair of speakers spaced well can give the effect of three dimensional sound, anyway. It is not that difficult to sit, or stand to hear music playback from my hi fi audio stereo system.
True but 2 speakers can never be as good as real 5.1
There's actually a surprising number of hi res releases of albums with horribly smashed masterings sadly
@Huj Mamin damn right, honestly
Great informative video, I have a Yamaha DVD-S1700 which plays DVD, SACD and CD, it has a HDMI output for the DVD and a multi channel output for the SACD, I use it through a Yamaha amp, I play "The War Of The Worlds" on SACD and make sure I sit in the middle of the sound field, oh man does it blow me away, I find it amazing to listen to it up loud and with the lights off!!
Once you get past the loudness wars, a standard CD is gonna sound just as good as you need. Just don't crush the dynamic range. Or else it'll sound bad on any format.
Yeah, there's something to be said for a good surround master but that's about it beyond CDs. I suppose it's almost lucky that most good music is old enough that there exists competent CD releases, but still the loudness war has claimed far too many victims, including that dark spot in the 2000s where not only was compression rife but vinyl was dead, so otherwise great material only exists in borderline unlistenable form.
A well mastered 16/44.1 mix without clipping is nice, but when you move up to 24 bit you don't have to worry about dithering. Good 16 bit with a good dithering method is needed as a minimum, but a clean 24 bit without added dithering is really very wanted. Have a great one!
soulintake ,
What queries would I exhaust to search for releases in that format with the dithering aspect as a bonus?
erica you’re wrong. Sacd is much better
SACD is only better on paper. A properly mastered standard CD and a properly mastered SACD are guaranteed to sound exactly the same as one another because nobody can actually perceive anything higher than 44.1 kHz. Why not, you ask? Easy. Because 44.1 kHz allows the full human hearing spectrum of 20 Hz-20 kHz to be recorded and played back perfectly. The idea that higher sampling rates sound better is only a myth because, once again, humans cannot hear higher than 20 kHz at their best, and even then the majority of human adults can't even hear higher than 16 kHz. Therefore the sampling rate of SACD, 2.8224 MHz which is exactly 64 times the standard CD sampling rate, is 64 times overkill because not a single person can hear anything higher. The only actual advatanges SACD has over normal CD is surround support, but that's useless for the majority of people, and longer playback time (110 minutes on a stereo SACD compared to 80 minutes on normal CD) but again, that's mostly useless because most albums are not longer than even 40 minutes. To top it all off, those two mostly irrevelant advantages are immediately ignored by many people simply because SACD has the dreaded DRM cancer that screws over paying customers.
Wow, this channel is really good. I'm glad I've found it in a suggestion. Subscribed.
Mastering is always overlooked and it annoys me that some of my favorite music gets over compressed and becomes a headache to listen to without using a sound level plugin that decreases the overall volume by 7-10dB for my music player. CD-quality audio is also just fine for nearly 99.9999999% of the human population for stereo, but I hope Blu Ray Audio can gain more traction with a lot of my favorite artists.
What you hoped Blu-Ray Audio to achieve had already achieved with SACD with new releases almost every month it pretty much alive and well but not in a mass market.
Blu-Ray Audio is just too mainstream for either the mass the audiophiles and record labels to be taken seriously,early poor show from Universal's own HFPA Blu-Ray didn't helped either.
The problem is most Blu-Ray players don't have good enough DAC to take advantage of the so called better sound of the format.
"With Teeth" by Nine Inch Nails was released in 5.1, but it's on DVD-Audio.
Best and easiest (and economical) way to get a surround disc music set up: Sony AV Receiver with DSD Direct > HDMI < Sony Blu-ray player (UBP-X800M2). Plays all surround disc formats and allows for native DSD playback.
DRM, not even once.
They are still stuck in the world of theory. They assume the pirate is going to buy their media if they stop it.
Fantastic watch mate! This video should be used as a template for folks who want to make video reviews that are informative to boot. Simple, practical & lucid. You nailed every thing on my list that makes a video supremely amazing in this genre. The best 21 minutes I spent on UA-cam in a long time.
This comparison setup is all but right: using small home theater graded speakers, a basic receiver and a couple used and beaten players? It is like trying to judge a Tesla car driving it on the farm and then declaring that there is no difference between it and the old grandma's chevy.
That's why I showed the double blind listening test using industry professionals. Also, my setup is a typical setup, which is a big part of the point.
Your setup might be typical for someone that owns a Blu ray player that just happens to play SACDs but it is definitely NOT typical for someone that goes out and buy SACDs. Those speakers are a joke.
I agree, having been an audio enthusiast for many decades now, I find that most people talk being but when you check their audio system in person they have gear that is comparable (or worse) than what was used this video, making this video completely relevant. And yes, people with run of the mill audio systems do go out and buy crazy disc formats, like SACD, regardless of their system being able to play them, that's just what people do (its also ho wI get those discs for free when they give up on them LOL).
Mastering of any music media has aways made a difference, even back of the days when we only had vinyl, there were huge differences between various pressings that ordinary people could hear. I inadvertently had an ideal setup to test this, because people would give me their vinyl that they would give up on for one reason or another. Visitors would play one record then switch to the same album that was pressed by a different company and they were shocked at the major improvement they heard themselves (I didn't prompt them in any way, in fact they were trying t show me that they all sounded the same and wound up proving that the difference is real, significant and enjoyable). Check for the reviews on which "pressing" sounds best and try that to see if you can find a version that is pleasing to you (this also happens with CDs as well).
Once there was a guy telling me that cassettes sound better than CDs. I was telling him that this just isn't true, then he brought me to his place to hear the comparison for myself. He was using a boombox!!!
We've listened to high res audio files on high end planarmagnetic headphones and never heard any difference from the same audio resampled to CD quality. So, I am very skeptical, and I've successfully convinced people through this ABX'ing that CD is audibly transparent.
Sony tried to sell people an unneeded technology because it would extend their intellectual property rights and get people to buy hardware. That is frankly unethical, no different than what we used to call "snake oil salesmen", and it's good that some people raise questions about SACD's allegedly superior performance.
I've been an audiophile for awhile. You mainly focus on SACD as a surround format for regular small kit speakers. One note about DSD decoding is that I've seen many new Denon and Sony receivers list DSD decoding. It has always been a task, though, to try to get a transport that can output DSD (without spending $30,000+ on player and amp). My primary SACD player is a high end stereo model that has optical out for CD (and for CD, its DAC can upsample to 192khz), and analog stereo output for SACD. If I listen through speakers, I keep it stereo through my full range towers. For critical listening, I also have a high end tube headphone amplifier. I'm a bit of a purist in that I've found that "the best medium" depends on mastering. I've collected classic rock albums on vinyl, as I found CD masters could be coming from the 80s: where they reduced the dynamics to eliminate tape hiss. With the double blind study that was conducted for CD vs SACD, there was a note that there was a perceived difference in noise floors. I started collecting SACDs for live classical music: classical is the main genre that has had titles natively recorded on DSD. Most rock titles have come from different masters, converted to DSD (so it's more questionable about any clear difference). With a good classical SACD, I do hear a good soundstage and great dynamics. One recording I have is Ravel's Bolero: I saw a vid from Techmoan where he showed a backwards playing Bolero record (because a record's dynamics can actually improve with the outer portion of a record...and that particular piece starts off extremely quiet and then gradually gets loud). Some of the SACD titles I've collected are now out of print: one that could be a sonic treat for surround is Bach's The Four Great Toccatas and Fugues (recorded with 4 separate organs in a cathedral...that can dip below 10hz). For the best quality, I'd listen through my SACD player....but if I want to listen to the SACD surround track, I can listen through an Oppo player that converts to PCM (A/Bing them, the converted PCM doesn't sound nearly as good though). There's still some classical SACDs coming out, but there is a much larger collection of CDs out there....there's also artists and interpretations that I prefer that might be on CD. I also enjoy live blu-ray concerts (many are in high-res). I do think it's rather asinine to debate DSD vs high res PCM: they're both intended to be able to produce higher harmonics for faithful sound reproduction: and a well mastered album will do that (PCM or DSD). I do agree about the "loudness wars", but with rock, that isn't new: raising loudness and compressing was started in the 80s. So in short, how the music is engineered is one of the most important aspects: as well as getting the best medium for that particular title/artist you're looking for.
