Super Audio CD - worth it in 2018? 

The reason why there is a lot of classic rock is because there are a lot of quadraphonic sound masters from the 70s that can converted to digital and pressed onto an SACD pretty quickly.

Mobile Fidelity is a label that specializes in remastering classic LPs from the original analog masters. The sound quality of their releases is usually amazing. They are currently releasing the Eagles catalog on vinyl and SACD. They fully embrace SACD and actively support the format. If you're looking for SACD or vinyl titles, I highly recommend them.

Interesting video. I have been buying SACDs since 2003 and I must say that this format has given me many hours of sonic pleasure. Issues I have had with this format? Zero! Over the years I have seen my collection grow and I have upgraded my hi-fi components.

I don't care for surround. Good old fashioned stereo with PROPER speakers that DON'T require a sub-woofer to produce lows is good enough for me.

One nit: most dvd players do not support dvd-audio. Dvd-audio was a competing audiophile format to SACD but using PCM instead of DSD. Many Dvd-audio discs also included a compatibility segment using standard dvd. That's why these releases work in standard dvd players. However you're hearing dolby digital and not the true dvd-audio tracks. The BD audio format does not have this issue since the audio tracks are in the standard for Blu ray.

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

DRM, not even once.

Can we just get rid of DRM already?

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

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

Best and easiest (and economical) way to get a surround disc music set up: Sony AV Receiver with DSD Direct > HDMI < Sony Blu-ray player (UBP-X800M2). Plays all surround disc formats and allows for native DSD playback.

Ive been into it from day 1.....quite a collection of SACDs ..... Bought a OPPO years ago analog 5.1....Parasound preamp.....reel to reel ...still use my Dual 1229...still for like going on30 years+ still play em all....its great

Mastering is always overlooked and it annoys me that some of my favorite music gets over compressed and becomes a headache to listen to without using a sound level plugin that decreases the overall volume by 7-10dB for my music player. CD-quality audio is also just fine for nearly 99.9999999% of the human population for stereo, but I hope Blu Ray Audio can gain more traction with a lot of my favorite artists.

Factoid, stereo means 'solid' not two. A good stereo places sounds in 3D space with up and down and front to back as well as left and right.

"Your brain pieces these individual samples back together to make music, in basically the same way it does for video that's made up of static frames." No, your Digital-to-Analog-Converter interpolates/oversamples/filters the samples and converts them to a continuous analog signal, so that it may be fed to analog equipment, like speakers and headphones.

The NiN disc is one of the best. The 5.1 surround changes the music in very interesting ways. I really don't understand why more music didn't go in this direction at least for experimentation if nothing else.

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

Great informative video, I have a Yamaha DVD-S1700 which plays DVD, SACD and CD, it has a HDMI output for the DVD and a multi channel output for the SACD, I use it through a Yamaha amp, I play "The War Of The Worlds" on SACD and make sure I sit in the middle of the sound field, oh man does it blow me away, I find it amazing to listen to it up loud and with the lights off!!

Great Video! Thanks for sharing this, however: 3:38 -> your brain doesn't piece the samples together, that's what the DAC (Digital to Analog Converter) is for.

This comparison setup is all but right: using small home theater graded speakers, a basic receiver and a couple used and beaten players? It is like trying to judge a Tesla car driving it on the farm and then declaring that there is no difference between it and the old grandma's chevy.

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

I was fortunate enough to get into SACD earlier when it was just peaking in the market, and the selection of discs and players was greater. I used the multichannel analog inputs on my receiver from day 1. DSotM was my first SACD and first multichannel SACD, and the experience was phenomenal. I got it all hooked up about 2 in the morning and was like Wow! this is what a stereo is supposed to sound like. I have since acquired Dire Straits' Brothers In Arms which is if anything better yet and in 5.1 as well. Oh my speakers are not a box system, Design Acoustics PS-10 with Morel woofers boxes converted to ported instead of sealed and new crossovers. Also supertweeters added, and a Klipsch subwoofer. I'm using a Cambridge CXU all in one player. I used it with my onkyo receiver through hdmi, which worked fine but i wanted to see what the players converters sounded like. I hooked it to my old Denon receiver which has multichannel analog inputs. That also removes any DSD to PCM conversion. I like this setup the best. You might be running into version differences in your various hdmi components when it won't play.

Fantastic watch mate! This video should be used as a template for folks who want to make video reviews that are informative to boot. Simple, practical & lucid. You nailed every thing on my list that makes a video supremely amazing in this genre. The best 21 minutes I spent on RU-vid in a long time.

While I don't disagree with anything you've said, I have found that overcoming the hurdles of all the modern surround formats to be worth the rewards of having a very large and enjoyable collection of surround sound music. As you said, it shouldn't be this difficult, but the fine folks on the QuadraphonicQuad forum have helped tremendously.

