Super Audio CD - worth it in 2018?

PLEASE READ THE FULL DESCRIPTION.
When I made my original video on surround sound music, there was one multichannel format I didn't yet have to test: Super Audio CD. So I set out on a quest to buy in to the aging format in the year 2018 - which I found out is not unlike buying in to something like open reel tape at this point. There's a lot to consider, it's more expensive than I thought, and there's a steeper learning curve than you might expect for something originally meant to have replaced the simple CD. Many of the issues I had tie directly in to why the format never took off - compatibility issues, draconian copy protection that actually interferes with playback, questionable sound quality benefits vs. other formats, and high costs.
One clarification: the study I mention in the video that pitted "CD vs. SACD" was actually testing 16 bit/44.1khz music pumped through SACD and DVD playback. The detectability of the lower-resolution music stream was no better than chance.
Another clarification! Your brain doesn't really "piece the samples together" - as someone pointed out in my comments, that's the job of the Digital to Analog Converter. I knew this - I was selling DACs for a living 25 years ago - but had a bit of a brain fart when writing the script (was stuck in "video mode" when looking for an analogy, apparently) and never caught it until it was pointed out to me. What your brain does is just decide whether the job the DAC did matches the original music (if you have a way to do so), or at least sounds good to you. Unfortunately KZbin doesn't provide a way to annotate this in the video itself (you can't use both cards and annotations in the same video, and annotations are deprecated anyway), so I'm stuck with my screwup now.
By the way, I finally did get DSD over USB to work, but my receiver apparently only supports DSD in stereo, not multichannel. (That's why it didn't work for the video - I was trying to A/B the same multichannel recordings I had on SACD.) Of course even stereo DSD sounds great, but I can't say I'd be able to pick it out from a well-mastered 44.1khz PCM file in an A/B test, any more than the pros could.
If you do still want to get into SACD after watching this video, I'd love if it you used my Ebay affiliate link: ebay.to/2FDF8Ze
Here's the promised link to a video that explains the "Loudness War": • The Loudness War Expla...
Subscribe to my channel: kzbin.info...
Support me on Patreon!: / modernclassic
Follow me on Facebook: / modernclassicchannel
And on Twitter:
/ modernclassicyt

[@AndyP126]

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.

[@duffman18]

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.

[@AndyP126]

@@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.

[@freeman3320]

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.

[@lamecasuelas2]

Hoo boy! I was just listening to the quad mix of Floyd's Echoes, that shit Is cool, very 70's though

[@tjblues01]

@@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

[@francesbesaya2897]

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.

[@an2qzavok]

DRM, not even once.

[@billybassman21]

They are still stuck in the world of theory. They assume the pirate is going to buy their media if they stop it.

[@kcgeil]

Really great video mate! So glad I lucked out and found your channel.

[@batman.darthmaul]

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.

[@batman.darthmaul]

@@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.

[@SPAZZOID100]

@@batman.darthmaul DSD256 is basically analog.

[@altrogeruvah]

I really enjoyed this video, you're a very pleasant speaker ~

[@Ratass735]

Great video, pal. The candid and clear explanation of the whole process is truly appreciated.

[@mosespray4510]

I really like the clarity and straightforward style of your videos. I always learn something.

Wow, this channel is really good. I'm glad I've found it in a suggestion. Subscribed.

[@moth.monster]

Can we just get rid of DRM already?

[@JustWasted3HoursHere]

Sure, as soon as people as people stop making copies without buying. ;)

[@famicom_guy]

As if DRM really prevents this

[@NGC1433]

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?

[@JustWasted3HoursHere]

*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.

[@NGC1433]

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.

[@aaronmathias6739]

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 KZbin in a long time.

[@CoolDudeClem]

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.

[@dannytse8767]

SACD started life as a 2 channel stereo format; multi-channel is only an option.

[@drelephanttube]

I like subwoofers and I like surround.

[@jazzman1626]

CoolDudeClem I totally agree! Without good speakers, expensive equipment is pointless.