The loudness war does seem to be the real reason why old vinyl sounds much better. I have found that many new vinyls are still being mastered with a better dynamic range than digital formats. Even hi-res 88/96kHz 24bit releases can be brickwalled and often un-listenable which is ridiculous. The loudness wars are a real problem, I've been only listening to SACD and hires digitized vinyl to get around it. I don't have any experience with blu-ray audio and the dynamic range that gets mastered onto them yet. Great video on SACD, thanks.
nmeunier There's tons of interest within the high-end audio industry to improve on vinyl playback. Hundreds of mechanical engineers and wanna-bes have puzzled over how to suspend a tiny diamond between groove walls to minimize unwanted vibrations and speed changes while perfectly tracking the undulations in the those walls, and many dozens have turned their ideas into turntables and arms, usually with insane ($10,000 and up!) prices.
I love my vinyl and I've considered upgrading from my 30-year-old Rega Planar 3 turntable (still sold, still a phenomenal value). But getting these hi-res DSD and DVD-A remasters and listening in surround sound would probably be more satisfying.
nmeunier Ha, I forgot about laser. There's also Carl Haber and Project IRENE, who make 3D scans of old wax cylinders and records (even if in pieces!), then "play" the scan. Some day audiophiles will trade 750 GB scans of classic albums and tweak groove pattern recognition software :-) .
It may be bad for other formats, but purchasing vinyl is great for musicians and recorded music. And paying attention to the media will get some people interested in better music reproduction. It will suck if the digital master gets brick-wall loudness war mastering and you have to buy the vinyl to get a decent master, but smart artists will release a better hi-res master to HDtracks.
Vinyl is only better if it was mastered properly, directly from the original mixes. Sadly, most current vinyl releases are just copied from CD masters (I made a video about how people can be fooled by them).
You got that right. Cassettes can sound amazing, so can vinyl, so can CD and SACD. Even MP3 can sound pretty good when handled properly (which most aren't).
The SOUND of vinyl is fine, but the _durability_ and _longevity_ of it is something else. Even if you are super careful with it, never touching the faces (but only by the edges), you'll still pick up dust and other particulates. Drop it on the floor and it might break (old records were even worse, made out of shellac or shellac resin, which was extremely brittle: Just watch an old 1940s comedy as one person smashes a record over someone else's head: It disintegrates into a million pieces).
I found a good combination: In 2006 i bought a Sony DVP-NS92V. He has 6 analog Outputs. His sound is amazing. As AVR at that time i had a simple Denon AVR 1801. And this device has a 6 analog input! So it worked perfect..it was the pre HDMI Time. And some years ago i bought a second hand Denon AVR 2809. It has HDMI and (!) analog inputs. I had problems with the HDMI playback, so i choosed once again the analog way...it works and sounds perfect....after all this years i never had one problem with the Sony Player...really brilliant. As soundsystem a have some Tannoys combined with a very expensive and good REL Subwoofer...I recommend SACD highly! I'm a fanboy of this format...
Ps.: Nowadays you should get this combination for nearly 250 - 300 $? That is not so much for suvh a great system...
Really great video mate! So glad I lucked out and found your channel.
While I don't disagree with anything you've said, I have found that overcoming the hurdles of all the modern surround formats to be worth the rewards of having a very large and enjoyable collection of surround sound music. As you said, it shouldn't be this difficult, but the fine folks on the QuadraphonicQuad forum have helped tremendously.
The NiN disc is one of the best. The 5.1 surround changes the music in very interesting ways. I really don't understand why more music didn't go in this direction at least for experimentation if nothing else.
The iPod happened that’s why
in both audio and video formats were getting to the point that it is hard to tell the difference between high quality and normal
WCUK Radio since the average listener couldn't tell the different I don't think that's quite right
not every area gets every burger joint, 5 guys has never been where I live
It depends on how you quantify "high quality".
Even professionals could not tell the difference (about a 50% success rate), which means that the material presented to the ears does not make it past the auditory circuits into the brain due to limits in human hearing. It does not matter if the material is there if no one can hear it. Regular old CDs already carry all information hearable by 99.9% of the population.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD
There are of course differences between SACD and CD. You can simply look at the technical specifications and objectively count and measure the improvements. The capacities and limitations of human hearing are however also well known and researched and outside audiophile religious cults, there is absolutely no dispute among competent researchers that no person is able to hear the better resolution, dynamic range or frequency response of the SACD format. 16 bit linear PCM with a 44.1kHz sample rate, as used on regular CDs, is already 'beyond' the capabilities of human hearing and any alleged 'improvements' will simply not be audible.
Nine Inch Nails on SACD? WHY?!
My thoughts exactly. I also noticed The Sex Pistols Never Mind The B... was available and fell over laughing!
Hi,
In 2011 I bought a Sony BDP S590 Blue Ray player because after having heard an electrical engineer's master tape on a professional reel to reel tape player I knew I had been missing a lot and wanted to try the SACD format. The reason for the Sony model is that even today any Phillips or Sony $80 - $100 Blue Ray player will be able to decode the SACD format and you can always read the symbol indicating so on the box it is packaged in.
It set up nicely and worked well and I always used straight from DSD format to Analog without converting to a PCM format. Did I hear a difference? Yes and no. First with the Super Audio format you can turn off all compression and get a remarkable dynamic range by doing so and that alone is worth the effort. On the other hand on well sound engineered recordings I heard SACD as sounding much better with a more expansive image than normal CD quality, but, if little effort was placed on creating a wide stereo image by the sound engineer and more or less just blaring heavy metal music I heard no notable difference.
I don't place much value on the statistical test you mentioned and as a mathematician I did examine it and found it lacking and the general inference that it indicated a result similar to randomly selecting answers on a multiple choice test is off the mark too because I doubt that equally likely for selecting yes and no is the case for any participant in the test which leads to all kinds of possibilities as inferences. Additionally a more recent statistical test was performed in Europe and while I have not examined the methods used the result was that the difference between SACD and normal CD was very notable.
I would not give up the attempt to actually hear DSD to Analog without conversion to PCM because when all is good including sound engineering it is remarkable from my experience.
I was fortunate enough to get into SACD earlier when it was just peaking in the market, and the selection of discs and players was greater. I used the multichannel analog inputs on my receiver from day 1. DSotM was my first SACD and first multichannel SACD, and the experience was phenomenal. I got it all hooked up about 2 in the morning and was like Wow! this is what a stereo is supposed to sound like. I have since acquired Dire Straits' Brothers In Arms which is if anything better yet and in 5.1 as well. Oh my speakers are not a box system, Design Acoustics PS-10 with Morel woofers boxes converted to ported instead of sealed and new crossovers. Also supertweeters added, and a Klipsch subwoofer. I'm using a Cambridge CXU all in one player. I used it with my onkyo receiver through hdmi, which worked fine but i wanted to see what the players converters sounded like. I hooked it to my old Denon receiver which has multichannel analog inputs. That also removes any DSD to PCM conversion. I like this setup the best. You might be running into version differences in your various hdmi components when it won't play.
I have a Sony Blu Ray player that also plays SACDs. It has been used in conjunction with a Sony Bravia TV and a Sony AV amplifier via HDMI. Last year I purchased a Bose 650 Lifestyle . SACDs and Blu Ray Pure Audio play multichannel seamlessly without any of the hassles that you have described. Sony still market Blu Ray players with SACD capabilities. The beauty of SACDs is they play in the same way as a regular CD without having to access menus and having the tv display irritating, repetitive video content which can distract from listening pleasure.