Nine Inch Nails on SACD? WHY?!

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

I've been an audiophile for awhile. You mainly focus on SACD as a surround format for regular small kit speakers. One note about DSD decoding is that I've seen many new Denon and Sony receivers list DSD decoding. It has always been a task, though, to try to get a transport that can output DSD (without spending $30,000+ on player and amp). My primary SACD player is a high end stereo model that has optical out for CD (and for CD, its DAC can upsample to 192khz), and analog stereo output for SACD. If I listen through speakers, I keep it stereo through my full range towers. For critical listening, I also have a high end tube headphone amplifier. I'm a bit of a purist in that I've found that "the best medium" depends on mastering. I've collected classic rock albums on vinyl, as I found CD masters could be coming from the 80s: where they reduced the dynamics to eliminate tape hiss. With the double blind study that was conducted for CD vs SACD, there was a note that there was a perceived difference in noise floors. I started collecting SACDs for live classical music: classical is the main genre that has had titles natively recorded on DSD. Most rock titles have come from different masters, converted to DSD (so it's more questionable about any clear difference). With a good classical SACD, I do hear a good soundstage and great dynamics. One recording I have is Ravel's Bolero: I saw a vid from Techmoan where he showed a backwards playing Bolero record (because a record's dynamics can actually improve with the outer portion of a record...and that particular piece starts off extremely quiet and then gradually gets loud). Some of the SACD titles I've collected are now out of print: one that could be a sonic treat for surround is Bach's The Four Great Toccatas and Fugues (recorded with 4 separate organs in a cathedral...that can dip below 10hz). For the best quality, I'd listen through my SACD player....but if I want to listen to the SACD surround track, I can listen through an Oppo player that converts to PCM (A/Bing them, the converted PCM doesn't sound nearly as good though). There's still some classical SACDs coming out, but there is a much larger collection of CDs out there....there's also artists and interpretations that I prefer that might be on CD. I also enjoy live blu-ray concerts (many are in high-res). I do think it's rather asinine to debate DSD vs high res PCM: they're both intended to be able to produce higher harmonics for faithful sound reproduction: and a well mastered album will do that (PCM or DSD). I do agree about the "loudness wars", but with rock, that isn't new: raising loudness and compressing was started in the 80s. So in short, how the music is engineered is one of the most important aspects: as well as getting the best medium for that particular title/artist you're looking for.

I bought a home theater in a box system years ago that also could play SACD - the Sony DAV-FR1. The SACD was a bonus and I figured if I liked it I would by a couple of SACD's and enjoy them in 5.1 surround. Because of this I never had the compatibility issues since the player, receiver and amp were all in one unit. Since the system was Sony it decoded the SACD's, amped it and sent it out on the analog speaker outs - no DRM issues. So I never knew there was issues with this. I still enjoy putting in a SACD from time to time, sitting in the middle of all the speakers and just listening to an entire album like I used to back in high school.

Absolutely, yes 👍 Working in a studio environment for years has taught me the value of high quality uncompressed sound. I find only people who have never experienced what genuine high end recordings sound like played back on a high resolution system, and of course those with cloth ears, or just don't care, will object or not hear/see the stunning quality possible. SACD, CD's will get you closer to the master, but (yep there is one) avoid badly mastered recordings on CD ... High compression sparked a loudness war, which thankfully is changing. Read reviews and look out for new releases with natural dynamics. Even older issues are now being given TLC. Some of this change is due to the popularity in an old format returning - vinyl 😉

Once you get past the loudness wars, a standard CD is gonna sound just as good as you need. Just don't crush the dynamic range. Or else it'll sound bad on any format.

A few years late here. But from my exsperiance. You need extreamly resolving equipment to hear higher bitrate quality. The higher amount of detail, dynamic range, and speed, your equipment can handle the more information will be sent into sound.

SACD has two advantages: The discs support CD-Text, which can be displayed on the unit itself, and they don’t have a menu system like DVD-Audio or BD-Audio, so you don’t need a TV.

I have a number of albums on SACD and DVD-Audio! Some of my favorites are 'Rumours', 'Running on Empty', and of course Dark Side. On Rumours you can hear Lindsay Buckingham's guitar and Christine McVie's keyboards *much* more clearly than on the standard stereo release. If you have a hi-fi system, high-fidelity music mixed in a surround setup sounds really nice!

