I bought into the format in 2008, at that time I was in a position to upgrade my equipment and purchased a Marantz SR9600 and a DV9600, both flagship models, for both surround sound and 2 channel playback. SACD (for me) was incredible in both 2 channel and 5.1, 5.1 was very much underrated as much of the discussions in the press at the time was for 2 channel playback. I no longer have those components, 2 channel now for vinyl, CD and streaming, but still own the media and have full intentions of upgrading my CD transport in the future to SACD! Yes, I'm probably in the minority but I strongly believe in the format.
The irony in all this is that for the very reasons you listed in this video are the reasons I dismissed SACDs for decades...until I saw your video on how to download SACDs! I was about to throw out my old bluray player when cleaning out a closet and figured I'd give downloading them a try after watching your video on the subject. I owned exactly one SACD at the time, Exile On Main Street, one of my favorite albums of all time. After downloading it and listening to it on some quality equipment, I was hooked. Now, even though I'll probably never own equipment that will be compatible to play and enjoy the actual physical discs, thanks to you I'll NOT shy away from the format for my favorite albums!
I am dumbfounded by this video. I had to check that it wasn't posted on April 1st. You list all the superior qualities of SACD over red book CD and make a very strong case for the format. Yes it is frustrating that so few if any mainstream contemporary releases are available in the format but opting out of buying and supporting the format doesn't help with future healthy growth in sales that would see record companies invest in SACD production! All the negatives against the format- expensive kit etc can be applied equally to vinyl (including nearly 2 decades of limited releases on vinyl prior to the "revolution") and streaming. In order to get the best out of any format you need to spend big and invest well- the rabbit hole of limited edition UHQ Vinyl and luxury box sets, high end turntables, tone arms and cartridges can bankrupt a committed audiophile and end up in the divorce courts. SACD isn't a unique case. You've left me scratching my head. Your argument doesn't add up, it's a kind of twisted logic, a mass of contradictions. The real essence of your argument is that everything you posit can and does apply to all audiophile products!!!! By your logic both CD in any format and vinyl aren't worth investing in as streaming is much more sensible when it comes to the economic case. Ah, then comes the punch line- you give yourself away and expose your real reason-in an almost throw away aside you reveal your personal bias against one company that produces SACDs- Emotion- some kind of personal vendetta rather than logic wins in your case. Mmm
Record companies didn't invest in SACD the first time. I'm one who thinks it should be SACDs we're now buying not Vinyl but appreciate that won't happen. I'm happy buying SACDs as they are. It's frustrating though many are expensive now though. Personally I'm not interested in CDs though, they don't offer enough over Lossless CD Quality streams.
SACD is sooooo much more niche than vinyl was on its worst day lolol it's been a dead format from day one and nothing will change that. Enjoy spending thousands on stand alone SACD players just to be able to listen to them
SACD failed mainly because record companies and the industry in general never supported it enough. Many consumers also couldn’t justify a special player and extra speakers.
Having recently retired I no longer have the mad money to spend on SACD's but I will not part with my discs or the 5 SACD players I have stockpiled. You haven't heard Elton John till you have heard his early catalog in 5.1.
I was an early adopter with CDs and again with SACDs. The big initial draw was 5.1 but I also enjoyed the music quality. It’s hard to give up. My system is not stupendous but I would sooner buy an SACD as long as it’s just 10 to 20 more than a CD. Mega money is ridiculous
I have been building my SACD collection since 2001. Format has been introduced in 1999 but at that time I could only put my eyes on the Sony SCD-1 at J&R Music World in Manhattan. It took me a few years before I could afford and purchase my first SACD Player that I connected with pride using RCA cables to my Yamaha DSP-A1. At that time it was still impossible to output SACD through S/PDIF or Coaxial. Selection of SACDs... was so poor and mostly covering jazz and classical genres, which is still the case. Today SACD selection accounts for less than 0.1% (1 SACD for every 1000 CD releases) of CD releses. Mostly I enjoy 80s synthwave, pop, rock, trance therefore putting any SACD in a player and listing to it for a few minutes and then going back to my regular selection creates self inflicted torture of realizing how wonderful music can and should sound. But it doesn't, because most recordings don't go beyond CD quality - sampling, distorted synthesis and today's horrible horrible excessive compression. Then why not just stop listening to a SACDs? Limit yourself to and average music experience out there and just accept it. But I can't. I think of it like going to a fantastic vacation destination with amazing views, beaches and food while my everyday life is a bumper to bumper traffic with occasional drive-thru experience at McDonald's.
I think people have been going crazy for the wrong format. Vinyl doesn't sound anything near SACD quality. I recently decided to buy a few and was blown away by SACD. The clarity, and the dynamic range are better than anything I've heard. I don't understand why this isn't coming back in waves. Nothing comes close to the fidelity and I've spent a good fortune on lp's and players. Don't get me started on DAC costs and streamers. The real loss in my mind is that I've owned an OPPO for decades without buying or playing an SACD. I am glad companies like mofi are bringing back this format for people to enjoy. Unlike the op I crave purity and this is probably one of the best formats of all time. There I said it, it's the best so why not purchase them and push the market to produce more.
You can get noticeably better sound from a SACD-compatible Sony BluRay player digitally linked to a receiver with a good DAC. They're not expensive, and the added plus is that you can play BluRay movies as well. Content is a challenge, but that doesn't stop me from enjoying what I can find hunting around.
@@BlazejMarczak The Sony UBP-X700. And it does SACD over HDMI, rather than 5 channel direct outs (which require a receiver with direct inputs). I actually retired my Marantz DV7600 and switched to the Sony because of that.
SACD capable Blu-ray players should be standard in anyone’s hi-fi, especially on a budget. They can play CDs, SACDs, Blu-ray Audio, and even the lossy layer of DVD Audio. Extremely versatile components in a hifi
I was really interested as to why you’d stop (other than the premium pricing). I’m no audiophile, but even on my modest system I appreciate the SACD-layer (on a mass-market transport from 2003). For me, it’s a way to chip in more $$$ without the hassle of vinyl. It should be a keeper!
@@audioarkitekts Fair point. How long this will be so isn't answerable, but if we want the good stuff it'll cost us. I don't know whether 100% streaming is sustainable, but that is off topic!
Michael, thank you for putting this video together! I recently dipped my toes into the SACD space, having replaced my old DVD player with a Sony UBP-X800M2 Blu-Ray player that can also play SACDs. I have a great home audio system (Yamaha Aventage A8A with four EX60 floor standing speakers + center channel). So, I bought a couple to try if I could truly tell the difference. I played the same music tracks from Spotify and SACD, back-to-back. I indeed could tell the difference in as far as hearing the quadraphonic separation. With great concentration, I could also pick up the slightest improvement in the clarity of the tracks. However, I have to agree with you. Given the greater affordability and larger recording catalog in pop music, I would much prefer to have conventional CDs (or lossy Spotify). However, the experience of listening to such a superior recording took me down memory lane as I remembered the feeling of awe when I first heard quadraphonic on my father's reel-to-reel. Worth it to buy a few selective albums? Definitely! Will I replace or significantly augment my large CD collection? Not likely. Thank you again!
Nice video Mike, now that I only do CD’s (ex vinyl guy), I am keeping SACD’s on the back burner. Eventually buying a Transport that is SACD, is very pricey as you clearly stated (the PS Audio comes to mind). Interestingly to me, the industry is starting to offer more CDP and CDT’s yet almost none of them are SACD compatible. Jay’s Audio Flagship CDT is 5k and does NOT play SACD’s. Redbook has a lot to give and the industry just doesn’t seem to want to latch on to SACD’s. Our best option for audiophile recordings from MoFi and AS is buying their hybrid SACD’s that have a redbook playback layer. I plan on getting several of these soon. My Pink Floyd 30th of DSOTM is a hybrid and sounds AMAZING, so there is that option. Keep the CD’s content coming!!!
As i said above, unless they put a better mix on whatever "high resolution" (which is really not what people think), this better mix would sound as good as any other "high resolution " format! The Red Book CD is already better than human hearing. As for "high resolution" media, it just changes the noise floor, which is on CD already well below human hearing threshold. "High Resolution" doesn't bring more "information" as non-engineer think, it's a false idea... Engineering basic DSP sub-grad course. Ref: Alan V. Oppenheimer - Discrete-Time Signal Processing and Monty Mongomery very good video on the subject th-cam.com/video/cIQ9IXSUzuM/w-d-xo.html
Mike, I own OPPO and a REAVON multiformat players (they are not cheap, but no that expensive in the HiFi world) that can play any physical format. Really love SACDs and have a few of them, they sound amazing! But as it has been discussed before by people with more knowledge than me, the audible difference of SACDs has nothing to do with better bandwidth of dynamic range, SACDs masters are usually done with more care than CDs, very few music is recorded straight to DSD, the other fact is that the D/A bit to bit conversion is really simple compared to PCM and in hifi simple is better. It is a pity the high price of popular SACD (pop, rock, jazz). but if you are willing to spend in a vinyl record, well you might consider SACD as a better option. Classical music SACDs are common, and not very expensive compared to CDs, you can easily get them for 12 or 15 USD. The high price is related to marketing, people are just willing to pay more for a niche product, the same a vinyl. I don't care for multi channel SACDs, I am only interested in stereo, in my experience the only SACDs that have a decent multi channel track are DSOM, Tubular Bells and the stuff from the 2L label from Norway. Conclusion: SACDs are great, if you find music you love in the format and have the right system just go for them.
