Mastering is the one thing I think gets forgotten when doing comparisons across different media. Unless your hi-res download, CD, SACD and LP are all mastered by the same engineer at the same time for the same release, it’s almost unknowable if you’re getting an accurate assessment. If you’re purposely comparing unique masterings and pressings to one another, that’s different.
Hooray! I get to agree with Paul on a thing! The difference he's hearing is due to the mastering, not the CD layer of an SACD having magic properties. A quick check of Discogs shows 491 versions of Kind of Blue - so there are literally tens of different masters of the "same" album.
That number is for all formats including vinyl, cassettes, open reel, etc. Filtering the results by CD and Album gives you 212 but even that appears to include releases by other artists. I'm still trying to figure out how to filter it for ONLY the Miles Davis full CD version.
Are you kidding? 400 or 200 mastered releases? Discrete different mastering engineers, original file or analog tape, or a digital file reprocessed? How many copies of a master original recording can be done from tape before degrading occurs? Otherwise does everyone of this releases use a digital master but is it multi-track etc 400 plus times? Even 200 plus times seems excessive for the engineering resources needed.
@@JingoLoBa57 I didn't check into this any further. But the number of releases would also include ones made in different countries even if the catalog number and UPC are the same for a particular issue/reissue, ones that were licensed and issue by a different label, other reissues even if not remasterd, etc. I think it's pretty safe to say, even without actually counting them, that there was not ~200 different masters used for them. I'm sure somebody will go through them line by line to determine a more realistic number. I don't see it being 100. My opinion, even 50 would be too high.
@@JingoLoBa57 I didn't say 400 or 200 mastered releases - I said "there are literally tens of different masters". Usually helps to read the entire post 👍
@@purpleghost4083 I know that - hence "491 versions" not 491 discrete releases. The point remains - the differences heard will be due to mastering not due to the same mastering on two different CDs.
My home theater will play SACDs since I use Sony for my 4k player, but in my 2 channel system, I listen to the CD layer. It's kind of nice to have both available.
Very interesting question, and both the question and the answer makes sense. LUV your videos, kind sir! I appreciate your taking the time and making available, these reasonable-length videos.
The hybrid approach is pretty interesting, and thanks to that I unknowingly have a single SACD, though I don't think it helps with the particular music in my case. I bought a game called Dark Souls 3 when it came out in 2016, and the European "Apocalypse Edition" came with a soundtrack CD. I didn't think much of it, but several years later when I was just checking all the soundtrack releases these games have had (what I should consider buying), I just happened to notice that on one list it was mentioned that Dark Souls 3 soundtrack had a SACD release, but it was only part of this edition of the game... The US equivalent (not the same edition as the European release, but it was a more expensive edition) that also came with a soundtrack CD didn't feature a SACD. The game developer and publisher are Japanese, so that probably played a part in the decision of making a SACD version, but it's still kinda odd if you think about it (and the European edition that came with the soundtrack was only like 5-10€ more than the standard retail copy). I'm pretty sure it was never mentioned anywhere in the marketing materials or on the box that the soundtrack was actually on a SACD. Unfortunately the soundtrack is heavily made up of synthetic orchestra instruments, so the sound overall doesn't really benefit from the SACD release, but I thought it was still a really interesting detail nonetheless.
Actually most remasters and 98% of DSD releases are done in PCM and then converted to various different formats such as DSD. Not the other way around. Here's an interview with the Engineer and a Sony Executive about the Miles Davis remaster: czcams.com/video/z_p7Qbb_LAo/video.html
Exactly. I disagree with Paul's explanation that hybrids are the result of remastering albums in DSD and then including a CD layer by down sampling the remastered DSD recording to the red book CD spec. Instead, i think the reality is the other way around; that already existing pcm recordings are simply being 'converted' to DSD and promoted as hi resolution for the purpose of sales & marketing, leading people to believe that the SACD layer sounds superior. Look, remastering a 70s recording that was originally recorded on tape with very low dynamic range to DSD yields absolutely nothing. The only way a DSD recording can sound better than CD is if the music was recorded in DSD in the first place, with modern recording equipment, microphones, etc. Even then, the DSD files have to be converted to pcm for editing before being converted back to DSD. My point is, the SACD layer of a hybrid disc does not sound better than the CD layer unless there was a deliberate choice to include an inferior sounding version for the CD layer to create the illusion that the SACD layer sounds better. For the most part SACD is complete BS.
I have many of the SACDs that BIS has produced with the MN Orchestra of Beethoven and Mahler. I can only play the CD layer, but the recordings are very crisp and detailed. I think part of what's going on here is that the original recording is being made and mixed for HiRes, so more care is going into that process.
Fascinating. For something special like Almost Blue or Jazz at the Pawn Shop, I should acquire the DSD version and convert it to pcm 44.1 for my 44.1 optimized system.
@@JonAnderhub Reading all the comments confirms why I don't pay for anything unless they describe their recording process to my satisfaction. Regular CDs I borrow from the library and rip. I'll pay to download hires from places like Chesky or MA Recordings or PS Audio but not the bait and switch crap that is just an old CD with a new bitrate.
@@user-od9iz9cv1w Even with PS Audio recordings you are still getting baited and switched. PS Audio hypes its DSD recording process and tries to sell you on how DSD is superior. But PS Audio edits and masters their recordings in PCM and then convert those files to DSD so you are not really getting a DSD recording but a DSD copy of a PCM file.
When comparing things can become a slippery slope. I have had two of same album title's on CD's on the Reprise label be very musically different. After some head scratching I discovered that one CD was manufactured in France and one in the US.