I have a number of albums on SACD and DVD-Audio! Some of my favorites are 'Rumours', 'Running on Empty', and of course Dark Side. On Rumours you can hear Lindsay Buckingham's guitar and Christine McVie's keyboards *much* more clearly than on the standard stereo release. If you have a hi-fi system, high-fidelity music mixed in a surround setup sounds really nice!
DVD LG Camana TV call
Annu Singh hai kya baat
In case people don't stay around to watch, he made a really good point around 16:00 in regards to 'loudness wars' and dynamic range, which SACD may be a 'better' medium for audio-enthusiast, not because of the technical aspect but how it was mastered and targeted/marketed towards.
SACD is worth it for a properly remastered album, and mixed in 5.1 ;)
I got a converted - multi-regional Sony 3D Blu-Ray player a couple years ago for a little over hundred bucks on Amazon and when I got it, to my surprise, I discovered that it played SACD CDs, a benefit I wasn't even aware of until I got the player. I got a couple SACD CDs and their impressive but they didn't blow me away. Like every thing else, it's all in the mastering of the source material. I also own a DVD Audio player that to me, sounds better than the SACD format IMHO. I think the two formats are very similar but actually work differently in the ways they produce sound. I just listen to my movies and music through the blue tooth connection that came in my 3D Blu-Ray player, it has nothing to do with the connection to my Sony 3D Flat Screen. Great video, thanks
My goodness, only six minutes into this video and it's already proving to be very insightful and well made. Thumbs up!
Excellent video - the most important thing to take from this is that multi-channel sound can be awesome when listening to a properly mastered SACD. The number one disc currently available from the Kansas based company Absolute, is Pink Floyd ‘Wish You Were Here’ and it is absolutely stunning although to import it to England costs £50.
Other multi-channel discs out there are by Dire Straits, Elton John and Propaganda.
My system is based on a Denon Universal Disc Player with a Denon-Link cable to a Denon 6300/6400/6500 surround amplifier (the model numbers are just the updates for the 2015, 2017 and 2019 model variants. I agree that BLU-Ray can replicate the experience of multi-channel SACD but I suspect Sony Entertainment etc are witholding both current and back catalogue issues for anti-piracy issues -completely unfounded as discs are relatively cheap these days and not worth going to the trouble of copying.
Modern receivers are so complicated that it was easier for me to build 5 vacuum tube amplifiers and connect the outputs of an Oppo universal player than to try to figure out how to operate what you can buy.
Robert Vincelette i have an analog Technics SA-AX6PP-K has 6 rca channel input. I have it adaped to everything no problem! And it all sounds A W S U M !!! 6.1 DESCREAT AUDIO DRIVING 8 SPEAKERS @ 100watts RMS PER CHANNEL INTO 6ohmS . My sub rattles things off of shelves, and the dishes in the neabors houses a block away! 2 Technics 12 in. Four way speakers 2 gnp shelf speakers for the front and 2 fisher 4way audiophile rear channels i dont remember the center channel speaker but it weighs 17 lbs and i recall looking it up and it sales for about 300$ on eBay. Its mounted on the ceiling so it's hard to look at the back of it. My sub i built for a 15" rated at 70 watts 8ohm in an apropreatly matched and tuned 3 chamber Helmholtz resonater about 12 cubic feet in total volume. It makes my cats crazy ! Giggles. Especially jungle movies on blue ray with dts surround! 😼
Robert Vincelette I honestly can't tell if you are serious or not. An idiot like me still has an easy time setting up and using a modern receiver and I'd never know where to begin if I was tasked with building a tube amp (well, yes I do, I'd Google it and learn how to do it, but you know what I mean, lol).
I always have greater difficulty setting up a receiver than almost anyone else, who seems to need a cerebral cortex the size of a watermelon to pull it off. There are several very simple circuits ion Google that are incredibly easy to build. Just go for the single ended triode amlplifier ones with sensitive speakers, or, if you dare with less sensitive speakers, use a SET to drive an 833-A SET that consists of only a transformer, the tube, the input transformer, and the two power supplies. An 833-A is a very ballsy amplifier that runs on 1000 or more volts for the simplest circuit that connects the grid through an input transformer directly to ground, but the cathode heater has to have very well filtered 10 volts DC at 10 Amperes. But an 833-A is more advanced and you should let someone guide you in building such a thing. But trust me, you haven't lived till you've seen at least pictures of an 833-A SET on Google. My favorite ones are the steampunk 833-A SET aMPLIFIERS.
Well, i have a simple receiver here - Toslink/HDMI in, 7.1 out. 2 terminals for each channel. You can't get much simpler than that.
Also - if you are already building an Amp, why waste time on tubes? I can understand it for the looks of it, but as a functional unit they offer no benefit.
Tubes are easier to work with. Also, check out some pictures of 833-A single ended triode amplifier amplifiers on Google. They capture that steampunk look in an almost exhibitionist way. I will not get into the argument over that tube sound because I have heard some fine sounding amplifiers in both tubes and solid state. But if something goes wrong with a tube amplifier it is easier, at least for me, to trouble shoot and fix it.
A few years late here. But from my exsperiance. You need extreamly resolving equipment to hear higher bitrate quality. The higher amount of detail, dynamic range, and speed, your equipment can handle the more information will be sent into sound.
Absolutely, yes 👍
Working in a studio environment for years has taught me the value of high quality uncompressed sound. I find only people who have never experienced what genuine high end recordings sound like played back on a high resolution system, and of course those with cloth ears, or just don't care, will object or not hear/see the stunning quality possible. SACD, CD's will get you closer to the master, but (yep there is one) avoid badly mastered recordings on CD ... High compression sparked a loudness war, which thankfully is changing. Read reviews and look out for new releases with natural dynamics. Even older issues are now being given TLC. Some of this change is due to the popularity in an old format returning - vinyl 😉
I mean you're preaching to the choir here in this comments section. But yeah, people are genuinely satisfied with the quality that Spotify outputs, for example. Even though it's terrible quality
I remember a study like 15 years ago where they found out that inexperienced music fans actually preferred the sound of over compressed mp3 files over the uncompressed ones. Because the compressed ones are all they've ever heard, and so they all have that weird white noise that mp3 files produce, but the poor fools think that's just how music is supposed to sound. Which explains why in studies, people supposedly can't tell the difference between mp3s and FLAC files. Because none of them have heard a FLAC file before.
Listening to compressed music files and thinking it's OK is like going to the Louvre and seeing a very low resolution heavily-pixellated version of the Mona Lisa and being satisfied with that.
I bought a home theater in a box system years ago that also could play SACD - the Sony DAV-FR1. The SACD was a bonus and I figured if I liked it I would by a couple of SACD's and enjoy them in 5.1 surround. Because of this I never had the compatibility issues since the player, receiver and amp were all in one unit. Since the system was Sony it decoded the SACD's, amped it and sent it out on the analog speaker outs - no DRM issues. So I never knew there was issues with this. I still enjoy putting in a SACD from time to time, sitting in the middle of all the speakers and just listening to an entire album like I used to back in high school.
It actually goes even deeper than the hardware. It really comes down to what the original master is and who/how they are remastering it. Early SACD releases like Journey Greatest and Michael Jackson's Thriller were pretty big rush jobs and you can barely tell the difference between the SACD and CD. The Police had their albums remastered into SACD by AM Records and they sounded very week. However, they were also remastered in Japan using the SHM-SACD format and they sound incredible. SHM is supposedly using a different type of material to make the CD sound better. Actually, many of the Japan remasters sound better then what was released stateside. For The Police and Steely Dan, stay away from the western releases. (minus Gaucho, as that has 5.1, while the import only is stereo). Also, it can make very old recordings sound brand new. Belafonte at Carnegie Hall is the perfect example. Recorded in 1957, but sounds like it was recorded today. For 5.1 multi channel discs I highly recommend any from the Warner Premium series. Especially The Nightfly by Donald Fagen. Been into SACD for a couple of years and there are some real gems out there. There is also lot of garbage sounding discs as well. Prices stink, but sometimes you can get lucky. I hope the info helps and doesn't discourage you from SACD in general.
