Blu-spec CD: Better audio quality, or Japanese snake oil?

[@ugh.idontwanna]

Not sure "BSCD" is the best abbreviation if you're launching a dubious audio format.

[@Halterung01]

Daniel Flugt LOL

[@andygozzo72]

hehe, Bull S**t Compact Disk 😁

[@MacXpert74]

Actually it describes the format pretty well!

[@Alexis_du_60]

Well said!

[@danielhedger5904]

Your not wrong

[@Jacksirrom]

Dude, you're a hero for inspiring more critical listening/skepticism in the world of audiophilia. Keep it up. I'll keep watching.

[@edeggermont]

I like how you and Techmoan complement each other

[@MyManiacGamer]

Ed Eggermont yh not like how databits always has beef with him

[@SNC2319]

Flipping ‘eck, He was looking at MQA-CDs earlier this week.

[@KRAFTWERK2K6]

I never heard Techmoan compliment Kevin. Only the other way round.

[@edeggermont]

Complement

[@Techmoan]

@Kraftwerk2k6 kzbin.info/www/bejne/eGjSn3-FoLijgsUm15s

[@IAmNeomic]

If there's anything that CD's should be borrowing from Blu-ray, it's the coating on the underside that makes BD actually pretty damn hard to scratch with normal usage. They actually improved the coating with the Ultra HD Blu-rays as well, making it a tiny bit thicker and stronger. Put that shit on a CD and I bet you would win back a few of the people who gave up CDs because they're just way too delicate.

[@allanhansen481]

The data layer is in the middle on a DVD but near the top of a CD. It is easy to damage a CD by scratching the topside.

[@alexxbaudwhyn7572]

@@allanhansen481 correct Top design flaw of original Cd spec was putting the data layer on the top side of the disc with only lacquer for protection. While VW claims the 2 discs look the same to him, but I could tell a difference in the rainbow patterns, probably due to the more precise pits and or Blu ray hard coat I assume. I prefer CDs with full silkscreen on the top surface vs text printed on the silver top. I assume a silkscreen top coat would protect the Cd data layer underneath long term vs the usual lacquer coat

[@ChrisStoneinator]

CDs aren't even remotely delicate, I think this comes under "skill issue"

[@jhutt8002]

​@@ChrisStoneinator Damaging them was an issue, when they we're rolling and rattling around in a car back in my teenage years. It's quite a failure if you can actually damage a CD in normal home use.

[@ellisgarbutt1925]

You can easily scratch blu rays the data not being protected by the polycarbonate plastic bd are neat to me a dense disc

[@AsBi1]

before even listening the comparison, I was sure that they would intentionally make the CD2 louder and increase higher frequencies to make an impression of better sound, but they did not. At least they were honest about it.

[@frac]

This is silly. It's like saying a story improves when printed in a crisper font. Stack these next to your Monster cables.

[@KRAFTWERK2K6]

Interesting analogy.

[@markm0000]

No that analogy doesn't work. Crisper font is a difference that can be read better and is similar to applying a brighter EQ to your audio playback. What's similar to this blue snake oil is a sticker on the front of the book saying this version was an early print with fresh ink and hand wrapped paper.

[@TheNugettinage]

Not a good comparison, really, one of the attractions of a more modern ereader if you already have an older one is higher resolution text. It absolutely makes a difference for some people and is a discernible difference. This is more like... using an inkjet printer with the exact same specs as a laser printer to print a story and saying it's different.

[@LandauTST]

Bahahaha, I forgot about Monster cables. Trash product with high price tags.

[@bbarrera86]

not the story, the readability in any case

[@betavidoh7944]

Sighs, stop with the gimmicks, just give us properly mastered cd's.

[@victorcoss2600]

EXACTLY! That would be 80s and very early 90s. Dynamic range compression and limiting and all the synthetic garbage is destroying music. The CD is THE superior physical audio carrier, it's just never utilized to it's full potential, and when it was reel to reel tape hiss, and the quality of equipment such as the ADC, etc. aren't what they are today. Minus delta-sigma/DSD tho, that's something we regress with today, but very high-end ADCs aren't gonna be using delta-sigma anyway. :)

[@bugdrvr]

That's really the best thing about these "special" CDs, they are usually mastered with great care (except in this case not so much, sigh). Eh, I guess trying to figure out what to do with all of those idle CD and Bluray pressing machines has got them coming out with some odd ideas.

[@KRAFTWERK2K6]

@ Beta Vidoh: why not both? Properly mastered CDs AND glasmasters made with finer blue lasers? If it's possible to make it better with the available technology, it should be done. Longterm wise even cheaper when you use the same production capacities as for Blu-ray discs.

[@stevesstuff1450]

@@KRAFTWERK2K6 : Yeah....if they'd mastered it properly without compression and brickwalling, then there just 'may' actually be an audible difference between the two formats! But as it stands? Just no point!

[@faithless8888]

Hehe we might not care, but you’re cd-player does!! 😋😋

[@5roundsrapid263]

I thought this would be high-res audio on an actual Blu-ray Disc. BS CD is a perfect name for it!

[@AceTechHD]

5Rounds Rapid I wonder if we’ll ever get Blu Ray Audio CDs. Seems streaming has saturated the market.

[@5roundsrapid263]

AceTechHD There have been quite a few released. A lot of them were originally on DVD-Audio or SACD.