[@user-dc1ud6px3s]

@@mamaluigi0631 Not true. I have seen sizes ranging from 2.3 to 5 GB. They carry both 2.0 and 5.1 contents.

[@travis1240]

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.

[@nickfatsis9607]

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!!

[@ApesGarage]

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.

[@abefrowmahn]

Excellent Video! Thank you for sharing what you learned on your journey!

[@CKT1138]

There's actually a surprising number of hi res releases of albums with horribly smashed masterings sadly

[@CKT1138]

@Huj Mamin damn right, honestly

[@Uberhood]

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.

[@ModernClassic]

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.

[@richardgates7479]

That really bothered me too, since your ears hear what the speakers reproduce, which would have to be analog.

[@matthewv789]

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.)

[@centralscrutinizer9591]

@@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.

[@Rasheedamcclintock77]

Thank you for doing all the legwork!!

[@seanmangan2769]

Thank you for all the information and details!

[@islygon]

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!

[@mikeonfreeserve2926]

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.

[@jazzman1626]

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.

[@georgeanastasopoulos5865]

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.

[@Synthematix]

True but 2 speakers can never be as good as real 5.1

[@birdscds47]

Very good video, well thought out. Apart from the format, the quality of the Digital to analogue converters is very important.

[@dynodin81]

Great video, I enjoyed the information given.

[@DiscoRage]

"With Teeth" by Nine Inch Nails was released in 5.1, but it's on DVD-Audio.

[@richl4169]

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.

[@wiredupretro]

Love the channel and all the content! I was thinking about adding a SA cd player to my high end audio room, but now... Not so much. Appreciate your research :)

[@charlesludwig9173]

Then you will never know the joy of multi-channel SACD music, might want to reconsider. For me, multi-channel SACD is no doubt the defacto state-of-the-art in recorded music today, even though it's been about 18 years since it came out. It may not ever be appreciate by the general population but if you've got a decent 5.1 home theatre, multi-channel SACD will be a pleasure like none you have ever had.

[@ilovelctr]

Hi, this is the very first time I've come across your channel and I'm honestly amazed by the collection of games and records you have as shown in the video. I love this video of yours very much and the way you talk. This is very insightful and informative. Subscribed and rang the bell. :-)

[@SeverityOne]

My goodness, only six minutes into this video and it's already proving to be very insightful and well made. Thumbs up!

[@Xsetsu]

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.

[@Flux799]

The iPod happened that’s why

[@markwilliamson4834]

Perfect explanation, great understanding. Thanks!

[@martinoreilly3931]

Excellent review. Good logical analysis.

[@dhpbear2]

Nine Inch Nails on SACD? WHY?!

[@knockshinnoch1950]

My thoughts exactly. I also noticed The Sex Pistols Never Mind The B... was available and fell over laughing!

[@SeattleScotty]

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!

[@Nisha534]

DVD LG Camana TV call Annu Singh hai kya baat

[@southendonseaarts]

Great video I remember my first foray into dvd audio and especially SACD with a Pioneer DVD player and an ilink fable known as s400 into my Onyko amp it sounded amazing I was an early adopter of both formats and I still have about 40 SACDs going for high prices on eBay as you said. I now have a player over HDMI the Sony x800 no issues at all. I am one of those audiophiles and have just ordered the MOFI Dire Straits SACD stereo remasters from last year I love 5.1 music. I also have about 20 Blu-ray audio releases

[@bwithrow011]

Very informative video. Keep up the good work

[@Adammonroemusic]

"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.

[@ModernClassic]

Check video description.

[@Adammonroemusic]

Nice! too bad youtube trashed annotations.

[@colinme2672]

That's absolutely rubbish.

[@husky1993a]

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.

[@barebarekun161]

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.

[@bbay3rs]

Been pretty happy over here with my Pioneer DV610 for SA-CD and DVD-A playback. Enjoying these videos, keep em up!

[@bbay3rs]

.....with me receiver showing DSD decoding and the TV on.

[@bbay3rs]

I just keep stacking comments, but Nine Inch Nails has "with teeth" on DVD-A.