Interestingly enough, I purchased the original LP containing the song Don't Stop Believin'. I could hear the squeaks from fingers on guitar strings. I thought this was kind of bad. Later, I lent the album out, and did not get it back. At any rate, I was in a used record store the other day and purchased another copy of the album. Playing it I noticed the squeaks were gone. This made me think the album must have been remastered at some point. Now, I wish I had the one with the squeaky guitar sounds.
Be nice if you can cover DVD-Aduio. i Did have a few SACD but slided towards DVD-Audio.
There’s nothing as rewarding as multi-channel SACD. Buy an OPPO UDP-203 and enjoy any media on any legacy analog or modern digital amplification. Best multi-channel SACDs:: Living Stereo 3 channel classical recordings at $10 to $15 on Amazon. One more thing, BD multi-channel could possibly be really great; but, for the most part, there's no record label out there putting out anything other than concert videos. So, as it is now, multi-channel and stereo SACD are the defacto State-Of-The-Art in music listening pleasure. Finally, Diana Krall's Love Scenes is a multi-channel SACD I highly recommend. It is a quite novel surround experience and is also an ideal recording for use in making proper subwoofer adjustments.
Charles Ludwig strictly two channel but you are right about the 203, I love the interface and the downmix capabilities, multichannel music is just weird to me
You know I've got some really weird multi-channel SACDs too. One of those is the Diana Krall Love Scenes album. When Diana sings "pop me a cork" in the song Peel Me A Grape, the sound of a popping cork can be heard from the rear right channel. When I heard that I thought the engineer of this album is having some fun with it; but, it kind of reminded me of the first stereo albums which came out with a ping pong effect. It's all kind of sophomoric. At any rate, multi-channel for the most part just makes the sound stage much bigger, airy, or very open. I've come to like it more than stereo. Listening to The Firebird in multi-channel as from the Seattle Symphony Orchestra you too will want more of the experience.
I recommend The Police ... Their music is truly very well mastered. considering that DSD/SACD is truly all analog, using the conversion on hdmi, there is a true sound lost that can't be enjoyed. I have tried listening to both. true analog is the way to go using the 7.1 direct input setup.
Can you give some details, are you implying that since SACD is digital it will not satisfy? Also, you do know that multi-channel SACD is up to 5.1 not 7.1 and if you have a 7.1 player and analog out you will need to set the player to downmix from 7.1 to 5.1. Also, whether you are using the player as a transport outputting from HDMI or using the players DAC there is a conversion to analog somewhere, so you do not have as you said a " truly analog" experience.
Oppos are ok....but, they just use a typical blu ray transport with larger caps and a decent transformer. Just a glorified blu ray player IMO. Marantz SA8005 make a very good entry level SACD player IMO.
THE DOORS released all their six studio albums on SACD not that long ago. They have released SACD before but I don't remember what it was.
The brain doesn't piece those samples back together to make the samples sounds like audio. The CD Player does that with the DAC (Digital to Analog Converter) using quantization.
Check video description.
.....or the reciever, depending on your setup.
True, but I was trying to KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) it. lol
I stumbled across SACD purely by accident in 2006 when I bought a Sony DVD changer with SACD support, not knowing of the format. One of the first SACD’s I bought was Dark Side of the Moon. The only audible difference I can tell from standard CD’s is that they sound less harsh. Now I have several SACD’s in my collection. Also, I upgraded my player to an Oppo BDP-93 in 2012 and I have had a SACD capable PS3 since 2009, but unfortunately my old Onkyo TX-SR805 with DSD bitstream support over HDMI died and my current Marantz SR-7005 doesn’t support it, so I have to use analog multichannel again.
For those persons interested in the SACD functionality of early PS3's, there is a website dedicated to this: www.ps3sacd.com. There is a ton of information on there, including a lot of new SACD releases.
19:05 - An exception to the 5.1 analog audio pathway there with the PS3 as there were no console AV cables that accommodated extra audio cabling beyond the red, green and blue component video and stereo audio connections. ....had to be output via Toslink digital or HDMI?
Great video! Thanks! I consider myself a bit of an audiophile... I have nice headphones (one pair rather expensive), and I do use a tube amp on my desk because it does have a warmer sound.. that being said, I went through the same experience you did... just back when that Dark Side of the Moon SACD came out! I bought the disc, then a player, it wouldn't work with my system, so I did a lot of research to find one that would work... it was a pain.... the disc did sound great! I never bought another... I eventually sold the SACD player.... the Bluray discs in the Pink Floyd Immersion sets are also outstanding! I agree with your assessment on sound... I have some GREAT sounding regular CD's... and some bad ones... I also buy high resolution audio files... some are fantastic... some I can't tell the difference... I believe the recording and mastering process is more important than bit rates etc... it is just that many of the high resolution formats have been treated better than the files for streaming services or download services.... that is my opinion!
If you're ever going to make a part 2 for this video, I would recommend you to look into the SONY UHP-H1 Universal Player witch does support DSD, and can play them through HDMI and even USB sticks.
PS. For those who are interested:
The DAC-chip used in the SONY UHP-H1 is an AKM4452 - 549A.
A lot of modern receivers can play loslsess files directly from USB. For example my Pioneer VSX-S520
Zero problems with SACD since it came out in 2002. Have owned many machines since 2002. ALL great. No comparison to cd. Only vinyl can exceed or equal. You seem new to this.
John Lynch agree.... he needs better gears for sure if want to make such argument. SACD blows CD out of water...
What about reel to reel
Without good speakers, no equipment, however expensive will give good sound. To me, speakers are king.
I entered the wonderful world of SACD playback about 15yrs ago, circa '03. I find well executed multichannel material playback is a revelation.
I bought a Sony ES universal player and enjoyed it for many years. However, when Oppo introduced the revolutionary BDP-95, I purchased one and the comparison was no contest, ... the Sony began quickly gathering dust.
I owe so much to multichannel SACD. I didn't abandon my two channel system. But assembling a proper surround rig was and experiencing discrete 5.1 material was a trip down the rabbit hole that has served me well.
Like many enthusiasts I too have been involved in various audio pursuits for most of my 55yrs, both professionally and as an enthusiast. My interest in all things audio has grown immensely over time. My primary focus at any one time typically changes through my exploration. From high end car audio in the late 70's/early 80's, diy loudspeakers, studio acoustics, ... as well as small room acoustics of home audio, to pro audio reinforcement and FOH mixing in the largest scale. From to live 2 channel analog recording, all the way to live multichannel surround recording!
MOST IMPORTANTLY, my home audio interest and pursuits received a HUGE revitalizing shot in the arm via the advent of multichannel SACD.
My interest and purchase of a source player and subsequent purchase and implementation of a ITU 5.1 system rejuvenated my home audio enjoyment like nothing else!
Hi
Great video as always.
I seem to remember that in a system setup video by "my life in gaming" they found that while passing the signal from a ps3 through a HDMI splitter to connect their systems, it actually stripped the copy protection from their ps3 and enabled HDMI capture. Might a HDMI splitter do the same for your SACD player and help with the problem your having? Just a thought.
That *only* works with an original, non-updated PS3. To this day, that is also the only way to rip an SACD. I had actually mentioned that in the video but edited it out just in case Sony would have made some kind of copyright claim against the video because of it. There's no other player that you can strip the DRM from; it was a mistake in the original PS3's firmware.
(Edit: I originally wrote "unoriginal PS3", ha!)
