Yep. Me, too. Lot's of rare stuff you never see at even the best semi-local stores. You can get some rare stuff on Ebay, too, usually cheap. I kind of miss the hours I used to hang out in the record store trying to decide what to buy this time. Kind of. Well, maybe not. They were too expensive anyway.
John Morris even a lot of the newer stuff is wonderfully recorded. Most of the stuff that I've found over the years with squashed dynamic range is popular radio music. Other genres, at least what I have purchased, seem to have been largely immune to such atrocities.
Only issues is the space they take, but if nothing else you can copy them to a SSD and have a nice, out of the box original HQ experience with no compromise.
The reason that it never became popular was that people really wanted downloadable files aka mp3 or similar. The problem is that most people are more than content with the mp3 sound quality. They could not care less about a format that is better than CD. But one of the most important problems with SACD was the licensing of the format. Sony has been too greedy with this one. They made the format because they couldn't get money for their CD patent anymore. Had they made an open format, maybe it had been more popular.
SACD is the best format ever in my opinion, I buy them as often as I can , they are increasingly hard to find and they ain’t cheap, but they sure do sound the best
I glommed on to SACD back in the day as it was the only digital format that I could stand to listen to more that one album before my ears started objecting. I have compared directly, vinyl, redbook, hi-res, MQA (software only) and DSD. What I have learned is that the most important thing in digital is the DAC. And probably the most important part of the DAC is the analog output stage. I have had a copy of "Jazz at the Pawnshop" on vinyl for many years. I bought a copy in DSD directly converted from analog. Playing the record followed by the DSD, it is like a curtain had been blocking the players and was lifted for the DSD. The improvement is so great that I suspect the recording was remastered. I never thought I would say this, but digital is now equal to analog, and can be superior in some cases, and as it turns out, always has been. It just took this long for people to start treating the digital to analog conversion seriously. So here is my hierarchy from worst to best: MP3, higher bit rate MP3, cassette (had to throw that in, and yes I have a Nak), CD and MQA (again software decryption only) are equal, 192/24 high res files, vinyl although a remastered high res can sound better, and DSD that is not converted from PCM. Although 44.1/16 PCM can sound very good, high res is better despite theories that say it is not, probably because the brick wall filters are set at a higher frequency and have less effect on the audible frequencies. MQA should have this same advantage.
What's most important in my humble opinion is the recording/remastering process and not the format. I've heard Redbook CD's that sound fantastic or bad depending on the process involved around the recording or final mastering. Ditto for DSD or PCM Hi Res. I feel that as yet the full potential of red book CD hasn't been harvested and that may hold true for the higher res formats as well.
DSD is dead and technically you can achieve superior resolution with a modern PCM streaming service e.g. 192kHz 24 bit streamed from Amazon HD music lossless are better than SACD (DSD-64).
I think MQA was created for the sole purpose of generating revenue, I have no problem with making money but the creation of MQA was not to overcome some problem that was preventing music from reaching people's ears. The addition of a corresponding light on audio gear to show that MQA is being received is a stroke of genius from a purely business point of view. A listener doesn't get anything that cannot be provided by existing formats but it is possible to check you are getting what you paid for with those formats. MQA has a little colored light that appears to make people think they're getting what they paid for when they may not be.
Should start a business fitting little blue LEDs to amps that come on when you power up. $320 sounds good. The user can get a happy feeling knowing they’re listening to something special 🔵
I agree with your thoughts on MQA. To me, it is a solution in search of a problem. Who has issues with audio bandwidth exceeding their available internet bandwidth?
MQA is dead. It's a lossy PCM compression format and nowadays serious audiophile consumers in most places can easily get internet fast enough to not bother with lossy compressed formats such as MQA. DSD-64 is inferior to 192kHz 24 bits streamed lossless on Amazon HD Music and the convenience is hugely better on a modern lossless streaming service. DSD is dead because it doesn't allow any level of modern audio processing and reality is that modern DACs aren't even using pure sigma delta in the conversion making the argument of staying in sigma-delta conversion in both end of the signal chain a lie.
IMHO, all it does is provide hi res music with a smaller foot print. Guess what. I have gigabit fibre to my home. File size is not a reason for me to invest in a niche recording format. Give me a well mastered PCM CD. I'm happy. The really significant improvement in sound is not from file format. It is what is in the file. Playing, mastering and publishing are far more important than the file format or compression algorithm.
A first-rate and often very expensive disc player will show SACD and CD to be far better sonically than I believed possible. Much much closer to high speed analog tape, which for these older recordings at least means a closer approach to what was put on the master tapes.
Personally, I don't want anything to do with MQA. Anything that requires my stereo to have an internet hookup to get maximum sound quality is a non-starter for me. No, thanks, even if it was the best sounding format ever. SACD, on the other hand, I absolutely love. Whether the format itself sounds better, or whether it is simply better remastering, I don't know for sure. On second thought, I have many hybrid discs and the SACD layer is inevitably better. Not only the Rolling Stones, but the Police and Peter Gabriel released their entire catalogs on SACD, and Bob Dylan the majority of his. Then there are audiophile labels like Mobile Fidelity, Audio Fidelity, etc. who regularly release SACD titles: Stevie Ray Vaughan, Norah Jones, and on and on. Dire Straits' remaining titles will be out soon from Mobile Fidelity. Then there are countless Japanese releases, from Rock to Jazz to Classical, all easily available to order online. Apparently, SACD is big in Japan. Most of what I've bought sounds exceptionally good. Then there is the Classical market. Many, many Classical titles are still released on SACD and sound absolutely stunning on that format. Rachel Podger's new "Four Seasons" is a great example. Yeah, there are a hundred "Four Seasons" already, but this one is really something special, in both performance and sound quality. And I could go on for hours. There is an ever increasing number of absolute treasures in the best available sound quality on SACD. Sure, it's an audiophile format for a niche market, but so is everything else not named "CD" or "mp3". I actually enjoy tracking down rare discs. I enjoy owning physical media. No streaming for me, no downloads. We all have brands of stereo equipment that the average person has never heard of. We all hopefully put in a little effort to acquire the best sounding releases we can find, if there's a choice, regardless of the format. I started in audio with vinyl records. I own several thousand CDs that I still enjoy immensely. I started buying SACDs back when they were first introduced in 1999, I think it was, and I own several hundred. SACDs just sound best to me. Here we are nearly twenty years later and SACDs are still being released all the time, hardly the mark of a dead format. Niche format may be an apt description, not dead. But we are audiophiles; some would say the entire industry that supplies this hobby is dead. Not to me. Not till the fat lady sings. When it's an option, I will choose SACD every time.
Julia Set I have the Brothers in Arms SACD. It does sound wonderful, much better than the original CD or lp record. I also have a good sounding XRCD of it, but the Mobile Fidelity SACD is the best. Never tried it with the phase reversed, though. I would have to reverse speaker wires because I don't have a phase reverse button on my preamp. My SACD player is an Ayre C-5xe mp. My preamp is a Pass XP-20. I'm planning to upgrade the player to an Esoteric k03xs when I save up the money in about six months or so, hopefully.
The Brothers in Arms is one of my favorites, I have the original LP, the MoFi LP, the SACD, the CD, probably others. All of them sound better with phase reversal. I don’t know why phase reversal should even make a difference, given that the music has gone through about a hundred IC’s that probably are inverted. The drums especially sound different. BTW, my preamp is also the XP-20 and I love it.
Brian Moore No argument there. I work with my Uncle in a professional mastering/mixing studio and I can tell you DSD sounds better than any PCM format. Including 24/192. The DSD (Sigma Delta Modulation) sounds like the original analog file. PCM just doesn't. I can't guarantee DSD will sound better in an $300 player though.
Oh yeah, we're going there! I'm still digging hdcds! lol! Neil YOung, Joni, Beach Boys, Cars, Roxy, Ferry, Dead, and many more all sound great to me with my hdcd player and Pacific microsonics hdcd player processor chip. The Stone sacd drama is even crazier than that as they released jewel cases claiming sacd and the discs inside were just regular cds! The digipaks have the sacds.
I still have my LINN GENKI CD player with an HDCD chip. I have around 150 HDCD discs and they really do sound awesome. I also have a Marantz SA10 SACD Player and it is a beast. I love both formats. There are still lots of HDCD discs available to buy new at regular prices- no big price hikes like SACD. There are also loads available 2nd hand on Discogs, Amazon & MusicMagpie. With careful checking of catalogue numbers/deep searches you can turn up discs priced at only a few quid- some as low as £2!
It is really important to note that most SACDs are hybrid with a CD layer on the disc as well as the SACD one. This means that any Cd player can play them. As can any SACD player.
The future of sound right now is immersive audio. 3D sound using Auromatic up mixing of SACD (hi resolution) or hi resolution files that Apple and Amazon are now producing with Atmos encoding (yes-new offerings daily) is addictive. We have rediscovered not only our SACD’s but our CD collection playing them on a 7.2.6 (13.2) system using the Auro 3D codec (even if released in Atmos format). Thank you Wilfried!
You just explained why it's so difficult to try to find used SACD titles mixed in with regular CDs at record stores, thrift stores, flea markets, etc. -- they often don't even mention SACD or have the logo on the covers or spine, and often come in regular CD cases. And even just looking for the rounded Super Jewel Boxes that many SACD titles came in isn't foolproof, as some regular CDs came in a Super Jewel Box as well!
When aliens will visit Earth in 230000 years and find the remnants of civilisation they will report back home that Schrödingers cat being dead and alive was the greatest misunderstanding among the people on this pale blue dot...
Most people that claim there is no difference between Normal cd (44.1) and High Rez formats, They also can't hear a difference between 320 mp3 and lossless. So I have no more to say.
True. I will say it al comes down to blind tests. I have taken so many blind tests between 320mp3 and lossless. And i am wrong 50% of the time or more. In my opinion if u are Just 50% wrong in bling tests, then u are rly just guessing and hope to pick the right one. I have paid for some months for tidal and im not very impressed. So many songs that sounds so much better on spotify than tidal. Many tidal songs sound very dark and unclear(when i compare them). So i just stick to spotify for now.
