SACD VERSUS STREAMING SERVICE - Which Sounds The Best? 

If you want me to do more comparisons of SACD Versus Streaming in a controlled environment, this is your opportunity to make this possible by liking AND SUBSCRIBING plus share this video in all forums or website you visit. The more likes and subscribers I see because of this video, the more willing I am to give you another comparison like this!

WIth all due respect, it would be a much better comparison strictly of the digital source if the Taiko streamer had its digital out feeding the DAC in the Esoteric. Then both would be using the same Esoteric DAC to better compare disc vs. streaming. The way you did it you've got the difference between the CH and Esoteric DACs also thrown into the comparison.

Presentation 1 * More details, cold, clear. * Boosted highs, bright, sharp. * More air, added shimmer Presentation 2 * Warmer sound, more neutral. * More bass but not enough. * Rolled off highs, less details. * Less fatiguing. Which one is streaming? Which one is physical media? I have no clue... but I prefer presentation 2 over presentation 1.

Presentation 1: Qobuz presentation 2 : SACD

I listened to the test on a 15K ultra-high-end electrostatic headphone system to discern a difference. The microphone is the main limitation of this test. The microphone can not translate the micro details of your ultra-revealing system. For a much better comparison, we need to use a much better microphone, or two of them in stereo at 24-bit depth.

The SACD is King, and your system is ABSOLUTELY OUTSTANDING 💯 👌 ❗️❗️

Jay, I can clearly detect a difference between the two. They do not sound the same. Presentation 1, in my judgement, sounds more dynamic, transparent with greater extension. Presentation 2 appears somewhat rolled-off at the top-end, less dynamic and more midrange specific.

This is amazing. That is NOT the SACD release of Brothers in Arms, it’s a standard CD, remastered in 1996. The SACD, which was labeled as the “20th Anniversary Edition” was not released in the US, but could be imported (I own one), but it had a revised cover with the steel guitar photo going edge to edge with no border at all, and it says “20th AnniversaryEdition” on it. So, the one you have in your hand is NOT it. Actually, MFSL also released an SACD, but it came in a small paper gatefold sleeve, so this is clearly NOT it either. The beauty is the authority and certainty with which the commenters profess to know the difference. In fact, there may be a real quantifiable difference, because we don’t know which mastering the streaming version is using. BUT, regardless, there is no SACD in this comparison stunt.

Presentation #1 is brighter, sharper, and lighter while presentation #2 is a bit muffled but denser. This must not come from the source but from the use of two different DACs: the one from the Esoteric player versus the CH Precision. It would have been necessary to *compare the 2 sources (SACD and Streamer) through the same DAC* (for example the Esoteric DAC, since this player can also behave as a simple DAC). ;)

Streaming services tend to boost the top end and bottom end to create a more euphoric effect. That will work in mid-ranged systems, but will not go well with higher-end systems. Whatever you hear from the CD is a more accurate presentation of the music.

Presentation # 2 for the win!

It’s so close. 1. Streaming, 2. SACD.

You can support what platform you want and I have no problem with that. I’m a physical media guy. I believe in physical media whether it is LPs, CDs, or tape media. We have choices now. Choose your own way, but enjoy your music your way and in good health.

Both presentation sounds much better than Dire Straits live. Thank you Jay.

Nice review Jay! I just inserted my (non-SACD) Brothers in Arms CD to hear So far Away, into my $320 Yamaha CD-S300 player, through my vintage 1977 Sansui Receiver, and my Klipsch Heresy III's, and without any exaggeration, sounds pretty amazing!

Interesting comparison. I do think you need to use the same DAC for each though. I’d love to see you compare a high res file stored on your server vs the same high res track on tidal. Same format, DAC, everything but the location of the file is the only difference

Hi Jay, been watching your channel for a long time. love this kind comparisons. To my ear 2 is the sacd. As of your video, especially the comparison series, i have something to say. Somebody else already mentioned, the mic you use limited the sound quality of your video. One of my friend using the Sonus Faber Amati + whole Mcintosh set up , and simply using his samsung mobile phone to record the video and get some pretty good video. I have tried to reply what he recorded and some of those recording playback is even batter then I play the music directly from my system. Maybe give it a try to just use the build-in mic to record the music playback and the external mic to record your voice?