There’s nothing as rewarding as multi-channel SACD. Buy an OPPO UDP-203 and enjoy any media on any legacy analog or modern digital amplification. Best multi-channel SACDs:: Living Stereo 3 channel classical recordings at $10 to $15 on Amazon. One more thing, BD multi-channel could possibly be really great; but, for the most part, there's no record label out there putting out anything other than concert videos. So, as it is now, multi-channel and stereo SACD are the defacto State-Of-The-Art in music listening pleasure. Finally, Diana Krall's Love Scenes is a multi-channel SACD I highly recommend. It is a quite novel surround experience and is also an ideal recording for use in making proper subwoofer adjustments.

As a custom high end a/v design and installer with many years of experience with SACD I can tell you that it is wonderful with a high end player using the analog multichannel outputs. HDMI sucks period, it was not designed to be a high quality interface, it was designed to protect profits for the industry. We have constant issues with it whenever more than one than two devices are connected together. Another reason it what's developed was to force consumers to purchase new equipment after the market was saturated with flat panel TVs. You can no longer hookup anything made and sold today on a tv more than 12 years old, nor can you connect non HDMI devices to most new tv models because they only give HDMI inputs. Consumers were screwed by HDMI, and by the way HD component video will always give you better color tone and definition than HDMI. We have done side by side comparisons with several blu Ray players, cable and satellite boxes as well as PS3 and xbox360. Component video beat HDMI every time.

I got a converted - multi-regional Sony 3D Blu-Ray player a couple years ago for a little over hundred bucks on Amazon and when I got it, to my surprise, I discovered that it played SACD CDs, a benefit I wasn't even aware of until I got the player. I got a couple SACD CDs and their impressive but they didn't blow me away. Like every thing else, it's all in the mastering of the source material. I also own a DVD Audio player that to me, sounds better than the SACD format IMHO. I think the two formats are very similar but actually work differently in the ways they produce sound. I just listen to my movies and music through the blue tooth connection that came in my 3D Blu-Ray player, it has nothing to do with the connection to my Sony 3D Flat Screen. Great video, thanks

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

The loudness war does seem to be the real reason why old vinyl sounds much better. I have found that many new vinyls are still being mastered with a better dynamic range than digital formats. Even hi-res 88/96kHz 24bit releases can be brickwalled and often un-listenable which is ridiculous. The loudness wars are a real problem, I've been only listening to SACD and hires digitized vinyl to get around it. I don't have any experience with blu-ray audio and the dynamic range that gets mastered onto them yet. Great video on SACD, thanks.

The ability for SA-CD to playback in 5.1 is what originally attracted me to the format. I’d listen to the stereo layer first to compare to a standard cd or if I didn’t have anything to compare with I’d simply listen for quality of the recordings and how it was being reproduced on my system. As some of you already know, when you start listening to your system in this critical manner, it gets expensive. My opinion on SA-CD 5.1 is that some really good, a few have been amazing and, quite a few are not good(sound like rushed mastering)Also, many sacd releases don’t have 5.1. Some only use the front 3 channels, some don’t have the .1 for subwoofer output, they all have stereo out. I’ve been using 2 channel system for many years now and I appreciate knowing that many of my sacd can play in surround but I don’t need to hear it. I appreciate how sacd has inspired me to listen to genres of music I’d normally pass on. My most memorable experience with sacd 5.1 was with a classical recording. It was recorded using 5 microphones arranged like 5.0 placement in center of concert hall. My lights were off, volume knob was up, I’m alone in my listening chair. A few minutes into listening I suddenly freaked the f out because without a doubt someone was sitting and breathing right next to me. I actually had to get up and turn the light on to make sure there wasn’t. That’s when you know your speakers are placed correctly.

I once had a copy of Jeff Wayne's War Of the Worlds 5.1 SACD. I lost one of the disks and I have searched for another ever since. The sound was utterly stunning and the 5.1 mix really brought it back to life like no other format.

It actually goes even deeper than the hardware. It really comes down to what the original master is and who/how they are remastering it. Early SACD releases like Journey Greatest and Michael Jackson's Thriller were pretty big rush jobs and you can barely tell the difference between the SACD and CD. The Police had their albums remastered into SACD by AM Records and they sounded very week. However, they were also remastered in Japan using the SHM-SACD format and they sound incredible. SHM is supposedly using a different type of material to make the CD sound better. Actually, many of the Japan remasters sound better then what was released stateside. For The Police and Steely Dan, stay away from the western releases. (minus Gaucho, as that has 5.1, while the import only is stereo). Also, it can make very old recordings sound brand new. Belafonte at Carnegie Hall is the perfect example. Recorded in 1957, but sounds like it was recorded today. For 5.1 multi channel discs I highly recommend any from the Warner Premium series. Especially The Nightfly by Donald Fagen. Been into SACD for a couple of years and there are some real gems out there. There is also lot of garbage sounding discs as well. Prices stink, but sometimes you can get lucky. I hope the info helps and doesn't discourage you from SACD in general.