+Bill Mainprize I was about to comment that certain HDMI splitters can actually strip the HDPC protection.
HDCP isn't the problem, or at least I don't think it is. SACD has various copy protection systems, including physical protections on the disk itself. I have various other components that use HDCP and all of them work fine in my setup. It's only players with SACD that don't work properly, and only when my TV is connected via inputs that have either ARC or HDR, or both. So I think it's probably something specific to SACD that nobody thought of at the time SACD was developed (or when ARC and HDR were developed, since there wouldn't have been much incentive to make sure these standards worked with SACD's copy protection).
You can now rip SACDs with some newer Pioneer Elite/Oppo players. I bought a BDP-80FD for this purpose, just don't update the firmware though. The capture is done over Ethernet from the player to a PC. www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/28569-sacd-ripping-using-an-oppo-or-pioneer-yes-its-true/ explains the process. I use a Sony BDP-S370 Blu-ray Player for playback since it will play backups and originals over HDMI, bit streamed in DSD to my Yamaha receiver. That was the hard part for me to figure out. The Sony player is a little cryptic about the settings to get it to stream in DSD, but the Yamaha decodes it very well and lights up the DSD symbol on it. I was surprised the Sony will play the backups, but the Pionner which can rip them cannot! Great video and thanks for sharing your experience!
Multichannel is what drew me in too!
Ive been into it from day 1.....quite a collection of SACDs ..... Bought a OPPO years ago analog 5.1....Parasound preamp.....reel to reel ...still use my Dual 1229...still for like going on30 years+ still play em all....its great
I jumped on this band wagon and the 5 elton john albums are definately worth finding sir....oh and pet sounds....well done i use pioneer sacd 757 into a yamaha natural sound
Has analogue inputs....
The Elton John sacds are awesome. The mofi pet sounds doesn't really sound that much better than the standard stereo hdcd remaster to me.
I have trouble imaganing Pet Sounds as anything other than mono, considering how Brian Wilson is deaf in one ear.
Daniel Daniels You don't have to imagine it. If you haven't heard the original 1990s Mark Linett stereo remix, do yourself the favor. It's shockingly glorious.
I'll have to check that out. I streamed Love & Mercy last year on Amazon in Dolby Digital 5.1 and the scenes in the film of the Pet Sounds sessions (which used the actual music) in surround absolutely gave me goosebumps. I've only ever had Pet Sounds in mono and Capitol's Duophonic faux stereo.
The Elton John SACD's alone make the conversion to 5.1 worth it. They are stunning.
Great video, pal. The candid and clear explanation of the whole process is truly appreciated.
Hi. First, your issue with your TV connected to tue receiver is not a limitation of the format or the copy protection scheme. I have an Oppo 203 connected to a Denon 6300H and I can stream DSD from the Oppo to the receiver without any pain using HDMI. Please do youself a favor and pick a copy of Dire Straits’ Brother in Arms 5.1 SACD. It is cheap, easy to find and it sounds amazing.
The other possibility I wondered about is if the Sony and Pioneer shared some chip or board that had the same particular incompatibility, but I didn't open the Sony player before sending it back. But it seems that it's also something shared with Onkyo players too in that case (that's what the guy in the forum post I quote had), and probably others. But Oppo players might have different hardware - I might try one out at some point. And I'll check out the Dire Straits multichannel SACD - I do like them.
I would like to chime in with the HDMI topic.... I TOO have the Oppo 203 and run that into the Marantz sr6011. One can toss ANY format at the 203 including DVD-R !!! Anyone discover that yet ?? Oppo is one of the few players that can play a DVD-R directly from the disc. I have a high res recording (special order) from Reference Recordings made in the DVD-R format, plays flawlessly.... Sometimes you gotta breakdown, spend a little extra and not suffer the headaches of incompatibilities .........
Those companies very often buy the same chips from the OEM so its very likely that you are correct, its just a flaw in a chip that was commonly used. OPPO doesn't use common ships since they were trying to build a high-quality brand (they just announced that they will be going out of business this year) so they put in a bit more effort to find a chipset that actually worked for all formats.
I find that classical is the most noticeable in sound quality. I can mostly hear the difference with good headphones. And using analog connectors. The reason is because each instrument needs its own un-interfered with sound space. That takes higher frequency so they don’t combine and blur each other. I can also hear the quality in bass through a good subwoofer because it is softer and plusher. The surround thing is a totally separate thing as far as I’m concerned. So, some disks are cool with headphones and some in surround. I find that surround is way better in a very small room with stuffed furniture and drapes.
Friggin DRM....
I once had a copy of Jeff Wayne's War Of the Worlds 5.1 SACD. I lost one of the disks and I have searched for another ever since. The sound was utterly stunning and the 5.1 mix really brought it back to life like no other format.
the recently unearthed Americanized Sailor Moon sampled that album.... so does The Arsonists -- Blaze
“And that’s just my own experience” haha
I really like the clarity and straightforward style of your videos. I always learn something.
"...regular CD audio is about as good as humans can hear..."
Ooo, there's going to be some audiophiles shitting their pants after that one. Their golden ears can hear way better than us mere mortals, they *NEED* their ten trillion hertz sample rates played through solid unobtanium tube amps.
Yeah, surprisingly not that many comments to that effect yet, but I've noticed that the initial comments on any video are usually pretty positive, and the fanboys, trolls and rage commenters start coming out of the woodwork a week or two later. (I guess when UA-cam starts recommending the video to random people.)
Modern Classic It's actually very easy to hear the difference even with the average DAC in the ps3. For instance, that NIN disc you have there, you can use a ps3 to A/B between the redbook and the sacd layer on the fly. On decent headphones or speakers you'll notice an immediate difference in sound quality. It's not hocus pocus. And yes, this video popped up in my recommend feed. 😀
Like everything in audio, it is infinitely variable. At it's core there is the quality of the recording and the mastering, garbage-in garbage-out. Then if the SACD is well recorded and not destroyed in mastering then there is the quality of the equipment its played back on. Sure having sensitive hearing helps, but it doesn't make a difference if your electronics aren't up to snuff and your speakers aren't resolving enough. The fact is multi channel SACD will sound great on just about anything you play it back on, as long as everything is properly configured. Standard stereo SACD is a completely different animal. I would say stay well away, the investment won't be worth it.
Not this audiophile, but then again I'm a rationalist audiophile! The CD format itself is more than capable of covering the human hearing range. Its limitations come more from shoddy mastering than the format itself.
While DVD-Audio, Blu-ray audio and SACD are all more resilient to shoddy mastering than CD, they are not immune. Some "high resolution" audio discs contains audio that is just an upsampled cd audio master, resulting in a disc that is actually worse than the CD version.
Sourceror Fmnet yay! And their eyes can see x rays and infra red colors!
I have a few SACDs like Pink Floyd dark side 30th anniversary and nine inch nails. I used to have a dedicated SACD player but now my Sony Blu-ray player ($50) plays SACD. You can still find them on Amazon for $50-$99. This will play all of your SACD, DVD audio and Blu-ray and it has all the right output connections for surround sound. Your right about the audio, it’s a game changer for the experience.
I few thoughts:
SACD over HDMI with a universal player requires two cables to get sound and video to work.
You absolutely can hear better than standard CD on even a modest system (you do not really have a modest system because of your speakers).
Up-sampling, then performing the digital to analogue conversion will sound like night and day.
DSD essentially pushes the noise floor into the higher frequencies where they are not audible, this is the same idea as using 24bit depth in PCM even though the noise floor is at 14 or 15 bits.
Some really high end DAC's like the PS Audio ones convert PCM to DSD before performing the conversion. This is because DSD is far easier to convert to analogue. So from a hardware perspective, DSD is vastly superior because the conversion is far simpler (though it can be more prone to jitter).
All that said, PCM is awesome stuff, and I agree with that the better sound has as much to do with the mastering as the format.