[@AceTechHD]

5Rounds Rapid Are we talking actual 25gb discs only for audio? I’ve never heard of such a thing but I don’t doubt it’s out there.

[@5roundsrapid263]

AceTechHD Yes. Actual BD 25 discs. They have lossless Dolby or DTS audio like movie discs.

[@AceTechHD]

dandanthetaximan I’ll have to do some research on this format. Is it just called Blu Ray audio?

[@RedBearAK]

But, but... CD audio already has error correction bits that even make most surface scratches irrelevant to accurate decoding of the digital information... this is so much more clearly snake oil than even MQA-CD, which supposedly adds extra bits of data to the disc. Amazing that anyone would fall for this. All they had to do was perform some better mastering on the Blu-spec CD2 disc version and everyone would have thought it was a miraculous improvement. But they're literally bit-for-bit the same! Hilarious!

[@fensterkiller3151]

This format is really just a demo of a new fabrication process. We all agree that it will not improve the quality of the audio, but it improves the quality of the pits by using already existing Blu-Ray technology.

[@lucasn0tch]

I bought one not because I fell for it. I bought one because seeing 70s music being rereleased for the Japanese market is interesting

[@lucasn0tch]

@@fensterkiller3151 I can confirm this.

[@aflockofseacowsesquire]

maybe you would have heard a difference if you used audiophile ethernet cables

[@aflockofseacowsesquire]

sorry that was a joke. I realised it looked a bit like maybe I meant it.

[@alliejr]

I got the joke. Haha.

[@stili774]

No, you need to connect the CD ROM Drive with a gold Cable and for cristal clear sound you need to glue diamonds on your speaker.

[@SSJfraz]

He was just playing the CD on crappy equipment. You need to buy top of the line SONY-ONLY equipment to really hear the difference.

[@HBC101TVStudios]

Mad Mental Hibby He has those high-end CD players and cassette decks, but he is kinda lazy to pull it out from it's hiding place.

[@AnOfficialAndrewFloyd]

Just as long as the discs don't try to install a rootkit to prevent ripping.

[@StevenVillman]

I say *_AMEN_* to that!

[@devlinfan]

Excellent job! You had me laughing at the end. “There is no difference” digital doesn’t care how sharp your 1 or 0 is, haha. Having owned/worked/maintained a recording studio for decades you struck my audio funny bone.

[@alliejr]

Jitter!!!??? Nonsense. This is not an analog or mechanical audio system. It's digital. The bits are the bits and the bits are either validly read off the disc or not. This entire concept is just nonsense.

[@HBC101TVStudios]

alliejr Yeah. It's just plain *audiophool* snake oil after all. (And i'm saying this as an audiophile)

[@GurtTarctor]

I mean, jitter is a thing for digital audio, but it's more down to the DAC to try and minimise that.

[@hingeslevers]

alliejr yes, It's strange. They're claiming to have improved on a problem that has already been solved...

[@SianaGearz]

Jitter is an actual potential problem in digital audio, and was demonstrated in specific chains of some few of the earliest AES3 devices because of a combination of very specific engineering defects,. Essentially it wasn"t much more than a glorified ground loop, but one which happened to get imprinted onto timing rather than amplitude at the DAC, and it happened to get overlooked by a bunch of world class engineers, resulting eventually in a facepalm moment. However it's impossible to fix or anyhow affect it at the media layer, it is only fixed by good electronics engineering - clock domains, EMI-resistant layout, etc, actually the essentially almost cost-free basics but well applied at the endpoint. To begin with, CD raw data doesn't even have nearly the same clock as the desired 44.1 KHz audio output clock because of reed-solomon, padding, subchannel, all kinds of things, a motor never runs quite evenly, etc. But jitter is also one of those perfect audiofool concepts, because some measurement methods miss it, its audibility for common equipment is largely disputed, it's possible to dig up historical documents about its existence, and you can easily convince people that maybe, just maybe they can borderline hear it, because oh your ears are oh so golden and so much better than everyone else's! You can show a bejitterliever data that tells you here, these two signals are functionally identical and they'll be like NONONONO YOU CANT MEASURE IT, THEY TOLD ME YOU CAN'T MEASURE IT, BUT I CAN HEAR IT! It's audio homeopathy, a magical imprint of something that was once there, retained by water or even lack thereof.

[@alliejr]

+Siana Gearz Well said and better expressed than my attempt. Any D-->A and A-->D issues cannot be "fixed" at the media level. Therefore the idea of better "pits" in the media is completely bogus.

[@CoolDudeClem]

Either way it's still 44.1 khz, 16-bit audio so no real difference. It's all in the subconscious mind where it sounds better. The LP did sound better though, I think it's because unlike the re-mastered track on the CD with the "loudness war" compression and all, the vinyl version wasn't butchered like that.

[@noelj62]

CoolDudeClem You can add the effect of the RIAA eq curve which makes it more brighter and less bassy.

[@KRAFTWERK2K6]

@ CoolDudeClem: Even Vinyl re-releases get the new mixes now… Only difference is the Vinyl costs more >_> Which is why i don't even bother. Either I get an old CD release or an old Vinyl. Or both. Heck, even a cassette would be better.