Mike makes a very compelling argument, it’s well structured and makes sense. Congratulations Mike for making a clear, concise video. It’s refreshing in the reviews to find that, I’m going to look for more of his. BTW, for comparison is just watched a review in which the presenter claimed (without a scrap of proof) that his audiologist told him they didn’t have the equipment that could measure the limitations of his “golden ears” pfft…his credibility went waaaaaay down. The only thing golden about his ears would be if he painted them gold. Bottom line; Mikes got some gumbas in how he defended his previous video and explained precisely why!
Great Video, Mike! I've had My SONY UBP-X800 ($300) for about four years now. Primarily bought it for watching Movies. Didn't start going on the SACD train until last Summer. I was more into the Jazz stuff. So I went for that. Along with some Classical. But when those Pink Floyd Remasters came out? Let's just say that the Sonic Game changed. The Hybrid/Multi-Channel PF Discs with their 5.1/Dolby Atmos Productions are AMAZING to say the least. "ANIMALS" is the one I tend to play often. Since Tech Wizards like Steven Wilson and James Guthrie have been on a remastering renaissance for Progressive Rock, I can see SACDs they've worked on going a bit more mainstream. Along with "boutique" Audio companies also doing their thing. Today's Popular Music is just dynamically too loud to notice any subtleties. So I don't bother with latter Pop Music being remastered. I tend to wait for sales on certain sites that have a wide range of SACDs. So now I'm starting to have quite a collection. The SONY player along with Nakamichi ShockWafe Pro 7.1.4 (also four years old) has been handling things quite nicely.
I have just set up my Old Philips 6ch SACD system in my rumpus room and still sounds amazing, my Cinema has a Sony SACD player and Yamaha SACD/Blueray player , on Yamaha amp using Direct DSD and all my speakers are High Def, Speakers are very important to get the best out of SACD, can do it with not much exense eg Sony UHD Blueray player has SACD support and Dual HDMI ports, one goes to amp. Can also download DSD music and use something like a Hiby player, I still listen to SACDS Nothing beats it, its just a bit harder to get them and have to go to SACD online shops. You can def tell the difference on direct SACD recording and conversions to SACD. Usually Clasical, Jaz, some artists such as Norah Jones etc all sound incredible.
Some releases I might want are only available as SACDs, if that's the case, I'll buy the disc. I have an Esoteric K-01xd player which when it came out, (in 2020 i think) was arguably the best one box player on the market. The components it's connected to are also better than anything i can actually afford. Like most people interested in audio, I'd heard a lot about how a greater sampling rate will result playback that is sonically superior. I have about 70 SACDs and thousands of redbook (16 bit) discs. Quite a few of these sound as good as or better than most of my SACDs. The sound quality section of this video suggests that the SACD format will deliver something in terms of imaging and dynamic range that you will not get w/ redbook cds. It's become obvious during many listening sessions here that these claims do not hold up. A few of my friends who own ridiculously good systems have come to the same conclusion. When push comes to shove, the choices made by the musicians and the engineers count a for lot more than the sampling rate of a recording.
GM ☕️❄️❄️ HAPPY NEW YEAR 🎊 I never got into the SACD ..not enough variety and they’re were really overpriced…along with hard to find players that are of good value.
Buying a Magnetar UDP 900 player for $3000 may seem extravagant but it is made from top class audio components and possibly the best player available to the public…compare that with high end audio amplifiers for 25-50k and the Magnetar is actually good value for top performance.
Well, not much disagreement in the comments! I've owned 3 players: a very mediocre Sony (cost under $200USD), an Oppo BDP-83 (better but not amazing and yes it's still working) and now a Cambridge Audio universal (excellent). I wouldn't go out of my way to buy a stereo SACD because I don't hear a difference. I still buy & enjoy the multichannels (BTW, Vocalion has inexpensive 4-channel rock, classical & jazz titles from the '70's quad days). They're all CD-compatible, so it's a nice option for anyone with surround sound. Most newer SACD players are stereo only, sadly.
I am pleased that Analogue Productions is co-releasing SACDs with their vinyl releases for the Atlantic 75th anniversary. There is a lot of pop / rock planned in that series. So far, I have enjoyed everything that has been released.
Unfortunately, AP is taking its sweet to time to release the planned SACD titles. Only 7 titles have been released so far. At this rate, it will take 10 years for all of the planned titles to get released.
I usually buy SACDs because the cd layer (talking about hybrid SACDs) contains a very limited/compressed mastering. if not, I buy the cd. I have never noticed any sonic improvement doing a sacd vs cd test (if both masterings are similar).
Exactly. Engineering DSP Sub-Grad course. Having more bits doesn't bring you "More Resolution", it just lower the noise floor which is already lower than human hearing threshold on Red Book CD.
I'm hopeful Blu-ray Audio will take off. That's Blu-ray with Music only Albums on it, not Blu-rays with Concerts on them. All it needs is a cheap Blu-ray Player. SACD never had this veggie. The new Van Morrison Moondance Blu-ray Audio is excellent.
Hey Mike, Where to find used SACDS? Anybody know where to get some! I looked on eBay and some other sites but very expensive! I just bought a Meitner DAC and Transport for good price! Don't have any SACDs but listen to a lot of Progressive Jazz and Rock too! Excited to try something from the past and by well respected Designer! EMM LABS very highly respected from Canada. Old school with Optical cables and AESEBU all needed. Has Coaxial also but Ed Meitner recommended the Optical back in the day! The Transport is very heavy duty and matches with the DAC. So I will see what happens! Anyway, agree with you on the fact is hard to find music I want and at a reasonable price! Recordings also can be hit or miss! Have to do homework on choosing recordings! But am willing to try a few to see how it differs. Some testing done many Listeners enjoyed the 44.1k just as much as the DSD . Though some recordings were quite different! My DAC has 6 channel capabilities so the option is there. Going to start with 2 Channel though
Many tape masters of essential and classic albums are archived by recording them in DSD, the high-resolution format used in SACD’s. There are plenty of SACD’s of essential recordings for many different genres of music. SACD’s are still and currently being released of essential classic albums, notably: Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab and Analogue Productions are doing this. Currently, you can buy a Sony UBP-X800M2 (~$300) and hook it to a D.BOB ($1,000) made by GeerFab Audio and hook it up to any DAC of your choice, that will take a DoP64 (DSD over PCM) signal via its SPD/IF inputs, and you will get clear and great sound quality. I have a SACD collection, and it is still growing. I definitely prefer SACD over CD’s and vinyl. I embrace and own all of the formats, but SACD is my preference and I do notice the difference in sound quality granting the source master is of good quality, just like with any other music media. Of course, SACDs are for the people that pursue great sound quality and of course it is a small market, but if SACDs continue to be released, I will still be buying them.
I really enjoyed this video - your points were excellent. Did I miss discussion about collection space? Unlike years past when people would have at most a few hundred LP/CD's in their music library we are now in an era when collections are in the thousands. Like you I am still collecting CDs but - my storage space does have limits and even if I ignore them, the problem of organizing and accessing the music is not trivial. I've chosen to move my music to a Beatis music server - which will help with the "access." I'm not sure if I am willing to give up purchasing "hard copy" media but at some point I will no longer have a choice. Not looking for the demise of CDs but the dawn of large personal music collections may influence its future.
Sony tried to upgrade the CD. If everyone had bought them in the early 2000s, it would have taken off and SACD would have replaced CDs. Bob Dylan and 60s Rolling Stones catalogs among othere were released in hybrid CD/SACD at no extra cost. Most people moved to mp3 players, including iPods, or continued to buy CDs.
I love SACDs. I have all The Rolling Stones single layer releases from Japan and they sound magnificent. The SACD mix of The Who’s Tommy is wonderful as well.
I have a $50 Denon player and a $50 Yamaha but they were bought used. It would cost around $250 for a new Sony and you have to really research DACs and Receivers to see if they are DSD compatible. And then there's Blu-Ray audio.
My “audio whore” set up : Sony X800m2, SMSL DO100 PRO, Onkyo midrange AVR, B&W 683 S2, B&W HTM61. Now tell me why I should listen to a lowly 16/44.1 CD that makes my ears bleed ??
dvd audio actually sounded better but was inconvenient to use, and had even less offerings. i did however find artist on that format that wasn't on sacd at the time.