@@purpleghost4083 It's a bit crazy. My friend and I purchased the Eric Clapton Pilgrim CD, same catalog number, UPC barcode and copyright year - 1998 the original release date. Mine was manufactured in France his in the US and mine sounds "better" - on both of our systems.
I have a Sony SACD player and not sure if I even have any SACD's though. I always liked it for the way it has played normal CD's for the last 20+ years so I never bothered to buy the SACD's.
Sony really shot itself in the foot by developing the dual-layer SACD format then issuing virtually all of their early SACDs with only the DSD layer. As a result, the notion that you had to have an SACD player to play SACDs took foothold in the marketplace - an almost fatal blow. I only wound up buying a few SACDs from Sony but definitely would have bought more if they also had the CD layer.
@Audivision | Acoustic Research The "cultures" not losing respect for integrity and losing mental capacity. The "culture" right from the start has always been about making an emotional connection with the music, not connecting with the quality. Compression has been in use since 1940 along with other processing like RIAA equalization and various noise suppression schemes such as DBX and Dolby. Additionally, everything from 78 rpm records played on victrolas, to music heard on the tube and then transistor radios have catapulted many an artist's careers, as well as inspiring new musical artists. Where respect and mental capacity are lost is when someone thinks that the music should serve the equipment instead of the equipment serving the music.
@Audivision | Acoustic Research I just wanted to be able to listen to the same disc on my car CD player or anywhere else I did not have an SACD player, just as the dual-layer format was intended. What's does the "I guess some like to listen to quantity not quality" comment add to the discussion?
Audiophiles cover your ears but....I think the full SACD spec also includes a third layer for multi-channel SACD. My most accurate system is an OPPO player set to output 2ch SACD via I2S (HDMI) to a Pontus2 DAC, Aria headphones. That said a couple of 5.1ch issues are very fun on the home theater atmos rig. e.g. Brothers In Arms and Point Yellow (ATMOS ed). Too many toys!
On a hybrid SACD, there are only 2 layers....the hi-res DSD layer and the CD compatible layer. Sony mandates that a SACD must have a hi-res DSD stereo (or mono) mix; the hi-res multichannel (up to 5.1 channels) mix and the CD compatible layer are entirely optional. On the CD layer of a hybrid SACD, any technology that can appear on a CD is also capable of appearing on that particular layer. HDCD, MQA, and Enhanced-CD (giving video capability to the CD when played back on a CD-ROM drive) have all appeared on the CD compatible layer of a hybrid SACD.
44.1Khz CD can sound absolutely amazing on a good player, sony's ES and QS range of players sound mind blowingly good with a decent amp, after all sony invented them, not only does the mastering make the biggest difference, its the content itself, if the band has crap sound you will get crap sound out of your speakers
Many people who do not record directly in DSD but convert to DSD and then you will never get the DSD magic sound. You must have a DSD. cd disc where music is recorded directly to DSD. If you have the raw material in high resolution, it is better to have the music in original quality and not downsampled 44.1 16 bit. Often with newer releases of older music, the music is adjusted again but not always for the better.
This is why I love my DirectStream DAC, it does a way more accurate job of upsampling and conversion than you can do in a computer. Whatever I put in has that Magic!
@@bélalugrisi have you ever tried stopping the upsampling? I have the experience that I rather not upsample as the advantage doesn't seems to be greater than the downside.
@@edmaster3147 There is no way to. The incoming digital signal is read at ~28 MHz, the least common multiple of all PCM and up to 4xDSD rates. The result is are more accurate digital pulses since the leading edge of the pulse is accurate and doesn't introduce jitter. So this is not traditional upsampling, and I haven't noticed any downside. Everything is then converted to 2xDSD for output at 5.6 Mhz. Brilliant engineering and software development lead to less between you and the music.
@@bélalugrisi agreed, briljant egineering indeed on the DSD part, I ment the regular upsampling for 44.1 pcm. At the DSD side, I won't have any effort as there is hardly any chance where the music I like will be available on DSD.
Can y make a CZcams video where you compare a cdt with a good dac connected playing the cd of a hybrid sacd with a sacd player playing sacd of the same hybrid sacd. Is there a big difference between the both? Is it worth buying sacd-player and sacd’s instead of an ordinary cd if you use an cdt with a good dac?
Haha, Philips tried the same with DCC. It's just that, unless you are extremely allergic to background hiss, an analog cassette sounded better and worked less cumbersome :D. But yes, mastering. Probably also the reason I prefer vinyl for a sizeable chunk.
Yes, that is what hobbyist often do. That they compare the same song on same format in this case or also on different formats. As this video clearly showcase that same format (both are CD) on same system is sounding differently! And we hobbyist have NO CLUE that the two songs is NOT the same. And are fooled that CD is CD and they are the same and that is totally wrong! We have NO information on from where the files is coming from at all. So in practice we don't know what we are comparing! The simplest use case as CD make us fail. Then think about when we compare a streaming service of the same song. We have no clue were the file were obtained from or how it were handled. So are we really ? comparing streaming service against for example LP, CD, SACD, other streaming services and so on.. ..no we are not! We must first make sure that it is the same file we compare before we can even start to do a comparison. (Like Paul have done.) Generally LP pressing plants get files with lower compression (loudness) than other formats from the record labels. So even if it is the same the record labels can of many reasons fool us and the source that went to a LP and CD pressing plants is far from guarantee to be the same from them! Also in a sense with this everybody should realize that the format CD is not sounding worse than LP. When the CD usually get a lower fidelity file that is used to produce it than the LP got. So shit in gives shit out. That is the reason why LPs on many albums have higher dynamic range on the loudness data base internet page. Because the file had greater dynamic range to begin with from the record labels that are playing us and killed the CD and all the other formats that is/were better than LP. Of course there is exceptions but the vast majority of record labels are taking care of their own interests.