[@MacXpert74]

+Paul NJ "You can add the effect of the RIAA eq curve which makes it more brighter and less bassy." Technically the RIAA does the exact opposite of that. The low frequencies on vinyl require wider grooves that increase with higher amplitudes. To minimize this effect and maximize playtime they reduced the bass frequencies when cutting the disc. The RIAA EQ on playback applies the exact opposite effect by boosting the bass levels again to match the original recording. The end result should actually be 'flat' compared to the original. But with vinyl playback there are a lot of elements that alter the sound quality and flatness of the frequency response. In particular the used cartridge / tonearm combination plays a important role in that.

[@fensterkiller3151]

@Lassi Kinnunen The reading process is still analog so it probably does not read bit perfect.

[@SianaGearz]

fensterkiller, if it checksums bit perfect (which is why you use EAC, to check against someone else reading the same CD), then the probability that it didn't read bit perfect is astronomically small. Reed Solomon encoding is 3:1, so if 3/4th of the bits were picked up correctly, the intended bitstream will be reconstructed perfectly. If any less, the quality falls off the cliff super rapidly.

[@s3np411]

I like the idea of regular cds with the scratch protection of blurays.

[@chazjamesn]

What I find fascinating is that they decided to include both disc formats for comparison, knowing perfectly well they SOUND EXACTLY THE SAME!! You have to applaud the marketing guts! Or are there really people at Sony that believe it sounds better?

[@redwanhasan1721]

Chaz Newman guessing betting heavily on placebo.

[@fensterkiller3151]

@Chaz Newman I don't remember but did they say it will sound better?

[@chazjamesn]

Well 'better' is subjective but 'different' can be measured. And they are not different.

[@wethermon]

I love Sony but they do jump the shark...cofcof audiophile SD cards coff coff. Yes it's a real thing, Google it. xD

[@Zizzily]

But Blu-spec CD2 has *better* 1s and 0s, obviously.

[@Trance88]

Ha ha! That's what they want you to think. Unlike analog recordings which use physical waves etched or magnetized to a medium which relies on the laws of physics, the digital realm has no concept of a better or worse 1 or 0.

[@joojoojeejee6058]

Not to mention that the CIRC error correction takes care of the 1s and 0s that are unreadable... It does this by synthesizing the corrupt bits from parity bits that are written on the cd for this purpose. Of course if the CD is very dirty or scratched then it might be beyond the error correction's capabilities and can't be listened to without problems. In theory, Blu-spec CD might be a bit more resistant to damage than regular CD, but I doubt there's much difference.

[@Zizzily]

*sarchasm* _n._ The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the recipient who doesn't get it.

[@fensterkiller3151]

We all live in an analog world. The bits on a CD are also "written" in good old analog fashion. This format is trying to write these bits in a more clean way. I don't want to say it improves the audio much or at all, but to say digital formats do not rely on the laws of physics is wrong.

[@GP1138]

The problem with your comment is that the 1's and 0's are re-assembled into the exact same thing they were before they were 1's and 0's after they are read on the disc. Even if the error correction is used, the final product is exactly the same. It's in the design. The A/D convertor can be affected by interference, but the material the disc is made out of makes absolutely no affect on the final signal.

[@alliejr]

Unfortunately, most people equate the underlying technology and formats with higher (or lower) quality. The quality of an audio recording is almost 100% driven by the engineering (mics, acoustics, recording equipment, the human engineer, etc.) in the recording studio and how that master recording is then mixed, mastered, duplicated and distributed. A beautiful master recording can be ruined with crappy duplication regardless of whether the final format is analog or digital. Do the best job from recording through to mixing, mastering and reproduction and an analog record can sound 100x better than a CD or other digital version that was poorly mastered and reproduced, as VWestlife shows. Do a great job on the digital mixing, mastering and duplication and the digital version can sound 100x better. It comes down to the quality of the process, not the underlying analog or digital technologies involved.

[@sobolanul96]

The trouble is that the engineers were a bit forced to master the recordings properly when they were using analog records in order to make them sound decent and be buyable. With digital data they are free to do whatever they want, they are not constrained by the frequency response of a record groove, tape bias etc. You had a limit of how loud a recording could be. Now they just push the levels up into distortion and that's it. There is hope though. As technology got cheaper many independent artists and bands are starting to produce their own recordings and master them properly. I heard some recent albums that made me very happy with their quality.

[@MacXpert74]

+sobolanul96 "With digital data they are free to do whatever they want, they are not constrained by the frequency response of a record groove, tape bias etc." But now the engineers are not limited by the technology, but by the record labels. The label managers wanted their CDs to sound louder than the competition and forced the engineers to push the compression levels to make it louder. I don't think most engineers wanted to do this, but were forced to do it.

[@simontay4851]

Even though you say that, to me the vinyl record recording actually sounds louder, wider, clearer even listening through the crappy speakers on my tablet. The CD version sounds muffled and dead but not louder. I don't understand their obsession with loudness, I actually don't like music really loud.

[@Selrisitai]

@@simontay4851 The CD version he played in the video (when comparing to the vinyl) had cleaner, louder bass, but the sound-stage and treble were superior on the vinyl.

[@StevenVillman]

@@Selrisitai Plus, the record vinyl version had occasional popping and ticking "white noise" static sounds (though they weren't that loud or noticeable there); while the CD version sounded cleaner with no such sounds.

[@noelj62]

by the time the digital information is converted to analog, all the digital domain errors are masked by the error correction algorithms. They could have advertised it as lasting longer, or more compatibilite with low power laser players. Oh Sony...