“And that’s just my own experience” haha

I entered the wonderful world of SACD playback about 15yrs ago, circa '03. I find well executed multichannel material playback is a revelation. I bought a Sony ES universal player and enjoyed it for many years. However, when Oppo introduced the revolutionary BDP-95, I purchased one and the comparison was no contest, ... the Sony began quickly gathering dust. I owe so much to multichannel SACD. I didn't abandon my two channel system. But assembling a proper surround rig was and experiencing discrete 5.1 material was a trip down the rabbit hole that has served me well. Like many enthusiasts I too have been involved in various audio pursuits for most of my 55yrs, both professionally and as an enthusiast. My interest in all things audio has grown immensely over time. My primary focus at any one time typically changes through my exploration. From high end car audio in the late 70's/early 80's, diy loudspeakers, studio acoustics, ... as well as small room acoustics of home audio, to pro audio reinforcement and FOH mixing in the largest scale. From to live 2 channel analog recording, all the way to live multichannel surround recording! MOST IMPORTANTLY, my home audio interest and pursuits received a HUGE revitalizing shot in the arm via the advent of multichannel SACD. My interest and purchase of a source player and subsequent purchase and implementation of a ITU 5.1 system rejuvenated my home audio enjoyment like nothing else!

Finally someone reasonable. Let's stop the fighting and admit any lossless format is an upgraded to streaming services and they should be the minimum that is provided by Streams

Zero problems with SACD since it came out in 2002. Have owned many machines since 2002. ALL great. No comparison to cd. Only vinyl can exceed or equal. You seem new to this.

Friggin DRM....

I found a good combination: In 2006 i bought a Sony DVP-NS92V. He has 6 analog Outputs. His sound is amazing. As AVR at that time i had a simple Denon AVR 1801. And this device has a 6 analog input! So it worked perfect..it was the pre HDMI Time. And some years ago i bought a second hand Denon AVR 2809. It has HDMI and (!) analog inputs. I had problems with the HDMI playback, so i choosed once again the analog way...it works and sounds perfect....after all this years i never had one problem with the Sony Player...really brilliant. As soundsystem a have some Tannoys combined with a very expensive and good REL Subwoofer...I recommend SACD highly! I'm a fanboy of this format...

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

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

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

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

I have own SACD since the beginning, starting with the Sony SCD-1 to many different levels and types of players i.e. Blu-ray, UHD players. There is definitely a sound difference, but your right you need a great sound system to enjoy the difference. First, your problem with HDMI lock out is most likely your receiver, plus I have found that most early AVR that except DSD via HDMI convert it to PCM. Second, bandwidth in those same AVR's can not reproduce the amplifed sound benefits of SACD. I have used many of the Sony Blu-ray plays for a my SACD source using HDMI output to my preamp and have had zero problems. There are many great deals on Denon or Marantz AVR or preamps, these's companies (now one) have supported SACD DSD in its native form for many years across most of their product line. Plus with the recent upgrades to home theater i.e. 4K and Atoms there are many bargains out there. I would recommend Best Buy Magnolia Design Center stores, they blow out old open box items many times half off retail. Also avoid the analog outputs on the SACD and/or Blu-ray players even if their have multi channel out, most if not all AVR's convert the analog input to digital to control volume levels (degrades the sound) and this is true for most preamps, the exception I have found is Bryston. Bryston's gain controls is a true analog control so if your player has a better DAC (Oppo UDP-205) and you have a Bryston preamp your golden but otherwise use the build in DAC in your AVR/preamp. Other great SACD surround disks: Dire Straits "Brother in Arms", Roxy Music "Avalon (multi ch is $$$ and hard to find", Ray Charles "Genius Loves Company" and most of Peter Gabriel's titles were released in SACD and some Multi-CH($$$) but be careful there has been newer SACD titles re-released that are cheaper but are not Multi-CH. Theres a new type of CD/SACD's coming out of Japan SHM-SACD they have re-released many class rock titles (eagles, Queen, The Police etc)

"...regular CD audio is about as good as humans can hear..." Ooo, there's going to be some audiophiles shitting their pants after that one. Their golden ears can hear way better than us mere mortals, they *NEED* their ten trillion hertz sample rates played through solid unobtanium tube amps.

Modern receivers are so complicated that it was easier for me to build 5 vacuum tube amplifiers and connect the outputs of an Oppo universal player than to try to figure out how to operate what you can buy.