Thanks, Paul! Yes, remastering is part of the reason it sounds different, but when comparing an old CD to even the same master, recorded with newer technology that is less prone to errors as compared to the old resistive ladder DAC used in analog to digital conversion. You don't have the drift from the MSB resistor swamping the lower bits, causing fading cymbals and such not ringing out properly. CD player hardware advances were adopted by players way before the disc production houses, since that equipment was a bigger expense. A great example is the NuWave Phono converter, which creates the most accuracy even at CD resolution. In conjunction with "Vinyl Studio", recommended by A PS Audio tech, I have been easily able to create wonderful sounding reproduction for any format!
Not necessarily. It would be possible to have a CD version or even an SACD version that was "mastered" or "remastered" differently.. For instance, there have been a few "remasters" of Miles Davis Kind of Blue so it would be entirely possible for different-sounding discs.
Slightly off topic but...would the sound quality using a normal type of CD and CD player, be better than streaming music from CZcams with my laptop computer and a Schiit Modi 3 dac?
Generally yes. CDs inherently have a better frequency response and dynamic range than CZcams streaming because CZcams uses a lossy compression on the streaming signal.
Yes. Especially with older recordings the technology has advanced considerably and it is possible to remove noise that was present in the original recordings and to replace high and low-frequency loss from original recordings. Additionally, digital recording or re-recording has the advantage of not adding any additional noise to the process making for a better-sounding remaster.
Another good video Paul. I have two disagreements. 1) No original recordings are dsd, because it can’t be edited. Perhaps your reference to dsd masters is not intended to state this. In any event, as you know Only vinyl remastered to digital and unedited live recordings can be dsd. Everything else digital is pcm. And with excellent cd playback (eg Aqua La Scala dac plus La diva cd transport, sacd rarely (I have not heard it in my collection of 100 sacds) sounds better than cd. Sure sacd is higher resolution but: 1) mastering is the key (esoteric sacd Strauss alpine symphony is way better than dg cd or lp , despite all being mastered from 16/44.1 digital files; 2) human beings can’t tell difference between cd and higher resolution format. You need a double blind test to avoid tendency to think sacd must sound better. It’s higher resolution but can you hear a difference. Blind testing of cd v higher resolution format by AES (not by them but they published a study in 2007) confirms this. Caveat: only with great cd transport like Aqua La diva is cd as good as sacd. On my earlier Accuphase dp450, sacd (through oppo 205) sounded better than cd. But through La diva, cd sounds at least as good if not better than sacd. So, whilst your video is informative as always, these points need to be kept in mind. Yes I agree sacd is higher resolution (file size of 4gb v 70b for cd), but that doesn’t mean humans can hear the increase in resolution. With your typical cd player, sacd will usually sound better ceteris parabis. But with a good cd transport and dac, I doubt anyone will be able to tell the difference.
Sorry, but the difference is not in the 20 khz upper frequency limit. DSD has better impulse response, low pre and post ringing. Also, it has much more information (resolution) in the medium and low frequency range, where our ears are much more sensible, also in old age. Same for PCM 24 bit 176 - 192 khz. Look for DSD vs PCM comparison. @@Synthematix
The sound of the hardware producing the musical signal is most important. With the DirectStream DAC, the difference is indeed small, as Ted Smith discovered by surreptitiously switching between CD and DSD while people weren't looking! Hence the term 'input agnostic'. The sound of 16/44.1 realized through the DirectStream is certainly far better than the SACD audio output on my Sony player!
@@bélalugrisi Respectfully disagree. It's the monkey- Ehem - MASTERING ENGINEER twisting the knobs on the mastering console that makes the biggest - not the only - but the biggest audible difference. "sound of the hardware"? Sounds like audiophile talk to me!
@@Zickcermacity I actually do mastering in the analog and digital domain. You are right that that is the biggest difference. Mastering can do a lot of good or harm depending of the ears and experience of the guy or gal twisting the knobs and A/B-ing the results. Some times we are so used to the way a recording sounds that we've been listening for decades, that even improved tonal balance and detail brought out in remastering doesn't appeal. As for the sound of the hardware, I don't think you'd disagree if you change speakers or a phono cartridge that hardware sounds different. The same is true for off the shelf DACs with steep smearing filters vs. a discrete high speed output stage operating in the multi-MHz range, not needing those filters at all. Audiophile talk, yes, but also science and engineering. Best to you and thanks for your reply!
@@bélalugrisi I can definitely hear the difference among tubby speakers with flimsy cabinets, or budget jobs with limited bandwidth top and/or bottom. As far as the DACS and other boxes go, not so much.
@@Zickcermacity What matters is the foot tapping good feeling you get when you're enjoying the music and the system fades into the background. May I ask some of your favorite artists/genres? Happy listening!
Yeah! I find it widens the image and lends a delightful airiness to the top end. For my sensitive, discerning ears it's all about getting that subtle extra improvement. _"But it's the same damn bits being fed to the DAC! You can't be serious with this bulls-t!! Did you A/B test it? I bet $500 you can't A/B it!!,"_ my friends said . . . Well, they just don't understand how it is to be an audiophile. (" -.-)
A question I have that was not addressed in the video is: The first time the CD layer of an SACD is played, is it supposed to sound like a karaoke ghost of the SACD layer? I noticed it when playing my copy of the hybrid SACD of Carly Simon’s Hotcakes album. At first, all I could hear was mic feed. The actual vocals weren’t there for the most part. However, after a few more listens, the actual vocals started to emerge.