The difference can be heard on more expensive systems, I can hear the difference between DSD and PCM, my MQA DAC went back to the shop for a refund, interesting how no British manufacturer supports MQA
I have a shoebox full of SA-CDs that I realized, with horror, I haven't listened to in nearly a decade! This will soon change, though. I'm building a tiny house / man cave here in our little forest on the Big Island and I might as well make it into a listening room. The prospect of hearing the beginning of Time on "The" Dark Side of the Moon again brings a smile to my face! I'm just glad there are still players available. Aloha!
well i wouldnt call it a scam but Tidal working hard on keeping that secret is fishy since no one can properly test it its hard to know if it is scam or not just look at the "MQA Review" by Goldensound Then again spotify is no better they scamming the artists to on 3 million a year calculated guess best is still CD / SACD (Some of them) and vinyl
I guess the reason why DSD/SACD is only really happening in the classical world is that as soon you're using some kind of digital audio workstation like Pro Tools etc. during production, you basically have to use PCM for that. So apart from music that is essentially recorded straight from microphone to master or recorded mostly analog and only then transferred to digital, DSD just doesn't make much sense, because you'd have to convert from DSD to PCM and back anyway during production.
I AM the Musicophiliac, and I ❤️❤️❤️ me some DSD! Heard it for the first time only a couple of years ago, and was immediately blown away. Bought a player on the used market, but still don't really have a lot to play on it, yet. Thanks to that pro-tip, I'm guessing I'll have some Stones soon, though. I've got the Sympathy for the Devil remixes, and they're alright.
Despite what Steve says many artists have released catalogues on SACD - they have just been snapped up. You can pay a premium - but there are bargains out there like Dark Side Of The Moon. If you don’t mind paying a premium then CDJapan have some good classic rock releases and MoFi stuff is good. There is loads of classical stuff out there.
I really, really hope native DSD recordings make a come back because I've recently added the PS Audio DirectStream Memory Player and DirectStream DAC to my listening room and I'm totally in love with the amazingly natural sound DSD provides. Fortunately, I'm almost entirely a classical listener and quite a few classical labels still prominently feature the SACD format. Still it would really be nice if those and other labels offered a lot more than they currently do.
ABKCO Records' decision to market their Rolling Stones SACD's at the price of a regular CD (not at a premium "audiophile" price) offended SACD's inventor Sony, so Sony cut off ABKCO's access to Sony's SACD pressing plant, hence ABKCO had to reissue their new Rolling Stones masterings as regular CD's.
Hi Steve, greetings from the UK. I must say how well I like your channel and your very easy on the ear presentation. I always feel like you are speaking to me personally. With regard to other artists who committed to SACD, I believe Neil Young was/is a supporter of the format. Keep the content coming!👍
SACD protocol locked digital output and forced user to use players analog output. So, I only bought one disc and that was it. Couldn't hear a difference anyhow.
Bought a couple of sacd's a while back when they were reasonably priced, and loved the sound. Checked recently and they are now way to expensive for me. But!!! Now with dolby atmos for home theatre on my pc which i recently got working, playing cd's easily rivals the sacd discs i have. I was blown away actually. It will put out 2 channel stereo only, even though it says its in multichannel mode ( or whatever the source material is). But wow, what a difference! I will never purchase another sacd as long as i can use dolby atmos for home theatre via my pc. Using VLC media player which gave me the best playback sound. Now i see some cd's released in dolby atmos which would be true multichannel but havent heard one yet. I beleive REM released a few.
PCM 44.1/16 is more than fine!! I have a VERY revealing system and today I listen to all of my music streaming Tidal hifi, no MQA. First I've had direct USB connection between my laptop and my DAC. Today I use Audinirvana+ and Dirac Room Correction and the USB signal goes to an Audioquest Jitterbug, then to a Wyred4sound USB Reclocker with a Linear Power Supply and then to a Gustard U16, wich converts the USB signal into I2S (HDMI) for my DAC. Trust me 100% on this, today I have a MUCH MUCH better sound streaming Tidal at PCM 44.1/16 with this gear than I've ever had playing stored hi-res 96/24 files with Foobar with only a USB cable. The magnitude of the difference is similar like going from standard TV resolution to HD. Incredible, but true!! Dont waste time caring about hi-res files, they are expensive or scarce in streaming services. Not Worth it. Spend time improving your jitter and the integrity of you digital signal and you will get MUCH better and faster results. The Wyred4sound RUR and mostly the Gustard U16 are VERY good to help doing that.
Pedro Luis Guillemain, I have this ongoing discussion with my brother (and fellow audiophile) who waxes eloquently on the positive sonic merits of DSD streaming over “old tech” CD 44.1/16. I, like, you, pay very close attention to how I listen with respect to processing the data signal via the DAC, etc.
Why I remember buying one of them newfangled phonographs that went round at 33 1/3 revolutions. Pissed me off to no end to have to have two phonographs.
With all that "Format Wars" , back then in the early 2000's, I've acquired and listened to all of them. I have a huge collection of sacd, dvd-a, dts-cd. I really love the Dts-audio (CD) formats over the Sacd... Like Steve Wilson's 5.1 mixes on those Classic Rock Faves, as well as His own recordings with Porcupine Tree and his Solos... I agree, you must have a really decent player for it. I really love my Sony-ES, Oppo, and Denon. Universal Dvd Players...Thanks for bringing this up Steve!
i think hi-res formats were developed solely for the DRM. I don't think the record industry ever envisioned that people would be able to rip CDs and stick 'em on a portable device. They're used to you buying the same albums over again in a new format. With the advent of CD ripping, you never needed to do that again.
It is so said. There are so many scam today. A lot of "Hi Res" streaming made from oversampled MP-3 or other low quality source. 99% or LP reissues (even "audiophile") are made from digital sources or using digital technology. So, in result, you got digital and vinyl technologies drawbacks both.
Also, lots of sources are 44 or 48, so delivering them in 96 let alone 192 isn’t adding anything. Not that they sound any worse than 192 sources either, which is why so many audio engineers don’t bother working in high-res in the first place.
SACD is hardly dead. It's a niche format these days. I blame Sony, its creator, for not properly supporting the format. ABKCO was an independent record company, and I give them kudos for releasing the Stones' albums in hybrid SACD format.
I purchased my outstanding Denon DCD610 compact disc player (used) from Ebay two years ago, for the seemingly reasonable price of $25 free shipping. It says 1991 on the rear panel. It plays music in stunning fashion, and the CD tray only occasionally needs a friendly nudge to close, but it always opens. I don't use it much now because I have a dac and youtube.
DSD and SACD continue to grow by the day. They are growing very slowly, but they are growing. Why? Because people are ALWAY going to be looking for higher quality versions of their favorite recordings. That alone is enough to drive both DSD and SACD forward over time.
I continue to pick up SACDs and purchase new discs when they become available- I hold out hope that with a "revival" of physical media SACD will be relaunched as a cool must have format similar to the UHQ vinyl niche. It is good to see more SACDs being released as part of the remastered reissues by Analogue and other labels.
@@vitorfernandes651 Due to her former label's restriction, Madonna maybe release her album in competing DVD based format: DVD Audio (since SACD is basically a DVD based format, too)
Incorrect. For surround sound you need sacd. Cd is two channel only. But it exceeds human hearing capabilities. In short cd frequency response is 22.5khz. Nobody can hear above that. And anyone over 30 is unlikely to hear above 15khz. Sure sacd can give frequency response to 96khz. So what?? You won’t hear above 15khz, just like you won’t be able to hear a dog whistle. Sure cd is 16 bit v 24 bit for sacd. So what? 16 bit has dynamic range of 96db. Listen at that level for one minute and you’ll be deaf. Sacd has dynamic range of 144db. So what?? Masking effects mean the real dynamic range we can hear is way below 90db. Stereophile review of 1812 overture on Telarc found it’s dynamic range was 44db!! There’s zero music with dynamic range of 96db for good reason. Any difference between cd and higher resolution is due to different mastering. Sometimes manufacturers down resolve cd layer of sacds to make it sound inferior to sacd. The other difference is due to bad cd players with delta sigma dacs. I have Aqua La diva cd transport and La Scala r2r dac. I have oppo205 to Geerfab dbob to La Scala dac. On properly mastered sacd there’s no audible difference between layers. Check out esoteric sacds for proper mastering. Otherwise, unless you want surround sound, invest in a top cd transport and r2r dac, and buy CDs . Look at double blind study reported by AES 2007 that found humans can’t tell any difference between cd and higher resolution formats. Then look at the science of hearing. Then save your money rather than fall for the hype of high resolution (which double blind studies show can’t sound better than cd to humans).
For reasons that are beyond me there's not a single audiophile TH-cam guru that likes classical music. So, the people that spend a blinking wad on hardware are squandering it on music that comes with its own distortion. I think you'll find classical CDs were created in top notch studios that dwarf the capabilities of the mom and pop shops that are present today. Add to that SACD and you've got jaw dropping sound. I have about 50 SACD discs and they're great - the multi-channel effect is not at all like Dolby - it's much richer. And new SACD classical releases continue. The music scene is atomized today and that hasn't helped anyone, classical included. But it's still a genre of extraordinary beauty and I hope my SACD player lasts a long time.
SACD is pretty alive in HiFi especially in Classical. Go and check Acoustic Sounds and CD Japan or Presto Classical and Europadisc SACD sections, they are huge. Certainly SACD is not mainstream but it's pretty great because it's the digital format closest to analog. DSD is pretty popular now with DACs and DAP (digital audio players). IMHO MQA is useless and I don't it will survive the test of time, just another tech trend. In the next years we will certainly see the rise of HiRes lossless wireless technologies, for example BluOS.
So you think highly of the niche DSD format that has no popular music titles but your opinion of a MQA which is virtually indistinguishable from lossless, at like a quarter of the storage size of flac and is available across genres, you think this is useless. OK.
mc365mc every time I open Tidaal and check out the explosion of new MQA inventory, this guy couldn’t be farther from the truth. He is clueless! I bet he has it even tried anMQA DAC1
SACD is alive in DSD form,especially with DAP users. MQA is one step away from becoming popular, and that is to be accepted by Spotify or Deezer, besides Tidal
I own several dozen or more SACD's. For the most part amazing good sound. Respectfully the many computer whatever formats are not going to be something I ever adopt to. I have my silver disc spinner and my turn table. I take my record player seriously. The silver spinner is for my SACD's some older red-books that are listenable and blue ray movies my family and I enjoy. For all I know the computer formats maybe amazing. Honestly I don't care and don't have time to figure out the many odd stuff to learn it.
The thing which I thought 20+ years ago with SACD was the fact it was/is a set format, likewise CD. Unfortunately in the intervening years the audio industry hasn’t done itself any favours, meaning the confusion Steve briefly mentions. So many resolutions for PCM 16 bit, 24 bit and briefly 20 bit in the 1990s and sample rates anywhere between 44.1kHz to 384kHZ and that’s before the download file formats, MP3, AAC, MQA, WAC, ALAC and FLAC. No wonder the uptake hasn’t really happened!