I’m commenting not as a “rage commenter” but as a gear head who’s also an amateur electronics geek. Here are my takeaways and thoughts. Thanks for the “ hardly any horsepower, but a ton of torque” comment. This analogy helped me wrap my head around what you were talking about. Also the fact that I own a Ram Diesel Dually definitely helped. Having the ability to play sound at that higher level but our ears not being able to pick up the difference reminds of having the ability to switch from 1,000 horsepower to 2,000 horsepower in the rain on drag slicks all while trying to notice the difference in traction. But I totally understand the need in wanting to have bragging rights to those 1,000 extra ponies! In closing I truly appreciated the explanation even though I half the time I didn’t understand what you were talking about. I did however have interest in something new and I wish more people explained things using analogies that others may understand. Especially knuckle dragging Neanderthals such as myself! Cheers and happy holidays! ✌🏽

Note, trying to compare SACD with the CD track it has embedded will not work. They may or may not be identical and they may or may not be at different sound levels: Changes in SPL less than 0.5dB are perceived as changes in sound quality, not as changes in loudness. The quotes from test subjects, both trained and untrained listeners are: better clarity in the high register, more prominent and detailed midrange, better, punchier bass and increased soundstage/better imaging. If everything got better, most likely it was sound level that changed. 99% of audiomyths are caused by this. Level matching matters.

Great video! Thanks! I consider myself a bit of an audiophile... I have nice headphones (one pair rather expensive), and I do use a tube amp on my desk because it does have a warmer sound.. that being said, I went through the same experience you did... just back when that Dark Side of the Moon SACD came out! I bought the disc, then a player, it wouldn't work with my system, so I did a lot of research to find one that would work... it was a pain.... the disc did sound great! I never bought another... I eventually sold the SACD player.... the Bluray discs in the Pink Floyd Immersion sets are also outstanding! I agree with your assessment on sound... I have some GREAT sounding regular CD's... and some bad ones... I also buy high resolution audio files... some are fantastic... some I can't tell the difference... I believe the recording and mastering process is more important than bit rates etc... it is just that many of the high resolution formats have been treated better than the files for streaming services or download services.... that is my opinion!

For those persons interested in the SACD functionality of early PS3's, there is a website dedicated to this: www.ps3sacd.com. There is a ton of information on there, including a lot of new SACD releases.

I'm an audiophile, but I ain't no fool. Of course CD sounds almost as good as is possible for us to hear. However........ I've always wondered why so many people are quick to dismiss the sonic effects, such as sub-harmonics and phase beats, which appear well within our hearing range as a direct result of HF sounds? These are missing from a standard CD, but are reproduced accurately by HD audio, thus replicating more of the original sound stage. Just saying. Not much of an audible difference, true, but it's there. That, plus the dynamic range issue covered here. Check out the mess Kanye made of Fun's brilliant album!

I find that classical is the most noticeable in sound quality. I can mostly hear the difference with good headphones. And using analog connectors. The reason is because each instrument needs its own un-interfered with sound space. That takes higher frequency so they don’t combine and blur each other. I can also hear the quality in bass through a good subwoofer because it is softer and plusher. The surround thing is a totally separate thing as far as I’m concerned. So, some disks are cool with headphones and some in surround. I find that surround is way better in a very small room with stuffed furniture and drapes.

I feel for you my friend😥 But if you buy bought some real speaker like some JBL'S or B&W you would hear the REAL MAGIC OF SACD, but sorry Johnny you went to Costco and did not do your homework. Stop buy crap

The brain doesn't piece those samples back together to make the samples sounds like audio. The CD Player does that with the DAC (Digital to Analog Converter) using quantization.

I stumbled across SACD purely by accident in 2006 when I bought a Sony DVD changer with SACD support, not knowing of the format. One of the first SACD’s I bought was Dark Side of the Moon. The only audible difference I can tell from standard CD’s is that they sound less harsh. Now I have several SACD’s in my collection. Also, I upgraded my player to an Oppo BDP-93 in 2012 and I have had a SACD capable PS3 since 2009, but unfortunately my old Onkyo TX-SR805 with DSD bitstream support over HDMI died and my current Marantz SR-7005 doesn’t support it, so I have to use analog multichannel again.

You can get SACD albums on torrent sites. They're in .dff format and you'll need a dedicated player on your Android device, or PC (MusicBee works great on PC, and AIMP on Android). This is the full SACD experience without the headaches.

I few thoughts: SACD over HDMI with a universal player requires two cables to get sound and video to work. You absolutely can hear better than standard CD on even a modest system (you do not really have a modest system because of your speakers). Up-sampling, then performing the digital to analogue conversion will sound like night and day. DSD essentially pushes the noise floor into the higher frequencies where they are not audible, this is the same idea as using 24bit depth in PCM even though the noise floor is at 14 or 15 bits. Some really high end DAC's like the PS Audio ones convert PCM to DSD before performing the conversion. This is because DSD is far easier to convert to analogue. So from a hardware perspective, DSD is vastly superior because the conversion is far simpler (though it can be more prone to jitter). All that said, PCM is awesome stuff, and I agree with that the better sound has as much to do with the mastering as the format.