[@ihop4no14]

Good overview. Thanks for posting this. I found a copy of Pink Floyd's Wish You Were Here on SACD & thought about buying a Sony Blu-Ray player to accommodate listening. I think you've prevented me from going down the rabbit hole too far.

[@JanusCycle]

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.

[@skierpage]

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.

[@skierpage]

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.

[@wado1942]

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).

[@wado1942]

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).

[@JustWasted3HoursHere]

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).

[@ProjectOverseer]

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 😉

[@duffman18]

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.

[@hatuxka]

So my SACD player has a toslink output solely for when I use it to play regular CDs?

[@renehansen8971]

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

[@abdullahseba4375]

Friggin DRM....

[@ILikeStyx]

SACD is worth it for a properly remastered album, and mixed in 5.1 ;)

[@SirBilliumSir]

Another great video. Cheers.

[@garypranzo9334]

I setup my system for this and DVD audio but it was analogue and It was a pain in the ass to setup. Are new systems better with HDMI audio or do you still need to hook up all the channels from the player to the Receiver via component like I did?

[@horrorkesh]

in both audio and video formats were getting to the point that it is hard to tell the difference between high quality and normal

[@horrorkesh]

WCUK Radio since the average listener couldn't tell the different I don't think that's quite right

[@horrorkesh]

not every area gets every burger joint, 5 guys has never been where I live

[@paterdoloris]

It depends on how you quantify "high quality".

[@nathan43082]

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

[@tor-einarjarnbjo1661]

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.

[@SuleymanAkhundov]

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.

[@ModernClassic]

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.

[@mrb2917]

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.

[@Billy123bobzzz]

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).

[@HASHEAVEN]

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!!!

[@Magnulus76]

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.

[@theredon2]

I used my Sony blu Ray player on my vintage Sansui amp via RCA and it works fine with no issues now Is connected to a DAC. The pioneer player is a nice piece. I just don’t use my receiver for music I like to have a separate components for music. Great video very well explained.

[@arthurcooper1364]

Love your work

[@kevinwicks007]

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....

[@hurkamur1]

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.

[@danieldaniels7571]

I have trouble imaganing Pet Sounds as anything other than mono, considering how Brian Wilson is deaf in one ear.

[@hurkamur1]

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.

[@danieldaniels7571]

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.

[@briannewell6064]

The Elton John SACD's alone make the conversion to 5.1 worth it. They are stunning.

[@charlesludwig9173]

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.

[@musicman8270]

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

[@charlesludwig9173]

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.

[@mobilevideotech689]

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.

[@charlesludwig9173]

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.

[@stacydalebarendse3978]

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.

[@donaldspaulding6973]

Good video! Some great points made. The AES paper you referenced was repeated since the people participating in the experiment were not all professionals. During the repeat using only audio engineers, the rate was close 90%. The reason Dark Side sounded the same is because it was recorded analog. Sorry, but you cannot add resolution, this goes for upsampling as well. The only advantage (possibly) was a higher quality converter used when transferred off the master tape. I appreciated this video since I'm a little out of touch with consumer audio and had no idea the limitations of the components. Thanks!

[@robertbothamley9755]

Nice informative video you just gained a new sub

[@HareDeLune]

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.

[@gerhardprins1412]

“And that’s just my own experience” haha

[@R0n8urgundy]

Clicked like as soon as I saw DSOTM, joking aside Ive been looking forward to this and it didn’t disappoint.

[@tangointhenightband869]

Hi! Thanks for this, I am trying to play Darkside through my bands 5.1 Electro Voice 10k pa system, I have two players with 5.1 phono connections (which I wanted) but its just playing through the 2 stereo channels. Not sure where I'm going wrong... Any advice please? Thanks again Kenny.

[@billmainprize1274]

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.

[@ModernClassic]

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!)

[@jamiey5779]

+Bill Mainprize I was about to comment that certain HDMI splitters can actually strip the HDPC protection.

[@ModernClassic]

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).

[@evibes512]

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!

[@evibes512]

Multichannel is what drew me in too!