Hi Jay, Brothers in Arms was recorded in the Studio at 44.1\16 it was the first album to ever be done like this so both the streaming and SACD would have had to have been upsampled. Please do this again with different source material ❤

Listening through my rig, No: 1 has more air and seperation, possibly slightly more nuance in performance but all served up on a digital platform. Whereas No: 2 sounds more realistic with heft, particularly on the drums.

Number 2 has much more depth in it as far as vocals and just a bit more bass. Number one is much too bright. I would say number 1 is streamed and number 2 is the SACD.

If you got a dCS Vivaldi One Apex player, can directly compare its SACD playback against the network streaming, as you are using the same internal DAC and interconnect cables. Also, I would pick a hybrid SACD/CD that is based on the same digital recording. That way, you avoid comparing the re-mastering by different engineers at different times. Thanks.

Number 2 was better for me. I was listening to stock Honda Accord speakers, while driving 65 mph to work via Bluetooth lol. Number one sounded too bright.

I played the same experiment many times at home and also with the same album, because I have it in vinyl, cassette, MD, CD, SACD, file and streaming. My gear is far away from that incredible equipment. In any case there are several questions should be changed to compare correctly. First, you should use the same DAC for both sources. It is also very important for compare “sources” than the recording and mastering are the same in both SACD and streaming. That means, if you play a SACD you should stream a DSD file in a platform able to do that, or compare simply regular CD with same mastering file in streaming. And the last, but important, it’s that just when Insee the CD case, I quite sure this isn’t the SACD version, it seams one of the remastered regular CD versions. Could you please clarify that point?

Hey jay, to me, There is a difference. The 1 sounds edgier and more digitally and the 2 sounds slightly warmer with less hot highs, i like the 2.

#2 sounds cleaner and more musical! Hope this is the SACD. I have the Japanese SACD version and it sounds amazing in my system I love it

Number 2 - More bass and warmer sound than number 1. Number 2 is the SACD.

Presentation 1 sounds cold and clinical.

I did not expect that much of a difference.. It's so obvious! Presentation 1 is way more brittle and 2 is more full and natural, but the ride cymbal doesn't even exist. The highs are cut of in P2. It's more about personal preference in my opinion.

Without question, your mic into RU-vid processing, from my PC thru DP to my monitor's DAC output's mini jack to my NAD 1300 as a headphone amp into my ATH-50M, #2 has more body. And slightly less zing.

I listened to the 2 presentations through my system via airplay and I prefer the #2 a little richer in harmonics on my system but the 2 are very close. It might have been necessary to use a single dac the ch precision for example to be able to compare streaming and cd/sacd support in a better way.

Jay, first time commenting, although I really enjoy your videos. #2 works for me, fuller warmer sound. I'll go against the grain, and guess #1 is the SACD. Listening on my garage setup RSL iA255.1 powering a pair of Sansui XP-9700's.

Number 2 is clearly SACD.

Most people do not know anything about sound, so they do not understand audio. Using USB for streaming you will always lose a lot of layers. Even with the most expensive separate DACs you will hear the same outcome. By using a CD player with an inbuilt DAC, you will have the advantage of using the inbuilt DAC. It will give you more layers. To do a good comparison you need the same DAC. Being played the same way. When you use a streamer with an inbuilt DAC, it will be a lot better during streaming. Always stream at the same level. So SACD vs DSD.

Presentation 2 is a warmer than 1...I would guess that 1 is the Esoteric and 2 is stream ing

#2 SACD My vote. I have the same SACD player, btw. #1 is too brighter compared to #2. Cant wait to know which is which.

I'll probably be embarrassed but I'll go with Presentation 2 as the SACD.

My impressions: Setup 1. Definitely more ‘digital’ sounding than Setup 2. A less fuller sound than Setup2. Bass is tight but no as full. Setup 2. Fuller sounding, definitely warmer sound. Bass is a bit ‘supple’ compared to Setup 1. To me, this sounds a hair ‘colored’ for my taste but then again Setup 1 is a hair on the ‘cold’ ‘digital’ side of neutral. Which is better than the other? This will depend on the listener’s preferences and equipment matching etc. Personally, I feel the ‘true’ sound of that track lies between the two options you presented. I think most listeners would prefer setup 2 because it would avoid listening fatigue. 😊

Both very similar.... But for me #2 But I could be happy with either.