I jumped on this band wagon and the 5 elton john albums are definately worth finding sir....oh and pet sounds....well done i use pioneer sacd 757 into a yamaha natural sound Has analogue inputs....

The thing about the hi-res formats sounding better is that, in my experience, the artists that are getting releases on hi-res formats already have EXCELLENT mastering on the standard CD. Pink Floyd being a prime example. No artificial loudness on any Dark Side of the Moon CD release that I know of. One of Floyd's contemporaries, Genesis, is a notable NONexample. Their remastered CDs are very noisy and I own most of their core catalogue on older discs from the 80s where the process was a lot closer to simply digitizing a crisp master tape and sending that to the CD press. But for the most part I would say artists that care enough about quality to do a surround mix also probably care enough to make a decent CD.

Excellent video - the most important thing to take from this is that multi-channel sound can be awesome when listening to a properly mastered SACD. The number one disc currently available from the Kansas based company Absolute, is Pink Floyd ‘Wish You Were Here’ and it is absolutely stunning although to import it to England costs £50. Other multi-channel discs out there are by Dire Straits, Elton John and Propaganda. My system is based on a Denon Universal Disc Player with a Denon-Link cable to a Denon 6300/6400/6500 surround amplifier (the model numbers are just the updates for the 2015, 2017 and 2019 model variants. I agree that BLU-Ray can replicate the experience of multi-channel SACD but I suspect Sony Entertainment etc are witholding both current and back catalogue issues for anti-piracy issues -completely unfounded as discs are relatively cheap these days and not worth going to the trouble of copying.

But ... SACD (DSD) does sound great ... and superior to CD imho. Interesting point about having to buy new source devices etc - same with 4K video except you need source, target and potentially cables ... and yet it likely will take hold (?) due to a common drive by TV (target) manufacturers.

Hi Great video as always. I seem to remember that in a system setup video by "my life in gaming" they found that while passing the signal from a ps3 through a HDMI splitter to connect their systems, it actually stripped the copy protection from their ps3 and enabled HDMI capture. Might a HDMI splitter do the same for your SACD player and help with the problem your having? Just a thought.

The major ptoblem in PCM is that samling is exponential, not linear. It was noticed alrteady in 80s, then 1-bit dacs were introduced. DSD offers 1-bit recording in higher resolution, so any signal improvements of dac is not needed anymore. Similar way as DSD follow class D amplifiers which offer huge improvement of quality in cheap devices.

THE DOORS released all their six studio albums on SACD not that long ago. They have released SACD before but I don't remember what it was.

Hi. First, your issue with your TV connected to tue receiver is not a limitation of the format or the copy protection scheme. I have an Oppo 203 connected to a Denon 6300H and I can stream DSD from the Oppo to the receiver without any pain using HDMI. Please do youself a favor and pick a copy of Dire Straits’ Brother in Arms 5.1 SACD. It is cheap, easy to find and it sounds amazing.

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

My experience is different. I currently play SACDs on an Oppo 105. I only use the two channel layer and over the last 5 years or so I have not had a single problem. Sound quality is generally better. I have noticed this not only with SACDs but also .dff files on hard disc. Whether this is due to better mastering, larger sound range, or the superiority of the DSD format I do not know. The format is took off in Japan and is still strong there. Japan itself is a sufficiently large enough market that it does not matter if it is perceived to be dead elsewhere. As an aside I stick to 2-channel. Quality sound depends very much on quality speakers. All those extra speakers and extra amplification cost dosh that could go into just two speakers. Most concerts have the players in front of you so this side-speaker notion does not seem natural to me.

Don't feel too bad about listening to DSD via conversion to PCM. One of DSD's biggest problems is that the whole chain is almost never pure DSD. Studios don't (and can't) use it for non-linear editing, so nearly ALL recording these days goes straight into a PCM interface to a computer. (That which doesn't, goes to tape. Nobody records to DSD.) But also, many (if not most, at this point) DSD DACs don't actually output 1-bit PWM either. They internally convert to PCM. Now, because 1-bit PWM is essentially the same thing as Class-D amplifier technology, you can actually tap into a serial bitstream and run it through a lowpass filter to get an analog waveform. It's a very simple "DAC" topology. Unfortunately, thanks to the whole DRM thing, you can't easily *get to* the i2s stream from a normal player. BUT! If you manage to rip the disc contents, you CAN use a streamer. ;-) See? All it takes is hacking and piracy to realize the dream of pure DSD from start to finish. I suppose it's no wonder the whole idea tanked. Self-inflicted mortal wounds.