[@erlendse]

Paul NJ Exactly, and don't forget reclocked too!

[@erlendse]

Well.. to be honest, the CD timing doesn't matter for player output unless it's very bad. All data goes into a fifo buffer and is clocked out by a crystal(normally, some may use a atomic clock mod). At best the disc is slightly easier to read (vs works totally fine). There is massive error correction in the CD specs, so if you log the performance parameters there is a chance of detectable differences. (Not audible)

[@erlendse]

Lassi Kinnunen What bits? Before or after error correction? The disc is analog, then decoded and reclocked! The difference would only be for the player. Output should be the same. (+whatever distortion the environment and expectations give)

[@EgoShredder]

Yeah you only get to hear the effects of timing problems, when the error correction is overloaded and can no longer process the incoming data. When that happens it can sound absolutely terrible, and even the most cloth eared would hear that. This used to happen with cheap and nasty quality CDR discs, along with late 90s PCs and early CD writers, and older CD players that were never designed to play homemade discs.

[@erlendse]

EgoShredder Totally, the loudness war is subtitle in comparison.

[@timramich]

There is a difference between error correction and the assumption of what the bit should be. If the defect isn't that bad, you get ru3 correct bit from correction. If it's too bad, the player makes an assumption.

[@vext01]

This is exactly what I was thinking. If jitter from the CD transport was a real issue, you'd get buffer underruns, which would be very obvious.

[@olik136]

you have to listen BETWEEN the bits!

[@stevef6392]

Exactly. You might find a Message that tells you how to build a Machine that'll truly enable you to experience the best sound in the Galaxy.

[@TheComputerGuy96]

That CD player is like those cars with doors that open upwards, except it looks way cooler!

[@Madness832]

It's funnier when these are added to a car that didn't come stock w/ 'em (e.g. a Honda Civic).

[@Fluteboy]

Of all the ELO songs, they chose Confusion - and then took this very dynamic song and probably brickwalled it. My 80s edition CD of ELO's Discovery is a very quiet album all thanks to that one track, with those bell tinkles in the first and third verse slicing through and giving the entire album its peaks. When are we going to move on from this Loudness Wars nonsense? We have volume knobs here!

[@uxwbill]

The *only* way I could see this making any difference at all would be to someone whose CD player is very marginal. And if that's the case, they'd be far better served by getting a better CD player. Or a CD player that's in proper working order. Sony's engineers out to know better than this. Time to blame the marketers, perhaps? It's just shameful how excellent recording technology is everywhere, and yet the mastering remains utter garbage.

[@vwestlife]

To be specific, Blu-spec CD was created by the record company Sony Music Entertainment, not the Sony electronics company. Which makes sense, because this really has nothing to do with electronics; it's just a slightly better way of manufacturing CDs.

[@Selrisitai]

ought*

[@HomelessTechnology]

You know what I think happened with this format? Sony bought lots of Blu-ray manufacturing equipment but then Blu-ray format didn't sell as well as they expected so the machines were doing nothing and they asked the marketing department what they should do so they said lets make CD's with the Blu-ray machines and say they are better.

[@Selrisitai]

Aren't blu-rays pretty much the primary selling video format these days?

[@Light-DelaBlue]

@@Selrisitai strangely not at alls the dvd is still the best seller . is strange but is the numbers.

[@Head4Music]

The vinyl comparison was brilliant! Noticeable audio difference. Goes to show if the master is done right the audio improves. :)

[@mspysu79]

More snake oil. At least this snake oil does not require a megabuck decoder like MQA. Lets go back to the 90;s where things like Sony Super Bit Map recording and HDCD along with careful mastering using minimal compression and a max -1 Db signal.

[@vinylcity1599]

mspysu79 eff that! You already have hi resolution audio with LP's!

[@CrowAndRedString]

George high resolution and LP doesn't make sense.

[@barebarekun161]

Just record the Vinyl and make the digital copy yourself make it sound any way you want it to sound problem solved.

[@CrowAndRedString]

Yeah just record the entire thing, and spend your time editing it to get rid of the wow and flutter, fix the speed, remove distortion, clicks and pops. Don't forget a good ADC, and turntable etc. Or the reduced dynamic range, which is only 2/3 of a CD which you could just buy.

[@Selrisitai]

@@CrowAndRedString Yeah, but CDs usually aren't mastered with dynamic range. Neither are modern records.

[@Stjaernljus]

What you need is a CD demagnitizer.

[@vwestlife]

You may joke, but they actually sell such a thing: www.bedini.com/clarifier.htm

[@Stjaernljus]

VWestlife yes techmoan tweeted about it a year or so ago

[@aflockofseacowsesquire]

That's magnificent

[@andygozzo72]

haha, which is total bulls**t as theres no magnetic materials in a cd !!

[@Vladimir-hq1ne]

You mean CD Rewinder! That's the thing! ;)

[@puertoricanaudiophile4840]

“From classical to Jimi Hendrix” lol YES I agree-he is a category unto himself!

[@johnb6723]

Hard rock is the category I think you might be looking for for Jimi Hendrix.

[@rubeusvombatus]

Sounds very similar to the SHM-CD, which is another CD format exclusive to Japan. I like those because my CD Burner seems to have less trouble reading/ripping them, I guess it's because of the different material used

[@GeckonCZ]

Bad mastering, aka how to **** up everything at the very last moment... That vinyl recording was like a breath of fresh air after the muddy Blu-spec garbage.