[@moth.monster]

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.

[@ChrisStoneinator]

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.

[@soulintake]

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!

[@That_Handle]

soulintake , What queries would I exhaust to search for releases in that format with the dithering aspect as a bonus?

[@TascamTascam]

erica you’re wrong. Sacd is much better

[@ps5hasnogames55]

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.

[@JonPickles]

Thanks for a great informative vid

[@eddon7644]

great explanation, i subscribed after 2 minutes

[@johnlynch6248]

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.

[@joeextraknow2854]

John Lynch agree.... he needs better gears for sure if want to make such argument. SACD blows CD out of water...

[@alecl.8511]

What about reel to reel

[@jazzman1626]

Without good speakers, no equipment, however expensive will give good sound. To me, speakers are king.

[@drbarney1000]

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.

[@michaelshultz2540]

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! 😼

[@awesomeferret]

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).

[@drbarney1000]

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.

[@ABaumstumpf]

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.

[@drbarney1000]

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.

[@palbrekke9455]

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?

[@r0bduh]

Great video, technical aspects nicely explained. SACD was a format I was keen to try by buying a PS3, alas before I got the money together Sony dropped support on the new slimmer model PS3 and I took that as a sign they'd given up on the format. I'd previously bought in to DCC and MiniDisc so you get wary eventually for backing failing formats! Still keen to try some multi-channel music. Subscribed :-)

[@richardmann5049]

I jumped on the DVD Audio 5.1. Best sound ever heard.

[@pablovi77]

SACD is even better, and Bluray audio even better than that.

[@michaelturner4457]

@Anthony Martino 200 watts per channel and full towers, I'd love to have that, but my neighbours wouldn't.

[@Mellowbaton]

I heard that if you want a cheap player for these, you can use an original PS3. Does that work?

[@ModernClassic]

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.

[@televisionandcheese]

I tried it recently, on a fully updated original PS3. It's still working!! :)

[@HareDeLune]

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.

[@nickguy6820]

From what I understand, not even the original PS3 streams DSD via the HDMI port. It's converted to hi-res PCM as well.

[@HareDeLune]

Nick Guy That is correct. : )

[@421CentralIowa]

Thanks much for making this video. You're already took the same journey I was about to and you convinced me not to. The price of SACD albums I'd be interested in is prohibitive. And they're not just laying around pawnshops to be found, unfortunately.

[@rmccann11]

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.

[@matthewheeke6240]

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.

[@charlesludwig9173]

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.

[@joshua43214]

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.

[@AnonymousFreakYT]

Hah! Just discovered your channel through your Quad 8+Blu-Ray audio video that ends in "Maybe some day I'll get a SACD player", decided to go to your channel, and whaddaya know - this is your latest video! Edit: Or... Maybe I've watched some of your videos before, and just never clicked through to the rest of your channel... (MPman) Well, new subscriber!

[@AndreyShredder]

Thanks for the video. It's a lot of info. I bought the first version of PlayStation 3 couple years ago only for playing SACD, before sony cuts this lovely functionality to play almost all kind of discs. I connect ps3 using HDMI to my onkio receiver and have no issues with sound at all.

[@BaddMatt]

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.

[@ModernClassic]

Check video description.

[@danieldaniels7571]

.....or the reciever, depending on your setup.

[@BaddMatt]

True, but I was trying to KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) it. lol

[@CommodoreFan64]

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.

[@ModernClassic]

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.

[@CommodoreFan64]

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.

[@MegaBobsel]

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.

[@CommodoreFan64]

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.

[@MegaBobsel]

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).

[@kevinking4042]

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!