Great video, but all this just seems like too much of a pain in the ass for me to invest in, but I'll say the loudness war should have never happened, and if I want my music louder over my headphones with a 3.5mm jack I'll pull out my portable Fiio E6 Fujiyama headphone amp that only cost me $25.

Why is this video on RU-vid? The unit on the table is not an SACD Player. It is primarily a Blu-ray player but is known as a Universal Player since one can also play SACD's and CD's. The rest of his system is a typical HT setup available from your local Best Buy. Actually it is rather pathetic if you pretend to be judging how much better the hi-rez SACD format sounds compared to the low-rez Redbook CD. Actually, components are available in the marketplace that are capable of making Redbook an enjoyable listening experience. The Japanese make the best Rebook CD's in the world. They also happen to make the best sounding SACD's. Audiophiles can readily tell the difference between an SACD and Redbook CD since they have the electronics, the speakers and the acoustically treated listening room. The goal of digital music is to sound as close as possible to the master tape. Tape is an analogue source but with an audiophile system and the acoustical problems inherent in almost every room properly addressed, a well mastered SACD comes damn close. The better the setup, the more the listener will notice the difference between hi-rez and low-rez. SACD is far from being a dead technology. Along with the Japanese, there are a few companies such as Mobile Fidelity, Audio Fidelity, ABKCO, and Analogue Productions that continue to release new SACD's every month. In 2002, ABCKO remastered the The Rolling Stones Brian Jones years catalogue to SACD. It was a revelation to listen to these discs as compared to the horrible sounding CD's available at that time. Recently, for the 50th Anniversary of its initial release, Universal Music Japan released "Their Satanic Majesties Request" using 2017 remastering in both mono and stereo. Frankly, the first listen was jaw dropping. So much more music was revealed that the experience was akin to hearing the album for the very first time. Brian, capable of playing a wide variety of instruments, is all over that album and now one can actually hear him playing everything that is on the tape. In summary, the vast majority of "music" listeners are not audiophiles which includes the gentleman above. Most people are either unable to afford or don't really care to indulge in hi-end audio. That's cool, if one is happy with MP3 and an iPhone with cheap headphones more power to ya. If the cat in the vid is satisfied with his cheap-ass HT setup for Blu-ray and CD's, knock yourself out. However, don't presume you have any credibility when bad-mouthing SACD. The real test is when one does a blind comparison of the master tape to a well mastered SACD. The results just might astound.

In case people don't stay around to watch, he made a really good point around 16:00 in regards to 'loudness wars' and dynamic range, which SACD may be a 'better' medium for audio-enthusiast, not because of the technical aspect but how it was mastered and targeted/marketed towards.

Do HDCD next.

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

There are a few web sites that sell DSD direct downloads. Again limited amount out there but they also have a few demo tracks. I used to play SACD back on my old org fat ps3 but now i just use foobar2000 on my pc and play them back across hdmi using wasabi to my amp. no more hdmi handshake issues, simple and much easyer. It even auto switches between stereo and multi-channel depending on the track being played.

If you're ever going to make a part 2 for this video, I would recommend you to look into the SONY UHP-H1 Universal Player witch does support DSD, and can play them through HDMI and even USB sticks. PS. For those who are interested: The DAC-chip used in the SONY UHP-H1 is an AKM4452 - 549A.

I recently got into the SACD game as an aside to upgrading my 4K blu ray player, and buying a new receiver to go with it... I had problems playing SACD over optical , so I bought a receiver, and now it works.... I have a sony x800 uhd player, and a yamaha vsx-532 receiver, and now I can hear my SACD playing properly on my sound system. THe blu ray player has the ability to have 2 HDMI outs, one for video/audio and one dedicated to audio... so I used the 2nd dedicated HDMI to plug to the receiver.

More like SAC’D

HDMI is probably the worst thing to happen to audio in the last decade. Not only does it loaded with a ton of compatibility issues, it's highly vulnerable to electrical surges and can knock out your TV's entire video input card. Audio is best enjoyed through analogue connections - and I've found SACD delivers dividends through multi-channel analogue interconnects. I know it's cumbersome, but I strongly recommend people get off the HDMI teet wherever they can.

This is a clear and honest opinion! Too many people listen to the tech, and THINK they can hear differences. SACD and DVDA are amazing, i love them, but just to hear my favourite music in multi-channel audio. A different experience. But most cd discs sound amazing too. There are horrible things out there, like brickwalled cd and vinyl, where the volume knob is set to 1, and is already too loud and distorted, or just bad versions from bad masters. But overall all are good! Enjoy music, not the power of suggestion!

This guy is the most patient human in the world

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

Saying you can hear better than CD sound quality is like saying you can see infrared or ultraviolet light.