That is a characteristic of HDCD discs and some DVD players using WMP, the first track may not be recognized as HDCD, but all subsequent tracks are. This is because HDCD has a control signal, and if the signal is not detected by WMP at the beginning of the song, the HDCD decoder is not activated.
Two problems: 1) you are plus 70. No disrespect but I doubt you can hear 10k; 2) PSAudio sell high resolution players so there’s a vested interest Reality check: humans can’t in practice perceive over redbook standard. Can you or anyone you know hear over 22khz (limit of cd)?? No you can’t. Ok humans can perceive 144 db dynamic range. That looks good compared to cd with its 96db dynamic range. Problem is 1. If you listen to any recordings at 120db dynamic range you will go deaf. 2) masking effects mean practically we can’t perceive dynamic ranges over 85db-less than cd. Stop looking at statistics and listen to the recording!
True Story i own many of PS audio Sacd and dam their good !! Paul did your Boy show you the email me dancing to thr 🎻 ? Lmao !! I need your permission to play on my channel 😆 just 10 seconds please !! Octave 🔥 I don't give 2 flip flops about ASR !!
The recordings are very nice, but I must admit that I've heard Gus Skinas recordings that are least as good to my taste, but not on the Octave label. Octave takes a certain path in recording and I can truely appreciate it, but the choises they make are not always what I prefer. I tend to dislike the noise floor which sampels in on vocals sometimes or instruments, which pollute the background, which I don't experience as much with other recordings. Upside is that it reveals a lot and makes it feel more alive and natural. But I don't own many Octave recordings as the artist are not to my liking, furthermore I don't see any need whatsover for DSD, as CD and a tad above that is truely remarkable on my system.
@@edmaster3147 Yeah I know Paul Had been working on getting more Artist Involved which is most likely tuff today love to see Michael Buble make an Octave reccording !!
:) TDS? TDS is the acronym for Trump Devotion Syndrome. It's characterized by a singular willingness to serve criminals with the surname "Trump." Surely you're not referring to me. That's the last thing on Earth I could resemble.
Sony "touted" SACD's for their multi-channel capability and to eventually replace the two-ch CD standard with built-in copy protection. I bought a few of them between 2005 and 2015 back when they cost about $15.00 each. I won't buy them anymore. In many cases the CD layer just sounds better.
I have a problem with your claim dsd layer sounds better than cd layer! Cd already exceeds human hearing capacity. That’s why (unless cd layer has been sabotaged), humans can’t perceive a higher resolution than cd. Only with a double blind INdEPENDEnT test, could we believe sacd or dsd64 sounds better! You repeatedly claim dsd sounds better than cd. There’s zero proof of that. I agree that on medium cd players sacd sounds better on a sacd device. But that’s due to the transport and dac, and the mastering of sacd v the mastering of cd. Yes sometime the cd layer is sabotaged to make the sacd layer sound better. Double blind testing reported in AES in 2007 found humans cannot distinguish between cd and high resolution playback of the same recording-provided they are equally well mastered. Nobody can hear above the 22.05khz cd offers. And cd gives 96db dynamic range. Not a single recording comes near that range. Even telarcs Tchaikovsky 1812 was found by stereophile to have a 40db dynamic range. So just forget high resolution unless you want surround sound because for stereo a properly mastered cd equals sacd sonically. We get swept up by the marketing hype but science shows that we don’t get any sonic benefits from sacd over cd in stereo if the cd is properly mastered.
@@judenihal Read what i said again. I said dsd converted to cd sounds like crap. If you want to listen to quality cd you have to record it natively in pcm. You went in a whole other direction.
Perhaps your downsampler is the problem? I need to downsample everything except 24/48 and really, DSD downsampled sounds fine (even way better then my DAC that plays DSD ever could, miles better). Those HiRes files very slightly inprove the sound in my system, 24 bit (my DAC only does 18 of those bits, hopefully), but natively or downsampled, its the same, at least, in my system.
@@judenihal MP3 sounds very sweet and nice actually and could for a lot of (low end) DAC's be an outcome. And streaming, if done properly, sounds at least as good as CD, as a CD player has many parts that are even so harmful to the sound as a streamer. But a very good CD player would set one back a lot of money as well as a very nice streamer would.....
@@380stroker If converting a DSD to CD sounds like crap and Analog to CD doesn't, then it's definitely the fault of DSD. Have you tried converting playing DSD to Analog and then Analog to PCM?
Still not dead man ,believe me there's a niche for this format and many new titles pop up each week ! I should know i buy them often and have thousands in my collection !
Worldwide SACD releases of SACD, as of the end of 2022, saw 2 straight years of increases. There were 747 new SACD releases worldwide in 2022. In total, there have been over 15,500 SACD releases worldwide since the format debuted 24 years ago.
My thought is that the CD-layer on a SACD should sound worse, at least as time goes, say 3-4 years or more from now. I can never accept that it sounds better than plain CD anyway.
@@AmazonasBiotop Because they could make the aluminium layer thicker on standard CDs (I guess) and you have nothing that could affect the CD-layer in any way, as it (perhaps) can on SACDs. If I only want a CD and will never use the SACD layer I buy a normal CD, even if the SACD is 2 dollar cheaper.