The primary reason I buy SACD’s is because most are multi-channel and I can play them with my Theater set-up. I cannot tell any difference between a stereo CD and an SACD of the same title played in stereo only, but albums such as ‘A Secret Wish’ by Propaganda/Trevor Horn are superb in multi-channel. Players can be had for little money - the SONY 700 has multi-channel SACD plus CD/DVD/UHD capability for $250.
Interesting. I have hundreds of CDs and was contemplating getting some SACDs. Is there a list somewhere of all the albums released on SACD? I think that will be the determining factor of whether one should invest in an SACD player as well as the neccessary hardware to take advantage of it. By the way, are you aware of any player that can play audio CDs, Video CDs, Super VCDs, DVD, DVD audio, SACD, HD-DVD, and Bluray?
Oppo did a few. But they're discontinued and starting to go for more than they cost new. A good workaround is to get a blu-ray player and an older DVD multi-format player (which is what I do - I have an older Oppo). Just beware of the ones that only do analog out if you are teaming it up with a newer receiver that can decode DSD (NAD 535 - I had one and it died pretty fast, as did my Cambridge Audio Azur 651 - which is basically an "upgraded" Oppo but seemingly more fragile). Also the lasers on them seem quite fragile. I had a Denon unit aswell - the laser on that died fast too. What I do now is only use the Oppo for DVD-A and SACD. And another player for CDs and an X-box One for BR.
I bought two inexpensive SACDs Dark Side of the Moon and Culture Club best of for 29.99 and 17.99 respectively. Some of the other I want are all above $100+ mark.
The ones that have an asking price of $100+ are out-of-print titles. Van Halen's self titled debut album and Dire Straits' final studio album, On Every Street", were just released by Mobile Fidelity and they are $30/each.
Like video, the vast majority of the market is not interested in giving you exceptional quality. Hifi is jewerly, and the mediums are as cheap as possible to maximise profit margins. Remember - they cut vinyl using a digital signal from pro-tools. Sure some cd's sound great - David Sylvian, and some sacd's do too - Depeche Mode. but in the main - cheap cheap cheap.
This isn't a good comparison, audio is not the same as having a higher picture resolution. Having more bits to describe audio doesn't translate in "better resolution", it just lower the noise floor... Red Book CD is already better than human hearing.
We were always told that the 44khz sampling rate was theoretically perfect. If we tried to say that analogue records sounded better we were patronised and derided. Now SACDs are supposed to sound more subtle because of the higher sampling rate?? Bullshit!
I feel that for the most part sacds are given more attention from a mastering point of view. That even if just comparing the cd layer is still superior to a standard cd release.
Here's a weird thing. My Sony X800 UHD player will play my SACDs through my Chord Qutest DAC; whereas my Denon SACD player won't, and it has to go through the line input of my Luxman 505 amplifier. It's a mystery. Love your videos. Especially about SACD 😊 10:31
If you want to get into SACDs you need a BD/SACD player and an AVR that handles DSD. An entry level system will work just fine. Most Denon AVRs will work, all Sony and Onkyo AVRs will, too. The HDMI connection will pass DSD to the receiver. I just play DSD files on my media player into a Sony AVR, but for ~$800 you could get a used Oppo 105 and an Onkyo AVR and choose either analog or HDMI connection and see which sounds better. For less money a new Sony UBP X700M UHD player will do the job, though it has no analog outs.
SACD started as a 2 channel stereo format. Any 2 channel receiver/amp will work unless you are talking about the often-mentioned Sony X700/800 "transport".
Don't need to worry about a DAC with SACD since 99.999999% of them will not play SACD files since they do not have the licensing from Sony. The new PS Audio DAC can but you have to use it with their disc player that's something like 15k all in. The only way to play the SACD layer has to be inside the SACD player itself none of them will output the DSD that I am aware of except for PS Audio that I already mentioned.
@nicksterj yup and it's that lock they put on the disks that make it unbelievably frustrating for audiophiles who want to use their own high end DAC. I have a few myself but I Don't get why some people are so into them.
There is a very good chance you were hearing the normal CD layer on that SACD. It seems a lot of people do not hook their expensive players up properly for the DSD stream.
@@DarkShroud24With the same source recording, SACD doesn't bring anything to the table apart from lowered noise floor, which is already below human hearing threshold on Red Book CD...
Hi! I want to get into cd collecting and I am wondering what kind of cd player should I buy to play cd’s. I already own a pair of bookshelf speakers which I use for my vinyl. I only need a cd player. I would like an recomendation. Of course my budget is low since i am still in high school :)
With the lack of record company support for SACDs, I've begun to collect the new Atmos, Quadio, and 5.1 discs from SDE. Let's keep that alive before this format is abandoned, and my new Atmos receiver becomes the next industry door stop.
I have been listening to SACDs thru my expensive setup with a dedicated DAC in my dedicated music room for a few years. Be very frankly, there are some, but very little, again, little sound difference between Redbook CDs and SACDs, however, the prices of SACD players, DACs and the media are getting way out of whack and becoming stunningly ridiculous. It may be the time to stop showing off the "emperor's new cloth".
They killed SACD by never making it cheap or affordable. A few years after the introduction of CDs, you could pick up a cheap player for $100, or a car unit for a few hundred. Not so for SACD. And SACD media cost more - for what, a disc that looked and was packaged the same? It's like DAB+ radio, only a tiny amount of car stereos support DAB+. DAB+ will die too.
Early US Sony Music and Universal Music SACDs were under $20 at your local Best Buy. Players from Sony were under US$250. Pioneer had the first universal player for under US$500. No one took the plunge because SACD was introduced at the time when MP3 and "music sharing" was the rage. Who wants to pay for music when they are available "for free"?
Lack of content is indeed the biggest problem with the format. I have about 15 SACDs and only 3 (both long deleted and costlier than I am willing to pay) on the wish list.
"HiRes" is not what you think... There is no more "details" on those format, just lower noise floor, which is already below human hearing threshold on Red Book CD...
Hi Mike, the fact that SACDs are sparsely available should not be a reason for not buying them. On the contrary, they become a treasure / collector's item. From time to time I still buy one, e.g. special masterings not available on streaming platforms. I do not own an SACD player, simply because I do not want to be forced to use its analog out; but I rip the DSD files from the media (nerdy, I know...). I would not buy SACDs if I hadn't mastered the black art of ripping though. As with most of your video's, you got my like ;-)
A properly transcoded redbook layer sounds exactly the same as the SACD layer. Do it yourself: take any DSD64 file and convert it to redbook using SOX then try to pick up one over the other in a blind test.
@@badgastein2 well, vinyl has a sound on its own and I prefer vinyl to CD (or any other digital format) any day of the week. But hey, technically speaking, yes, CD is superior to vinyl, no doubt about it.
I always wanted to hear an SACD to see what all the fuss was about. I'll bet they were great. The closest I ever got was buying a MFSL gold plated copy of Pink Floyd - Dark Side of The Moon. LOL
I think you made a mistake. You mention that you need to buy expensive gear to enjoy the sound of sacds, like expensive dacs. However, the dac actually doesn't matter, because you cannot use an external dac with sacds And that would be one of the main reasons to convince someone not to buy sacds: you are stuck with whatever sacd player that you have, unable to add any upgrades.
@@audioarkitekts I know. But they cannot pass the sacd data analogically because of copyright issues. I only found out about this recently. The only way to do it is using HDMI and some type of converter that probably makes the signal lossy.
@@indauroleal7953 That used to be the case but it's no longer applicable on more recent hardware. My old NAD 535 only did analog but my Oppo does HDMI out and my Marantz receiver will decode the bitstream.
DSD to me seemed to me a flawed format, compared to pcm. Source is pcm, then it's transferred to dsd to make money. With some need to workaround issues via adding shaped noise. No thx. It gains nothing,
SACD became betamax because most audiophiles enjoy 2ch high end audio, not cheaply made multichannel receivers. Even a $7500 Marantz multich receiver is cheaply made compared to 2ch Bryston, McIntosh, ReVox, Krell, etc.
Apologies, but in my opinion, this is the wrong angle. Example, you can absolutely appreciate a fine wine without being in Tuscany, or Sushi without being in Japan. The beauty of this hobby, is that it demands research - on mastering for example - and knowing that there is always a next level to be attained. It's not mass consumption of a product, it's a pursuit, a journey, into building a collection and finding new ways to enjoy it every day. I still buy SACDs, because in my system, nothing sounds better!