Hey Steve, the guys over at PS Audio have a recording studio called Octave Records, and they have very hi end recording gear..DSD and SACD are the end product..the band I play with in Boulder will be recording in August,,,I’ll let you know how it goes..
If you wonder why it didn't catch up, look at the ''normal'' persons around you and you'll who are happy with mp3s or now with the lossless trend. and you'll understand why. SACD is not dead, it's the DSD (DST) files you can purchase from various places. DSD256 and DSD512 are the latest top quality recs you can buy. But even DSD64 is awesome and far better than regular CDs. the equivalent of DSD64 would be PCM 88.2 and for DSD128 would be PCM176khz!.
@@_Historia_Magistra_Vitae You sound like a typical fool who is so sure of his opinions that he hasn't actually listened to hear if there's a reasonable audible difference here- he's just read an article by a techie either in english or some other language and liked its polemical tone; or you're simply trolling, which is a pathology certainly without borders...
Just picked up a used SACD player on Ebay. Denon 1510 - wasn't much time left in the auction so tossed in a half-hearted bid and won. Now am weirdly excited even though I don't yet own a single SACD disc and can clearly the see the rabbit hole opening up in front of me. :D Just hope it actually works. It'll be funny (not) if the SACD function has actually failed and all I'm hearing is regular Redbook and convincing myself in my head that it sounds amazing!
Today you can buy japanese SHM-CD`s and Hi-res MQA CD`s, they will play in a standard CD player and sound fantastic. Problem with SACD format was the price of reissues and that it needs a special player which was never cheap. It was more a format of rich people than average population.
Dependent on where you are and when you get involved in SACD, players capable of playing SACD can be had for under US$200.00. Even today, Sony sells a SACD capable transport for about US$200.00.
As a classical music lover, I was an early adopter of SACD. An orchestral recording on multi-channel SACD can sound absolutely spectacular and I'm glad that companies like Pentatone remain committed to the format. Unfortunately, the industry's obsessive fear of unauthorized copying precluded any form of multi-channel digital output from early SACD players. My Sony SCD-XA777ES has five analog RCA outputs to support multi-channel recordings which, of course, means you'd need a receiver or pre-amp with corresponding inputs. The expense and clutter associated with the many interconnect runs was, I'm sure, a huge deterrent to acceptance of the format. Nowadays, encrypted multi-channel sound can be output over HDMI (Sony UBP-X800) making the format much more end-user friendly. Alas, too late.
The Sony UBP-X800 will play SACD and DVD-A (audio). Unfortunately, I bought the Sony UBP-X700 not knowing it only decodes SACD. For $50 more, I could have got the X800 (X700 was $200 at Best Buy). BTW, SACD is 2 channel audio and DVD-A is 5.1 surround.
Nice preamble for buying the new McIntosh CD/SACD player, but the fact is CD players are going the way of the Dodo bird, cassettes or 8 tracks. I believe best to save your money for buying online content online, sometimes actually free to listen to, or buying improvements for your audio system if you have an itch for spending money. Personally a good used turntable and decent cartridge is a worthwhile addition to any system if not done so. It not superior to digital but can be very relaxing.
Elton John did release most of his early LPs on SACD and in 5.1, unlike those great Stones SA-CDs aka SACD. The PCM tracks on those Stones SACDs were better than all previous CD editions, thus the reason they got dropped. Some specialty labels are doing DSD masters all the way to SACD and vinyl. I guess some people find the lack of editing with DSD an issue.
SACD 4.1 is very much alive , Original 1970 Quadraphonic Tapes now being transferred and mastered at the Austria factory for the UK Label and USA Label
The Rolling Stones Albums and Bob Dylan Albums were the very first SACD albums to be Pushed By Sony back in 2002-2003 I was lucky enough to buy most of The Rolling Stones SACDs and a small handful of Dylan Albums at Sony Galleria Store which was Sony Flagship Store down Tottenham Court Road back during the good years before they all closed down here in the UK. I'm. Big big fan of this format I also have aload of DVD-A Albums as well but SACD is the winner by a mile for me.
DVD was cool. Hell man, I use to go to BlockBusters to rent video tape/movies. I have a lot of live concerts on DVD that I will not mind watching again, if I find a nice device that plays all medium or multi player.
Before the streaming era - i.e. 1999 to 2010 - if you want your music to come in a resolution "better" than redbook CD, DVD audio was the most readily available option. Unfortunately, most of the 1980s era rock / pop albums reissued in 24 bit 96 KHz DVD audio format are actually mastered in 16 bit 48 KHz DAT and my system and my ears can easily tell.
That's because those formats are unnecessary. 16/44.1 encompasses 99% of human hearing. Focus on good mixing, mastering and dynamic range. Those things are significantly more important than any hi-res format will be.
In the same logic a 128kbps mp3 file is also 16/44.1, so you think it's all a human can hear? a cd is 1400 kbps also at 16/44.1, and I thing you agree that it sounds much much better than a 128 mp3 right? Well a 192khz /24bit flac has ~5-6.000 kbps. It's 4.35 times the sampling rate, and more importantly, 256 times the bit depth used to define the original analog sound waveforms, captured by the microphone! Most people ignorantly think that hi rez is only about frequency extension above 20khz, well no it's not the main point. Hi rex sounding better is about the highest digital resolution possible to the original analog sound signal.
Um no. That's not the way digital music works. You need to study more about the Nyquist Sampling Theorem and learn what Bit Depth is. BIt Depth is simply the difference between the loudest and the quietest part of the song. Most songs do not have dead silence in them, so even 16 bits is complete overkill for a lot of music. And cranking up the sampling rate will not get your "more of the music" because a sampling rate that is double the highest frequency will capture all of the music. So, a rate of 44.1 will perfectly capture sound up to 22.05 Khz. Since the human ear maxes out at 22 Khz, with most people maxing out at 20 Khz, a higher sampling rate doesn't buy you anything. It's just simple math. So, your dog is having way more fun with high res music that you are, at least on the high end. Your subwoofer he can't hear at all. And a 128Kbps MP3 is a completely different beast. That's lossy compression. The lower the bitrate of the lossy compression, the more different it will sound from the original. Crank the Bitrate to 256K or higher and good luck hearing the difference.
But lossy compression is defined to the original losless format which was original the 1440kbps stantard of the CD, how would a ''lossy'' compression of the original 192khz/24bit studio recording would be? In that sense wouldn't a 1440khz be considered a lossy version of a 6000kbps file? IF this is 192Khz/24bit **************************************************************************** This is a 44.1/16bit CD * ** * * * * * *** * ** * * ** * * ** * ** * * ** * * ** * * * * * * ** * So even though if the original idea was you can't hear the quietest parts, it's information of the original analog sound that's missing!
I have many CDs where the sound quality is knock me out exceptional (and non audiophile labels). I completely agree the format is fine, If more care were put into mixing, mastering, mic placement and so on (on all of the recorded projects) as you mentioned - I wonder if less people would get excited about a new format (2 channel anyway). Just a thought, I don't know. I hoped they would fix all the crappy sounding CDs with a format change, my bad delusional thinking. What I want is an add on magic switch for my existing DAC (Not an MQA proprietary DAC or any other nonsense) for a fair price that would make the bad CDs sound like the good ones. That would be exciting. Unfortunately there are lots of bad sounding records out there too - maybe a magic add on switch for the phono-amp would would bring proper audio heaven to those beasts also.
Don't know if you are going to get this but...I hear you about streaming isn't for you. I "don't think" it's for me too, yet I may have to do it until I establish a CD/LP collection again. I hear you can download music or rip it onto a USB, and then listen to it from the USB? Wha? How does it sound? How can it sound good? I don't understand. Man, growing up in all analog era, I always liked what I heard, I never doubted what I heard was what I was hearing, but today, I question what I hear is Actually what is Meant to be Heard. Weird stuff.
It’s amusing that the SACD is still around. It never moved out of the niche category. It was never heavily promoted. Yet it still exists as a stillborn carcass waiting to be buried.
@@dannytse8767 The main problem with the SACD is the poor promotion of the medium. It wasn't advertised in a big way. It didn't get the big rollout the Redbook CD got. The Top 10 current albums are not in SACD. They haven't been available for the 23 years it's existed. I mentioned the format to someone casually. He didn't have a clue what I was talking about. This was a few days ago. We were talking about music. I don't think a majority of people know what SACD is That's the problem.
I think stockfisch still produces sacd disks using their dmm process. People feel sacd is a waste of money and in some cases I agree. The dmm process however produces a truely excellent recording, something that needs to be heard before passing judgment on this format. Even if you can only play the normal cd layer, the mastering of it makes a huge difference compared to most redbook cds.
Agree, Stockfisch make the best sounding recordings out there. I have plenty of high res files but a Stockfish redbook is superior. How many times have you heard them at Hifi shows ?
John I believe a stockfisch redbook is just the cd layer of a sacd, l have never seen a release of a stockfisch true redbook cd. If you have let me know the source, otherwise the sacd is dual layer, regular cd and sacd in one. I don't know how many times but I can almost instantly recognize them. Can't help stopping to listen.
What is the source material/carrier? How the conversion/transmission has been executed and with what equipment. Nowadays we can record/mix PCM up to 24b/192kHz. We can record in DSD as well, but mixing/editing is not convenient with DSD.
If MQA didn't charge a licensing fee, maybe more record companies would use it. Maybe more streaming services would embrace it. Open (or at least free) formats are the way to go.
I just received a SACD Beethoven and played it on my Sony 4k blu-ray player on some generic Samsung audio bar. Then I played the same album on the same speakers from a TH-cam video...couldn't really see much difference. So..where is the problem? My ears? The speakers? The Sony 4k player, or the SACD?
The reason it played on a CD is because it has a CD volume, plus SACD volume - so one in PCM and the other is like DVD-size (200MB+ each track) in DSD.
I bought most of the Stones hybrid discs titles at Tower Records when they came out. They had been recently demoed at the AES Convention. I don't recall, but perhaps the wrapped said that they were hybrid discs. They all said 2002 on the back. The previous releases came in plastic cases. Robert Ludwig skillfully mastered them so even the CD layer was a vast improvement. I love them; they sound great.