@@birgerolovsson5203 Ok. So you say "perhaps" and "maybe". That express FUD and just to be safe than sorry. Anyway I have worked for 10 years as software developer on optical testing hardware. I can assure you that the aluminum layer on the CD layer is fully reflective and is as tick as they want to make it. On a CD the information layer is closest to the label and sometimes only a UV hardened lacquer. So as you probably know the laser is reading the disc from the under up. It is 1.2 mm thick and that polycarbonate acts as a part of the optics and has a different diffraction Index than air. So the laser focus on the track after 1.2 mm. But you are right in a way that the SACD hybrid disc make it harder to read the CD layer. The SACD layer is like in the DVD 9 gb case molded into a "half disc" that is 0.6 mm thick and then glued together with another half disc that is if course also 0.6 (that is why a SACD/DVD feels stiffer when it is a lamination of two half discs. The first half that is closest to the disc is containing the SACD layer. So it is in the middle of the disc. That is treated with a very thin layer of reflective material so it is "semitransparent". When we need to be able to reach and read the CD layer. There is specifications on how reflective that SACD layer should be. When to thick and to reflective then we have issues to read the CD layer. To thin and to transparent then we can't read the SACD layer. So what actually happens when we read the CD layer is that the unfocused light need to go through the SACD layer. Some of the light is reflected and lost. The remaining light is going to the CD there it is focused at, bouncing back and now need to get trough the semitransparent SACD layer again. And again loose some % of its light. And lastly it it will hit the photodiode. So yes it is little bit cumbersome to read the layers on a hybrid disc. But we should also keep in mind that it is not something unique when the DVD 9 had also the same argument with two layers and one of them semitransparent but both of them in the middle (0.6 mm) of the disc. And the optical formats were rather rubust with multiple stages of error corrections that computers installed software and even operating system from. And if anything a computer gets buggy if not all information is correct. But I think there is not a specific reason to believe that anything would go sideways after 3-4 years in my experience.
Why not, you might want to play it in your car, or lend it to a friend who only has a cd player .. or even repeatedly play both layers to yourself revelling in thr fact of how much better the sacd sounds compared to the cd lol
@@geddylee501 The kind of music that I purchase on SACD is 4 critical listening, not the kind of stuff I listen 2 in the car......& I NEVER lend my babies 2 my friends; they can't B trusted.
Mastering is the one thing I think gets forgotten when doing comparisons across different media. Unless your hi-res download, CD, SACD and LP are all mastered by the same engineer at the same time for the same release, it’s almost unknowable if you’re getting an accurate assessment. If you’re purposely comparing unique masterings and pressings to one another, that’s different.
Hooray! I get to agree with Paul on a thing! The difference he's hearing is due to the mastering, not the CD layer of an SACD having magic properties. A quick check of Discogs shows 491 versions of Kind of Blue - so there are literally tens of different masters of the "same" album.
That number is for all formats including vinyl, cassettes, open reel, etc. Filtering the results by CD and Album gives you 212 but even that appears to include releases by other artists. I'm still trying to figure out how to filter it for ONLY the Miles Davis full CD version.
Are you kidding? 400 or 200 mastered releases? Discrete different mastering engineers, original file or analog tape, or a digital file reprocessed? How many copies of a master original recording can be done from tape before degrading occurs? Otherwise does everyone of this releases use a digital master but is it multi-track etc 400 plus times? Even 200 plus times seems excessive for the engineering resources needed.
@@JingoLoBa57 I didn't check into this any further. But the number of releases would also include ones made in different countries even if the catalog number and UPC are the same for a particular issue/reissue, ones that were licensed and issue by a different label, other reissues even if not remasterd, etc. I think it's pretty safe to say, even without actually counting them, that there was not ~200 different masters used for them. I'm sure somebody will go through them line by line to determine a more realistic number. I don't see it being 100. My opinion, even 50 would be too high.
@@JingoLoBa57 I didn't say 400 or 200 mastered releases - I said "there are literally tens of different masters". Usually helps to read the entire post 👍
@@purpleghost4083 I know that - hence "491 versions" not 491 discrete releases. The point remains - the differences heard will be due to mastering not due to the same mastering on two different CDs.
My home theater will play SACDs since I use Sony for my 4k player, but in my 2 channel system, I listen to the CD layer. It's kind of nice to have both available.
Very interesting question, and both the question and the answer makes sense. LUV your videos, kind sir! I appreciate your taking the time and making available, these reasonable-length videos.
The hybrid approach is pretty interesting, and thanks to that I unknowingly have a single SACD, though I don't think it helps with the particular music in my case.
I bought a game called Dark Souls 3 when it came out in 2016, and the European "Apocalypse Edition" came with a soundtrack CD. I didn't think much of it, but several years later when I was just checking all the soundtrack releases these games have had (what I should consider buying), I just happened to notice that on one list it was mentioned that Dark Souls 3 soundtrack had a SACD release, but it was only part of this edition of the game... The US equivalent (not the same edition as the European release, but it was a more expensive edition) that also came with a soundtrack CD didn't feature a SACD.
The game developer and publisher are Japanese, so that probably played a part in the decision of making a SACD version, but it's still kinda odd if you think about it (and the European edition that came with the soundtrack was only like 5-10€ more than the standard retail copy). I'm pretty sure it was never mentioned anywhere in the marketing materials or on the box that the soundtrack was actually on a SACD.
Unfortunately the soundtrack is heavily made up of synthetic orchestra instruments, so the sound overall doesn't really benefit from the SACD release, but I thought it was still a really interesting detail nonetheless.
Actually most remasters and 98% of DSD releases are done in PCM and then converted to various different formats such as DSD.
Not the other way around.
Here's an interview with the Engineer and a Sony Executive about the Miles Davis remaster:
czcams.com/video/z_p7Qbb_LAo/video.html
Exactly. I disagree with Paul's explanation that hybrids are the result of remastering albums in DSD and then including a CD layer by down sampling the remastered DSD recording to the red book CD spec.
Instead, i think the reality is the other way around; that already existing pcm recordings are simply being 'converted' to DSD and promoted as hi resolution for the purpose of sales & marketing, leading people to believe that the SACD layer sounds superior.
