An SACD contains a master layer of DSD yet most transports cannot deliver this master layer to an external DAC. Here's why. Check out the Octave catalog: HTTP://www.octaverecor...
SACDs can be extraordinary,... I went all in, in circa '2000, built a rig around 5.1 ITU Surround. I've purchased a few hundred releases, multi-channel or not, I still seek them out and aquire as I can.
Obtaining the decrypted dsf/iso files from an SACD is quite easy, with certain specific, even inexpensive Bluray/SACD players. The technique involves running a script which gains root access to allow read access of the decrypted files over the network. Well described on the internet.
That's what I do so I can play them on my DAC the only solution really, not interested in copying the discs I want to buy and use them on a decent DAC.
I have a Sony, which works well. As mauanderuk said, now I can listen to my SACDs on a much better DAC. I also have backup copies of my SACDs on hard drives, one copy stored off site. Interested can refer to PS Audio Copper Issue 135.
@@mark4751 Typical Sony screwing things up due to them thinking someone might copy a Disc.. They lost out so bad over MP3 to the iPod by the time they had devices that could play mp3 it was over.
Paul, why do my concert DVDs and Blu-rays sound so good? They have a stereo track and a DTS or Dolby 5.1 surround track. Both sound far superior to my CD collection. One example is my Eagles Live in Melbourne DVD. Another is my Eric Clapton Live at the Forum Blu-ray. Another is the Blu-ray (audio only) of Alan Parsons' Eye in the Sky. Still another Blu-ray is Celine Dion Live in Vegas. I also have a Doobie Brothers Quadio (audio only) 4 disc set that plays on my Blu-ray in a different coded format, but sounds terrific. They still produce some of these formats and most are fantastic. Since they are on Video formats they are copy protected. My Anthem receiver decodes them all. So why aren't there more produced? I actually search out these because they sound so good. Why don't more people? If they did, then the recording companies would likely produce more. Have you ever heard these? I guess audiophiles consider this sacrilege? If you really care about sound it's the best way to go.
about 6-8 months ago i was in the market for a disc player that could play SACDs. what I found was as late as the middle of last decade, companies like Marantz were making universal disc players that ran about $500-600. devices being made now are generally CD or SACD specific and cost thousands! i went with a well cared for pre-owned Marantz UD5007. for what i want it’s been an absolutely fantastic buy.
One or two companies are still committed to producing SACDs, although I have to admit it is a relatively small number now. I believe Sony itself got into strife when an artist contracted to the label was smart enough to realise that it might be possible to obtain three lots of royalties from multichannel hybrid discs: one from the multchannel SACD layer, one from the stereo SACD layer and one from the CD layer. That person won the resultant court case and my understanding is that Sony then decided to cease production of such discs. Another company also got into strife over copyright infringement and had to make the decision to stop producing SACDs after being sued for a sizeable sum. Its a real shame, because its SACDs were quite superb.
Love SACD, but understand the position. Another great episode. Thanks to YOU TUBE for you to get such a quick publishing turn around. I never liked the Copies sound ( personally speaking)
Paul, I had to pause at 1min 7secs. Sony DID NOT invent SACD to protect artists, they did it to protect SONY's revenue from patents and copyright. The entire music / video market was a warzone for 20+ years; format wars, copyright wars etc. You can happily use a PC to rip the CD layer of an SACD, but you can't play the DSD layer without paying a bunch of cash for a dedicated SACD player. The really annoying thing is that DSD is actually GOOD, I'd happily spend $30 a disk to repurchase my favourite 100 albums in SACD format, but you don't need a $5000 player to extract the audio. The format is essentially dead because Sony messed up.
If I own the SACD disc, I should be able to make as many copies of it as I want. Glad SACD copy protection was broken years ago. Every SACD I purchase immediately gets ripped to my server.
I question is DSD better or is it due to the fact they tend to care more in the mixing mastering process, Even vintage recordings can sound fantastic (Buddy Holly recordings for example). You can have the best codec in the world but if you can't use it properly it is not going to matter.
I play SACDs in my Yamaha Blu-Ray player and in my Sony 4k Blu-Ray player. I send the signal out via an HDMI cable to my Yamaha 5200 pre-pro and they sound great.