Both had their differences. As far as what is a difference, what each one sounds like being superior to the original CD version at lower resolution. Number one my guess is the SACD being more distinct on the guitar strings and synthesizer notes. Number two, which I prefer, my guess is streaming being more rounded at higher resolutions with more reverberance but more details - more relaxing to listen to. Vice versa for the other where the old feel of clarity is refreshing to hear but sounds a lot better than original CD sound is. The breaks where it sounds good are at different parts of the song due to the different instruments being played. One sounds better than the other but only at certain parts - the start of instrumental at the beginning and the end of chorus and lyrics.

2 sounded fuller, so I would guess that 2 was the SACD.

1- much crisper. Better soundstage. 2- rolls off. Upper midsection lack for me. Thx for the comparison

Presentation #2 is the one that I do prefer

Presentation #1 was clearly brighter sounding with a thinner sound. Presentation #2 was smoother and seemed quieter in the midst of the music. Hard to explain, but #2 was much better to me. Looking forward to find out which component is presentation #1 and #2. We’d have to test multiple SACD players and streamers to conclude which source is the best. I say that because these particular brands that you are testing may sound better or worse up against different streamers and SACD players. This shootout is still worth it because you are working with the brands you have in hand and it’s a fun experiment! Thanks!

Can't understand how anyone can take solid state and digital so seriously. It all sounds like metallic music to me. With that money Jay could buy a reference quality Kuzma table and arm. The problem with vinyl is that it costs a lot to get really good sound. If you look at a digital music waveform there is high frequency riding over the signal whether it's sacd,cd, streaming. I guess that noise bothers me. I do enjoy streaming for discovering new music and judging sound quality. I also always enjoy Jays channel regardless of source. It's enjoyable and he goes out of his way to involve the viewer

Prefer the presentation #2.Presentation #1 is bright,clear and more to highs less on lows.

CD wins hands down

#2 SACD, #1 Qobuz Cool comparison... I like to do the same with Lumin U2 (Qobuz/Tidal), McIntosh MC12000 SACD, Technics SL1200G Ortofon Black MM and in theory the SACD should win but I prefer the turntable, then the SACD then the streamer...

2 👉 SACD 1 👉 Streaming 2 is more airy, more open, sounds more wet, detailed, 1 sounds more controlled, reserved, is limited on what it can give… In metaphor, I would compare SACD as a direct drive , motor to wheel power delivery system.. While streaming is a belt drive power delivery system…where the signal/source is coming from a remote source then gets processed for optimum signal or sound SACD is a direct source while Streaming is indirect…coming from remote source and the result can only get as good as the source where it’s coming from

Nr. 1 is more detailed, more open, but also a bit sharper, hence more fatiguing, Nr. 2 is smoother, not as airy, but probably more enjoyable in longer listening sessions It may well be that the "sharpness" of Nr.1 is caused by RU-vid compression.

Presentation 2 has more bass extension and better definition, presentation 1 is just airier, would prefer the 2.

It would make more sense to connect the Taiko to the Esoteric and perform this test. Here we are using two differerent dacs. CD, SACD and local files still sound a little better than Tidal, but it is getting close. A lot depends on the network setup before the network transport - quality switch, good power supplies, good ethernet cables - then you can get quite close to local files.

I could tell after hearing 1/2 repeatedly that 2 has some artifacts in upper frequencies, that usually associated with streaming. I have not heard the final results but I am sticking with my opinion.

Both are excellent- minimal differences

The difference in sound is minimum, I could hear just in the timing a difference, so for me. Presentation 1 is sacd and 2 is streaming.

Number 1 - sounds livelier, more brighter and detailed. More airy sounding than the 2nd presentation, which sounded warmer, thicker and not as airy and open.

I used a similar setup to do the test, however using the same DAC with both sources: Qobuz and SACD. Qobuz unfortunately only has this album in CD quality. The SACD album is superior. I dumped Tidal after I had the chance to sign to Qobuz and in the month I had both, even in the car I could tell the difference even in MP3 quality (unbelievable, right?). As already said in other comments, although Brother in Arms is one of the best remastered pop rock albums of all time, it's far from revealing on what DSD is capable of. IMHO Qobuz is the best streaming service for anyone wanting a decent hires streaming service. But until the next generation of streaming service launches DSD on-the-air, SACD and DSD downloads are still the #1 in terms of quality.

@1:00 even tho sub isn’t connected, it does have a massive neodymium magnet. I’d say you should find a better placement for the external power supply. I know it’s nearly impossible to find space considering the amount of electronics you have 😂

I would say 1 sacd 2 streaming, the reason I find the 2nd compressed sound .