[@coen123]

To be (vaguely) fair, lots of complications will master for loudness over everything else, so modern CD remasters might sound as good (I don’t listen to that sort of music, so I wouldn’t know). That, and I wonder how the comparison would go if he used a stereo print of the song.

[@KRAFTWERK2K6]

Yeah don't judge the mix of the songs when it's part of a compilation. Album mixes differ a LOT. Especially original releases. Not "remasters" aka "less dynamic phone-speaker garbage mixes"

[@coen123]

it's still laughable that the CD marketing better sound quality has inferior mastering

[@wa27]

I wonder if they are easier for a laser to read when scratched because the data is "cleaner" or whatever. Not really something you could test though. This seems like a new pressing technology that should have just become the standard with no fanfare, but some exec saw those microscope photos and said "we can sell this as a special thing!"

[@Valet2]

There's no need the laser to read everything. You can throw out 5%of the raw data and you'll get the identical binary result, bit-to-bit.

[@wa27]

@@Valet2 And yet CDs still skip when they're scratched.

[@nickwallette6201]

The comments on this video are surprisingly rational, clearly not having fallen for ridiculous marketing BS. How refreshing.

[@KRAFTWERK2K6]

That's actually quite the rule in vwestlives's videos in the comment section (thankfully). One of the reasons why i enjoy his stuff a lot. No flaming or other immature BS but just folks who enjoy tech in various forms. Learned a lot from some folks too. Reminds me of how good youtube used to be.

[@brendanrandle]

damn i was hoping it would at least be better mastered, might have bought a couple just for that

[@SSJfraz]

If the CD contains the same master at 16bit 44.1khz as the normal CD, then it's going to sound exactly the same. Anyone who thinks differently hasn't a clue how CDs actually work.

[@pilotcritic]

I know how they work but I disagree. Just because it's all ones and zeroes doesn't mean there isn't a difference. For example, I can absolutely tell the difference between an mp3 played back on my Western Digital Caviar 7200rpm hard disk drive and it sounds significantly better than the same mp3 played back on a modern SSD. As you may or may not know, SSDs have an unfortunate problem where after being written to, read, erased, and written to again, the individual bits start to wear out and cause read errors. You can hear these read errors when playing back music stored on an SSD. And yes as you might suspect this comment is satire.

[@fVNzO]

The vinyl rip was very noticeably less boomy much more forgiving and pleasing to the ears. The improved dynamic range instantly gave the music more space. What a shame, how CD's often got butchered like that.

[@ChristopherSobieniak]

I'm glad you noticed.

[@bitrot42]

There was a time when CD players had less than ideal tracking, and no buffering. Improving the "quality" of the bits actually meant something -- the difference between getting the real data and a somewhat-similar error-corrected facsimile. That time was 1985. Even then, I don't think jitter during mastering was an issue. It certainly wouldn't affect jitter during playback, since the player has its own clock for the output to the DACs.

[@SoulcatcherLucario]

Excellent video as always!

[@coondogtheman]

I call japanese snake oil, Could not tell the difference. The vinyl vs blue spec CD is different, vinyl version is mastered much better than the CD.

[@bloodyl_uk]

That CD pack would be great for espousing the benefits up upgrading a CD pressing plant to Bluray.

[@therealbluedragon]

Keep doing what you’re doing. Really enjoy the style of your videos! 👍

[@sethseventh]

Thank you for your amazing work, this is a great job. Congratulations. :)

[@jamesveach6918]

Hey vwestlife could you do a review on the Emerson CD player you use in this video kind of would like to know more about it

[@rhymeandreasoning]

I like that cd player...was it expensive? I want to get one, or something similar

[@americanpatriot646]

What we need is a cd format that would reverse the compression from the loudness war.

[@feieralarm]

And then you wonder why you see people who are worried about BS like HDDs or digital signal cables causing "jitter issues"...

[@Musicradio77Network]

I love the last segment that featured comparisons to two different versions of "Oye Como Va" by Santana in both Blu Spec CD 2 and the SQ version taken from a demonstration LP, but it still sounds the same in stereo as you can hear in quadraphonic. I have my Sony SQ Decoder SQD-1000 in which decodes 4 channels. Works with SQ quadraphonic albums as well as movies on both DVD and Blu-Ray to hear the difference, and it does feature DTS Audio, Dolby 5.1 Surround, and THX Audio.

[@dlarge6502]

To my ears that loudness war comparison you provided at the end was one of the best examples I have ever heard. A stark difference between the two examples. Have you or will you do a vid that shows any more such differences?

[@kjrchannel1480]

I think this was more to make a higher quality physical media cd version that keeps the sound specs the same.

[@braelinmichelus]

To me, the Blu-spec sounded like it had a bit wider of a sound stage, or maybe like it had a little bit of an echo effect added to it in the background; like a concert hall effect you find in media player programs. It didn't sound better, just different. It was most likely just an illusion, but i'd be interested to see if anyone else hears it as well.

[@vwestlife]

It *is* just an illusion -- the placebo effect.

[@gladysbaptiste3028]

5 years late but nah, I think I heard it too. I feel like there’s a bit more reverb/ambience with the blu-spec compared to the regular disc. But I could be wrong, I’d like to hear your take on it 5 years later!

[@Kylefassbinderful]

Holy cow that was a huge difference when you compared the BSCD and vinyl Santana - Oye Como Va. That record sounded great!