DSD was developed for archival purposes. The idea is that bit errors have minimal influence to the sound. Of course once such high bitrate format exists, it is time to "milk" audiophiles and that's why SACD format exists. CD with its 44.1 kHz sampling rate and 16 bit dynamic range offers totally transparent sound to human ears in any listening scenario that makes any sense (no "gain riding" or other tricks that have nothing to do with real listening). Sound quality is dictated by the production, mixing and mastering. SACDs (can) offer multichannel support. SACDs of new multichannel recordings (mostly classical music in which case SACDs are almost always hybrid discs and separate CD/SACD releases don't even exist.) tend to sound amazing, because the format calls for top notch production, mixing and mastering. Also, music recorded in acoustic spaces such as concert halls and churches benefit from multichannel recording. This quality is present even on the stereo CD layer apart from the separation provided by multichannel sound. Old rock albums do not benefit anything from SACD format. The sound quality is pretty much limited by the old production. New mixing and mastering may help a little bit, but music that was created for stereo is better kept stereo instead of forcefully turn it into multichannel format. CD version is enough. I don't own any non-classical SACDs, but I do own dozens of classical music SACDs. The conclusion is: For people who are into classical music, SACDs are part of life offering multichannel support (if you own multichannel audio gear) and top notch production, mixing and mastering. For people who are not into classic music (sorry folks, but you are missing so much awesome music!) SACDs do not offer almost anything. In the best case the SACD release of an old rock album can have better mastering than any other release, but that's it.
And unfortunately, "loudness war" has completely butchered the music... I have no stats but i'd say 90%+ of the newer recordings sound very bad, whatever the format you get...
@@guyboisvert66 Loudness war has butchered music that wasn't made for that. In practise this is older popular music made before loudness was even began. Newer popular music is tailored to work better in smaller dynamic space. Loudness war has been a thing of popular music. Outside popular music it hasn't been much of an issue. Classical music for example doesn't suffer from it at all. There is a lot of music outside the loudness war stuff. People just don't know about it. I think the amount of butchered music is much less than 90 %. Maybe 90 % of the music you know is butchered?
@@pojuantsalo3475 Usually classic and Jazz suffers less (which is low % of music) but the rest, 90%. Don't worry, i listen to many many styles of music (ex DJ multi-style and audiophile). Really good sound recording / mixing are much too rare... Usually, Japanese do a better job in general, think for example of Three Blind Mice. There is Chesky and others too. But as i said, very low % of the whole bunch...
@@pojuantsalo3475...oh and for "lower dynamic space", no need to lower dynamic in source material, just use DSP on the end device, let the user decice for christ's sake...
@@guyboisvert66 The higher you rise the bar the fewer releases will live up to the standard. That's life. My own music taste allows me to avoid loudness war a lot, but I understand people with different taste can suffer from it much more. Doesn't mean I don't care. Loudness war has been a sad example of how optimising stupidly the wrong thing can cause a lot of damage elsewhere.
Mr Mike!!! Here is what you missed!!! Combine (Volumio+SMSL.PL200) then add the SACDISO patch ( try it with $ 30 usb bluray) now you have a set-up for the future for under $1000.00
the number of new SACD releases worldwide is relatively stable for the last decade or so....at least 500 new SACD releases worldwide each year. There were at least 300 new SACD releases worldwide in the first 6 months of 2024. There have been more than over 17,000 SACD releases worldwide since the format debuted over 25 years ago.
I found your video alarming and have a number of comments to make about it. Firstly, have you been to Acoustic Sounds recently and checked its SACD catalogue? You might be pleasantly surprised at the range on offer and the number of pop/rock bands that feature - and the list is growing all the time. For example, all the Steely Dan albums are being released on SACD and I am in the process of buying them and the ones I already have are all wonderful. However it was the rest of the video that I found bewildering. It was as if you were going out of your way to belittle the format by pointing out that, for example, the sound quality might be compromised by poor mastering techniques.That will apply to every format, be it vinyl, CD or SACD. Sure, one does have to buy a special player to play the discs but it is possible to buy a good player without breaking the bank. As for the cost of the discs, it is appreciably less than the cost of new vinyl. Here in New Zealand, CDs and SACDs sell for the same price. However, I will admit that the Acoustic Sounds SACDs are a little on the expensive side, but I still think they are worth it. To sum up, I think your video was unfair on the format and I was very disappointed. I also noted that you have axe to grind with a company and I don't think that has anything to do with the virtues, or otherwise, of SACD as a format either.
The format is overpriced. Blu ray with uncompressed master audio and a movie is cheaper. And arguably, as good. Second: SACD/DSD can be a hollow promise. I have had a few SACD's with a lame mastering. Redbook sounded better, especially since newer DAC's and stand alone dacs are better than most SACD DAC system.. I had the flagship Sony scd-1 and it was a dud. There is only a small slice of the market even on SACD. I don't want to be limited to some obscure jazz or classical recording. I have lost interest in this overhyped and overpriced niche format.
I have ONE SACD. And I wish I had none. Apart from my old Sony DVD player, nothing will play them. Will probably replace the recording (It was Tony Bennett) with Vinyl.
I have had and still have equipment that can play SACDs, but I have never owned an SACD. The reason I have never owned an SACD is because I had a feeling it would be short-lived and not that popular and it turns out I was correct. SACD barely even made it off the ground and did not last long (about 2 to 3 years roughly). So why did I have and still have equipment that can handle them? Simple, it just come that way at the time. I have a Denon multi regional DVD player that also plays CD, SACD, DVDs from anywhere in the world and has every hook up there is. It was actually one of the best players there was at the time. The thing must be on about 30 years old now and still works. In fact, it works better than my Sony BR player, which has almost no hook ups and only plays DVDs and BR discs and of course, functions like a POS Sony product. My Marantz ND8006 is also capable of playing SACD.
Unless you get access to a better mix on SACD, the CD is already better than your ears... so SACD as a format is totally useless: Marketing hype, that's what it is. "Better Resolution" is really not that, it just changes the noise floor, which is, on CD, again, better than your ears. Engineering basic DSP sub-grad course. Ref: Alan V. Oppenheimer - Discrete-Time Signal Processing and Monty Mongomery very good video on the subject th-cam.com/video/cIQ9IXSUzuM/w-d-xo.html
Hey Mike, all good points. I'm definitely doing the Van Halen (first 6 with David Lee Roth) as they come out. But ya not too much to pick from and really pricey as well. Great video once again. Have a great week.
I bought into the format in 2008, at that time I was in a position to upgrade my equipment and purchased a Marantz SR9600 and a DV9600, both flagship models, for both surround sound and 2 channel playback. SACD (for me) was incredible in both 2 channel and 5.1, 5.1 was very much underrated as much of the discussions in the press at the time was for 2 channel playback. I no longer have those components, 2 channel now for vinyl, CD and streaming, but still own the media and have full intentions of upgrading my CD transport in the future to SACD! Yes, I'm probably in the minority but I strongly believe in the format.
The irony in all this is that for the very reasons you listed in this video are the reasons I dismissed SACDs for decades...until I saw your video on how to download SACDs! I was about to throw out my old bluray player when cleaning out a closet and figured I'd give downloading them a try after watching your video on the subject. I owned exactly one SACD at the time, Exile On Main Street, one of my favorite albums of all time. After downloading it and listening to it on some quality equipment, I was hooked. Now, even though I'll probably never own equipment that will be compatible to play and enjoy the actual physical discs, thanks to you I'll NOT shy away from the format for my favorite albums!
I am dumbfounded by this video. I had to check that it wasn't posted on April 1st. You list all the superior qualities of SACD over red book CD and make a very strong case for the format. Yes it is frustrating that so few if any mainstream contemporary releases are available in the format but opting out of buying and supporting the format doesn't help with future healthy growth in sales that would see record companies invest in SACD production!
All the negatives against the format- expensive kit etc can be applied equally to vinyl (including nearly 2 decades of limited releases on vinyl prior to the "revolution") and streaming. In order to get the best out of any format you need to spend big and invest well- the rabbit hole of limited edition UHQ Vinyl and luxury box sets, high end turntables, tone arms and cartridges can bankrupt a committed audiophile and end up in the divorce courts. SACD isn't a unique case.
You've left me scratching my head. Your argument doesn't add up, it's a kind of twisted logic, a mass of contradictions. The real essence of your argument is that everything you posit can and does apply to all audiophile products!!!! By your logic both CD in any format and vinyl aren't worth investing in as streaming is much more sensible when it comes to the economic case.
Ah, then comes the punch line- you give yourself away and expose your real reason-in an almost throw away aside you reveal your personal bias against one company that produces SACDs- Emotion- some kind of personal vendetta rather than logic wins in your case. Mmm
You should hear my thoughts on vinyl lol.
So buy crap in hopes things will change? Nope.
Record companies didn't invest in SACD the first time. I'm one who thinks it should be SACDs we're now buying not Vinyl but appreciate that won't happen. I'm happy buying SACDs as they are. It's frustrating though many are expensive now though. Personally I'm not interested in CDs though, they don't offer enough over Lossless CD Quality streams.
SACD is sooooo much more niche than vinyl was on its worst day lolol it's been a dead format from day one and nothing will change that. Enjoy spending thousands on stand alone SACD players just to be able to listen to them
SACD failed mainly because record companies and the industry in general never supported it enough. Many consumers also couldn’t justify a special player and extra speakers.
Having recently retired I no longer have the mad money to spend on SACD's but I will not part with my discs or the 5 SACD players I have stockpiled. You haven't heard Elton John till you have heard his early catalog in 5.1.