Having previously given up because I couldn’t bring myself to feel sorry for Sony, I watched the entire video and I now understand your point. SACD has end to end encryption like the HDCP used on DVD / Blu-ray and HD broadcast TV. However, for DVD, the standards are open and I can get a DVD player for £25. Low cost SACD playback never happened. Thus DSD is condemned to be a permanent niche technology. This is sad if it is so much better that even high bit rate PCM. The only reason I said ‘if it is better’ is because I have never been able to justify the high price of an SACD player, I have read articles by people I trust attesting to its qualities.
I have a question if I may. My old Sony 777ES laser plays sacds ok but the dual layer sacds will only play the regular cd side. Time for a new player or is it worth getting it fix
Does bring up a question. If DSD is ever ascendant with record labels and they want to sell physical copies having artwork, lyrics, etc., what format would be best? Sell them on disc or maybe a flash drive? How much data would be on a DSD64 disc of an average album lasting 50 minutes? How about if you wanted to equal CD at 74 or 80 minutes? How about if it was DSD256? What would a DSD disc player be like? How big would it need to be? Given current technology, would it be the size of a CD player or have to be something akin to the old Laserdisc players, playing 12" discs?
DSD 64 is about 2.5GB per album, DSD 128 5GB, which is about the same as a DVD. A Bluray disk holds about 25GB so media is not the problem. Given we all have the internet and watch HD or 4K video, the internet is the ideal medium. The issue is how you manage the reveue stream (if I download a DSD 128 album, how do you prevent me copying it to everybody I know?
@@paulmilligan3007 I guess I'm still old school. I enjoy streaming but there is something about buying a physical copy of something that just feels good, plus I can get cover artwork, lyrics, a booklet, and I can play it even if the Internet is down or label lawyers get in a fight and have it removed from streaming services. Plus streaming such large files over cellular networks will still end up blowing through some data caps quickly. I won't be listening to DSD on my way to work in the car then. Even at work, using the "guest" network I bet our IT manager would cast a baleful eye on very many people using that much bandwidth at one time.
I wish SACD would have caught on. Besides you guys, the only SACD I have found with new music is some Japanese Jazz Fusion artists such as T-Square still releasing as SACD.
I play my SACDs using my Sony X800 UHD Blu-R ay player to bitstream DSD via HDMI to my receiver’s internal DAC for decoding. It sounds fantastic. I don’t understand why external DACs do not regularly contain an HDMI input for this purpose.
I have the best Sony 4K blueray player 1100 that is also a sacd player and upgrades cds to close to hirez. The dac in the Sony was much better than most cd and dvd players. I use a Schiit preamp with Elac Navus powered speakers that are all analog. I just got a new dac and I hooked my Sonys outputs to it. The difference was unbelievable it was so good. Is that because sony already decoded the music?
But Beta was BETTER! I didn't bite either, but in retrospect I wish Beta had won the VCR wars. Smaller tapes, better quality. Would have been nice. But VHS had that stupid SLP mode where they could get 6 hours on a tape at very lousy quality, but for many people, especially housewives wanting to set and record a whole week's worth of soap operas, that was the deciding factor.
So if I want to access DSD with say a McIntosh MA12000 that has a DAC with HDMI input only PS Audio transport will work? Or any transport with an HDMI out will also work, OR only PS Audio transport and DAC will get the job done???
@@octaverecordsanddsdstudios1285 How about JAY'S AUDIO CDT2-MK3 has I2S out will that work. What I'm saying is I don't have 6K for transport. Jays have great reviews and is 2200.00
@@ragingbullwinkle4188 While it has the appropriate I2S output it does not read SACD like ours does. But that's ok. When you buy an Octave release, either by download or physical disc, you get the DSD master layer without having to purchase an expensive SACD layer like our own.
I really always hated the encryption files in formats. I have a ton of DSD SACD recordings that I cannot play through my chord dac. Drives me nuts, but that is life.