Jay, in general the experiment is a good one, however in your configuration, you're comparing apples with oranges. Someone in your comments may have already mentioned this but just in case. The best (though not 100% perfect), though considerably better than your current setup, is to do a comparison between the SACD in your Esoteric compared to your streamer outputting digitally straight into the Esoteric's digital-in port. That way at least your DACs are the same for playback and you'd truly be comparing SACD vs. Streaming.. by introducing CHPrecision into the equation, you're no longer doing a comparison between streaming and SACD, only but between CH and Esoteric DAC and an added confusion about the digital chain.

Both sounds amazing. 2 is a more controlled sound that's all I can say

Presentation 2 sounds better...so i think presentation 2 is SACD.. One of the best sounding multichannel SACD by the way (20th anniversary edition)

You're listening to it on one of the most awesome sound systems I've ever seen and you want me to compare it on my iPhone.

1 sounds more detailed bigger more dynamic, 2 sounds muddy veiled compressed lower rez here on my Sony 83” OLED

I like the approach and the video. Listening thru a PC, Audio Engine usb thumb stick DAC, Audio Engine 2+ pc speakers here. I found there was a significant difference between the sound of case 1 and case 2, preferring, case 2 by a margin ( bass, more open sound stage, timbre, and clarity, ..). Given I'm only listening thru my PC, I suspect suspect the differences your hearing on site are sizable and significant. Suspect case 2 is SACD. Appreciate your efforts.

presentation 2. sacd is more quiet . less noise and warmer. 1 is bright and with more detail.

Hard for me to tell much of a difference but I prefer no.2

Presentation 1 sounds crisp and clean. I can hear everything in the music. Presentation 2 sounds great, but relatively flat. Guess: Preso1: SACD, Preso2: streaming

P1 sounded more "airy" and more dynamic, most of the time.

This album sounds very digital. It was recorded in a studio as a digital master. So it is no matter do you play it album via SACD or qobuz or tidal it does not sound as analog. But i tell you Jay SACD or normal CD still sounds better than any streaming service. Cause the signal goes from SACD transport to the DAC it is still shorter than signal from internet streaming service. That is the reality Jay.

1 is SACD and 2 is streaming. Streaming has always sounded warmer in my system too.

Y’all, I’m waving red flags here! The version of Brothers in Arms in his hand is not the SACD version, it’s a regular CD version- the remastered edition that came out in 1996! I’m sure it’s an honest mistake on his part, but it’s job number one to use the SACD in an SACD comparison.

Hi Jay thanks for the time and effort, it seems to me that playing at your level of components must be scary it's like listening with magnifying glass so revealing that it can show how and I quote"how horrible how terrible"😉qobuz sounds compared to sacd, so my question is that you use this setup for your own personal listening session's or you mix and match maybe the preamp or the speaker cable to sound a little bit more forgiving or you just skip the bad recording and stay with the top notch components? Thanks again

There is an obvious difference. I prefer #2 (SACD)

Is the qobuz version a remaster? Its not a matter of medium. Its a matter of different masters

1 has so much more information over 2 and I didn‘t use a headphone but PC speakers only….

#2 SACD #1 Streamer

I preferred #2. The #1 seemed a bit harder in the treble. #2 was a bit richer, so I will call that the SACD.

Version 2 has for me slightly more body (but in a natural way, not overdoing it), less brightness/glean/sheen in the top end (tells me there is a little bit more high frequency noise present in version 1) and a more natural and convincing of a real performance. I put your comparison on my dedicated headphone listenintg setup so I am listening to this comparison through some proper quality stuff (despite obviously all the challenges that come with a yt comparison). Also marked down my impressions right while listening without overthinking to not make anything up and give my immediate thought response what came right to my mind while having the comparison on just one single time doing your "live commentary" style you always do. So I assume that version 2 is the SACD version which tells me that doing digital right these days actually delivers some impressive performance since your system is at a crazy high level and way more than what most folks use in their homes. However, at this level you are playing literally everything matters and it can be seen. While I believe version 2 being the SACD it would be amazing if version 2 (to me the clearly better sounding one) were the digital one which would mean that goint the Taiko Extreme Route one could get to top these days with all the convenience of streaming. :-) I hope my comment was somehow helpful to you Jay, this is by far the most useful comparison I've ever witnessed on your channel.