What players have you stockpiled?
2 Pioneers and 2 Sonys. My daily driver is an OPPO.@@dannytse8767
Madman Across the Water is absolutely phenomenal in Super Audio.
You are sooo correct , John.@john_wesley_walsh
I was an early adopter with CDs and again with SACDs. The big initial draw was 5.1 but I also enjoyed the music quality. It’s hard to give up.
My system is not stupendous but I would sooner buy an SACD as long as it’s just 10 to 20 more than a CD. Mega money is ridiculous
I have been building my SACD collection since 2001. Format has been introduced in 1999 but at that time I could only put my eyes on the Sony SCD-1 at J&R Music World in Manhattan. It took me a few years before I could afford and purchase my first SACD Player that I connected with pride using RCA cables to my Yamaha DSP-A1. At that time it was still impossible to output SACD through S/PDIF or Coaxial. Selection of SACDs... was so poor and mostly covering jazz and classical genres, which is still the case. Today SACD selection accounts for less than 0.1% (1 SACD for every 1000 CD releases) of CD releses. Mostly I enjoy 80s synthwave, pop, rock, trance therefore putting any SACD in a player and listing to it for a few minutes and then going back to my regular selection creates self inflicted torture of realizing how wonderful music can and should sound. But it doesn't, because most recordings don't go beyond CD quality - sampling, distorted synthesis and today's horrible horrible excessive compression. Then why not just stop listening to a SACDs? Limit yourself to and average music experience out there and just accept it. But I can't. I think of it like going to a fantastic vacation destination with amazing views, beaches and food while my everyday life is a bumper to bumper traffic with occasional drive-thru experience at McDonald's.
I still collect as well. SACD collections build slowly unless money is not a factor. How many SACD’s would you say are in your collection?
@@fpgaruda9966 Currently I have just about 30 titles.
And with Oppo I have dived into both SACD and DVD-Audio disks.
I think people have been going crazy for the wrong format. Vinyl doesn't sound anything near SACD quality. I recently decided to buy a few and was blown away by SACD. The clarity, and the dynamic range are better than anything I've heard. I don't understand why this isn't coming back in waves. Nothing comes close to the fidelity and I've spent a good fortune on lp's and players. Don't get me started on DAC costs and streamers. The real loss in my mind is that I've owned an OPPO for decades without buying or playing an SACD. I am glad companies like mofi are bringing back this format for people to enjoy. Unlike the op I crave purity and this is probably one of the best formats of all time. There I said it, it's the best so why not purchase them and push the market to produce more.
You can get noticeably better sound from a SACD-compatible Sony BluRay player digitally linked to a receiver with a good DAC. They're not expensive, and the added plus is that you can play BluRay movies as well. Content is a challenge, but that doesn't stop me from enjoying what I can find hunting around.
The Sony Blu-ray player can also play hi-res Blu-ray Audio discs too.
I have Sony UB something 700 and Schiit Modi DAC for this exactly reason.
@@BlazejMarczak The Sony UBP-X700. And it does SACD over HDMI, rather than 5 channel direct outs (which require a receiver with direct inputs). I actually retired my Marantz DV7600 and switched to the Sony because of that.
SACD capable Blu-ray players should be standard in anyone’s hi-fi, especially on a budget. They can play CDs, SACDs, Blu-ray Audio, and even the lossy layer of DVD Audio. Extremely versatile components in a hifi
I suggest you quit HIFI, maybe try gravel biking, surfing, adpoting a dog?
90% of sacd are hybrids now you can get ones really cheap you can get ones that are very expensive depends on availability or if they're out of print
I was really interested as to why you’d stop (other than the premium pricing). I’m no audiophile, but even on my modest system I appreciate the SACD-layer (on a mass-market transport from 2003). For me, it’s a way to chip in more $$$ without the hassle of vinyl. It should be a keeper!
Premium pricing can stop anyone from doing anything these days.
@@audioarkitekts Fair point. How long this will be so isn't answerable, but if we want the good stuff it'll cost us. I don't know whether 100% streaming is sustainable, but that is off topic!
Luckily Redbook CDs are still reasonable
Michael, thank you for putting this video together! I recently dipped my toes into the SACD space, having replaced my old DVD player with a Sony UBP-X800M2 Blu-Ray player that can also play SACDs. I have a great home audio system (Yamaha Aventage A8A with four EX60 floor standing speakers + center channel). So, I bought a couple to try if I could truly tell the difference. I played the same music tracks from Spotify and SACD, back-to-back. I indeed could tell the difference in as far as hearing the quadraphonic separation. With great concentration, I could also pick up the slightest improvement in the clarity of the tracks. However, I have to agree with you. Given the greater affordability and larger recording catalog in pop music, I would much prefer to have conventional CDs (or lossy Spotify). However, the experience of listening to such a superior recording took me down memory lane as I remembered the feeling of awe when I first heard quadraphonic on my father's reel-to-reel. Worth it to buy a few selective albums? Definitely! Will I replace or significantly augment my large CD collection? Not likely. Thank you again!
Exactly the reasons I quickly got out of the reel to reel game. Thanks you for the video.
Glad you liked the video.
Reel to reel sounds bad just like a cassette tape. Dont believe all the hype otherwise!
@@myronhelton4441 i guess it depends on the equipment, the demos i heard at shows were incredible
Nice video Mike, now that I only do CD’s (ex vinyl guy), I am keeping SACD’s on the back burner. Eventually buying a Transport that is SACD, is very pricey as you clearly stated (the PS Audio comes to mind). Interestingly to me, the industry is starting to offer more CDP and CDT’s yet almost none of them are SACD compatible. Jay’s Audio Flagship CDT is 5k and does NOT play SACD’s. Redbook has a lot to give and the industry just doesn’t seem to want to latch on to SACD’s. Our best option for audiophile recordings from MoFi and AS is buying their hybrid SACD’s that have a redbook playback layer. I plan on getting several of these soon. My Pink Floyd 30th of DSOTM is a hybrid and sounds AMAZING, so there is that option. Keep the CD’s content coming!!!
As i said above, unless they put a better mix on whatever "high resolution" (which is really not what people think), this better mix would sound as good as any other "high resolution " format! The Red Book CD is already better than human hearing. As for "high resolution" media, it just changes the noise floor, which is on CD already well below human hearing threshold. "High Resolution" doesn't bring more "information" as non-engineer think, it's a false idea... Engineering basic DSP sub-grad course. Ref: Alan V. Oppenheimer - Discrete-Time Signal Processing and Monty Mongomery very good video on the subject th-cam.com/video/cIQ9IXSUzuM/w-d-xo.html
Mike, I own OPPO and a REAVON multiformat players (they are not cheap, but no that expensive in the HiFi world) that can play any physical format. Really love SACDs and have a few of them, they sound amazing! But as it has been discussed before by people with more knowledge than me, the audible difference of SACDs has nothing to do with better bandwidth of dynamic range, SACDs masters are usually done with more care than CDs, very few music is recorded straight to DSD, the other fact is that the D/A bit to bit conversion is really simple compared to PCM and in hifi simple is better. It is a pity the high price of popular SACD (pop, rock, jazz). but if you are willing to spend in a vinyl record, well you might consider SACD as a better option. Classical music SACDs are common, and not very expensive compared to CDs, you can easily get them for 12 or 15 USD. The high price is related to marketing, people are just willing to pay more for a niche product, the same a vinyl. I don't care for multi channel SACDs, I am only interested in stereo, in my experience the only SACDs that have a decent multi channel track are DSOM, Tubular Bells and the stuff from the 2L label from Norway. Conclusion: SACDs are great, if you find music you love in the format and have the right system just go for them.
Mike makes a very compelling argument, it’s well structured and makes sense. Congratulations Mike for making a clear, concise video. It’s refreshing in the reviews to find that, I’m going to look for more of his.
BTW, for comparison is just watched a review in which the presenter claimed (without a scrap of proof) that his audiologist told him they didn’t have the equipment that could measure the limitations of his “golden ears” pfft…his credibility went waaaaaay down. The only thing golden about his ears would be if he painted them gold.
Bottom line; Mikes got some gumbas in how he defended his previous video and explained precisely why!
I appreciate the kind words! I try my best to be as transparent as possible and I’m glad you see that!
Great Video, Mike!
I've had My SONY UBP-X800 ($300) for about four years now. Primarily bought it for watching Movies. Didn't start going on the SACD train until last Summer. I was more into the Jazz stuff. So I went for that. Along with some Classical.
But when those Pink Floyd Remasters came out? Let's just say that the Sonic Game changed. The Hybrid/Multi-Channel PF Discs with their 5.1/Dolby Atmos Productions are AMAZING to say the least. "ANIMALS" is the one I tend to play often.
Since Tech Wizards like Steven Wilson and James Guthrie have been on a remastering renaissance for Progressive Rock, I can see SACDs they've worked on going a bit more mainstream. Along with "boutique" Audio companies also doing their thing. Today's Popular Music is just dynamically too loud to notice any subtleties. So I don't bother with latter Pop Music being remastered.