Look, remastering a 70s recording that was originally recorded on tape with very low dynamic range to DSD yields absolutely nothing.
The only way a DSD recording can sound better than CD is if the music was recorded in DSD in the first place, with modern recording equipment, microphones, etc.
Even then, the DSD files have to be converted to pcm for editing before being converted back to DSD.
My point is, the SACD layer of a hybrid disc does not sound better than the CD layer unless there was a deliberate choice to include an inferior sounding version for the CD layer to create the illusion that the SACD layer sounds better.
For the most part SACD is complete BS.
That answers a couple of my questions.
I have many of the SACDs that BIS has produced with the MN Orchestra of Beethoven and Mahler. I can only play the CD layer, but the recordings are very crisp and detailed. I think part of what's going on here is that the original recording is being made and mixed for HiRes, so more care is going into that process.
BIS of Sweden is one of the most active music labels when it comes to SACD releases.
absolutely correct.
Thanks Paul, makes sense
Fascinating. For something special like Almost Blue or Jazz at the Pawn Shop, I should acquire the DSD version and convert it to pcm 44.1 for my 44.1 optimized system.
Most remasters were done in PCM and then converted to DSD.
You would be better off purchasing high resolution PCM files for comversion to 44.1 PCM.
@@JonAnderhub Reading all the comments confirms why I don't pay for anything unless they describe their recording process to my satisfaction. Regular CDs I borrow from the library and rip. I'll pay to download hires from places like Chesky or MA Recordings or PS Audio but not the bait and switch crap that is just an old CD with a new bitrate.
@@user-od9iz9cv1w Even with PS Audio recordings you are still getting baited and switched.
PS Audio hypes its DSD recording process and tries to sell you on how DSD is superior.
But PS Audio edits and masters their recordings in PCM and then convert those files to DSD so you are not really getting a DSD recording but a DSD copy of a PCM file.
When comparing things can become a slippery slope. I have had two of same album title's on CD's on the Reprise label be very musically different. After some head scratching I discovered that one CD was manufactured in France and one in the US.
Is the catalog number and/or UPC barcode the same on both? What about the © copyright year?
@@purpleghost4083 It's a bit crazy. My friend and I purchased the Eric Clapton Pilgrim CD, same catalog number, UPC barcode and copyright year - 1998 the original release date. Mine was manufactured in France his in the US and mine sounds "better" - on both of our systems.
I have a Sony SACD player and not sure if I even have any SACD's though. I always liked it for the way it has played normal CD's for the last 20+ years so I never bothered to buy the SACD's.
Sony really shot itself in the foot by developing the dual-layer SACD format then issuing virtually all of their early SACDs with only the DSD layer. As a result, the notion that you had to have an SACD player to play SACDs took foothold in the marketplace - an almost fatal blow. I only wound up buying a few SACDs from Sony but definitely would have bought more if they also had the CD layer.
@Audivision | Acoustic Research The "cultures" not losing respect for integrity and losing mental capacity.
The "culture" right from the start has always been about making an emotional connection with the music, not connecting with the quality.
Compression has been in use since 1940 along with other processing like RIAA equalization and various noise suppression schemes such as DBX and Dolby.
Additionally, everything from 78 rpm records played on victrolas, to music heard on the tube and then transistor radios have catapulted many an artist's careers, as well as inspiring new musical artists.
Where respect and mental capacity are lost is when someone thinks that the music should serve the equipment instead of the equipment serving the music.
@Audivision | Acoustic Research I just wanted to be able to listen to the same disc on my car CD player or anywhere else I did not have an SACD player, just as the dual-layer format was intended. What's does the "I guess some like to listen to quantity not quality" comment add to the discussion?
Audiophiles cover your ears but....I think the full SACD spec also includes a third layer for multi-channel SACD. My most accurate system is an OPPO player set to output 2ch SACD via I2S (HDMI) to a Pontus2 DAC, Aria headphones. That said a couple of 5.1ch issues are very fun on the home theater atmos rig. e.g. Brothers In Arms and Point Yellow (ATMOS ed). Too many toys!
On a hybrid SACD, there are only 2 layers....the hi-res DSD layer and the CD compatible layer. Sony mandates that a SACD must have a hi-res DSD stereo (or mono) mix; the hi-res multichannel (up to 5.1 channels) mix and the CD compatible layer are entirely optional. On the CD layer of a hybrid SACD, any technology that can appear on a CD is also capable of appearing on that particular layer. HDCD, MQA, and Enhanced-CD (giving video capability to the CD when played back on a CD-ROM drive) have all appeared on the CD compatible layer of a hybrid SACD.
According to Paul’s statement, Paul’s recordings will sound out of this World even on my $300.00 Acer Chromebook speakers.
I am a cheap Audiophile..😀
no, you are just cheap......
lol, perhaps they will even sound good on a 275 dollar noname laptop.
So it is fair to say that modern recordings made with DSD have to sound better than the old stuff, which has to be upconverted to DSD?
44.1Khz CD can sound absolutely amazing on a good player, sony's ES and QS range of players sound mind blowingly good with a decent amp, after all sony invented them, not only does the mastering make the biggest difference, its the content itself, if the band has crap sound you will get crap sound out of your speakers
Different master or different DACs ???
Many people who do not record directly in DSD but convert to DSD and then you will never get the DSD magic sound.
You must have a DSD. cd disc where music is recorded directly to DSD.
If you have the raw material in high resolution, it is better to have the music in original quality and not downsampled
44.1 16 bit.
Often with newer releases of older music, the music is adjusted again but not always for the better.
98% of DSD releases are copies of high-resolution PCM.
Remastering is done in PCM and then comverted to DSD.