[@voshche]

I suppose the done on purpose --- downturn by equalisar on CD . I've heard normal CD , it sounds very good.

[@garbisrobert4848]

i thought that is a snake oil about cd format, but since i played a SHM-CD format to my old Sony xa50es cd player, the differences appeared instantly. It is a very big one and worth any penny (at least in my hifi system).

[@lucasn0tch]

I just bought a Blu-Spec CD 2 of Boney M's music from CDJapan, but it's not because I wanted better quality. It's because I found the release of their music on Blu-Spec CD interesting. I have been to Japan three times, and I have never seen ordinary people buy Blu-Spec CDs. $32.78 isn't a bad price in my opinion, as many J-Pop albums like fripSide's infinite synthesis series of albums cost around the same money.

[@vapno92]

Audiophiles be like: Yeah those disc may contain exactly the same content, bit perfect copy, but I CAN HEAR a difference on my setup with my ears...

[@fensterkiller3151]

Well I think this format isn't really about the audible difference, but the difference in manufacturing quality of the discs (pits). Just like with gold plated HDMI-Cables it probably will not improve the quality of the content but why not take it if the price is identical. (Given the price is identical) *I don't know if Sony ever stated that it would improve the quality of the read audio, so I don't think it's really a case of snake oil.

[@elektrokinesis4150]

the only thing i can see as an improvement is the fact that these discs will probably last longer than traditional pressed cds and better resist disc rot

[@Ivo--]

Hey look at it this way, you got two exactly the same cd's for the price of one. ;)

[@supercompooper]

Even if the pits are crisper due to better substrate and manufacturing this has nothing to do with the digital 1 and 0 as you say. Even if it is read with less physical jitter this has nothing to do with the 1 and 0 and sound since the digital data on the CD is not even the raw 0 and 1 but must be decoded (e.g. error correction) and buffered in RAM in the player.

[@timothystockman7533]

I have an Internet radio station. I produce all the music programming in the digital domain. I encounter all kinds of source material. Some of it sounds good, and I can generally tell that it has the potential to sound good just by looking at the waveform in the editor. Some is very heavily clipped, which almost always sounds awful. More often than I would have thought, I have to fix problems like hum, rumble, and occasionally EQ. One big problem I deal with on almost all mono recordings is that they've been improperly mastered to the CD; I have to fix 95% of mono recordings I encounter. One would think that professional recording studios would know by now how to produce good sounding audio, but I am often amazed when I find basic problems which I have to fix.

[@JohnAudioTech]

When they started spewing the lower jitter on the disk nonsense, I knew where this was going. Jitter can be introduced in the player's D to A process, but that's an issue with the player and nothing to do with the disks.

[@CotyRiddle]

jitter can be caused by far more than the disc it's self. the transport mechanism the quality of the capacitors used in the player and the DAC it's self not to mention the quality of power everything receives. its all marketing bolarky. and modern cds while they have perfected the process of making and duplicating them sound like garbage due to compression anyways. your far better off getting a un-edited download of any music from somewhere that is from the original source not no cd. ps i can't stand listening to any modern cd. it all sounds like garbage (comparable to fm radio)

[@TechTimeWithEric]

And to make matters worse they include TOTO but not Africa

[@onometre]

Eric Brunhammer came here to point that out. Absolutely shameful

[@ChrisStoneinator]

Man if that's all the TOTO you listen to you're missing out big time

[@jacksinsel8798]

I think that this stuff is aimed to specific Audiophiles. Just like you modify your car with like a k&n air filter. It will give you a very small boost in speed maybe 2-5 hp depending on the type of car. Same with audiophiles. They will spend hundreds if not thousands and buy different stylus, cables, dacs, cd's, blu ray cd and vinyl to tweek their sytem just a little bit. Silver coated wiring vs copper wire can change a difference on how things are heard. Tube amps vs intergrated amps as well. Sometimes I can hear a small difference but nothing major. Only major difference is in the blu ray CD and SACD format. Well worth it! Audiophiles will listen to these examples on a more elaborate system vs this little Emerson clock radio. Just saying. Though I do understand test but when Audiophiles listen to this. They are listening with High quality speakers that separates and balance the high, mid, and the low range , with high quality cables, a high quality DAC, and a high quality cd transport. This is how an Audiophile will listen to this type of CD. It's all about bringing the listener closer to the original recording. Doe's it do this? Just like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The way music sounds is in the ears of the listener. Each to their own.

[@ecu4321]

Could there be a dedicated drive to show the enhancements of bluspec cd2 that it diminishes when read to a standard cd drive?

[@pennyandrews3292]

I think Blu-Spec CDs do seem like they're manufactured a little better and might hold up longer or work in CD players that are picky about what discs they can use. I don't think it actually sounds better, but I think this might be a change they should have quietly slipped into the CD manufacturing process rather than bothering to advertise. You make your CDs a little better by using technology from the Blu-Ray line? Good, just give us better CDs and upgrade all your CD assembly lines to use it. Don't make a fuss like you've done something revolutionary.

[@eg1885]

Placebo effect got me. I thought the blu spec CD sounded slightly more spatial. Even though he proved that they are identical.

[@simontay4851]

The vinyl record definitely did.