Am into vinyl..always have been. But recently have been getting into high res downloads...out of curiosity other than anything else. But I can also listen to them via headphones ( no headphone amp on my main system) in my study whilst SWMBO is watching the telly. I have to say I am enjoying the experience. But so many digital formats at the moment and, I presume they will continue to evolve over time; some will fade away only to be replaced by others. So one thing i have started to notice is the plethora of the various playback ‘kit’ (software/ hardware) etc required to playback the different formats. As the formats evolve over time, i guess the kit will evolve too. With vinyl though, the format hasnt changed for decades; a spinning platter, a vinyl disk and a pickup. I cant see this concept changing much into the future either. My 1982 Linn will still be playing vinyl records for many more years but will today’s digital playback systems be able to cope with future digital formats? So for me, whilst i am seriously enjoying my current dalliance with digital, i dont see it as a long term option. Just an observation 😎
Mofi seems to be supporting SACD pretty well these days. I believe Sony Blu Ray players still support the format as well. Also, the major labels sometimes backup their vintage analog master tapes to DSD for archival purposes and to re-sell to the consumer in the form of vinyl and hi res PCM.
In terms of SACD releases, MoFi is not even in the top 5 on a yearly basis. Last time I checked, for calendar year 2020, BIS of Sweden and Hong Kong Universal Music were the most active SACD labels.
@@dannytse8767 Oh, I have no idea how Mofi (or Analogue Productions, for that matter) "competes" with other labels in terms of quantity, especially on an international level. I'm just glad to know they currently support SACD as a digital alternative to their vinyl remasters. Given that none of the online sources seem to have an exhaustive, and therefore accurate, list of titles that have been released on the format, all of the stats out there are more or less guesstimates. Probably only Sony knows for sure. Additionally, looking only at SACD physical disc sales is also a bit misleading. As I already mentioned, music labels like to dub and remaster their analog master tapes to DSD for archive. To offset the cost, they often resell the remaster to the consumer in the form of vinyl and hi res PCM files. If there are no SACD discs or DSD files offered of the new transfer, then this activity and usage of the format is completely overlooked.
SACD dead? Hahahaha! Visit HRAudio.net and see all the new releases coming out weekly. As for myself, I keep buying SACDs by the truckload . Why? Because SACDs give a wide smile while I enjoy their warm, open, detailed sound!
SACD, MQA, DSD...it’s all good. But the average listener may not care or even notice the difference....However, back in the early 90’s, there was a sound process (not format), called Q Sound that sounded great (listen to Sting’s Soul Cages) but never caught on. No special equipment was required. I suspect there were some outrageous licensing fees that the record companies refused to support or Dolby squashed the whole thing.
Hi Boss! You gotta remember that MQA is LICENSED! In the music industry (heck in the audio industry) that's a dirty dirty premise because it means you're paying $$$ for every encode/decode. Tidal can swing that because they STRICTLY limit who and what can do it. It's $20/mo for ACCESS to the MQA (whether you listen to it or not). Currently, it's desktops only, and only within the application. You can NOT do MQA on mobile, you can NOT do MQA in the browser. Heck, you cannot do MQA outside of Windows, I don't think. Tidal also has a SIGNIFICANTLY smaller audience when comparing to Spotify. Spotify's licensing costs would be a FULL order of magnitude higher simply due to the amount of users they had. They would have to introduce tiers to their paid service and I honestly don't think they want to do that. I'd bet a portion of my salary that 99% of people listening to streaming audio do NOT care about sound quality. As long as it sounds good enough. MQA are for people that care not people that simply want to hear some music playing.
That's a hybrid sacd you have it has a traditional CD layer so it plays on a regular CD player, I guess DVD audio and Blu-ray audio is ancient history as well, Jazz artist still release a fair amount though. Hey, where can I get a shirt like the one you're wearing?
6 ปีที่แล้ว
I believe the outer packaging on those SACDs did indicate what they were.
I thought that the SACDs were fairly expensive (more than $50 / disk). So, are these Rolling Stones SACDs the same price as a regular CD, since they are unmarked? I’ve been trying to find a copy of The Cleveland Symphony’s, Pictures at an Exhibition SACD, on Telarc, but the prices are $99 - $250 for one CD!
Steve, you’re just the best! Thank for all the helpful information over the years. I have a question about playing SACDs into powered stereo bookshelf speakers (currently Edifier S3000 Pro). I have a vintage Sony 400-disc DVD/CD changer with SACD playback. However, I just learned that Sony doesn’t provide the SACD information through its digital outputs (optical or digital coaxial). Since I’m wanting to connect the RCA line output directly into my powered speakers, will the high quality SACD signal be output through the two stereo RCA jacks? Thanks, and sorry I didn’t get this out in two sentences. All the best! ~ Danny
16/44 upsampled to 24/96 was all I ever needed. Now to 24/192 in which my Outlaw pre-pro does to all audio in the 976. I never bought into the SACD thing. With good equipment, 24/96 audio sounds awesome. Even better now that we have 24/192. PCM into Dolby Prologic 2 and DTS Neo 6 can sound very good. Especially Rock and modern Jazz. It would have been interesting to see SACD become more of a music surround medium. I would have tried it if more bands recorded in SACD.
RazorStrap I hope, i find forgiveness for this philosophical remark, In honour of gregory Isaacs fabulous record : soon forward, Which meant so mich for me. Around 1980. But smart kids like you weren't born yet. at the high times of music. so be happy with your IQ of 211
Always good Steve, thanks. Paul McGowan in a recent video says that DSD is the best format in the world - better than vinyl and CD in every way - and is the format of the future. He wants to design his products around that format. I don't see his reasoning at all, frankly. and find it odd that he believes this to be true.
SACD is a niche within a niche within the audiophile community. I love them as I love physical media. I’m not an MQA guy. I tried it and wasn’t convinced but then again I also bought DVD Audio! 😬
@3:21 I suspect that they do not call it MQA, because subscribers would expect to hear MQA, in all of its glory. But if you do not have an MQA compatible DAC, you will not get the full MQA experience. You will get a standard CD experience. Yet, Tidal's content will still sound great, even on a non compliant DAC, because MQA content is Master Quality Authenticated (strict quality control in the mastering process). Tidal provides content that is not vandalized by the knuckleheads that ruin the sound quality on so many CDs. So it is safe for Tidal to call their content "masters". But them calling it MQA, and then folks without an MQA DAC not reaping the full benefit of MQA, could be considered misleading the subscriber.
I'm considering a Sony 4K video player with SACD capability thrown in right now. I've never heard it. It's actually a plus for the player imo vs possibly better video quality of a more expensive player I've got a few DVD-A discs from the early 2000s and it can play those too. My gripe with Tidal MQA with my trial of the highest tier Tidal is that it would require a Bluesound Node 2 for like $500 to really play them while I can play Amazon HD Ultra natively on my receiver. I personally do think some of the Ultra HD material on Amazon is the real deal. Some of it might be real high resolution, but the source material just isn't all that terrific anyway to really make the most of it. I hate for Amazon to dominate everything so I wish Tidal were more easily accessible, but $500 is too much fir me just to play Tidal MQA and pay an extra $8 or so a month for it vs Amazon Ultra HD.
I buy more cds from amazon now than I did 20 or 30 years ago. Cheap and lovely.
Yep. Me, too. Lot's of rare stuff you never see at even the best semi-local stores. You can get some rare stuff on Ebay, too, usually cheap. I kind of miss the hours I used to hang out in the record store trying to decide what to buy this time. Kind of. Well, maybe not. They were too expensive anyway.
thegrimyeaper Nothing wrong with 16/44.1 if done right. Check out any CD before the loudness war - Fantastic.
John Morris even a lot of the newer stuff is wonderfully recorded. Most of the stuff that I've found over the years with squashed dynamic range is popular radio music. Other genres, at least what I have purchased, seem to have been largely immune to such atrocities.
Same here.
Only issues is the space they take, but if nothing else you can copy them to a SSD and have a nice, out of the box original HQ experience with no compromise.
The slow take up of SACD is a real shame and waste of a great opportunity. I love physical media.
The reason that it never became popular was that people really wanted downloadable files aka mp3 or similar. The problem is that most people are more than content with the mp3 sound quality. They could not care less about a format that is better than CD. But one of the most important problems with SACD was the licensing of the format. Sony has been too greedy with this one. They made the format because they couldn't get money for their CD patent anymore. Had they made an open format, maybe it had been more popular.
I love listening to SACDs through my Sony DVP-CX777ES 400-disc changer. Superb sound!
SACD is the best format ever in my opinion, I buy them as often as I can , they are increasingly hard to find and they ain’t cheap, but they sure do sound the best
me too. I am trying to get some as I possibly can, not cheap at all !
I glommed on to SACD back in the day as it was the only digital format that I could stand to listen to more that one album before my ears started objecting. I have compared directly, vinyl, redbook, hi-res, MQA (software only) and DSD. What I have learned is that the most important thing in digital is the DAC. And probably the most important part of the DAC is the analog output stage. I have had a copy of "Jazz at the Pawnshop" on vinyl for many years. I bought a copy in DSD directly converted from analog. Playing the record followed by the DSD, it is like a curtain had been blocking the players and was lifted for the DSD. The improvement is so great that I suspect the recording was remastered. I never thought I would say this, but digital is now equal to analog, and can be superior in some cases, and as it turns out, always has been. It just took this long for people to start treating the digital to analog conversion seriously.
So here is my hierarchy from worst to best: MP3, higher bit rate MP3, cassette (had to throw that in, and yes I have a Nak), CD and MQA (again software decryption only) are equal, 192/24 high res files, vinyl although a remastered high res can sound better, and DSD that is not converted from PCM. Although 44.1/16 PCM can sound very good, high res is better despite theories that say it is not, probably because the brick wall filters are set at a higher frequency and have less effect on the audible frequencies. MQA should have this same advantage.
The Carpenters Singles 1969-1981 on SACD sounds fantastic on the stereo and multi tracks.
The Carpenters???? ok grandpa.
What's most important in my humble opinion is the recording/remastering process and not the format. I've heard Redbook CD's that sound fantastic or bad depending on the process involved around the recording or final mastering. Ditto for DSD or PCM Hi Res. I feel that as yet the full potential of red book CD hasn't been harvested and that may hold true for the higher res formats as well.
I absolutely agree. Interestingly, I read that many studios may indeed record in DSD but the final mastering is done in the PCM realm.
The CDs that sound the best to me are the early ones that were basically direct transfers from the master tape.
mastering and mixing in dsd is an absolute nightmare, which is why most studios won't go near it
DSD is dead and technically you can achieve superior resolution with a modern PCM streaming service e.g. 192kHz 24 bit streamed from Amazon HD music lossless are better than SACD (DSD-64).