This is why I love my DirectStream DAC, it does a way more accurate job of upsampling and conversion than you can do in a computer. Whatever I put in has that Magic!
@@bélalugrisi have you ever tried stopping the upsampling? I have the experience that I rather not upsample as the advantage doesn't seems to be greater than the downside.
@@edmaster3147 There is no way to. The incoming digital signal is read at ~28 MHz, the least common multiple of all PCM and up to 4xDSD rates. The result is are more accurate digital pulses since the leading edge of the pulse is accurate and doesn't introduce jitter. So this is not traditional upsampling, and I haven't noticed any downside. Everything is then converted to 2xDSD for output at 5.6 Mhz. Brilliant engineering and software development lead to less between you and the music.
@@bélalugrisi agreed, briljant egineering indeed on the DSD part, I ment the regular upsampling for 44.1 pcm. At the DSD side, I won't have any effort as there is hardly any chance where the music I like will be available on DSD.
SACD is fun. 5.1 is funner. Blu ray audio in 5.1 atmos is the funnest
Can y make a CZcams video where you compare a cdt with a good dac connected playing the cd of a hybrid sacd with a sacd player playing sacd of the same hybrid sacd. Is there a big difference between the both?
Is it worth buying sacd-player and sacd’s instead of an ordinary cd if you use an cdt with a good dac?
Haha, Philips tried the same with DCC. It's just that, unless you are extremely allergic to background hiss, an analog cassette sounded better and worked less cumbersome :D.
But yes, mastering. Probably also the reason I prefer vinyl for a sizeable chunk.
SACD are still being pressed unlike DCC.
No analog tape in any shape or form can possibly sound better than a bit perfect digital file.
What about CD's that say DSD but not SACD? Are they any better than regular CDs? Will they sound any better played on an SACD player?
Yes, that is what hobbyist often do. That they compare the same song on same format in this case or also on different formats.
As this video clearly showcase that same format (both are CD) on same system is sounding differently!
And we hobbyist have NO CLUE that the two songs is NOT the same. And are fooled that CD is CD and they are the same and that is totally wrong!
We have NO information on from where the files is coming from at all.
So in practice we don't know what we are comparing!
The simplest use case as CD make us fail.
Then think about when we compare a streaming service of the same song. We have no clue were the file were obtained from or how it were handled.
So are we really ? comparing streaming service against for example LP, CD, SACD, other streaming services and so on.. ..no we are not!
We must first make sure that it is the same file we compare before we can even start to do a comparison. (Like Paul have done.)
Generally LP pressing plants get files with lower compression (loudness) than other formats from the record labels.
So even if it is the same the record labels can of many reasons fool us and the source that went to a LP and CD pressing plants is far from guarantee to be the same from them!
Also in a sense with this everybody should realize that the format CD is not sounding worse than LP.
When the CD usually get a lower fidelity file that is used to produce it than the LP got.
So shit in gives shit out.
That is the reason why LPs on many albums have higher dynamic range on the loudness data base internet page.
Because the file had greater dynamic range to begin with from the record labels that are playing us and killed the CD and all the other formats that is/were better than LP.
Of course there is exceptions but the vast majority of record labels are taking care of their own interests.
Sacd provide deeper tone,louder and better acoustic.
No
Thanks, Paul! Yes, remastering is part of the reason it sounds different, but when comparing an old CD to even the same master, recorded with newer technology that is less prone to errors as compared to the old resistive ladder DAC used in analog to digital conversion. You don't have the drift from the MSB resistor swamping the lower bits, causing fading cymbals and such not ringing out properly. CD player hardware advances were adopted by players way before the disc production houses, since that equipment was a bigger expense. A great example is the NuWave Phono converter, which creates the most accuracy even at CD resolution. In conjunction with "Vinyl Studio", recommended by A PS Audio tech, I have been easily able to create wonderful sounding reproduction for any format!
So, short answer, cd and cd layer on a sacd should sound exactly the same, right?
Not necessarily.
It would be possible to have a CD version or even an SACD version that was "mastered" or "remastered" differently..
For instance, there have been a few "remasters" of Miles Davis Kind of Blue so it would be entirely possible for different-sounding discs.
Slightly off topic but...would the sound quality using a normal type of CD and CD player, be better than streaming music from CZcams with my laptop computer and a Schiit Modi 3 dac?
Generally yes.
CDs inherently have a better frequency response and dynamic range than CZcams streaming because CZcams uses a lossy compression on the streaming signal.
So is it possible that an album that was recorded digitally for the DSD/hybrid to sound better than the original release?
Yes.
Especially with older recordings the technology has advanced considerably and it is possible to remove noise that was present in the original recordings and to replace high and low-frequency loss from original recordings.
Additionally, digital recording or re-recording has the advantage of not adding any additional noise to the process making for a better-sounding remaster.
Another good video Paul.
I have two disagreements.
1) No original recordings are dsd, because it can’t be edited. Perhaps your reference to dsd masters is not intended to state this. In any event, as you know Only vinyl remastered to digital and unedited live recordings can be dsd.
Everything else digital is pcm. And with excellent cd playback (eg Aqua La Scala dac plus La diva cd transport, sacd rarely (I have not heard it in my collection of 100 sacds) sounds better than cd.
Sure sacd is higher resolution but:
1) mastering is the key (esoteric sacd Strauss alpine symphony is way better than dg cd or lp , despite all being mastered from 16/44.1 digital files;
2) human beings can’t tell difference between cd and higher resolution format. You need a double blind test to avoid tendency to think sacd must sound better. It’s higher resolution but can you hear a difference. Blind testing of cd v higher resolution format by AES (not by them but they published a study in 2007) confirms this.