Considering plain old DVD video discs could always handle 24/96 PCM and 20/48 multichannel pcm, both lossless, tough to justify either Sacd or Dvd Audio disc standards The high res disc standard is now Blu-ray , though new high res remasters are still being released on DVD video disc Blu-ray supports 24/192, or anything higher if on data tracks
There are very few is true. Most SACD players Convert to PCM. Marantz reference does not. The AK449x velvet high end does in fact to run true SACD, DXD, DSD as can be seen in their schematics. The FIIO 15 which is no longer available with the AK4499x2 is outstanding. Used prices of the 15 are very high now and going higher with the few groups that still provide this scheme and the speed is astounding and so far beyond most any other DAC that there is little competition but now most of their production is halted, like Jelco Tonearms.
Sounds like the technology of DAC's at the time of SACD weren't on par with today's. but the sounds was still superior to CD. Seems to me they didn't learn from the Beta days or else could me the best technology still today.
What do you say to all the TH-camr experts who maintain that humans can’t hear any additional sound information beyond CD’s 16/44.1 resolution? My old SACD’s and DVD-Audio blow CDs away.
There are obviously professionals who work in music recording and broadcast who live with recorded sound every day. These are people who can move from the recording studio to the control room and can hear the subtle differences between the live sound and the recorded signal. Back in the late 1960’s I read a regular column by an engineer who hated the sound of Vinyl and insisted only half track tape at 15 ips was adequate to his tastes. However, for us mere mortals who grew up with FM radio and Vinyl, CD quality was an immediate improvement as ‘hiss’ during quiet passages was always the biggest distraction to music enjoyment.
@@paulmilligan3007 My SACDs and DVD-Audio’s from almost 20 years ago sound light years better than CDs. I’m just surprised that many people maintain there’s no difference. In totality, they’re richer. A SACD recorded in SACD is the top of the food chain (check out Phillip Bailey’s), most that weren’t are still vastly superior to CD. 24/92+ should be the floor, not the ceiling. Life is short.
Do all SACD players have the sony processor/decrypter/dac in? Or do some, e.g. high end marantz and denon somehow get the digital signal into their own internal dac even if as pcm?
Very good question before spending $1500 on a Denon DCD-1600NE Super Audio CD Player for sure. Here they are giving you what is supposed to be a better sounding disc, but then hamstring it with a cheap DAC? Crazy. Or maybe they somehow picked off the digital stream and sent it to their better DAC? Oh well, even though a very few people are making them, it is pretty much a dead format at this point.
@@rosswarren436 DSD on the other hand, seems to be gaining momentum. Since streaming and hight transfer rate internet connections are more common these days, it looks quite difficult that a physical disc could gain or regain popularity.
SACD pleasure has never been cheaper or easier Start with a Sony UBP-X800Mk2 and send Digital output via HDMI to the DAC of any modern AVR or PrePro. And here’s the bonus, you can enjoy 5.1 SACDs. After having had a 5.1 experience going back to stereo is like going back to a Coke gone flat, no fizz.
"Breaking the encryption" would imply something nefarious. The Sony "chip" is decrypting the stream to output the DSD stream to their proprietary DAC (which outputs the analog audio).
@@paulmilligan3007 I'm not disputing that. I'm saying that the phrase "breaking the encryption" implies that someone (or something) is able to see|get|use the unecrypted data by means OTHER than using the defined algorithm/key. It's a poor choice of phrase. Decryption is not "breaking" anything anymore than encryption is not "fixing" anything. See also: encoding/decoding.
The record companies are really the problem. What artist would not want their art to be appreciated in a format as close as possible to how they mastered it? Copyright law has been so interfered with by these massive companies to the extent you can get more time in prison for infringing copyright than for sex crimes and murder (see the UK).
So Oh we don't want to infringe on the artist or sony company..oh no... But the guys that have three or four formats of the same title that love the music heart and soul.... These guys that are geting duped by paying for the title and the damn format over and over....that's just OK...!?
I have an old Marantz SACD 11 that i was playing some SACD on , running the signal to the Devialet 250 Expert pro by means of RCA interconnects. According to Marantz thats the only way you can experience the SACD layer. The issue I have is , on the Devialet, it only indicates up sample rates. Where as when I play a DSD files from my computer to the Devialet it indicates its playing DSD 64. So my question is why even bother putting out SACDs if you are not able to decode them ?
Do you understand that the Marantz’s internal DAC is decoding SACD to analog thus your preamp does not display a sample rate since input to it is analog not digital when playing SACDs.