What are these red book cds I keep reading online? Thanks
I have a few sacd' s about 30 albums, and feel the mastering is better most of the time on sacd then cd, i Think personnally sacd is best overall.
I think MQA was created for the sole purpose of generating revenue, I have no problem with making money but the creation of MQA was not to overcome some problem that was preventing music from reaching people's ears. The addition of a corresponding light on audio gear to show that MQA is being received is a stroke of genius from a purely business point of view. A listener doesn't get anything that cannot be provided by existing formats but it is possible to check you are getting what you paid for with those formats. MQA has a little colored light that appears to make people think they're getting what they paid for when they may not be.
Should start a business fitting little blue LEDs to amps that come on when you power up. $320 sounds good. The user can get a happy feeling knowing they’re listening to something special 🔵
I agree with your thoughts on MQA. To me, it is a solution in search of a problem. Who has issues with audio bandwidth exceeding their available internet bandwidth?
MQA is dead. It's a lossy PCM compression format and nowadays serious audiophile consumers in most places can easily get internet fast enough to not bother with lossy compressed formats such as MQA. DSD-64 is inferior to 192kHz 24 bits streamed lossless on Amazon HD Music and the convenience is hugely better on a modern lossless streaming service. DSD is dead because it doesn't allow any level of modern audio processing and reality is that modern DACs aren't even using pure sigma delta in the conversion making the argument of staying in sigma-delta conversion in both end of the signal chain a lie.
IMHO, all it does is provide hi res music with a smaller foot print. Guess what. I have gigabit fibre to my home. File size is not a reason for me to invest in a niche recording format. Give me a well mastered PCM CD. I'm happy. The really significant improvement in sound is not from file format. It is what is in the file. Playing, mastering and publishing are far more important than the file format or compression algorithm.
@@user-od9iz9cv1w Yes, MQA makes zero sense already. It’s just yet another format that will enter the history book of formats that came and went away.
A first-rate and often very expensive disc player will show SACD and CD to be far better sonically than I believed possible. Much much closer to high speed analog tape, which for these older recordings at least means a closer approach to what was put on the master tapes.
Personally, I don't want anything to do with MQA. Anything that requires my stereo to have an internet hookup to get maximum sound quality is a non-starter for me. No, thanks, even if it was the best sounding format ever.
SACD, on the other hand, I absolutely love. Whether the format itself sounds better, or whether it is simply better remastering, I don't know for sure. On second thought, I have many hybrid discs and the SACD layer is inevitably better. Not only the Rolling Stones, but the Police and Peter Gabriel released their entire catalogs on SACD, and Bob Dylan the majority of his. Then there are audiophile labels like Mobile Fidelity, Audio Fidelity, etc. who regularly release SACD titles: Stevie Ray Vaughan, Norah Jones, and on and on. Dire Straits' remaining titles will be out soon from Mobile Fidelity. Then there are countless Japanese releases, from Rock to Jazz to Classical, all easily available to order online. Apparently, SACD is big in Japan. Most of what I've bought sounds exceptionally good. Then there is the Classical market. Many, many Classical titles are still released on SACD and sound absolutely stunning on that format. Rachel Podger's new "Four Seasons" is a great example. Yeah, there are a hundred "Four Seasons" already, but this one is really something special, in both performance and sound quality. And I could go on for hours. There is an ever increasing number of absolute treasures in the best available sound quality on SACD. Sure, it's an audiophile format for a niche market, but so is everything else not named "CD" or "mp3". I actually enjoy tracking down rare discs. I enjoy owning physical media. No streaming for me, no downloads. We all have brands of stereo equipment that the average person has never heard of. We all hopefully put in a little effort to acquire the best sounding releases we can find, if there's a choice, regardless of the format. I started in audio with vinyl records. I own several thousand CDs that I still enjoy immensely. I started buying SACDs back when they were first introduced in 1999, I think it was, and I own several hundred. SACDs just sound best to me. Here we are nearly twenty years later and SACDs are still being released all the time, hardly the mark of a dead format. Niche format may be an apt description, not dead. But we are audiophiles; some would say the entire industry that supplies this hobby is dead. Not to me. Not till the fat lady sings. When it's an option, I will choose SACD every time.
Brian, me again...I recommend the Dire Straits Brothers In Arms SACD from MoFi. See if you agree that it sounds better with the phase reversed.
Julia Set I have the Brothers in Arms SACD. It does sound wonderful, much better than the original CD or lp record. I also have a good sounding XRCD of it, but the Mobile Fidelity SACD is the best. Never tried it with the phase reversed, though. I would have to reverse speaker wires because I don't have a phase reverse button on my preamp. My SACD player is an Ayre C-5xe mp. My preamp is a Pass XP-20. I'm planning to upgrade the player to an Esoteric k03xs when I save up the money in about six months or so, hopefully.
The Brothers in Arms is one of my favorites, I have the original LP, the MoFi LP, the SACD, the CD, probably others. All of them sound better with phase reversal. I don’t know why phase reversal should even make a difference, given that the music has gone through about a hundred IC’s that probably are inverted. The drums especially sound different. BTW, my preamp is also the XP-20 and I love it.
MQA players and streamers are massively expensive at the moment. I don't think there will be enough take up.
Brian Moore No argument there. I work with my Uncle in a professional mastering/mixing studio and I can tell you DSD sounds better than any PCM format. Including 24/192. The DSD (Sigma Delta Modulation) sounds like the original analog file. PCM just doesn't.
I can't guarantee DSD will sound better in an $300 player though.
Oh yeah, we're going there! I'm still digging hdcds! lol! Neil YOung, Joni, Beach Boys, Cars, Roxy, Ferry, Dead, and many more all sound great to me with my hdcd player and Pacific microsonics hdcd player processor chip. The Stone sacd drama is even crazier than that as they released jewel cases claiming sacd and the discs inside were just regular cds! The digipaks have the sacds.
I still have my LINN GENKI CD player with an HDCD chip. I have around 150 HDCD discs and they really do sound awesome. I also have a Marantz SA10 SACD Player and it is a beast. I love both formats. There are still lots of HDCD discs available to buy new at regular prices- no big price hikes like SACD. There are also loads available 2nd hand on Discogs, Amazon & MusicMagpie. With careful checking of catalogue numbers/deep searches you can turn up discs priced at only a few quid- some as low as £2!
I love the mult-channel catalogue from Vocallion
I have over 40 sacd...love them all...some of them are rare and worth $$$
It is really important to note that most SACDs are hybrid with a CD layer on the disc as well as the SACD one. This means that any Cd player can play them. As can any SACD player.
The future of sound right now is immersive audio.
3D sound using Auromatic up mixing of SACD (hi resolution) or hi resolution files that Apple and Amazon are now producing with Atmos encoding (yes-new offerings daily) is addictive. We have rediscovered not only our SACD’s but our CD collection playing them on a 7.2.6 (13.2) system using the Auro 3D codec (even if released in Atmos format). Thank you Wilfried!
Let it bleed is a classic.
You just explained why it's so difficult to try to find used SACD titles mixed in with regular CDs at record stores, thrift stores, flea markets, etc. -- they often don't even mention SACD or have the logo on the covers or spine, and often come in regular CD cases. And even just looking for the rounded Super Jewel Boxes that many SACD titles came in isn't foolproof, as some regular CDs came in a Super Jewel Box as well!
Not the case in the UK where SACDs are easily identified- I have over 600 discs and never have I come across a SACD that was not clearly identified
SACD = Schrõdinger's Audio CD? Neither dead or alive :-)
I Like it, same thought occurred to me as Steve was talking. If more people looked at it would it be more alive ? ;-)
Super Audio CD
When aliens will visit Earth in 230000 years and find the remnants of civilisation they will report back home that Schrödingers cat being dead and alive was the greatest misunderstanding among the people on this pale blue dot...
Most people that claim there is no difference between Normal cd (44.1) and High Rez formats, They also can't hear a difference between 320 mp3 and lossless. So I have no more to say.
True. I will say it al comes down to blind tests. I have taken so many blind tests between 320mp3 and lossless. And i am wrong 50% of the time or more. In my opinion if u are Just 50% wrong in bling tests, then u are rly just guessing and hope to pick the right one. I have paid for some months for tidal and im not very impressed. So many songs that sounds so much better on spotify than tidal. Many tidal songs sound very dark and unclear(when i compare them). So i just stick to spotify for now.
The difference can be heard on more expensive systems, I can hear the difference between DSD and PCM, my MQA DAC went back to the shop for a refund, interesting how no British manufacturer supports MQA
I have a shoebox full of SA-CDs that I realized, with horror, I haven't listened to in nearly a decade! This will soon change, though. I'm building a tiny house / man cave here in our little forest on the Big Island and I might as well make it into a listening room. The prospect of hearing the beginning of Time on "The" Dark Side of the Moon again brings a smile to my face! I'm just glad there are still players available. Aloha!
Your ~3 year old video is floating back up to my suggestions, because I've been hearing about MQA, and the how it is not what it claims to be.
TH-cam knows you better than you think.
well i wouldnt call it a scam but Tidal working hard on keeping that secret is fishy since no one can properly test it its hard to know if it is scam or not just look at the "MQA Review" by Goldensound
Then again spotify is no better they scamming the artists to on 3 million a year calculated guess
best is still CD / SACD (Some of them) and vinyl
I guess the reason why DSD/SACD is only really happening in the classical world is that as soon you're using some kind of digital audio workstation like Pro Tools etc. during production, you basically have to use PCM for that. So apart from music that is essentially recorded straight from microphone to master or recorded mostly analog and only then transferred to digital, DSD just doesn't make much sense, because you'd have to convert from DSD to PCM and back anyway during production.
I AM the Musicophiliac, and I ❤️❤️❤️ me some DSD! Heard it for the first time only a couple of years ago, and was immediately blown away. Bought a player on the used market, but still don't really have a lot to play on it, yet. Thanks to that pro-tip, I'm guessing I'll have some Stones soon, though. I've got the Sympathy for the Devil remixes, and they're alright.
Despite what Steve says many artists have released catalogues on SACD - they have just been snapped up. You can pay a premium - but there are bargains out there like Dark Side Of The Moon. If you don’t mind paying a premium then CDJapan have some good classic rock releases and MoFi stuff is good. There is loads of classical stuff out there.
Depeche mode did the same and also did multi channel mixes witch sounds great.