I tend to wait for sales on certain sites that have a wide range of SACDs. So now I'm starting to have quite a collection.
The SONY player along with Nakamichi ShockWafe Pro 7.1.4 (also four years old) has been handling things quite nicely.
That sounds like a really fun system you have there!
I have the sonny too but I don't use the internal DAC so I cant use it for the SACD layer
I have just set up my Old Philips 6ch SACD system in my rumpus room and still sounds amazing, my Cinema has a Sony SACD player and Yamaha SACD/Blueray player , on Yamaha amp using Direct DSD and all my speakers are High Def, Speakers are very important to get the best out of SACD, can do it with not much exense eg Sony UHD Blueray player has SACD support and Dual HDMI ports, one goes to amp. Can also download DSD music and use something like a Hiby player, I still listen to SACDS Nothing beats it, its just a bit harder to get them and have to go to SACD online shops. You can def tell the difference on direct SACD recording and conversions to SACD. Usually Clasical, Jaz, some artists such as Norah Jones etc all sound incredible.
Some releases I might want are only available as SACDs, if that's the case, I'll buy the disc. I have an Esoteric K-01xd player which when it came out, (in 2020 i think) was arguably the best one box player on the market. The components it's connected to are also better than anything i can actually afford. Like most people interested in audio, I'd heard a lot about how a greater sampling rate will result playback that is sonically superior. I have about 70 SACDs and thousands of redbook (16 bit) discs. Quite a few of these sound as good as or better than most of my SACDs. The sound quality section of this video suggests that the SACD format will deliver something in terms of imaging and dynamic range that you will not get w/ redbook cds. It's become obvious during many listening sessions here that these claims do not hold up. A few of my friends who own ridiculously good systems have come to the same conclusion. When push comes to shove, the choices made by the musicians and the engineers count a for lot more than the sampling rate of a recording.
GM ☕️❄️❄️ HAPPY NEW YEAR 🎊
I never got into the SACD ..not enough variety and they’re were really overpriced…along with hard to find players that are of good value.
I completely agree!
Buying a Magnetar UDP 900 player for $3000 may seem extravagant but it is made from top class audio components and possibly the best player available to the public…compare that with high end audio amplifiers for 25-50k and the Magnetar is actually good value for top performance.
You just made me want to buy into the format!
Well, not much disagreement in the comments! I've owned 3 players: a very mediocre Sony (cost under $200USD), an Oppo BDP-83 (better but not amazing and yes it's still working) and now a Cambridge Audio universal (excellent). I wouldn't go out of my way to buy a stereo SACD because I don't hear a difference. I still buy & enjoy the multichannels (BTW, Vocalion has inexpensive 4-channel rock, classical & jazz titles from the '70's quad days). They're all CD-compatible, so it's a nice option for anyone with surround sound. Most newer SACD players are stereo only, sadly.
I am pleased that Analogue Productions is co-releasing SACDs with their vinyl releases for the Atlantic 75th anniversary. There is a lot of pop / rock planned in that series. So far, I have enjoyed everything that has been released.
Unfortunately, AP is taking its sweet to time to release the planned SACD titles. Only 7 titles have been released so far. At this rate, it will take 10 years for all of the planned titles to get released.
Many Sony Blu-ray and 4K Players can play SACDs. An extra cost yes but one you could combine with Blu-ray use.
The lack of a real budget player that I can connect to my DAC is the only reason I don't do SACDs.
Cost is a huge factor in this hobby.
There are a lot of used Sony DVD & Blu-ray players out there with SACD support. The problem is having the equipment to play the DSD stream.
I’ll never give up SACDs. The library is so limited it will never amount to more than a small collection for me.
I usually buy SACDs because the cd layer (talking about hybrid SACDs) contains a very limited/compressed mastering. if not, I buy the cd. I have never noticed any sonic improvement doing a sacd vs cd test (if both masterings are similar).
Exactly. Engineering DSP Sub-Grad course. Having more bits doesn't bring you "More Resolution", it just lower the noise floor which is already lower than human hearing threshold on Red Book CD.
I'm hopeful Blu-ray Audio will take off. That's Blu-ray with Music only Albums on it, not Blu-rays with Concerts on them. All it needs is a cheap Blu-ray Player. SACD never had this veggie. The new Van Morrison Moondance Blu-ray Audio is excellent.
My fallback has been.......Oppo. Bought and sold an Oppo 95 then replaced it with an Oppo 105D. Will keep that indefinitely.....
Hey Mike, Where to find used SACDS? Anybody know where to get some! I looked on eBay and some other sites but very expensive! I just bought a Meitner DAC and Transport for good price! Don't have any SACDs but listen to a lot of Progressive Jazz and Rock too! Excited to try something from the past and by well respected Designer! EMM LABS very highly respected from Canada. Old school with Optical cables and AESEBU all needed. Has Coaxial also but Ed Meitner recommended the Optical back in the day! The Transport is very heavy duty and matches with the DAC. So I will see what happens! Anyway, agree with you on the fact is hard to find music I want and at a reasonable price! Recordings also can be hit or miss! Have to do homework on choosing recordings! But am willing to try a few to see how it differs. Some testing done many Listeners enjoyed the 44.1k just as much as the DSD . Though some recordings were quite different! My DAC has 6 channel capabilities so the option is there. Going to start with 2 Channel though
The sound recording and the mix matters, not the format... Red Book is already better than human hearing...
@@guyboisvert66 cd may be better than your hearing, but on my system and the right sacd i hear a big difference!
Many tape masters of essential and classic albums are archived by recording them in DSD, the high-resolution format used in SACD’s.
There are plenty of SACD’s of essential recordings for many different genres of music.
SACD’s are still and currently being released of essential classic albums, notably: Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab and Analogue Productions are doing this.
Currently, you can buy a Sony UBP-X800M2 (~$300) and hook it to a D.BOB ($1,000) made by GeerFab Audio and hook it up to any DAC of your choice, that will take a DoP64 (DSD over PCM) signal via its SPD/IF inputs, and you will get clear and great sound quality.
I have a SACD collection, and it is still growing. I definitely prefer SACD over CD’s and vinyl. I embrace and own all of the formats, but SACD is my preference and I do notice the difference in sound quality granting the source master is of good quality, just like with any other music media.
Of course, SACDs are for the people that pursue great sound quality and of course it is a small market, but if SACDs continue to be released, I will still be buying them.
I really enjoyed this video - your points were excellent. Did I miss discussion about collection space? Unlike years past when people would have at most a few hundred LP/CD's in their music library we are now in an era when collections are in the thousands. Like you I am still collecting CDs but - my storage space does have limits and even if I ignore them, the problem of organizing and accessing the music is not trivial. I've chosen to move my music to a Beatis music server - which will help with the "access." I'm not sure if I am willing to give up purchasing "hard copy" media but at some point I will no longer have a choice. Not looking for the demise of CDs but the dawn of large personal music collections may influence its future.
Sony tried to upgrade the CD. If everyone had bought them in the early 2000s, it would have taken off and SACD would have replaced CDs. Bob Dylan and 60s Rolling Stones catalogs among othere were released in hybrid CD/SACD at no extra cost. Most people moved to mp3 players, including iPods, or continued to buy CDs.
I love SACDs. I have all The Rolling Stones single layer releases from Japan and they sound magnificent. The SACD mix of The Who’s Tommy is wonderful as well.
I have a $50 Denon player and a $50 Yamaha but they were bought used. It would cost around $250 for a new Sony and you have to really research DACs and Receivers to see if they are DSD compatible. And then there's Blu-Ray audio.
My “audio whore” set up : Sony X800m2, SMSL DO100 PRO, Onkyo midrange AVR, B&W 683 S2, B&W HTM61. Now tell me why I should listen to a lowly 16/44.1 CD that makes my ears bleed ??
dvd audio actually sounded better but was inconvenient to use, and had even less offerings. i did however find artist on that format that wasn't on sacd at the time.
Sony spared no effort to make SACD as unpopular as possible.
The only one I own is a live recording by the band Blue Murder. I got it because it was the only version available.
The primary reason I buy SACD’s is because most are multi-channel and I can play them with my Theater set-up. I cannot tell any difference between a stereo CD and an SACD of the same title played in stereo only, but albums such as ‘A Secret Wish’ by Propaganda/Trevor Horn are superb in multi-channel. Players can be had for little money - the SONY 700 has multi-channel SACD plus CD/DVD/UHD capability for $250.
Ironically, that Propaganda SACD (I have a copy) goes for more these days than a cheaper Sony player.
Interesting. I have hundreds of CDs and was contemplating getting some SACDs. Is there a list somewhere of all the albums released on SACD? I think that will be the determining factor of whether one should invest in an SACD player as well as the neccessary hardware to take advantage of it.