[@connorm955]

The newest Blu-Spec CD2 release was released late January of this year. Dream Theater's Lost Not Forgotten Archives: The Majesty Demos (1985-1986)

[@ProjectOverseer]

Interesting vid 👍 Regardless of any possible BS. If these improved discs are designed for audiophiles. Shouldn't testing be carried out on a high end system - just to see (hear) any difference?

[@sbrazenor2]

The seek time seemed faster in the Blu-Spec CDs. It might help correct read errors, which can improve performance, even if it's not immediately audible.

[@TheOriginalSplash]

Thats exactly what it does most part. Blu-spec CDs use standard 16-bit, 44KHz audio encoding, so you're not gaining additional sonic data. Secondly, Blu-spec CD is really just a fancy way of saying 'improved error correction'. The CD format already incorporates decent error correction (called 'Cross-Interleaved Reed-Solomon Coding)

[@BilisNegra]

3:39 What is that Google Express thingy you have as a start page in your browser? Why does it look like a regular google start page from 15+ yr ago?

[@vwestlife]

Because I made it look like one: www.amstereo.org/google/

[@bbarrera86]

have you ran the same tests for different examples between 2 different editions of the same album? just to see how differences should show in your tests

[@AntonKarpuzikov]

"Feel the Difference" that's the essence of audiophilia. Making you believe that your feelings/hearing/impressions is most important and accurate, not provable difference that can be precisely measured. It's straight up religion

[@hugeshows]

Bear in mind that jitter is only going to be an issue in real-time CD playback. Ripped material is going to circumvent the jitter inherent in CD transports by reading from a hard drive.

[@SparkY0]

What does "Jitter" even mean in the context of digital media? Sharper ones and smooth deep zeros?

[@coen123]

Do you have an original printing of that Santana song on vinyl? Because that difference in mastering could be related to remixing the album in quadraphonic, so it would be interesting to hear what the original stereo mix sounds like. (Maybe even to compare with the most recent CD release)

[@tommyb.6064]

How can the reading mechanism jitter influence the output signal? Samples are loaded in advance in memory and decoded right in time by the Dac when the clock says it... we're not anymore at the first year of cd were samples were played on the fly at 1.000 x reading speeds. Wtf.

[@povilasstaniulis9484]

It seems there are a lot of audiophiles in Japan. Can't think of any other reason for releasing another physical audio format only in a specific country.

[@TheOriginalSplash]

Japan is very proud of there electronics and music media ect..

[@buster5283]

It sounds like the sound stage is a lot larger and can hear certain parts of the song in the test near the end better in vinyl format than Blue Spec 2 format in the video even with the video compression. I even heard a difference on the blue spec 2 cds than the compact cds because the percussion instruments sounded cleaner than the compact disc versions of the songs. Maybe it is another case of how different people's ears generally are apart from others. Maybe the average person cannot tell a difference between the songs but I can hear a slight increase in quality in the songs in the video.

[@gli7utubeo]

I have some pre-recorded BluSpec CDs (like Simon and Garfunkel). They sound very good, but it may just be the mastering.

[@GabrielMartinez-pe6ln]

Have you tried SHM CD?

[@Wichtelchen2006]

This is, what many hifi enthusiasts don't (want to) understand: CD's (or digital media) can't sound different as long as there is no damage and the mastering is the same. The reason: Digital media stores data which represents audio or wich decodable into audio, not the audio itself. The CD is just a digital storage. It doesn't matter which device reads which media: Either the stored data is read correctly or not. Reading errors, or more general, damaged digital data lead to serious distortion or prevent the playback at all. One single bad bit is enough to kill all the fun^^.

[@slashtiger1]

@14:50 Obviously, you're right... YT's audio compression sucks for comparison tests, anyway. And if you _were to record_ the vinyl recording (back) to a CD, then, yes, that CD would have the same audio signature to it as the original vinyl recording. The point most people try to make when saying vinyl sounds better than (most) CDs, though, is that which you made at 13:07 ~ 14:10. Due to the ridiculous phenomenon known as the _loudness wars,_ which have effectively not ended to this day, everything was focussed at loudness. LPs simply _couldn't_ be mastered too loud because that would cause playback issues for most consumers. But even some (modern) LPs suffer from having been mastered as loudly as possible, where a maximum amount of DRC would have been applied to the source before the record was being pressed. CDs have a much higher technical limit when it comes to how loud everything can sound. Even with _no DRC applied,_ the CD could sound much louder, just by "normalising" the audio to the 0dB limit. The average peak for a vinyl record sits at -6 to -3dB For most record companies, though, that was not enough, which is why when the CD came around, they went even further in trying to increase their loudness and started applying DRC to most everything they put out. You can even hear this effect on records that were released _after_ the CD (as a medium) came to market. Take a pop album from the late 80s or early 90s that _explicitly states it was released on both formats,_ and then make a comparison of the _waveform_ in any DAW. You will then see that even the vinyl record's audio has received _some_ amount of DRC, albeit much more moderately than that of the CD's audio. The atrocities get even worse when you look at _remastered releases_ (CDs) with recordings from the 60s or 70s, and compare them to their original counterparts on tape, or to vinyl recordings released at the time. You will immediately notice that the original (and/or time-appropriate) recordings will have received _no_ compression (other than the RIAA curve having been applied to the vinyl recording), whereas the so-called "remastered recording" on CD will have had the life compressed out of it (quite literally, as a matter of fact). What's more, in an "effort to reduce the anomalies found when recording the song", they will have removed not just the clicks and pops, or background tape hiss that may have been present in the source, but they will most of the time also have removed "ambient background noises", such as, for example, a breathing noise from a singer, or even (n the case of classical recordings) a page in the score being turned. This is what audio purists will refer to as the audio sounding "too clean". You quite rightly state that you cannot really _hear_ the intended difference on KZbin, or at least not to the full extent. And you were also quite right to say that the CD _could_ sound the same as the recording you made, if you were to put it on a CD. The main point here, though, is that because of the recording process being used, and the loudness wars, most CDs, in reality, sounded much worse than their (time-appropriate) (vinyl) counterparts. Oh yeah... And as a PS: where I wrote CD, this also applies to most (compressed) digital recordings, such as those found on iTunes/Apple Music or Spotify. This is why, when digital is concerned, I would much rather have a _lossless_ recording over a compressed one. But then, if the source used for creating said recording was "bad" in the first place, there is no real benefit in going the lossless route...