I really, really hope native DSD recordings make a come back because I've recently added the PS Audio DirectStream Memory Player and DirectStream DAC to my listening room and I'm totally in love with the amazingly natural sound DSD provides. Fortunately, I'm almost entirely a classical listener and quite a few classical labels still prominently feature the SACD format. Still it would really be nice if those and other labels offered a lot more than they currently do.
+Andy Linkner: DSD has been an obsolete format for decades now. Whatever DSD does, PCM can also do while not being pain in the ass to work with.
ABKCO Records' decision to market their Rolling Stones SACD's at the price of a regular CD (not at a premium "audiophile" price) offended SACD's inventor Sony, so Sony cut off ABKCO's access to Sony's SACD pressing plant, hence ABKCO had to reissue their new Rolling Stones masterings as regular CD's.
Hi Steve, greetings from the UK. I must say how well I like your channel and your very easy on the ear presentation. I always feel like you are speaking to me personally. With regard to other artists who committed to SACD, I believe Neil Young was/is a supporter of the format. Keep the content coming!👍
I had two of those rolling stones SACDs, they really are hard to tell unless you look at them.
SACD protocol locked digital output and forced user to use players analog output. So, I only bought one disc and that was it. Couldn't hear a difference anyhow.
CDs sound amazing when mastered correctly. I bet most people could not tell the difference.
But you can use HDMI to play SACD, at least HDMI 2.0 w/ HDCP 2.2, as long as your player and your AV Receiver support SACD and DSD decoding
Bought a couple of sacd's a while back when they were reasonably priced, and loved the sound. Checked recently and they are now way to expensive for me. But!!! Now with dolby atmos for home theatre on my pc which i recently got working, playing cd's easily rivals the sacd discs i have. I was blown away actually. It will put out 2 channel stereo only, even though it says its in multichannel mode ( or whatever the source material is). But wow, what a difference! I will never purchase another sacd as long as i can use dolby atmos for home theatre via my pc. Using VLC media player which gave me the best playback sound. Now i see some cd's released in dolby atmos which would be true multichannel but havent heard one yet. I beleive REM released a few.
PCM 44.1/16 is more than fine!!
I have a VERY revealing system and today I listen to all of my music streaming Tidal hifi, no MQA.
First I've had direct USB connection between my laptop and my DAC.
Today I use Audinirvana+ and Dirac Room Correction and the USB signal goes to an Audioquest Jitterbug, then to a Wyred4sound USB Reclocker with a Linear Power Supply and then to a Gustard U16, wich converts the USB signal into I2S (HDMI) for my DAC.
Trust me 100% on this, today I have a MUCH MUCH better sound streaming Tidal at PCM 44.1/16 with this gear than I've ever had playing stored hi-res 96/24 files with Foobar with only a USB cable.
The magnitude of the difference is similar like going from standard TV resolution to HD. Incredible, but true!!
Dont waste time caring about hi-res files, they are expensive or scarce in streaming services. Not Worth it.
Spend time improving your jitter and the integrity of you digital signal and you will get MUCH better and faster results.
The Wyred4sound RUR and mostly the Gustard U16 are VERY good to help doing that.
Pedro Luis Guillemain, I have this ongoing discussion with my brother (and fellow audiophile) who waxes eloquently on the positive sonic merits of DSD streaming over “old tech” CD 44.1/16. I, like, you, pay very close attention to how I listen with respect to processing the data signal via the DAC, etc.
I bought the Let it Bleed SACD in 2002 and I'm still spinning it.
Why I remember buying one of them newfangled phonographs that went round at 33 1/3 revolutions. Pissed me off to no end to have to have two phonographs.
With all that "Format Wars" , back then in the early 2000's, I've acquired and listened to all of them. I have a huge collection of sacd, dvd-a, dts-cd. I really love the Dts-audio (CD) formats over the Sacd... Like Steve Wilson's 5.1 mixes on those Classic Rock Faves, as well as His own recordings with Porcupine Tree and his Solos... I agree, you must have a really decent player for it. I really love my Sony-ES, Oppo, and Denon. Universal Dvd Players...Thanks for bringing this up Steve!
Great points all, Steve. The industry paranoia over piracy has caused this decline of viable hi-Rez formats.
i think hi-res formats were developed solely for the DRM. I don't think the record industry ever envisioned that people would be able to rip CDs and stick 'em on a portable device. They're used to you buying the same albums over again in a new format. With the advent of CD ripping, you never needed to do that again.
Andy Pastuszak, good point.
It is so said. There are so many scam today.
A lot of "Hi Res" streaming made from oversampled MP-3 or other low quality source.
99% or LP reissues (even "audiophile") are made from digital sources or using digital technology. So, in result, you got digital and vinyl technologies drawbacks both.
Also, lots of sources are 44 or 48, so delivering them in 96 let alone 192 isn’t adding anything. Not that they sound any worse than 192 sources either, which is why so many audio engineers don’t bother working in high-res in the first place.
SACD is hardly dead. It's a niche format these days. I blame Sony, its creator, for not properly supporting the format. ABKCO was an independent record company, and I give them kudos for releasing the Stones' albums in hybrid SACD format.
Sacd was fantastic!
London Symphony Orchestra still releases SACD`s
I purchased my outstanding Denon DCD610 compact disc player (used) from Ebay two years ago, for the seemingly reasonable price of $25 free shipping. It says 1991 on the rear panel. It plays music in stunning fashion, and the CD tray only occasionally needs a friendly nudge to close, but it always opens. I don't use it much now because I have a dac and youtube.
Paul Homchick I need to read up on "ABX test with 44.1/16 lossless" and see what that is about. Thanks for the comment.
Sorry, Mike. I meant to add a comment to the video and not reply directly to you.
Paul No worries. I might learn something this way.
How about explaining what all these formats are for the people who are new to it or don't know... just a thought.
Exactly! This video goes nowhere.
DSD and SACD continue to grow by the day. They are growing very slowly, but they are growing. Why? Because people are ALWAY going to be looking for higher quality versions of their favorite recordings. That alone is enough to drive both DSD and SACD forward over time.
I continue to pick up SACDs and purchase new discs when they become available- I hold out hope that with a "revival" of physical media SACD will be relaunched as a cool must have format similar to the UHQ vinyl niche. It is good to see more SACDs being released as part of the remastered reissues by Analogue and other labels.
Wrong. It’s growing on classic and jazz. Where’s Michael Jackson, madonna, led zeppelin and a lot more?
@@vitorfernandes651
Due to her former label's restriction, Madonna maybe release her album in competing DVD based format: DVD Audio (since SACD is basically a DVD based format, too)
Incorrect. For surround sound you need sacd. Cd is two channel only. But it exceeds human hearing capabilities. In short cd frequency response is 22.5khz. Nobody can hear above that. And anyone over 30 is unlikely to hear above 15khz. Sure sacd can give frequency response to 96khz. So what?? You won’t hear above 15khz, just like you won’t be able to hear a dog whistle.
Sure cd is 16 bit v 24 bit for sacd. So what? 16 bit has dynamic range of 96db. Listen at that level for one minute and you’ll be deaf. Sacd has dynamic range of 144db. So what?? Masking effects mean the real dynamic range we can hear is way below 90db. Stereophile review of 1812 overture on Telarc found it’s dynamic range was 44db!!
There’s zero music with dynamic range of 96db for good reason.
Any difference between cd and higher resolution is due to different mastering. Sometimes manufacturers down resolve cd layer of sacds to make it sound inferior to sacd.
The other difference is due to bad cd players with delta sigma dacs. I have Aqua La diva cd transport and La Scala r2r dac. I have oppo205 to Geerfab dbob to La Scala dac. On properly mastered sacd there’s no audible difference between layers. Check out esoteric sacds for proper mastering.
Otherwise, unless you want surround sound, invest in a top cd transport and r2r dac, and buy CDs . Look at double blind study reported by AES 2007 that found humans can’t tell any difference between cd and higher resolution formats. Then look at the science of hearing. Then save your money rather than fall for the hype of high resolution (which double blind studies show can’t sound better than cd to humans).
For reasons that are beyond me there's not a single audiophile TH-cam guru that likes classical music. So, the people that spend a blinking wad on hardware are squandering it on music that comes with its own distortion. I think you'll find classical CDs were created in top notch studios that dwarf the capabilities of the mom and pop shops that are present today. Add to that SACD and you've got jaw dropping sound. I have about 50 SACD discs and they're great - the multi-channel effect is not at all like Dolby - it's much richer. And new SACD classical releases continue. The music scene is atomized today and that hasn't helped anyone, classical included. But it's still a genre of extraordinary beauty and I hope my SACD player lasts a long time.
SACD is pretty alive in HiFi especially in Classical. Go and check Acoustic Sounds and CD Japan or Presto Classical and Europadisc SACD sections, they are huge. Certainly SACD is not mainstream but it's pretty great because it's the digital format closest to analog. DSD is pretty popular now with DACs and DAP (digital audio players). IMHO MQA is useless and I don't it will survive the test of time, just another tech trend. In the next years we will certainly see the rise of HiRes lossless wireless technologies, for example BluOS.
@Çerastes Thank God, there is someone (as least) who understands this "small" detail. 😄
jfbaquero Ilove BlueOS and it’s built-in MQA DAC.
So you think highly of the niche DSD format that has no popular music titles but your opinion of a MQA which is virtually indistinguishable from lossless, at like a quarter of the storage size of flac and is available across genres, you think this is useless. OK.
mc365mc every time I open Tidaal and check out the explosion of new MQA inventory, this guy couldn’t be farther from the truth. He is clueless! I bet he has it even tried anMQA DAC1
SACD is alive in DSD form,especially with DAP users. MQA is one step away from becoming popular, and that is to be accepted by Spotify or Deezer, besides Tidal
How good would those Stones master's from the 60s shape up? Would it be even worth putting them on a format like that???
It played the regular 16bit 44khz stream in a CD player. SACD requires SACD specific hardware.
I own several dozen or more SACD's. For the most part amazing good sound. Respectfully the many computer whatever formats are not going to be something I ever adopt to. I have my silver disc spinner and my turn table. I take my record player seriously. The silver spinner is for my SACD's some older red-books that are listenable and blue ray movies my family and I enjoy. For all I know the computer formats maybe amazing. Honestly I don't care and don't have time to figure out the many odd stuff to learn it.