I usually have better speakers/headphones than I do a device to play them from. Anyay, my issue was always that (just by chance) all of my sacds I was interested in back in the day were advertised as compatible with a normal cd player. How do I guarantee what format the player (which can also play both formats) is currently playing? Not every device had a potentially dubious indicator that it chose the sacd portion of the disk. Most of the time, I couldn't tell, even with some incredibly good speakers. DVD Audio however, did sound better than cd in the recording studio demonstration I was subjected to with Martin Audio speakers, an old Midas board, and a bunch of other fancy pro equipment.... but that could be due to stereo vs surround sound.
jonnda - Every SACD capable player will have an option in the menu where it asks which layer to play by default - multi channel or 2 channel or CD layer. You just choose the one you prefer and if you choose SACD it will never play the CD layer if you insert a hybrid.
I heard that if you want a cheap player for these, you can use an original PS3. Does that work?
Yes, and I'm editing my original comment because I'm actually not sure if a firmware update removed the player functionality. Firmware updates did remove the loophole that allowed for copying discs, but I'm not sure about the player itself. You definitely can use an early PS3 if it hasn't been updated.
I tried it recently, on a fully updated original PS3. It's still working!! :)
It will work. The functionality was removed via hardware update, not software update.
Check to see if the SACD logo is displayed on the unit. Only the early models have the capability.
From what I understand, not even the original PS3 streams DSD via the HDMI port. It's converted to hi-res PCM as well.
Nick Guy
That is correct. : )
You can get SACD albums on torrent sites. They're in .dff format and you'll need a dedicated player on your Android device, or PC (MusicBee works great on PC, and AIMP on Android). This is the full SACD experience without the headaches.
I jumped on the DVD Audio 5.1. Best sound ever heard.
SACD is even better, and Bluray audio even better than that.
@Anthony Martino 200 watts per channel and full towers, I'd love to have that, but my neighbours wouldn't.
Another thing to bear in mind is that the lasers on multi-format players seem to be much more fragile. I have had a couple of blu ray players that both failed really quickly. I notice they got dropped from production quite quickly too, presumably due to high rate of warranty returns.
Currently using a second-hand Oppo DVD/SACD player that will hopefully be more reliable. Luckily I had spare 5.1 analog inputs on my receiver, as even this doesn't output multichannel audio over HDMI - and an Xbox to play Blu-rays. Most non surround audio I listen to is ripped to files to save wear and tear on the laser - as this seems to be the weakest point.
I adopted early enough to pick up most of the titles I wanted at retail prices - think I have about 15 SACDs - mostly Depeche Mode. I also have a few DVD-A. But most of the stuff I would be interested in never came out in multichannel. Only ones I really want that I don't have are Simple Minds "New Gold Dream", Roxy Music "Avalon" and Cardigans "Long Gone Before Daylight" - all going for insane money these days.
But ... SACD (DSD) does sound great ... and superior to CD imho. Interesting point about having to buy new source devices etc - same with 4K video except you need source, target and potentially cables ... and yet it likely will take hold (?) due to a common drive by TV (target) manufacturers.
That DRM is HDCP: High Definition Copy Protection, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-bandwidth_Digital_Content_Protection
Techmoan's and Databits channels on UA-cam, have had notes about it.
Basically, your source SACD player detects 2 HDMI loads, hence cutting the audio.
As you said, no other way, is disconnect the HDMI from TV.
Would opening your receiver allow you to reroute that front HDMI output to the back?
Great video, but all this just seems like too much of a pain in the ass for me to invest in, but I'll say the loudness war should have never happened, and if I want my music louder over my headphones with a 3.5mm jack I'll pull out my portable Fiio E6 Fujiyama headphone amp that only cost me $25.
Oh I completely agree about the loudness war. It really drives me freakin' crazy, especially when my favorite bands succumb to it and put out albums with great music that are basically unlistenable because they sound like such absolute crap.
What's even worse is Google's Play Music that does not normalize their volume levels at all. For example I'll tell my phone when I'm in the shower getting ready for work in the morning to play some ZZ Top, and it will give me a ZZ Top radio station mix, and some of the songs will be so quiet I can barely hear them with my Philips BT3500 Bluetooth speaker, and then all of a sudden the next song comes up for example AC/DC Hell's Bells that nearly blows out my ear drums, and scares my cat.
That's exaclty the reason there is a loudness war. Try to listen to modern songs, especially EDM. You won't hear any difference in volume. And you don't want Google to mess with the volume of the songs. It will mess up the dynamic range of the songs.
Robbert van Rijsewijk It's nothing to do with dynamic range, but closer to something that happens at least here in the US with TV commericals being 10 times louder then the TV show you are watching, or another example is a car radio that has a range of 0 being silent, and 20 being it's max where one song is played at the volume level of 2, and the next at the volume level of 18, that's what Google's music service is doing with a lot of tracks, and you can normalize all tracks while still keeping the dynamic range, and not blowing out people's ears.
Commodorefan64 That's exactly what dynamic range is. TV programs, especially movies and TV shows, have quiet parts (dialog) and loud parts (sound effects, action scenes). TV commercials are always at full volume (and compressed).
If Google or any music service for that matter, would normalize songs it will mess up the dynamic range of an entire album.
For example Pink Floyd albums usually have quiet and loud passages in songs. If they would just normalize one song, that song would sound louder when played within the album.
That's why many new albums or many remastered albums sound way louder in general. But they lost much of the dynamic range because of the sound compression (not to be confused with file compression like MP3).
SACD is not a dead format I can easily find albums in Swedish online stores. and in Japanese record stores there are many SACD records
I think in the classical mueic genre it is still Alive.
i have 428 sacd's ,all in ISO format (ripped) on HDD !
@@ichbinshaltne Classical music is the genre of music that dominates the number of releases for SACD.....over 50% of all SACD are of classical music.
I feel for you my friend😥 But if you buy bought some real speaker like some JBL'S or B&W you would hear the REAL MAGIC OF SACD, but sorry Johnny you went to Costco and did not do your homework. Stop buy crap
I have own SACD since the beginning, starting with the Sony SCD-1 to many different levels and types of players i.e. Blu-ray, UHD players. There is definitely a sound difference, but your right you need a great sound system to enjoy the difference. First, your problem with HDMI lock out is most likely your receiver, plus I have found that most early AVR that except DSD via HDMI convert it to PCM. Second, bandwidth in those same AVR's can not reproduce the amplifed sound benefits of SACD. I have used many of the Sony Blu-ray plays for a my SACD source using HDMI output to my preamp and have had zero problems. There are many great deals on Denon or Marantz AVR or preamps, these's companies (now one) have supported SACD DSD in its native form for many years across most of their product line. Plus with the recent upgrades to home theater i.e. 4K and Atoms there are many bargains out there. I would recommend Best Buy Magnolia Design Center stores, they blow out old open box items many times half off retail. Also avoid the analog outputs on the SACD and/or Blu-ray players even if their have multi channel out, most if not all AVR's convert the analog input to digital to control volume levels (degrades the sound) and this is true for most preamps, the exception I have found is Bryston. Bryston's gain controls is a true analog control so if your player has a better DAC (Oppo UDP-205) and you have a Bryston preamp your golden but otherwise use the build in DAC in your AVR/preamp.
Other great SACD surround disks: Dire Straits "Brother in Arms", Roxy Music "Avalon (multi ch is $$$ and hard to find", Ray Charles "Genius Loves Company" and most of Peter Gabriel's titles were released in SACD and some Multi-CH($$$) but be careful there has been newer SACD titles re-released that are cheaper but are not Multi-CH. Theres a new type of CD/SACD's coming out of Japan SHM-SACD they have re-released many class rock titles (eagles, Queen, The Police etc)
HDMI is probably the worst thing to happen to audio in the last decade. Not only does it loaded with a ton of compatibility issues, it's highly vulnerable to electrical surges and can knock out your TV's entire video input card. Audio is best enjoyed through analogue connections - and I've found SACD delivers dividends through multi-channel analogue interconnects. I know it's cumbersome, but I strongly recommend people get off the HDMI teet wherever they can.