Was not Expecting Scandal to be mentioned at all. Awesome.

Yamaha aventage decodes DSD in a wonderful way from its USB, and with a few intermediate-high range speakers if a different perception is obtained when listening to .dsf files versus the original CD. Not only do I say it, but my 14 year old daughter detected it when listening to Michael Jackson on Thriller album.

I have an SACD capable ps3. I didn’t bother getting into SACDs because I don’t care about hi res audio but the multi channel thing is intriguing and I’m a big Pink Floyd fan 🤔

The quality itself of the actual "sound" really is indiscernible between the two for 99.9% of the population. The obvious difference is the channels. That is the whole idea. I bought a Sony DVD/CD/SACD player carousel player with analog 5.1 channel outputs and had a receiver to handle them natively, with no extra "translations", so to speak. Put in Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon, sat in the middle of the room, at night, with the lights out, and was then transported to another universe. It is incredible! You can hear sounds that are NOT audible when heard via stereo. It also depends on the type of music or bands you listen to. As any Pink Floyd fanatic(me) will agree, the level of depth they put into their music and all the overdubs, taking full advantage of all tracks available upon the original recording tapes in the studio. When all these tracks are then squeezed onto stereo format, the human ear simply cannot keep up. This is the beauty of multi-channel. If you like your music to be textured, rich, layered, this is the way to go. All that being said, I have the Immersion Dark Side set as well, with the Blu-Ray 5.1 digital and it does not sound as good, to me. Those extra sounds that are perfectly audible from the SACD are a bit drowned out in the digital 5.1. They are there, but not as pronounced. I actually preferred the original quadraphonic mix that is available on the disk as well.

I have a few SACDs like Pink Floyd dark side 30th anniversary and nine inch nails. I used to have a dedicated SACD player but now my Sony Blu-ray player ($50) plays SACD. You can still find them on Amazon for $50-$99. This will play all of your SACD, DVD audio and Blu-ray and it has all the right output connections for surround sound. Your right about the audio, it’s a game changer for the experience.

I have a Sony Blu Ray player that also plays SACDs. It has been used in conjunction with a Sony Bravia TV and a Sony AV amplifier via HDMI. Last year I purchased a Bose 650 Lifestyle . SACDs and Blu Ray Pure Audio play multichannel seamlessly without any of the hassles that you have described. Sony still market Blu Ray players with SACD capabilities. The beauty of SACDs is they play in the same way as a regular CD without having to access menus and having the tv display irritating, repetitive video content which can distract from listening pleasure.

Great job MC. Enjoyable stories about your Ebay dramas. You told everything factually about what YOU experienced without drolling on and on. Nicely edited too.

I brought a SACD player and connected it to a class A analogue amplifier and was pleasantly surprised with the sound quality. I just use it as a standalone system for listening to my favourite albums. It's very debatable that we can hear the difference between conventional CDs and SACDs if we are over 25 years of age. Most young people listen to MP3s and are happy with the quality. I saw a very interesting programme on TV where they played live music and cut a vinyl record and played it to a young audience with preferred the MP3 version. I was listening to it with a friend who is and X BBC sound engineer and we both could detect and hear the quality of the Vinyl recording in preference to hear the lower sound quality MP3. I have always thought that a trained ear is better than an untrained ear. I sent my life as a chorister and a buyer for a hi end Hi Fi shop in central London. I had customers Like John Entwistle from the Who. He always brought very hi end HI FI and I wondered how loud concerts had affected his hearing but he still had a trained ear. Thanks for a great in informative video. Regards Jeremy Travis former manager of Teletape London

SACDs are the super audio, period. Buy proper modern recordings on SACDs and a Hi-End audio equipment, then you will hear your lovely music as a new one with tons of new details. Don't save money on it, pay the price and you will hear the difference, believe me. Listen to a good SACD on a proper equipment once and you will never be looking back. Don't believe in BS like SACD is dead, and so on. It luxuriously sounds and modern recordings in DSD are so great, give it a chance to shine for you.

If you're a music lover, then the better quality of mastering that is usually present on SACDs means that it is often worth getting a hybrid SACD version over the CD version, even if you are only ever going to play the hybrid SACD in a regular CD/DVD player. The other advantage of hybrid SACDs is that you can rip the CD layer to FLAC/MP3 for paying back on your computer, phone or other digital audio player. As for ARC on HDMI, prior to HDMI 2, ARC didn't have sufficient bandwidth to carry lossless 5.1 sound, meaning (just like 5.1 over optical) Blu-ray audio, DVD-Audio and SACD audio all gets degraded by it being lossy encoded to Dolby Digital by your TV. Similar compromises apply to optical inputs/outputs which also cannot carry lossless 5.1 audio.