The thing which I thought 20+ years ago with SACD was the fact it was/is a set format, likewise CD. Unfortunately in the intervening years the audio industry hasn’t done itself any favours, meaning the confusion Steve briefly mentions. So many resolutions for PCM 16 bit, 24 bit and briefly 20 bit in the 1990s and sample rates anywhere between 44.1kHz to 384kHZ and that’s before the download file formats, MP3, AAC, MQA, WAC, ALAC and FLAC. No wonder the uptake hasn’t really happened!
Hey Steve, the guys over at PS Audio have a recording studio called Octave Records, and they have very hi end recording gear..DSD and SACD are the end product..the band I play with in Boulder will be recording in August,,,I’ll let you know how it goes..
Thanks for the heads up.....I will look for the SACD when it's released.
TIDAL is the only service that is worthy of MQA. Excellence!
If you wonder why it didn't catch up, look at the ''normal'' persons around you and you'll who are happy with mp3s or now with the lossless trend. and you'll understand why. SACD is not dead, it's the DSD (DST) files you can purchase from various places. DSD256 and DSD512 are the latest top quality recs you can buy. But even DSD64 is awesome and far better than regular CDs. the equivalent of DSD64 would be PCM 88.2 and for DSD128 would be PCM176khz!.
+HASHEAVEN: You sound like a typical murican audiophool ... thinking bigger numbers = better. So gullible.
@@_Historia_Magistra_Vitae You sound like a typical fool who is so sure of his opinions that he hasn't actually listened to hear if there's a reasonable audible difference here- he's just read an article by a techie either in english or some other language and liked its polemical tone; or you're simply trolling, which is a pathology certainly without borders...
Just picked up a used SACD player on Ebay. Denon 1510 - wasn't much time left in the auction so tossed in a half-hearted bid and won. Now am weirdly excited even though I don't yet own a single SACD disc and can clearly the see the rabbit hole opening up in front of me. :D
Just hope it actually works. It'll be funny (not) if the SACD function has actually failed and all I'm hearing is regular Redbook and convincing myself in my head that it sounds amazing!
Blu-ray audio also sounds great
Very informative video!
Today you can buy japanese SHM-CD`s and Hi-res MQA CD`s, they will play in a standard CD player and sound fantastic. Problem with SACD format was the price of reissues and that it needs a special player which was never cheap. It was more a format of rich people than average population.
Dependent on where you are and when you get involved in SACD, players capable of playing SACD can be had for under US$200.00. Even today, Sony sells a SACD capable transport for about US$200.00.
Sure I know what it is and it is laying on my bookshelf at the very moment, even if I don't own a SACD player (yet).
As a classical music lover, I was an early adopter of SACD. An orchestral recording on multi-channel SACD can sound absolutely spectacular and I'm glad that companies like Pentatone remain committed to the format. Unfortunately, the industry's obsessive fear of unauthorized copying precluded any form of multi-channel digital output from early SACD players. My Sony SCD-XA777ES has five analog RCA outputs to support multi-channel recordings which, of course, means you'd need a receiver or pre-amp with corresponding inputs. The expense and clutter associated with the many interconnect runs was, I'm sure, a huge deterrent to acceptance of the format. Nowadays, encrypted multi-channel sound can be output over HDMI (Sony UBP-X800) making the format much more end-user friendly. Alas, too late.
The Sony UBP-X800 will play SACD and DVD-A (audio).
Unfortunately, I bought the Sony UBP-X700 not knowing it only decodes SACD.
For $50 more, I could have got the X800 (X700 was $200 at Best Buy).
BTW, SACD is 2 channel audio and DVD-A is 5.1 surround.
The first attempt for SACD over HDMI is on PS3 (2006), so it's not too late per se
Nice preamble for buying the new McIntosh CD/SACD player, but the fact is CD players are going the way of the Dodo bird, cassettes or 8 tracks. I believe best to save your money for buying online content online, sometimes actually free to listen to, or buying improvements for your audio system if you have an itch for spending money. Personally a good used turntable and decent cartridge is a worthwhile addition to any system if not done so. It not superior to digital but can be very relaxing.
I've bought 2 sacds this month.
Elton John did release most of his early LPs on SACD and in 5.1, unlike those great Stones SA-CDs aka SACD. The PCM tracks on those Stones SACDs were better than all previous CD editions, thus the reason they got dropped. Some specialty labels are doing DSD masters all the way to SACD and vinyl. I guess some people find the lack of editing with DSD an issue.
SACD 4.1 is very much alive , Original 1970 Quadraphonic Tapes now being transferred and mastered at the Austria factory for the UK Label and USA Label
Pink Floyd has released their stuff on SACD. Animals in 5.1 is coming out on SACD this year.
The Rolling Stones Albums and Bob Dylan Albums were the very first SACD albums to be Pushed By Sony back in 2002-2003 I was lucky enough to buy most of The Rolling Stones SACDs and a small handful of Dylan Albums at Sony Galleria Store which was Sony Flagship Store down Tottenham Court Road back during the good years before they all closed down here in the UK. I'm. Big big fan of this format I also have aload of DVD-A Albums as well but SACD is the winner by a mile for me.
Anybody remember DVD audio...
Don't know why it didn't catch on. Everyone has a DVD player or Blu ray. No need for another machine.
@@richardmann5049 CD was good enough for 99.99999% of people, so DVD audio was overkill (and so was SACD).
DVD was cool. Hell man, I use to go to BlockBusters to rent video tape/movies.
I have a lot of live concerts on DVD that I will not mind watching again, if I find a nice device that plays all medium or multi player.
I have a DVD-AUDIO setup. I love listening to Megadeth Peace Sells and Metallicas black album in 5.1
Before the streaming era - i.e. 1999 to 2010 - if you want your music to come in a resolution "better" than redbook CD, DVD audio was the most readily available option. Unfortunately, most of the 1980s era rock / pop albums reissued in 24 bit 96 KHz DVD audio format are actually mastered in 16 bit 48 KHz DAT and my system and my ears can easily tell.
That's because those formats are unnecessary. 16/44.1 encompasses 99% of human hearing. Focus on good mixing, mastering and dynamic range. Those things are significantly more important than any hi-res format will be.
In the same logic a 128kbps mp3 file is also 16/44.1, so you think it's all a human can hear? a cd is 1400 kbps also at 16/44.1, and I thing you agree that it sounds much much better than a 128 mp3 right? Well a 192khz /24bit flac has ~5-6.000 kbps. It's 4.35 times the sampling rate, and more importantly, 256 times the bit depth used to define the original analog sound waveforms, captured by the microphone! Most people ignorantly think that hi rez is only about frequency extension above 20khz, well no it's not the main point. Hi rex sounding better is about the highest digital resolution possible to the original analog sound signal.
Um no. That's not the way digital music works. You need to study more about the Nyquist Sampling Theorem and learn what Bit Depth is. BIt Depth is simply the difference between the loudest and the quietest part of the song. Most songs do not have dead silence in them, so even 16 bits is complete overkill for a lot of music. And cranking up the sampling rate will not get your "more of the music" because a sampling rate that is double the highest frequency will capture all of the music. So, a rate of 44.1 will perfectly capture sound up to 22.05 Khz. Since the human ear maxes out at 22 Khz, with most people maxing out at 20 Khz, a higher sampling rate doesn't buy you anything. It's just simple math. So, your dog is having way more fun with high res music that you are, at least on the high end. Your subwoofer he can't hear at all.
And a 128Kbps MP3 is a completely different beast. That's lossy compression. The lower the bitrate of the lossy compression, the more different it will sound from the original. Crank the Bitrate to 256K or higher and good luck hearing the difference.
But lossy compression is defined to the original losless format which was original the 1440kbps stantard of the CD, how would a ''lossy'' compression of the original 192khz/24bit studio recording would be?
In that sense wouldn't a 1440khz be considered a lossy version of a 6000kbps file?
IF this is 192Khz/24bit
****************************************************************************
This is a 44.1/16bit CD
* ** * * * * * *** * ** * * ** * * ** * ** * * ** * * ** * * * * * * ** *
So even though if the original idea was you can't hear the quietest parts, it's information of the original analog sound that's missing!
Most studio recordings are 20 bit/48 Khz, or 24 bit/96 khz. You rarely every see a new album for sale at 24/192. And actually that's not even right.
I have many CDs where the sound quality is knock me out exceptional (and non audiophile labels). I completely agree the format is fine, If more care were put into mixing, mastering, mic placement and so on (on all of the recorded projects) as you mentioned - I wonder if less people would get excited about a new format (2 channel anyway). Just a thought, I don't know.
I hoped they would fix all the crappy sounding CDs with a format change, my bad delusional thinking. What I want is an add on magic switch for my existing DAC (Not an MQA proprietary DAC or any other nonsense) for a fair price that would make the bad CDs sound like the good ones.
That would be exciting. Unfortunately there are lots of bad sounding records out there too - maybe a magic add on switch for the phono-amp would would bring proper audio heaven to those beasts also.
I like collecting physical format so I stay away from MQA. Streaming just doesn't cut it for me
Don't know if you are going to get this but...I hear you about streaming isn't for you. I "don't think" it's for me too, yet I may have to do it until I establish a CD/LP collection again. I hear you can download music or rip it onto a USB, and then listen to it from the USB? Wha? How does it sound? How can it sound good? I don't understand. Man, growing up in all analog era, I always liked what I heard, I never doubted what I heard was what I was hearing, but today, I question what I hear is Actually what is Meant to be Heard. Weird stuff.
I purchased a couple of MQA-CDs from Japan. They sound great, better than the same MQA tracks on Tidal.
It’s amusing that the SACD is still around. It never moved out of the niche category. It was never heavily promoted. Yet it still exists as a stillborn carcass waiting to be buried.
SACD has outlived the Apple iPod.
@@dannytse8767 Streaming has replaced the iPod. SACD is just...there.
@@JohnBrown-pu9ol For 23 years and counting.
@@dannytse8767 Will SACD survive another 23 years?
@@dannytse8767 The main problem with the SACD is the poor promotion of the medium. It wasn't advertised in a big way. It didn't get the big rollout the Redbook CD got. The Top 10 current albums are not in SACD. They haven't been available for the 23 years it's existed. I mentioned the format to someone casually. He didn't have a clue what I was talking about. This was a few days ago. We were talking about music. I don't think a majority of people know what SACD is
That's the problem.
My Emotiva player had Sacd and yes it sounded awesome versus normal cd.
MQA is measurably inferior to 24 bit 96K. MQA is a lossy format, just say no to MQA.