By the way, are you aware of any player that can play audio CDs, Video CDs, Super VCDs, DVD, DVD audio, SACD, HD-DVD, and Bluray?
Oppo did a few. But they're discontinued and starting to go for more than they cost new. A good workaround is to get a blu-ray player and an older DVD multi-format player (which is what I do - I have an older Oppo). Just beware of the ones that only do analog out if you are teaming it up with a newer receiver that can decode DSD (NAD 535 - I had one and it died pretty fast, as did my Cambridge Audio Azur 651 - which is basically an "upgraded" Oppo but seemingly more fragile). Also the lasers on them seem quite fragile. I had a Denon unit aswell - the laser on that died fast too. What I do now is only use the Oppo for DVD-A and SACD. And another player for CDs and an X-box One for BR.
@@whssy Wow that really sucks. It sound like most of the hardware is crap and doesn't last. I was hoping to have one device play them all.
@@ThexthSurvivor there were players that could play most, but i can't think of any player that played hd-dvd and bluray
I bought two inexpensive SACDs Dark Side of the Moon and Culture Club best of for 29.99 and 17.99 respectively. Some of the other I want are all above $100+ mark.
The ones that have an asking price of $100+ are out-of-print titles. Van Halen's self titled debut album and Dire Straits' final studio album, On Every Street", were just released by Mobile Fidelity and they are $30/each.
@@dannytse8767 I will check that out. I was looking for Journey and Genesis (Peter Gabriel)
Like video, the vast majority of the market is not interested in giving you exceptional quality. Hifi is jewerly, and the mediums are as cheap as possible to maximise profit margins. Remember - they cut vinyl using a digital signal from pro-tools. Sure some cd's sound great - David Sylvian, and some sacd's do too - Depeche Mode. but in the main - cheap cheap cheap.
The same applies to BluRay discs;however superior to dvd ones,they have been vanishing ...
This isn't a good comparison, audio is not the same as having a higher picture resolution. Having more bits to describe audio doesn't translate in "better resolution", it just lower the noise floor... Red Book CD is already better than human hearing.
blame netflix
We were always told that the 44khz sampling rate was theoretically perfect. If we tried to say that analogue records sounded better we were patronised and derided. Now SACDs are supposed to sound more subtle because of the higher sampling rate?? Bullshit!
Listen for yourself.
I feel that for the most part sacds are given more attention from a mastering point of view. That even if just comparing the cd layer is still superior to a standard cd release.
I love your channel and the hard work that you do but it's a thumbs down Brother. Controversy....LOL !
All the Best in 2024 !!
Here's a weird thing. My Sony X800 UHD player will play my SACDs through my Chord Qutest DAC; whereas my Denon SACD player won't, and it has to go through the line input of my Luxman 505 amplifier. It's a mystery.
Love your videos. Especially about SACD 😊 10:31
If you want to get into SACDs you need a BD/SACD player and an AVR that handles DSD. An entry level system will work just fine. Most Denon AVRs will work, all Sony and Onkyo AVRs will, too. The HDMI connection will pass DSD to the receiver.
I just play DSD files on my media player into a Sony AVR, but for ~$800 you could get a used Oppo 105 and an Onkyo AVR and choose either analog or HDMI connection and see which sounds better. For less money a new Sony UBP X700M UHD player will do the job, though it has no analog outs.
SACD started as a 2 channel stereo format. Any 2 channel receiver/amp will work unless you are talking about the often-mentioned Sony X700/800 "transport".
Don't need to worry about a DAC with SACD since 99.999999% of them will not play SACD files since they do not have the licensing from Sony. The new PS Audio DAC can but you have to use it with their disc player that's something like 15k all in. The only way to play the SACD layer has to be inside the SACD player itself none of them will output the DSD that I am aware of except for PS Audio that I already mentioned.
@nicksterj lol why bother? It's a dead format always has been
@nicksterj that's allot of work for a few jazz albums
@nicksterj yup and it's that lock they put on the disks that make it unbelievably frustrating for audiophiles who want to use their own high end DAC. I have a few myself but I Don't get why some people are so into them.
Seriously, I’ve tried SACDs on several different systems and I just couldn’t hear the difference between a standard CD and an SACD.
There is a very good chance you were hearing the normal CD layer on that SACD. It seems a lot of people do not hook their expensive players up properly for the DSD stream.
@@DarkShroud24 I did everything that the instructions told me to try. I have a universal player - not those ‘multithousand’ dollar status symbols.
@@DarkShroud24With the same source recording, SACD doesn't bring anything to the table apart from lowered noise floor, which is already below human hearing threshold on Red Book CD...
I see an ambient light on a picture, I know nothing really valuable will be told. No exceptions so far.
Hi! I want to get into cd collecting and I am wondering what kind of cd player should I buy to play cd’s. I already own a pair of bookshelf speakers which I use for my vinyl. I only need a cd player. I would like an recomendation. Of course my budget is low since i am still in high school :)
What is "low", in terms of your budget?
@@dannytse8767 I mean, I can’t afford a cd player that costs +300$ my budget is around 100-200$
@@ivanokolobaric what is your amplifier or receiver?
@@dannytse8767 i don’t have any my recordplayer has a built in preamp
just buy a dvd or bluray player if you don't already have one
With the lack of record company support for SACDs, I've begun to collect the new Atmos, Quadio, and 5.1 discs from SDE. Let's keep that alive before this format is abandoned, and my new Atmos receiver becomes the next industry door stop.
New SACD releases outnumber those of the Quadio or Atmos releases.
I wanted to invest in SACD, being that I love new or different tech. I changed my mind real quick when I saw the prices in Best Buy once in 2008.
Yeah, we won't be seeing much for physical media at Best Buy soon... :(
I have been listening to SACDs thru my expensive setup with a dedicated DAC in my dedicated music room for a few years. Be very frankly, there are some, but very little, again, little sound difference between Redbook CDs and SACDs, however, the prices of SACD players, DACs and the media are getting way out of whack and becoming stunningly ridiculous. It may be the time to stop showing off the "emperor's new cloth".
They killed SACD by never making it cheap or affordable. A few years after the introduction of CDs, you could pick up a cheap player for $100, or a car unit for a few hundred. Not so for SACD. And SACD media cost more - for what, a disc that looked and was packaged the same? It's like DAB+ radio, only a tiny amount of car stereos support DAB+. DAB+ will die too.
Early US Sony Music and Universal Music SACDs were under $20 at your local Best Buy. Players from Sony were under US$250. Pioneer had the first universal player for under US$500. No one took the plunge because SACD was introduced at the time when MP3 and "music sharing" was the rage. Who wants to pay for music when they are available "for free"?
Lack of content is indeed the biggest problem with the format. I have about 15 SACDs and only 3 (both long deleted and costlier than I am willing to pay) on the wish list.
6. Do you still have the high resolution ears that you once had? Else those hires audio details will not be heard anymore.
"HiRes" is not what you think... There is no more "details" on those format, just lower noise floor, which is already below human hearing threshold on Red Book CD...
Hi Mike, the fact that SACDs are sparsely available should not be a reason for not buying them. On the contrary, they become a treasure / collector's item.
From time to time I still buy one, e.g. special masterings not available on streaming platforms.
I do not own an SACD player, simply because I do not want to be forced to use its analog out; but I rip the DSD files from the media (nerdy, I know...).
I would not buy SACDs if I hadn't mastered the black art of ripping though.
As with most of your video's, you got my like ;-)
I don't think SACDs will be wildly collectible in the next 10-15 years. CDs on the other hand will be a feeding frenzy!
@@audioarkitekts I meant as a collectible for myself, nothing more ;-)
A properly transcoded redbook layer sounds exactly the same as the SACD layer. Do it yourself: take any DSD64 file and convert it to redbook using SOX then try to pick up one over the other in a blind test.
Good to know!
Thanks for confirming what I already suspected, and CD’s properly mastered will always sound better than vinyl,
@@badgastein2 well, vinyl has a sound on its own and I prefer vinyl to CD (or any other digital format) any day of the week. But hey, technically speaking, yes, CD is superior to vinyl, no doubt about it.
@@net_newsSo you like colored sound and it's perfectly ok. In my case, sold all my vinyls 25 years ago! Never looked back.
@@guyboisvert66 yes, absolutely I love the way vinyl color the sound I find it more real more natural.
I'd suggest that every single one of your points applies equally with vinyl records.
I always wanted to hear an SACD to see what all the fuss was about. I'll bet they were great. The closest I ever got was buying a MFSL gold plated copy of Pink Floyd - Dark Side of The Moon. LOL
...which isn't a very good recording to boot...
I think you made a mistake. You mention that you need to buy expensive gear to enjoy the sound of sacds, like expensive dacs. However, the dac actually doesn't matter, because you cannot use an external dac with sacds And that would be one of the main reasons to convince someone not to buy sacds: you are stuck with whatever sacd player that you have, unable to add any upgrades.
Most quality DACs can decode DSD.