EmmperorDrax - I've never had any problems with HDMI and it does have definite advantages overall. But I agree, you must be careful in handling it and analog audio connections while more cumbersome and less common, are better if available on your equipment.
HDMI is shit. I wish more devices supported DisplayPort...
Nothing beats silver interconnects :)
Too true. Someone in my house was vacuuming near my son's PS4, the HDMI cable got snagged by the vacuum cleaner...frying the HDMI input card on my Television. The replacement part costs as much as I paid for the entire TV, a bunch of crap all the way around 😠
EmperorDrax so how is three different conversions better than one? I don't understand why you would possibly hate HDMI. HDMI Objectively allows for better sound because it can let your receiver decode it then the only conversion you have is digital to analog instead of digital to analog to amplified analog. And it's significantly more practical to put all the money into a receiver since then you can use cheap players because there's no need for a high end DAC on the Bluray player and the receiver, just a high end DAC on the receiver. And since your optical disc player is much more likely to break than your receiver, well... Seriously, I really don't understand how you can think HDMI is worse when it OBJECTIVELY tampers with the sound less.
The major ptoblem in PCM is that samling is exponential, not linear. It was noticed alrteady in 80s, then 1-bit dacs were introduced. DSD offers 1-bit recording in higher resolution, so any signal improvements of dac is not needed anymore.
Similar way as DSD follow class D amplifiers which offer huge improvement of quality in cheap devices.
More like SAC’D
HOLD FAST
Good one! XD
Albert Max Carrion hey Albert, I respect that, but why not master your own material in 24/96 for safe keeping and then make a 16/44.1 copy for personal needs off of it?
Albert Max Carrion I don't have much experience with Bandcamp, but that seems to make sense. Good luck with the music!
No tracks displayed.
Nice. I will check it out.
I’m commenting not as a “rage commenter” but as a gear head who’s also an amateur electronics geek.
Here are my takeaways and thoughts.
Thanks for the “ hardly any horsepower, but a ton of torque” comment. This analogy helped me wrap my head around what you were talking about. Also the fact that I own a Ram Diesel Dually definitely helped.
Having the ability to play sound at that higher level but our ears not being able to pick up the difference reminds of having the ability to switch from 1,000 horsepower to 2,000 horsepower in the rain on drag slicks all while trying to notice the difference in traction.
But I totally understand the need in wanting to have bragging rights to those 1,000 extra ponies!
In closing I truly appreciated the explanation even though I half the time I didn’t understand what you were talking about. I did however have interest in something new and I wish more people explained things using analogies that others may understand. Especially knuckle dragging Neanderthals such as myself!
Cheers and happy holidays!
✌🏽
There are a few web sites that sell DSD direct downloads. Again limited amount out there but they also have a few demo tracks. I used to play SACD back on my old org fat ps3 but now i just use foobar2000 on my pc and play them back across hdmi using wasabi to my amp. no more hdmi handshake issues, simple and much easyer. It even auto switches between stereo and multi-channel depending on the track being played.
Thank you for that nice overview. Too bad SACD and DVD Audio set up a format war when could have found a common way to move beyond 44/16 stereo.
I have a question, though: What is that software you are using to show frequency content of the different audio files/formats?
Why is this video on UA-cam? The unit on the table is not an SACD Player. It is primarily a Blu-ray player but is known as a Universal Player since one can also play SACD's and CD's. The rest of his system is a typical HT setup available from your local Best Buy. Actually it is rather pathetic if you pretend to be judging how much better the hi-rez SACD format sounds compared to the low-rez Redbook CD.
Actually, components are available in the marketplace that are capable of making Redbook an enjoyable listening experience. The Japanese make the best Rebook CD's in the world. They also happen to make the best sounding SACD's. Audiophiles can readily tell the difference between an SACD and Redbook CD since they have the electronics, the speakers and the acoustically treated listening room.
The goal of digital music is to sound as close as possible to the master tape. Tape is an analogue source but with an audiophile system and the acoustical problems inherent in almost every room properly addressed, a well mastered SACD comes damn close. The better the setup, the more the listener will notice the difference between hi-rez and low-rez.
SACD is far from being a dead technology. Along with the Japanese, there are a few companies such as Mobile Fidelity, Audio Fidelity, ABKCO, and Analogue Productions that continue to release new SACD's every month. In 2002, ABCKO remastered the The Rolling Stones Brian Jones years catalogue to SACD. It was a revelation to listen to these discs as compared to the horrible sounding CD's available at that time. Recently, for the 50th Anniversary of its initial release, Universal Music Japan released "Their Satanic Majesties Request" using 2017 remastering in both mono and stereo. Frankly, the first listen was jaw dropping. So much more music was revealed that the experience was akin to hearing the album for the very first time. Brian, capable of playing a wide variety of instruments, is all over that album and now one can actually hear him playing everything that is on the tape.
In summary, the vast majority of "music" listeners are not audiophiles which includes the gentleman above. Most people are either unable to afford or don't really care to indulge in hi-end audio. That's cool, if one is happy with MP3 and an iPhone with cheap headphones more power to ya. If the cat in the vid is satisfied with his cheap-ass HT setup for Blu-ray and CD's, knock yourself out. However, don't presume you have any credibility when bad-mouthing SACD. The real test is when one does a blind comparison of the master tape to a well mastered SACD. The results just might astound.
Like I said Danny, most people aren't audiophiles. So get out your iPod and listen to some of that digitally recorded "music". Classic Rock is all on tape son.
Finally someone who makes sense here. People who can't even make the difference between a 160kbps mp3 and a CD, comment on how ''unnecessary'' SACDs are! Ignorance at it's highest...
Mark Roberts For 'regular' C D's the talent (or lack thereof) of the A to D mastering engineer is very important. The excact status of the source. Is it an umpteenth compressed, limited mixdown Reel copy? This is important! Was the old, 46k, 16 bit A to D equipment used, or the modern 196 k, 24 bit sampling rate utilized? Steve Hoffman is a talented A to D conversion engineer who has achieved excellent results for many years. I recently purchased a three C D set issued by Sony music called American Music as my sister likes the Hall and Oates song, included. I was shocked, taken aback when I played the first song on one of the sides, "Summer In The City" by The Loving
Spoonful. There was complete seperation of the instruments, & the vocal is clear. Good master source!
@@MarkRoberts-bj2me Classic rock was mixed to play back on "4 speakers on AM radios. Hardly a "hi-fi" genre.
@dandanthetaximan No shit Mr. Wizard. Do you know that most music recorded from the late 80's is unmitigated crap?
If you're a music lover, then the better quality of mastering that is usually present on SACDs means that it is often worth getting a hybrid SACD version over the CD version, even if you are only ever going to play the hybrid SACD in a regular CD/DVD player. The other advantage of hybrid SACDs is that you can rip the CD layer to FLAC/MP3 for paying back on your computer, phone or other digital audio player.
As for ARC on HDMI, prior to HDMI 2, ARC didn't have sufficient bandwidth to carry lossless 5.1 sound, meaning (just like 5.1 over optical) Blu-ray audio, DVD-Audio and SACD audio all gets degraded by it being lossy encoded to Dolby Digital by your TV. Similar compromises apply to optical inputs/outputs which also cannot carry lossless 5.1 audio.
I have an SACD capable ps3. I didn’t bother getting into SACDs because I don’t care about hi res audio but the multi channel thing is intriguing and I’m a big Pink Floyd fan 🤔
If you already have a player, then the DSOTM SACD is definitely worth it. I still prefer the Immersion set for the original quad mix, though, but that set is a lot more expensive. You can get the SACD with the newer 5.1 mix for $30-$35.