I think stockfisch still produces sacd disks using their dmm process. People feel sacd is a waste of money and in some cases I agree. The dmm process however produces a truely excellent recording, something that needs to be heard before passing judgment on this format. Even if you can only play the normal cd layer, the mastering of it makes a huge difference compared to most redbook cds.
Agree, Stockfisch make the best sounding recordings out there. I have plenty of high res files but a Stockfish redbook is superior. How many times have you heard them at Hifi shows ?
John I believe a stockfisch redbook is just the cd layer of a sacd, l have never seen a release of a stockfisch true redbook cd. If you have let me know the source, otherwise the sacd is dual layer, regular cd and sacd in one. I don't know how many times but I can almost instantly recognize them. Can't help stopping to listen.
The only SACD I've heard came with my Sony DVD/SACD Player -Bob Dylan- and with the receiver set up correctly, it sounded excellent.
What is the source material/carrier? How the conversion/transmission has been executed and with what equipment.
Nowadays we can record/mix PCM up to 24b/192kHz. We can record in DSD as well, but mixing/editing is not convenient with DSD.
If MQA didn't charge a licensing fee, maybe more record companies would use it. Maybe more streaming services would embrace it. Open (or at least free) formats are the way to go.
the faster mqa dies the better. it’s a marketing scam.
I just received a SACD Beethoven and played it on my Sony 4k blu-ray player on some generic Samsung audio bar. Then I played the same album on the same speakers from a TH-cam video...couldn't really see much difference. So..where is the problem? My ears? The speakers? The Sony 4k player, or the SACD?
The reason it played on a CD is because it has a CD volume, plus SACD volume - so one in PCM and the other is like DVD-size (200MB+ each track) in DSD.
I bought most of the Stones hybrid discs titles at Tower Records when they came out. They had been recently demoed at the AES Convention. I don't recall, but perhaps the wrapped said that they were hybrid discs. They all said 2002 on the back. The previous releases came in plastic cases. Robert Ludwig skillfully mastered them so even the CD layer was a vast improvement. I love them; they sound great.
Am into vinyl..always have been. But recently have been getting into high res downloads...out of curiosity other than anything else. But I can also listen to them via headphones ( no headphone amp on my main system) in my study whilst SWMBO is watching the telly. I have to say I am enjoying the experience. But so many digital formats at the moment and, I presume they will continue to evolve over time; some will fade away only to be replaced by others.
So one thing i have started to notice is the plethora of the various playback ‘kit’ (software/ hardware) etc required to playback the different formats. As the formats evolve over time, i guess the kit will evolve too.
With vinyl though, the format hasnt changed for decades; a spinning platter, a vinyl disk and a pickup. I cant see this concept changing much into the future either. My 1982 Linn will still be playing vinyl records for many more years but will today’s digital playback systems be able to cope with future digital formats? So for me, whilst i am seriously enjoying my current dalliance with digital, i dont see it as a long term option. Just an observation 😎
Mofi seems to be supporting SACD pretty well these days. I believe Sony Blu Ray players still support the format as well. Also, the major labels sometimes backup their vintage analog master tapes to DSD for archival purposes and to re-sell to the consumer in the form of vinyl and hi res PCM.
In terms of SACD releases, MoFi is not even in the top 5 on a yearly basis. Last time I checked, for calendar year 2020, BIS of Sweden and Hong Kong Universal Music were the most active SACD labels.
@@dannytse8767 Oh, I have no idea how Mofi (or Analogue Productions, for that matter) "competes" with other labels in terms of quantity, especially on an international level. I'm just glad to know they currently support SACD as a digital alternative to their vinyl remasters. Given that none of the online sources seem to have an exhaustive, and therefore accurate, list of titles that have been released on the format, all of the stats out there are more or less guesstimates. Probably only Sony knows for sure. Additionally, looking only at SACD physical disc sales is also a bit misleading. As I already mentioned, music labels like to dub and remaster their analog master tapes to DSD for archive. To offset the cost, they often resell the remaster to the consumer in the form of vinyl and hi res PCM files. If there are no SACD discs or DSD files offered of the new transfer, then this activity and usage of the format is completely overlooked.
SACD dead? Hahahaha! Visit HRAudio.net and see all the new releases coming out weekly. As for myself, I keep buying SACDs by the truckload . Why? Because SACDs give a wide smile while I enjoy their warm, open, detailed sound!
SACD, MQA, DSD...it’s all good. But the average listener may not care or even notice the difference....However, back in the early 90’s, there was a sound process (not format), called Q Sound that sounded great (listen to Sting’s Soul Cages) but never caught on. No special equipment was required. I suspect there were some outrageous licensing fees that the record companies refused to support or Dolby squashed the whole thing.
Robert Belickis I remember that. Great album, by the way.
Hi Boss! You gotta remember that MQA is LICENSED! In the music industry (heck in the audio industry) that's a dirty dirty premise because it means you're paying $$$ for every encode/decode. Tidal can swing that because they STRICTLY limit who and what can do it.
It's $20/mo for ACCESS to the MQA (whether you listen to it or not). Currently, it's desktops only, and only within the application. You can NOT do MQA on mobile, you can NOT do MQA in the browser. Heck, you cannot do MQA outside of Windows, I don't think.
Tidal also has a SIGNIFICANTLY smaller audience when comparing to Spotify. Spotify's licensing costs would be a FULL order of magnitude higher simply due to the amount of users they had. They would have to introduce tiers to their paid service and I honestly don't think they want to do that. I'd bet a portion of my salary that 99% of people listening to streaming audio do NOT care about sound quality. As long as it sounds good enough. MQA are for people that care not people that simply want to hear some music playing.
You can play MQA outside of Windows. BlueSound DACs, for example. Point taken, though.
I would take 16/44 flac over MQA any day. It’s a more accurate and more compact depiction of the audible sound.
I love CD quality sound. If I were putting music on a micro sd card, which format should I download to get cd quality or better sounding music?
You can use lossless format like FLAC or ALAC (a.k.a AAC Lossless), or you can go raw with WAV or AIFF
SACD... not alive, not death... zombie?
Dragan Antonijević my favourite format zombie or not.
All killed by DRM
Yep, pure poison.
That's a hybrid sacd you have it has a traditional CD layer so it plays on a regular CD player, I guess DVD audio and Blu-ray audio is ancient history as well, Jazz artist still release a fair amount though. Hey, where can I get a shirt like the one you're wearing?
I believe the outer packaging on those SACDs did indicate what they were.
I thought that the SACDs were fairly expensive (more than $50 / disk). So, are these Rolling Stones SACDs the same price as a regular CD, since they are unmarked? I’ve been trying to find a copy of The Cleveland Symphony’s, Pictures at an Exhibition SACD, on Telarc, but the prices are $99 - $250 for one CD!
Steve, you’re just the best! Thank for all the helpful information over the years. I have a question about playing SACDs into powered stereo bookshelf speakers (currently Edifier S3000 Pro). I have a vintage Sony 400-disc DVD/CD changer with SACD playback. However, I just learned that Sony doesn’t provide the SACD information through its digital outputs (optical or digital coaxial). Since I’m wanting to connect the RCA line output directly into my powered speakers, will the high quality SACD signal be output through the two stereo RCA jacks? Thanks, and sorry I didn’t get this out in two sentences. All the best! ~ Danny
16/44 upsampled to 24/96 was all I ever needed. Now to 24/192 in which my Outlaw pre-pro does to all audio in the 976. I never bought into the SACD thing. With good equipment, 24/96 audio sounds awesome. Even better now that we have 24/192. PCM into Dolby Prologic 2 and DTS Neo 6 can sound very good. Especially Rock and modern Jazz. It would have been interesting to see SACD become more of a music surround medium. I would have tried it if more bands recorded in SACD.
+Kirk Cunningham: Anything beyond 16/44 for audio playback is completely useless and pointless waste of space.
Çerastes, you must be talking about yourself and your stupid comment. Feel better? Take a hike and go cry to someone who cares.
+Kirk Cunningham: Butthurt much? Oh well, I would be mad too if I would have more money than brains.
These were CD/SACD hybrid discs, at least in the UK they were. I got the lot bar a couple of the US versions of the albums
sometimes I sit down and I wonder, how stupid this can get....
RazorStrap
I hope, i find forgiveness for this philosophical remark,
In honour of gregory Isaacs fabulous record : soon forward,
Which meant so mich for me.
Around 1980.
But smart kids like you weren't born yet.
at the high times of music.
so be happy with your IQ of 211
Stupidity has no bounds ;)
Always good Steve, thanks. Paul McGowan in a recent video says that DSD is the best format in the world - better than vinyl and CD in every way - and is the format of the future. He wants to design his products around that format. I don't see his reasoning at all, frankly. and find it odd that he believes this to be true.
Paul's reasoning is that PS Audio is building a recording studio based on recording in DSD format.....
SACD is a niche within a niche within the audiophile community.
I love them as I love physical media.
I’m not an MQA guy. I tried it and wasn’t convinced but then again I also bought DVD Audio! 😬
@3:21
I suspect that they do not call it MQA, because subscribers would expect to hear MQA, in all of its glory.
But if you do not have an MQA compatible DAC, you will not get the full MQA experience. You will get a standard CD experience.
Yet, Tidal's content will still sound great, even on a non compliant DAC, because MQA content is Master Quality Authenticated (strict quality control in the mastering process). Tidal provides content that is not vandalized by the knuckleheads that ruin the sound quality on so many CDs.
So it is safe for Tidal to call their content "masters". But them calling it MQA, and then folks without an MQA DAC not reaping the full benefit of MQA, could be considered misleading the subscriber.
My understanding is that you get a less than CD experience because MQA data is stored with the music and contributes noise when not decoded.
Sacd is so good I still buy it and I love it. There are Also tons of files of it online.
I just bought an mct350 mcitosh..try to burn an sacd iso,what I did,but I cant play it on mymcintoash it sucks though
I'm considering a Sony 4K video player with SACD capability thrown in right now. I've never heard it. It's actually a plus for the player imo vs possibly better video quality of a more expensive player I've got a few DVD-A discs from the early 2000s and it can play those too. My gripe with Tidal MQA with my trial of the highest tier Tidal is that it would require a Bluesound Node 2 for like $500 to really play them while I can play Amazon HD Ultra natively on my receiver. I personally do think some of the Ultra HD material on Amazon is the real deal. Some of it might be real high resolution, but the source material just isn't all that terrific anyway to really make the most of it. I hate for Amazon to dominate everything so I wish Tidal were more easily accessible, but $500 is too much fir me just to play Tidal MQA and pay an extra $8 or so a month for it vs Amazon Ultra HD.