@@charlesludwig9173 It reads on the Devialet as 192. So, I’m confused. Could you point me to an article describing the differences between SACD and DSD?
SACD encryption/copying was blow open by Sony's own Playstations that were able to play SACDs. Certain versions with unupdated operating systems could be modified fairly easily to do so.
Well, that’s because Sony PlayStations use the Sony DAC to decode SACD signal just as their SACD players do :). Nothing wrong with that! Those PlayStations were great… played a lot of optical discs, in fact
If you can't copy it it will (sadly) die since that's what's "Average Joe" think is most important. You only need to look at MP3 for that. Shit easily survives because it's "free".
Every choice we make we do a cost/benefit analysis, even if it is subconscious. Things will thrive if the benefit is worth the cost, like MP3. Otherwise it will die. Like SACD. Most people don't spend loads of money for esoteric reasons. Unless you are wealthy and like to collect rare art.
I go through a lot of trouble to find the best masterings of a CD, and then copy it to my server. This is all in good faith on my part - I purchased the music for my enjoyment, and I put it on my server for my convenience. Being able to copy the CD is extremely important to me, so I do not bother with SACD.
SACDs can be extraordinary,...
I went all in, in circa '2000, built a rig around 5.1 ITU Surround.
I've purchased a few hundred releases, multi-channel or not, I still seek them out and aquire as I can.
Obtaining the decrypted dsf/iso files from an SACD is quite easy, with certain specific, even inexpensive Bluray/SACD players. The technique involves running a script which gains root access to allow read access of the decrypted files over the network. Well described on the internet.
That's what I do so I can play them on my DAC the only solution really, not interested in copying the discs I want to buy and use them on a decent DAC.
I have a Sony, which works well. As mauanderuk said, now I can listen to my SACDs on a much better DAC. I also have backup copies of my SACDs on hard drives, one copy stored off site. Interested can refer to PS Audio Copper Issue 135.
@@mark4751 Typical Sony screwing things up due to them thinking someone might copy a Disc.. They lost out so bad over MP3 to the iPod by the time they had devices that could play mp3 it was over.
"Sony Blu-ray player SACD rip in sleep mode Mikey Fresh"
Who is this imposter?
These videos always feel like if my grandfather told me stories I was actually interested in
Paul, why do my concert DVDs and Blu-rays sound so good? They have a stereo track and a DTS or Dolby 5.1 surround track. Both sound far superior to my CD collection. One example is my Eagles Live in Melbourne DVD. Another is my Eric Clapton Live at the Forum Blu-ray. Another is the Blu-ray (audio only) of Alan Parsons' Eye in the Sky. Still another Blu-ray is Celine Dion Live in Vegas. I also have a Doobie Brothers Quadio (audio only) 4 disc set that plays on my Blu-ray in a different coded format, but sounds terrific. They still produce some of these formats and most are fantastic. Since they are on Video formats they are copy protected. My Anthem receiver decodes them all. So why aren't there more produced? I actually search out these because they sound so good. Why don't more people? If they did, then the recording companies would likely produce more. Have you ever heard these? I guess audiophiles consider this sacrilege? If you really care about sound it's the best way to go.
about 6-8 months ago i was in the market for a disc player that could play SACDs. what I found was as late as the middle of last decade, companies like Marantz were making universal disc players that ran about $500-600. devices being made now are generally CD or SACD specific and cost thousands! i went with a well cared for pre-owned Marantz UD5007. for what i want it’s been an absolutely fantastic buy.
One or two companies are still committed to producing SACDs, although I have to admit it is a relatively small number now. I believe Sony itself got into strife when an artist contracted to the label was smart enough to realise that it might be possible to obtain three lots of royalties from multichannel hybrid discs: one from the multchannel SACD layer, one from the stereo SACD layer and one from the CD layer. That person won the resultant court case and my understanding is that Sony then decided to cease production of such discs. Another company also got into strife over copyright infringement and had to make the decision to stop producing SACDs after being sued for a sizeable sum. Its a real shame, because its SACDs were quite superb.
Love SACD, but understand the position. Another great episode. Thanks to YOU TUBE for you to get such a quick publishing turn around. I never liked the Copies sound ( personally speaking)
Thanks!