Modern Classic
I agree. I have one of those old PS3 units, and although it only outputs PCM (not DSD), and although I don't have multi-channel capability on what is moreover a very mediocre sound system; it is very plain to me that what I am able to hear from the surround mix on that disc is much more clear sounding than the standard version. Definitely worth it if you have the equipment already.
I'm fortunate to have Pink Floyd - The Endless River on Blu-ray. Its 24bit/96kHz in stereo/5.1 PCM and 5.1 DTS Master Audio. Dim the lights, recline the chair ... and perhaps Hi-Res Audio will win you over 😎.
ShellstaX
Ah, it was Pink Floyd that won me over. A long, long time ago. ; )
Andri You should check out the SACD of Wish You Were Here it's amazing in 5.1. Check out eBay you still might get a Dvd copy of The Divison Bell in 5.1 too.
It's kinda silly that people settled on lossy formats. I have several SACDs but it's more of a novelty since I don't listen to them that often anymore. Wow, your setup is like what I had when I was a young man! Now I'm using 2.1 with a 140w Kenwood receiver, 140w Sony 3 way speakers and separate powered subwoofer. I also have a DAC for my computer a Topping DX3 Pro+ which handles DSD natively.
45 downvoters paid $3500 for an audiophile SACD player...
...but let me hang on to our Sony BDP-S780 for a while.
There will always be downvoters, but yeah... you're probably pretty on point.
I have a Marantz SA 8005 SACD player. Paid $899 for it. Fantastic player. I have Dark Side of the Moon on SACD.
Most Sony BD players are capable of playing SACDs and DVD-A.
Yet the PS4 isn't. And even the PS4 Pro won't play back 4K blu-rays, which is stupid.
The main thing that's stopped me from buying SACD is not seeing the discs for sale anywhere in stores. I've been interested in checking it out. Many of my disc players have the SACD logo on them, and I love music in surround. I've tried looking for SACDs on Amazon and eBay, but a search for "sacd" returns mostly results that aren't SACD. It's difficult to tell if the disc being sold is actually an SACD, and if it has a surround mix, which is discouraging since I know some SACDs don't. Amazon generally listing the SACD format as "Audio CD" the same way they do regular CDs doesn't help either. Searching through page after page of discs that aren't SACDs is frustrating. Most of the few SACDs I do find are either classical or jazz, which I'm not interested in. The rest are oldies (music over 25 years old) which I'm only marginally interested in. The few SACDs of oldies I do see that I like (Pink Floyd, Steely Dan, The Doors) are all way more expensive than I want to spend on albums I already own decent copies of. After seeing this video and learning of all the compatability and potential DRM issues, now I'm even more discouraged.
I wish DTS CDs or DualDisc had caught on and continued to be made. Both deliver great surround-sound music with minimal compatability issues. I've never seen a player that could play DVDs that wasn't able to play the Dolby Digital 5.1 surround mixes on DualDiscs, and I've even played my DTS CDs on my 1988 Pioneer LaserDisc player through it's optical out.
I expect surround sound music on SACD, DVD-A and BD-Audio are all going to die out for the same reason Quad-8 and Quad vinyl died in the mid-70s: general lack of interest from most consumers mixed with compatability frustrations and lack of available music for the niche consumers that are interested. You gotta love how history repeats itself. An interesting side note: I just recently started collecting SQ encoded Quad vinyl. I get nearly prefect decoding using the Dolby PLIIx Music setting on my reciever. With vinyl having such a resurgence, I'm surprised this hasn't caught on, although it does seem like most other people into vinyl don't have their turntable in the same system they use for surround sound home theater.
Saying you can hear better than CD sound quality is like saying you can see infrared or ultraviolet light.
Pretty much, yeah.
no it isn't. if a small difference like 44khz and 48khz can be noticed imagine a big difference like between 44 and 96 or 192. the same goes for bits.
Not correct. It’s matter of resolution. You can see it in big big pixels but you would prefer hd or 4K video. Same with audio.
The CD specifications have been scientifically determined, because the human hearing can’t detect better quality.
Csongor Fehér CDs in 90s sounded like crap. So theory did not match reality. They then claimed mp3 was just as good.
SACD has two advantages: The discs support CD-Text, which can be displayed on the unit itself, and they don’t have a menu system like DVD-Audio or BD-Audio, so you don’t need a TV.
@MF Nickster Standard DVD players do not play back the hi-res content of a DVD-A.
DSD was totally unnecessary. DVD Audio's solution was fine.
And where's DVD-A nowadays?
The ability for SA-CD to playback in 5.1 is what originally attracted me to the format. I’d listen to the stereo layer first to compare to a standard cd or if I didn’t have anything to compare with I’d simply listen for quality of the recordings and how it was being reproduced on my system. As some of you already know, when you start listening to your system in this critical manner, it gets expensive. My opinion on SA-CD 5.1 is that some really good, a few have been amazing and, quite a few are not good(sound like rushed mastering)Also, many sacd releases don’t have 5.1. Some only use the front 3 channels, some don’t have the .1 for subwoofer output, they all have stereo out. I’ve been using 2 channel system for many years now and I appreciate knowing that many of my sacd can play in surround but I don’t need to hear it. I appreciate how sacd has inspired me to listen to genres of music I’d normally pass on. My most memorable experience with sacd 5.1 was with a classical recording. It was recorded using 5 microphones arranged like 5.0 placement in center of concert hall. My lights were off, volume knob was up, I’m alone in my listening chair. A few minutes into listening I suddenly freaked the f out because without a doubt someone was sitting and breathing right next to me. I actually had to get up and turn the light on to make sure there wasn’t. That’s when you know your speakers are placed correctly.
I use a Sony BDP-BX37 with a Sony STR-DH820 receiver and a Samsung LCD and never had any of these problems playing any SACD. I hear a huge difference in sound when using the 5.1 but no difference between the CD and the SACD in stereo. I cant figure out why, maybe using more channels make is sound better or is the SACD just playing back the 44.1 CD? Even listening to Wish You Were Here on SACD DSD Stereo vs DSD 5.1 is just completely different sounding.
I have a Pioneer SACD player. Let's look at Elton John's Yellow Brick Road album. I have it in CD, DVD Audio, Blue Ray Pure Audio and SACD formats. Not sure what the difference in mastering each album format, but the SACD is a far better listening experience. Channels are more defined and clear. I have A Sony Amp with 120W RMS and a JBL 310 Northridge speaker setup and a Sony 12 inch sub. I love an own many SACDs and for me, the sound quality is better than any other format I have of the same albums.
The Elton John SACDs are great.
The thing about the hi-res formats sounding better is that, in my experience, the artists that are getting releases on hi-res formats already have EXCELLENT mastering on the standard CD. Pink Floyd being a prime example. No artificial loudness on any Dark Side of the Moon CD release that I know of. One of Floyd's contemporaries, Genesis, is a notable NONexample. Their remastered CDs are very noisy and I own most of their core catalogue on older discs from the 80s where the process was a lot closer to simply digitizing a crisp master tape and sending that to the CD press. But for the most part I would say artists that care enough about quality to do a surround mix also probably care enough to make a decent CD.
UBP-X800 is a multi format player that can convert DSD to PCM & didn't give me any trouble with ARC
This is a clear and honest opinion! Too many people listen to the tech, and THINK they can hear differences.
SACD and DVDA are amazing, i love them, but just to hear my favourite music in multi-channel audio. A different experience. But most cd discs sound amazing too. There are horrible things out there, like brickwalled cd and vinyl, where the volume knob is set to 1, and is already too loud and distorted, or just bad versions from bad masters. But overall all are good! Enjoy music, not the power of suggestion!
Great job MC. Enjoyable stories about your Ebay dramas. You told everything factually about what YOU experienced without drolling on and on. Nicely edited too.