Both are great ..but 1 is my slight preference…vocal presence.😊

Number 1 streaming, number 2 sacd

Presentation 2 SACD to my ears

1 Is a bad streaming network. 2. Is SACD. Check out Alpha audio on streaming networks. I have gone from a ethernet cable from the wall to my streamer to the following - 1. A dedicated power line from fuse box 2. A good power filter and quality power cable. 3. Change all cheap psu to say Sboosters or better on your Fiber converter, router and switch. 4. Use as less ethernet cables as possible, replace long distances with Fiber. 5. Use only high quality ethernet cables, I have 3 Siltech royal signature ethernet for example. 6. Buy a good switch.

Pointless A to B comparison. They need to be both run through the same DAC. Could care less and its meaningless what viewers on RU-vid can discern. I would like to hear Jays opinion..... except he's more concerned with noting the price of items and not very good at the technical or aural analysis.

I'll trust your ears Jay as the sound thru my PC is less than revealing, to say the least. As for which does an individual prefer, for me I enjoy disc spinning as it encourages me to sit down, slow down and enjoy the music.

Both displayed very good dynamic presentation .The second sample displayed more extended highs and a bit brighter presentation . Ultimately the first sample sounded better in that it sounded more laid back , but still maintained dynamic integrity and transparency . I'm not sure which is SACD or streamed .

I have a few comments to this test. To make a test like this it’s important than both media goes through the same DAC, you use the same quality cables from the same manufacture. Otherwise the results more or less show differents between the used electronics and not between the different medias.. That is my experience over the last many years..

Sound two is better , more warm

There was a difference for sure, but not a huge one I think. I liked the 2) best. Sounded more open and had more depth. So what is what? Guessing, I think 1) is Quboz and 2) SACD - looking forward to hear what you like best, Jay. Thanks for this challange, very intersting!

They're definitely different. I couldn't honestly say which is "better" as I'm listening thru a Canton soundbase.

Presentation #1 is my choice. Because more open in the high frequency. Its airy, extended, open, unweighted & transparent. All my preferences are there!! Presentation # 2 less airy, slight a bit dark in the high frequency, soft in the bass, little bit denser, separation not as good as presentation # 1 yada....yada!!😂 So #1 for me, Jay😊

One is thinner, two has more body and expansiveness. BTW, I always thought the quality of Brothers In Arms was overrated. So typically 80’s overproduced sound to my ears.

Presentation 1, brighter more revealing. Presentation 2, less bright, warmer sounding. I think number 2 is sacd🤔 Fun test Jay😁👍

I have a question for Jay: I never understood why you are playing back from streaming services like Tidal or Qobuz. Playing your own digital files from your local server on a NAS sounds incomparably better compared to streaming. Of course, this implies owning the music since Tidal does not allow you to download to a NAS. However it is the same with CD/SACD, ownership is a prerequisite. I think the real test here would be NAS vs SACD.

Your are the man! thank you jay!

Jay, whatever vote result, this test really is just a poll around preference for the mastering being used. There are many remasters of Brothers In Arms, which one was it that you used for the SACD and which master was it on Tidal? Even barring that important information, we're only listening to the sound captured through your mic and then lossy transmitted over RU-vid. Whatever "hi-res" the SACD is imparting will be totally made moot. So the bottom line: - If this test is one of preference, volume matched, for "better sounding" mastering either through that SACD vs. TIdal, then you'll maybe get your answer. - If this test if of DSD64/SACD vs. Tidal lossless PCM, then I'm afraid there remains too many variable to make this a valid apples-to-apples test.

I prefer presentation number 2, it sounds more natural. So which one is the SACD?

Stockfisch “dmm” sacd’s are as good as the format gets…. Listen to Chris Jones’ “No Sanctuary” and you’ll wanna buy it! 👋🏻🇬🇧

Jay you are brilliant here. Thank you. Ofcourze DSD SACD is far better than high bit rate PCM streaming. Same can be said about Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon 🌙 30 th anniversary SACD vs 50 th Anniversary Atmos TrueHD Blu-ray. The SACD is superior. Same as the Wish You Were Here Sony SACD. In additon good SACDs like Brother in Arms and Pink Floyd have mulitchannel DSD track too. Which will blow away Apple Spatial garbage.

Presentation number 1 sounds better to me

Presentation #2 is obviously much better it must be sacd