Paul, I had to pause at 1min 7secs. Sony DID NOT invent SACD to protect artists, they did it to protect SONY's revenue from patents and copyright. The entire music / video market was a warzone for 20+ years; format wars, copyright wars etc. You can happily use a PC to rip the CD layer of an SACD, but you can't play the DSD layer without paying a bunch of cash for a dedicated SACD player.
The really annoying thing is that DSD is actually GOOD, I'd happily spend $30 a disk to repurchase my favourite 100 albums in SACD format, but you don't need a $5000 player to extract the audio. The format is essentially dead because Sony messed up.
You can rip the SACD layer as well into DSF files for playback via ISO2DSD software.
Good Morning Paul, my first video today. As always very interesting. I hope to visit PS Audio one day soon....
If I own the SACD disc, I should be able to make as many copies of it as I want. Glad SACD copy protection was broken years ago. Every SACD I purchase immediately gets ripped to my server.
Wish I knew how to. I have a bunch of SACD I can't play anymore cause my player died
But now you can buy DSD files unencrypted. So is there really a point in having SACD other than wanting a hard copy?
I question is DSD better or is it due to the fact they tend to care more in the mixing mastering process, Even vintage recordings can sound fantastic (Buddy Holly recordings for example). You can have the best codec in the world but if you can't use it properly it is not going to matter.
so you wire it to the pins of the ic
straight out, do you need to disable the dac or you can leave that free running?
I play SACDs in my Yamaha Blu-Ray player and in my Sony 4k Blu-Ray player. I send the signal out via an HDMI cable to my Yamaha 5200 pre-pro and they sound great.
Some players with HDMI convert to PCM to tranfer throuh HDMI
Blu-Ray players usually only read the CD layer. You may have just proved that DSD is no better thand CD ;)
@@paulmilligan3007 Both players will indicate that an SACD is being played.
Having previously given up because I couldn’t bring myself to feel sorry for Sony, I watched the entire video and I now understand your point. SACD has end to end encryption like the HDCP used on DVD / Blu-ray and HD broadcast TV. However, for DVD, the standards are open and I can get a DVD player for £25. Low cost SACD playback never happened. Thus DSD is condemned to be a permanent niche technology. This is sad if it is so much better that even high bit rate PCM. The only reason I said ‘if it is better’ is because I have never been able to justify the high price of an SACD player, I have read articles by people I trust attesting to its qualities.
I have a question if I may. My old Sony 777ES laser plays sacds ok but the dual layer sacds will only play the regular cd side. Time for a new player or is it worth getting it fix
Does bring up a question. If DSD is ever ascendant with record labels and they want to sell physical copies having artwork, lyrics, etc., what format would be best? Sell them on disc or maybe a flash drive? How much data would be on a DSD64 disc of an average album lasting 50 minutes? How about if you wanted to equal CD at 74 or 80 minutes? How about if it was DSD256? What would a DSD disc player be like? How big would it need to be? Given current technology, would it be the size of a CD player or have to be something akin to the old Laserdisc players, playing 12" discs?
DSD 64 is about 2.5GB per album, DSD 128 5GB, which is about the same as a DVD. A Bluray disk holds about 25GB so media is not the problem. Given we all have the internet and watch HD or 4K video, the internet is the ideal medium. The issue is how you manage the reveue stream (if I download a DSD 128 album, how do you prevent me copying it to everybody I know?
@@paulmilligan3007 I guess I'm still old school. I enjoy streaming but there is something about buying a physical copy of something that just feels good, plus I can get cover artwork, lyrics, a booklet, and I can play it even if the Internet is down or label lawyers get in a fight and have it removed from streaming services.
Plus streaming such large files over cellular networks will still end up blowing through some data caps quickly. I won't be listening to DSD on my way to work in the car then.
Even at work, using the "guest" network I bet our IT manager would cast a baleful eye on very many people using that much bandwidth at one time.
Has this got anything to do with the "poetryonplastic" video about a month ago where he shows you a way around this?
What Paul is referring to in the SACD protection is referred to as cryptography.
If I were to get a new DAC right now it be a used nuwave model : )
oh man, thanks for answering this!
I wish SACD would have caught on. Besides you guys, the only SACD I have found with new music is some Japanese Jazz Fusion artists such as T-Square still releasing as SACD.