@@audioarkitekts I know. But they cannot pass the sacd data analogically because of copyright issues. I only found out about this recently. The only way to do it is using HDMI and some type of converter that probably makes the signal lossy.
@@indauroleal7953 That used to be the case but it's no longer applicable on more recent hardware. My old NAD 535 only did analog but my Oppo does HDMI out and my Marantz receiver will decode the bitstream.
DSD to me seemed to me a flawed format, compared to pcm. Source is pcm, then it's transferred to dsd to make money. With some need to workaround issues via adding shaped noise. No thx. It gains nothing,
SACD became betamax because most audiophiles enjoy 2ch high end audio, not cheaply made multichannel receivers. Even a $7500 Marantz multich receiver is cheaply made compared to 2ch Bryston, McIntosh, ReVox, Krell, etc.
Several manufacturers made analogue mch preamps but most people don’t have space or budget for 5 or 6 speakers
Apologies, but in my opinion, this is the wrong angle. Example, you can absolutely appreciate a fine wine without being in Tuscany, or Sushi without being in Japan. The beauty of this hobby, is that it demands research - on mastering for example - and knowing that there is always a next level to be attained. It's not mass consumption of a product, it's a pursuit, a journey, into building a collection and finding new ways to enjoy it every day. I still buy SACDs, because in my system, nothing sounds better!
DSD was developed for archival purposes. The idea is that bit errors have minimal influence to the sound. Of course once such high bitrate format exists, it is time to "milk" audiophiles and that's why SACD format exists. CD with its 44.1 kHz sampling rate and 16 bit dynamic range offers totally transparent sound to human ears in any listening scenario that makes any sense (no "gain riding" or other tricks that have nothing to do with real listening). Sound quality is dictated by the production, mixing and mastering.
SACDs (can) offer multichannel support. SACDs of new multichannel recordings (mostly classical music in which case SACDs are almost always hybrid discs and separate CD/SACD releases don't even exist.) tend to sound amazing, because the format calls for top notch production, mixing and mastering. Also, music recorded in acoustic spaces such as concert halls and churches benefit from multichannel recording. This quality is present even on the stereo CD layer apart from the separation provided by multichannel sound. Old rock albums do not benefit anything from SACD format. The sound quality is pretty much limited by the old production. New mixing and mastering may help a little bit, but music that was created for stereo is better kept stereo instead of forcefully turn it into multichannel format. CD version is enough. I don't own any non-classical SACDs, but I do own dozens of classical music SACDs.
The conclusion is: For people who are into classical music, SACDs are part of life offering multichannel support (if you own multichannel audio gear) and top notch production, mixing and mastering. For people who are not into classic music (sorry folks, but you are missing so much awesome music!) SACDs do not offer almost anything. In the best case the SACD release of an old rock album can have better mastering than any other release, but that's it.
And unfortunately, "loudness war" has completely butchered the music... I have no stats but i'd say 90%+ of the newer recordings sound very bad, whatever the format you get...
@@guyboisvert66 Loudness war has butchered music that wasn't made for that. In practise this is older popular music made before loudness was even began. Newer popular music is tailored to work better in smaller dynamic space. Loudness war has been a thing of popular music. Outside popular music it hasn't been much of an issue. Classical music for example doesn't suffer from it at all. There is a lot of music outside the loudness war stuff. People just don't know about it. I think the amount of butchered music is much less than 90 %. Maybe 90 % of the music you know is butchered?
@@pojuantsalo3475 Usually classic and Jazz suffers less (which is low % of music) but the rest, 90%. Don't worry, i listen to many many styles of music (ex DJ multi-style and audiophile). Really good sound recording / mixing are much too rare... Usually, Japanese do a better job in general, think for example of Three Blind Mice. There is Chesky and others too. But as i said, very low % of the whole bunch...
@@pojuantsalo3475...oh and for "lower dynamic space", no need to lower dynamic in source material, just use DSP on the end device, let the user decice for christ's sake...
@@guyboisvert66 The higher you rise the bar the fewer releases will live up to the standard. That's life. My own music taste allows me to avoid loudness war a lot, but I understand people with different taste can suffer from it much more. Doesn't mean I don't care. Loudness war has been a sad example of how optimising stupidly the wrong thing can cause a lot of damage elsewhere.
Mr Mike!!!
Here is what you missed!!!
Combine (Volumio+SMSL.PL200) then add the SACDISO patch ( try it with $ 30 usb bluray) now you have a set-up for the future for under $1000.00
Ok, I want you to do me a favor. Contact the folks at SMSL. Tell them you demand I review the PL200 and I will gladly do it.
@@audioarkitekts Doing it now!!
Looks to me they making a big come back
the number of new SACD releases worldwide is relatively stable for the last decade or so....at least 500 new SACD releases worldwide each year. There were at least 300 new SACD releases worldwide in the first 6 months of 2024. There have been more than over 17,000 SACD releases worldwide since the format debuted over 25 years ago.
Streaming sucks - a fad that hopefully goes away
'dwarfs' CD 🤣 - another blind test avoiding Nyquest denier
I stop buying them when I saw there isnt any option for the digital format to be converted within your free will.
I found your video alarming and have a number of comments to make about it. Firstly, have you been to Acoustic Sounds recently and checked its SACD catalogue? You might be pleasantly surprised at the range on offer and the number of pop/rock bands that feature - and the list is growing all the time. For example, all the Steely Dan albums are being released on SACD and I am in the process of buying them and the ones I already have are all wonderful. However it was the rest of the video that I found bewildering. It was as if you were going out of your way to belittle the format by pointing out that, for example, the sound quality might be compromised by poor mastering techniques.That will apply to every format, be it vinyl, CD or SACD. Sure, one does have to buy a special player to play the discs but it is possible to buy a good player without breaking the bank. As for the cost of the discs, it is appreciably less than the cost of new vinyl. Here in New Zealand, CDs and SACDs sell for the same price. However, I will admit that the Acoustic Sounds SACDs are a little on the expensive side, but I still think they are worth it. To sum up, I think your video was unfair on the format and I was very disappointed. I also noted that you have axe to grind with a company and I don't think that has anything to do with the virtues, or otherwise, of SACD as a format either.
This format was never succeed. Fortunately I never bought.. still buy cds
let me guess: only a dozen were ever pressed, and you already own five of them.
how close am i
A dozen what? There are thousands of titles on SACD. I only own a couple of SACDs which will probably end up on ebay or Discogs here soon.
The format is overpriced. Blu ray with uncompressed master audio and a movie is cheaper. And arguably, as good. Second: SACD/DSD can be a hollow promise. I have had a few SACD's with a lame mastering. Redbook sounded better, especially since newer DAC's and stand alone dacs are better than most SACD DAC system.. I had the flagship Sony scd-1 and it was a dud. There is only a small slice of the market even on SACD. I don't want to be limited to some obscure jazz or classical recording. I have lost interest in this overhyped and overpriced niche format.
I have ONE SACD. And I wish I had none. Apart from my old Sony DVD player, nothing will play them. Will probably replace the recording (It was Tony Bennett) with Vinyl.
I have had and still have equipment that can play SACDs, but I have never owned an SACD. The reason I have never owned an SACD is because I had a feeling it would be short-lived and not that popular and it turns out I was correct. SACD barely even made it off the ground and did not last long (about 2 to 3 years roughly). So why did I have and still have equipment that can handle them? Simple, it just come that way at the time. I have a Denon multi regional DVD player that also plays CD, SACD, DVDs from anywhere in the world and has every hook up there is. It was actually one of the best players there was at the time. The thing must be on about 30 years old now and still works. In fact, it works better than my Sony BR player, which has almost no hook ups and only plays DVDs and BR discs and of course, functions like a POS Sony product.
My Marantz ND8006 is also capable of playing SACD.
I agree. There are quite a few players within the used market that can play it. Finding something new for a reasonable price is another thing.
SACD will be celebrating its 25th anniversary in May 2024.
Probably the same Denon I had. Laser died on it. So look after it.
@@whssy Mine is in the closet waiting in the wings. Right now I am using a piece of crap Sony BR player.
Unless you get access to a better mix on SACD, the CD is already better than your ears... so SACD as a format is totally useless: Marketing hype, that's what it is. "Better Resolution" is really not that, it just changes the noise floor, which is, on CD, again, better than your ears. Engineering basic DSP sub-grad course. Ref: Alan V. Oppenheimer - Discrete-Time Signal Processing and Monty Mongomery very good video on the subject th-cam.com/video/cIQ9IXSUzuM/w-d-xo.html
SACD, DVD-Audio and Blu-Ray Audio are all dead formats now.
Tbh, CD is good enough, unless you want multichannel audio.
SACD and Blu-ray Audio are still alive and kicking. SACD alone had over 550 new releases worldwide in 2023.
Hey Mike, all good points. I'm definitely doing the Van Halen (first 6 with David Lee Roth) as they come out. But ya not too much to pick from and really pricey as well. Great video once again. Have a great week.