[@CKT1138]

It's the second coming of "CD Greening". Which is easily the most ridiculous snake oil "solution" to "digital errors" and "jitter" ever devised. Until Blu Spec.

[@shaneshane-ko8zz]

Where can I buy this snake oil soundtrack lol really it's a nice soundtrack

[@ujwiersma8482]

Gee, that's quite an audiophile piece of kit you have there: an Emerson clock radio. You failed to find a difference because your measuring tools were too crude. To me, the test was conducted with snake oil.

[@amateurprogrammer25]

I think the only difference is that the blu-spec CD is easier for the CD player to read. That's what the marketing seems to imply anyway. I should hope that once ripped, a CD is a CD is a CD, and that jitter becomes a non-issue when even the cheapest playback hardware has a multi-second sample buffer. I'm not entirely sure what playback hardware exists that cares about this, but obviously there must be some

[@techtron2376]

I wonder how well this will work on DVDs, however. One day, I tried to create a windows 7 installer DVD on the fastest speed setting I could select. When I booted into the disc, to my surprise the installer said it could not install because the setup files were corrupt. So I had to burn at a much slower speed (4x or 2x I think?) and then it worked successfully.

[@TheOriginalSplash]

Yup. I always burn at the slowest speed it will offer in settings for whatever disk is inserted.

[@pomonabill220]

The blue spec playback comparison almost sound a little more clipped.

[@HBC101TVStudios]

Well suprising my "Best Audiophile Voices I-IV" CD sounded better than my other pre recorded CD that i have in my collection. It claims that it was "processed" using 24-bit 192 kHz DSP. Do you think those kind of advertised statements they claim are snake-oil?

[@vwestlife]

Any such processing is irrelevant once it gets converted to the 16-bit 44.1 kHz audio that CDs use. There are plenty of great-sounding CDs that were originally recorded and mixed at 44.1 kHz or even from analog tape, and plenty of lousy-sounding CDs made from 24-bit 192 kHz recordings.

[@albertocabezas282]

That's what I said to a friend. No matter the physical substrata employed to make a CD you just listen to the ones and zeroes from the digital recording. And getting the things worse, we have the loudness war.

[@FennecTECH]

While they are identical the difference created by the “i paid more for it so it must be better” falicy maters because art is a subjective experience. Any psychological effect meters too.

[@daveharttify]

I have a radiohead one, they are 100 data identical between standard us and jp blu spec.

[@maxtheknife]

I purchased the Blu Spec CD of Mariah Carey's "Emotions" and "Musicbox" and they sound so much better than what was originally pressed in the U.S. I played both on my Bose CD system at the same volume and the Blu Specs were no doubt louder. I don't think they were remastered but the volume is definately turned up so it doesn't sound as low as what we got here in the States in the early 90s. But I do think it's just the music label's ploy to get folks to repurchase CD titles we already own by giving the product a fancy name and being too lazy to give us discs that have been truly remastered.

[@joojoojeejee6058]

In theory, the Blu-spec CD could be a bit more resistant to damage than regular CD. Error correction takes care of minor problems in either format, but if the CD is badly damaged, then perhaps there is a slight difference and the Blu-spec CD can still be listened to when regular CD can't. Perhaps.

[@Vladimir-hq1ne]

Awful compression and clipping. Thank you another time for mentioning the Loudness War!

[@natr0n]

Maybe these discs last longer and are not prone to disc rot.

[@christellelivieroaracena607]

Thanks for this! I know nothing about audio, but I'm going to Japan next month and I saw some stores sell this format and was wondering what it meant. I think I'll pass and buy the regular old CDs I can find.

[@necrodh]

I have the Stevie Ray hits BSCD2 and the sound is from other world, is like upgrading my sound systems to higer end ones

[@scoobyrex247]

Can someone explain the bit at the end that the Santana Record is identical to CD. It sounds much better.

[@vwestlife]

It's not identical. That's why it sounds better.

[@victorcoss2600]

Digital it digital, in the end it's gonna end up getting the same 1s and 0s. However the real question is did it improve the CD players easibility of reading the disk? Like did the improved pits cause the drive to read the disc much faster and more accurate, without having to rely on the CRC corrections. I'd be interested in seeing your EAC rip logs of each disc.

[@vwestlife]

There were no read errors on either disc.

[@sbrazenor2]

Everyone knows the trick to retaining the best quality of your CDs is to ensure that you rewind them like tapes at the end of your listening session. LOL :-P