[@MovieGuy846]

Nice video that covers a lot of the frustration us early adopters had to deal with. I got into SACD back in 2001 and really didn't appreciate the format until 2012 since I didn't have an AV Receiver w/ an analog 5.1 input at the time. Once I did get the new receiver along w/ a used Outlaw Audio ICBM1 (analog bass manager), I started to play many of the discs that I had owned and I was blown away by how great "some" of the multi-channel mixes sounded. Since then, I have been hooked on finding more great titles (thanks for the recommendation on Nine Inch Nails) and I also added a DVD-Audio player recently (free player that my neighbor was throwing out). Some of the better surround mixes I would recommend a listen if you can find it on SACD (and DVD Audio).... Roxy Music - Avalon Bryan Ferry - Boys and Girls Pink Floyd - Dark Side Of The Moon The Carpenters - The Singles (was surprised it was very good considering it's not my type of music) Fleetwood Mac - Rumours Dire Straits - Brothers In Arms Gloria Estefan - Greatest Hits The Flaming Lips - Yoshima Battles the Pink Robots (very crazy surround mix)(DVD-A) Queen - The Game (DVD-A) And a few more that I'm having trouble remembering.

[@hurkamur1]

David Yuen yoshimi is a dvd-a, and Avalon is a freaking amazing sacd, too bad it's like $200 now.

[@MovieGuy846]

Yes that is correct. I should have specified that more clearly. Also, Fleetwood Mac - Rumours was first available on DVD-A and then was re-issued in Japan for SACD. In respect to the crazy prices now on many out of print SACD's, it's a shame that many people will not want to fork over that much money just to have a listen. The good news, however, is that one can find downrezzed copies to download and burn to "CD" in the DTS codec. I don't think I can state the website but it should be easy to search for on the web.

[@charlesludwig9173]

One hybrid that has a very novel surround effect is Diana Krall's Love Scenes. It is also great for coming to an understanding about the proper bass management that's right for your set-up.

[@MovieGuy846]

Just checked my collection and didn't realize I had this Diana Krall album. I don't recall listening to the multi-channel mix but I will definitely try it out possibly tomorrow. Thanks.

[@charlesludwig9173]

Oh, I'm so glad for you. It's an outstanding SACD with which you can fine tune your bass management, as if your sub is too aggressive the bass violin will be very much over done. Also, listen to "Peel Me A Grape" for the novel multi-channel cork pop, it's just fun.

[@ShellstaTube]

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.

[@alfisdrake]

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.

[@ModernClassic]

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.

[@garysmith8455]

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 .........

[@Billy123bobzzz]

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.

[@TheTruthKiwi]

This is the second time I've considered getting an SACD player & the second time I've watched this video! Now I remember why I didn't get one. :) The SACD's are prohibitively expensive and all the other caveats you mentioned. I have my stereo set up as quadrophonic with a sub anyway so can't imagine 5.1 would be that much better. As much as I love gadgets and audio gear just not worth the hassle and $$. CD's sound good enough anyway as you say. Oh well, thanks for the informative vid MC, I'll probably be back in 6 months or so :p

[@kennethiman2691]

Excellent video.

[@drdoomslab]

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.

[@HoldFastFilms]

More like SAC’D

[@HareDeLune]

HOLD FAST Good one! XD

[@soulintake]

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?

[@soulintake]

Albert Max Carrion I don't have much experience with Bandcamp, but that seems to make sense. Good luck with the music!

[@joeibarra9003]

No tracks displayed.

[@joeibarra9003]

Nice. I will check it out.

[@badgastein2]

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.

[@WalterDavidRiffmon]

Very interesting topic. Thank for sharing your research and findings. I have a few cd’s from around 1994 or 1995 known as DTS CDs. Have you ever heard of this format? I have one old DVD player that will play them. I think it is a Pioneer regular DVD universal player. It is the only reason it remains in my setup right under my Sony Blu l-Ray player.

[@AutistCat]

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 🤔

[@ModernClassic]

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.

[@HareDeLune]

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.

[@ShellstaTube]

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 😎.