I play my SACDs using my Sony X800 UHD Blu-R ay player to bitstream DSD via HDMI to my receiver’s internal DAC for decoding. It sounds fantastic. I don’t understand why external DACs do not regularly contain an HDMI input for this purpose.
I have the best Sony 4K blueray player 1100 that is also a sacd player and upgrades cds to close to hirez. The dac in the Sony was much better than most cd and dvd players. I use a Schiit preamp with Elac Navus powered speakers that are all analog. I just got a new dac and I hooked my Sonys outputs to it. The difference was unbelievable it was so good. Is that because sony already decoded the music?
Pretty cool explanation. 👍🏽👍🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽
I bit on Sony Beta, thanksfully not SACD.
But Beta was BETTER! I didn't bite either, but in retrospect I wish Beta had won the VCR wars. Smaller tapes, better quality. Would have been nice. But VHS had that stupid SLP mode where they could get 6 hours on a tape at very lousy quality, but for many people, especially housewives wanting to set and record a whole week's worth of soap operas, that was the deciding factor.
So if I want to access DSD with say a McIntosh MA12000 that has a DAC with HDMI input only PS Audio transport will work? Or any transport with an HDMI out will also work, OR only PS Audio transport and DAC will get the job done???
Unfortunately, no. It uses an HDMI connector but not the HDMI protocol. The protocol we use is called I2S and works only with I2S compatible DACs.
@@octaverecordsanddsdstudios1285 How about JAY'S AUDIO CDT2-MK3 has I2S out will that work. What I'm saying is I don't have 6K for transport. Jays have great reviews and is 2200.00
@@ragingbullwinkle4188 While it has the appropriate I2S output it does not read SACD like ours does. But that's ok. When you buy an Octave release, either by download or physical disc, you get the DSD master layer without having to purchase an expensive SACD layer like our own.
I really always hated the encryption files in formats. I have a ton of DSD SACD recordings that I cannot play through my chord dac. Drives me nuts, but that is life.
For video there is HDCP why not use that for audio as well i2s even has the same form factor as HDMI
Considering plain old DVD video discs could always handle 24/96 PCM and 20/48 multichannel pcm, both lossless, tough to justify either Sacd or Dvd Audio disc standards
The high res disc standard is now Blu-ray , though new high res remasters are still being released on DVD video disc
Blu-ray supports 24/192, or anything higher if on data tracks
PCM doesn't sound as good.
There are very few is true. Most SACD players Convert to PCM. Marantz reference does not. The AK449x velvet high end does in fact to run true SACD, DXD, DSD as can be seen in their schematics. The FIIO 15 which is no longer available with the AK4499x2 is outstanding. Used prices of the 15 are very high now and going higher with the few groups that still provide this scheme and the speed is astounding and so far beyond most any other DAC that there is little competition but now most of their production is halted, like Jelco Tonearms.
Sounds like the technology of DAC's at the time of SACD weren't on par with today's. but the sounds was still superior to CD. Seems to me they didn't learn from the Beta days or else could me the best technology still today.
What do you say to all the TH-camr experts who maintain that humans can’t hear any additional sound information beyond CD’s 16/44.1 resolution? My old SACD’s and DVD-Audio blow CDs away.
There are obviously professionals who work in music recording and broadcast who live with recorded sound every day. These are people who can move from the recording studio to the control room and can hear the subtle differences between the live sound and the recorded signal. Back in the late 1960’s I read a regular column by an engineer who hated the sound of Vinyl and insisted only half track tape at 15 ips was adequate to his tastes. However, for us mere mortals who grew up with FM radio and Vinyl, CD quality was an immediate improvement as ‘hiss’ during quiet passages was always the biggest distraction to music enjoyment.
@@paulmilligan3007 My SACDs and DVD-Audio’s from almost 20 years ago sound light years better than CDs. I’m just surprised that many people maintain there’s no difference. In totality, they’re richer. A SACD recorded in SACD is the top of the food chain (check out Phillip Bailey’s), most that weren’t are still vastly superior to CD. 24/92+ should be the floor, not the ceiling. Life is short.
Do all SACD players have the sony processor/decrypter/dac in? Or do some, e.g. high end marantz and denon somehow get the digital signal into their own internal dac even if as pcm?