[@HareDeLune]

ShellstaX Ah, it was Pink Floyd that won me over. A long, long time ago. ; )

[@StringerNews1]

Andri, you're not missing anything. The LPCM CD audio is as good as human hearing, and any good DAC will put out seamless analog; the only way you'll get square waves is if they are in the music, so the only claimed benefit of SACD is moot. The disadvantage is the heavy-handed DRM. James Guthrie, of Das Boot Recording, has been with Pink Floyd since 1978, and has freshly remastered the entire Floyd catalog in 2011. He also did the SACD in 2002, so unless he took unusual liberties they should be the same. I've gotten every new release of the PF albums, and IMO the differences are minor. There's one distorted note at the end of "Shine On You Crazy Diamond" that finally got smoothed over with the 2011 remaster. If you don't instantly know the note I speak of, don't sweat it. And don't worry about differences that people probably only imagine hearing. I'd get an SACD player if I thought that it would make any difference. Before it was a no-brainer: there weren't any 1-bit DACs to use. Every SACD player used a regular LPCM DAC. Now there are a couple of DACs that claim to be 1-bit (but may or may not be) it's just a lot of money for someone who already owns all the 4.0 and 5.1 versions and all the hi-rez versions in LPCM. I'm happy with them, and see no need to "fix" what works splendidly already.

[@noomeron]

"...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.

[@ModernClassic]

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 KZbin starts recommending the video to random people.)

[@hurkamur1]

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. 😀

[@morgolus4413]

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.

[@davidpowell8249]

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.

[@lamecasuelas2]

Sourceror Fmnet yay! And their eyes can see x rays and infra red colors!

[@VintageLuxmanStereoCollector]

Excellent vid!!! I am dealing with the frustration now as I bought one of Sony’s 5-disc changer SACD/CD models. SCD-C595 The frustration was learning Sony lasers go bad. So when I play hybrid discs, some of them cannot be read for the SACD layer. BUT, the Sony player is in great shape except for that one point. I might order a NOS optical laser assembly from Singapore. I will try the hybrid discs with my Sony PS3 which I never knew played SACDs. I always enjoy learning from your vids👍👍

[@dannytse8767]

The Sony SCD-CE595 was an excellent SACD player that used a customized Burr-Brown DAC. Everything can be controlled from the front panel or the remote. It does make a racket when changing disc, but that comes with the territory of owner a changer. It was favorably compared to the Rega Planet in an issue of "The Absolute Sound". Not bad for a machine that has a MSRP of $250.00.

[@whatevahz531]

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.

[@paianis]

DSD was totally unnecessary. DVD Audio's solution was fine.

[@dannytse8767]

And where's DVD-A nowadays?

[@EmperorDrax]

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.

[@bryangl1]

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.

[@moth.monster]

HDMI is shit. I wish more devices supported DisplayPort...

[@stacydalebarendse3978]

Nothing beats silver interconnects :)

[@StopMoColorado]

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 😠

[@awesomeferret]

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.

[@powerkor]

excellent information, voice quality, performance

[@barney6888]

You have probably saved me a lot of money. Thank you.

[@SeverityOne]

45 downvoters paid $3500 for an audiophile SACD player... ...but let me hang on to our Sony BDP-S780 for a while.

[@ModernClassic]

There will always be downvoters, but yeah... you're probably pretty on point.

[@robertkeefer7791]

I have a Marantz SA 8005 SACD player. Paid $899 for it. Fantastic player. I have Dark Side of the Moon on SACD.

[@HBC101TVStudios]

Most Sony BD players are capable of playing SACDs and DVD-A.

[@DFX4509B]

Yet the PS4 isn't. And even the PS4 Pro won't play back 4K blu-rays, which is stupid.

[@MarkRoberts-bj2me]

Why is this video on KZbin? 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.

[@MarkRoberts-bj2me]

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.

[@HASHEAVEN]

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...

[@richardsoffice9176]

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!

[@Magnulus76]

@@MarkRoberts-bj2me Classic rock was mixed to play back on "4 speakers on AM radios. Hardly a "hi-fi" genre.

[@MarkRoberts-bj2me]

@dandanthetaximan No shit Mr. Wizard. Do you know that most music recorded from the late 80's is unmitigated crap?

[@wooster1173]

Now that file size is not a problem anymore, why do we still get compressed audio file on streaming services as Apple Music or Spotify ?

[@JeeGee114]

Do you know if the Pioneer 610 has that HDMI output? Thx!