Very good question before spending $1500 on a Denon DCD-1600NE Super Audio CD Player for sure. Here they are giving you what is supposed to be a better sounding disc, but then hamstring it with a cheap DAC? Crazy. Or maybe they somehow picked off the digital stream and sent it to their better DAC? Oh well, even though a very few people are making them, it is pretty much a dead format at this point.
@@rosswarren436 DSD on the other hand, seems to be gaining momentum. Since streaming and hight transfer rate internet connections are more common these days, it looks quite difficult that a physical disc could gain or regain popularity.
SACD pleasure has never been cheaper or easier Start with a Sony UBP-X800Mk2 and send Digital output via HDMI to the DAC of any modern AVR or PrePro. And here’s the bonus, you can enjoy 5.1 SACDs. After having had a 5.1 experience going back to stereo is like going back to a Coke gone flat, no fizz.
"Breaking the encryption" would imply something nefarious. The Sony "chip" is decrypting the stream to output the DSD stream to their proprietary DAC (which outputs the analog audio).
No, SACD dusks are also encrypted, like DVD, to prevent copying or ripping of the HD stream.
@@paulmilligan3007 I'm not disputing that. I'm saying that the phrase "breaking the encryption" implies that someone (or something) is able to see|get|use the unecrypted data by means OTHER than using the defined algorithm/key. It's a poor choice of phrase. Decryption is not "breaking" anything anymore than encryption is not "fixing" anything. See also: encoding/decoding.
I think we'll need a bigger DAC.
The record companies are really the problem. What artist would not want their art to be appreciated in a format as close as possible to how they mastered it? Copyright law has been so interfered with by these massive companies to the extent you can get more time in prison for infringing copyright than for sex crimes and murder (see the UK).
Nice 👍
Thus came a PS3 with SACD capabilites, and so scarletboook copy protection was no more 😅
Recently picked up a CECHA01 60GB launch model, they're getting more and more scarce due to the PS2 support but I want to check out the SACD feature
The Sony DAC in my cd/dvd/sacs player sounds like dog doo!
So Oh we don't want to
infringe on the artist or sony company..oh no...
But the guys that have three or four formats of the same title that love the music heart and soul....
These guys that are geting duped by paying for the title and the damn format over and over....that's just OK...!?
I have an old Marantz SACD 11 that i was playing some SACD on , running the signal to the Devialet 250 Expert pro by means of RCA interconnects. According to Marantz thats the only way you can experience the SACD layer. The issue I have is , on the Devialet, it only indicates up sample rates. Where as when I play a DSD files from my computer to the Devialet it indicates its playing DSD 64. So my question is why even bother putting out SACDs if you are not able to decode them ?
Do you understand that the Marantz’s internal DAC is decoding SACD to analog thus your preamp does not display a sample rate since input to it is analog not digital when playing SACDs.
@@charlesludwig9173 It reads on the Devialet as 192. So, I’m confused. Could you point me to an article describing the differences between SACD and DSD?
SACD encryption/copying was blow open by Sony's own Playstations that were able to play SACDs. Certain versions with unupdated operating systems could be modified fairly easily to do so.
Well, that’s because Sony PlayStations use the Sony DAC to decode SACD signal just as their SACD players do :). Nothing wrong with that! Those PlayStations were great… played a lot of optical discs, in fact
If you can't copy it it will (sadly) die since that's what's "Average Joe" think is most important. You only need to look at MP3 for that. Shit easily survives because it's "free".
Every choice we make we do a cost/benefit analysis, even if it is subconscious. Things will thrive if the benefit is worth the cost, like MP3. Otherwise it will die. Like SACD. Most people don't spend loads of money for esoteric reasons. Unless you are wealthy and like to collect rare art.
I go through a lot of trouble to find the best masterings of a CD, and then copy it to my server. This is all in good faith on my part - I purchased the music for my enjoyment, and I put it on my server for my convenience.
Being able to copy the CD is extremely important to me, so I do not bother with SACD.
I just burn them on my computer. Perfect large file copy, to listen to any on my Hiby. Done.
Oh, SACD works well with my DAC.😅
Sony....and Philips !!!
dacs can play SACD btw :)