Caveat: only with great cd transport like Aqua La diva is cd as good as sacd. On my earlier Accuphase dp450, sacd (through oppo 205) sounded better than cd. But through La diva, cd sounds at least as good if not better than sacd.
So, whilst your video is informative as always, these points need to be kept in mind. Yes I agree sacd is higher resolution (file size of 4gb v 70b for cd), but that doesn’t mean humans can hear the increase in resolution. With your typical cd player, sacd will usually sound better ceteris parabis. But with a good cd transport and dac, I doubt anyone will be able to tell the difference.
Correct, you wont hear any difference at all
Sorry, but the difference is not in the 20 khz upper frequency limit. DSD has better impulse response, low pre and post ringing. Also, it has much more information (resolution) in the medium and low frequency range, where our ears are much more sensible, also in old age. Same for PCM 24 bit 176 - 192 khz. Look for DSD vs PCM comparison. @@Synthematix
Unless is a 24bit remaster.
The only way for most ordinary people to hear a difference between a CD and SACD of the same album, is to MASTER them differently!
The sound of the hardware producing the musical signal is most important. With the DirectStream DAC, the difference is indeed small, as Ted Smith discovered by surreptitiously switching between CD and DSD while people weren't looking! Hence the term 'input agnostic'. The sound of 16/44.1 realized through the DirectStream is certainly far better than the SACD audio output on my Sony player!
@@bélalugrisi Respectfully disagree.
It's the monkey- Ehem - MASTERING ENGINEER twisting the knobs on the mastering console that makes the biggest - not the only - but the biggest audible difference.
"sound of the hardware"? Sounds like audiophile talk to me!
@@Zickcermacity I actually do mastering in the analog and digital domain. You are right that that is the biggest difference. Mastering can do a lot of good or harm depending of the ears and experience of the guy or gal twisting the knobs and A/B-ing the results. Some times we are so used to the way a recording sounds that we've been listening for decades, that even improved tonal balance and detail brought out in remastering doesn't appeal.
As for the sound of the hardware, I don't think you'd disagree if you change speakers or a phono cartridge that hardware sounds different. The same is true for off the shelf DACs with steep smearing filters vs. a discrete high speed output stage operating in the multi-MHz range, not needing those filters at all. Audiophile talk, yes, but also science and engineering. Best to you and thanks for your reply!
@@bélalugrisi I can definitely hear the difference among tubby speakers with flimsy cabinets, or budget jobs with limited bandwidth top and/or bottom.
As far as the DACS and other boxes go, not so much.
@@Zickcermacity What matters is the foot tapping good feeling you get when you're enjoying the music and the system fades into the background. May I ask some of your favorite artists/genres? Happy listening!
Yeah! I find it widens the image and lends a delightful airiness to the top end. For my sensitive, discerning ears it's all about getting that subtle extra improvement. _"But it's the same damn bits being fed to the DAC! You can't be serious with this bulls-t!! Did you A/B test it? I bet $500 you can't A/B it!!,"_ my friends said . . . Well, they just don't understand how it is to be an audiophile. (" -.-)
A question I have that was not addressed in the video is:
The first time the CD layer of an SACD is played, is it supposed to sound like a karaoke ghost of the SACD layer? I noticed it when playing my copy of the hybrid SACD of Carly Simon’s Hotcakes album. At first, all I could hear was mic feed. The actual vocals weren’t there for the most part. However, after a few more listens, the actual vocals started to emerge.
Maybe a real ghost was screwing around with your system.
@@purpleghost4083 Nah… I don’t think so.
@@caleguillory5451 I'll ask around for ya, try to find something out.👻☺
@@purpleghost4083 Okie dokie.
That is a characteristic of HDCD discs and some DVD players using WMP, the first track may not be recognized as HDCD, but all subsequent tracks are. This is because HDCD has a control signal, and if the signal is not detected by WMP at the beginning of the song, the HDCD decoder is not activated.
Two problems: 1) you are plus 70. No disrespect but I doubt you can hear 10k; 2) PSAudio sell high resolution players so there’s a vested interest
Reality check: humans can’t in practice perceive over redbook standard. Can you or anyone you know hear over 22khz (limit of cd)?? No you can’t. Ok humans can perceive 144 db dynamic range. That looks good compared to cd with its 96db dynamic range. Problem is 1. If you listen to any recordings at 120db dynamic range you will go deaf. 2) masking effects mean practically we can’t perceive dynamic ranges over 85db-less than cd. Stop looking at statistics and listen to the recording!
True Story i own many of PS audio Sacd and dam their good !! Paul did your Boy show you the email me dancing to thr 🎻 ? Lmao !! I need your permission to play on my channel 😆 just 10 seconds please !! Octave 🔥 I don't give 2 flip flops about ASR !!
The recordings are very nice, but I must admit that I've heard Gus Skinas recordings that are least as good to my taste, but not on the Octave label. Octave takes a certain path in recording and I can truely appreciate it, but the choises they make are not always what I prefer. I tend to dislike the noise floor which sampels in on vocals sometimes or instruments, which pollute the background, which I don't experience as much with other recordings. Upside is that it reveals a lot and makes it feel more alive and natural. But I don't own many Octave recordings as the artist are not to my liking, furthermore I don't see any need whatsover for DSD, as CD and a tad above that is truely remarkable on my system.
@@edmaster3147 Yeah I know Paul Had been working on getting more Artist Involved which is most likely tuff today love to see Michael Buble make an Octave reccording !!
I used to listen to Paul until he went all TDS on us. Now we ignore him.
:) TDS? TDS is the acronym for Trump Devotion Syndrome. It's characterized by a singular willingness to serve criminals with the surname "Trump." Surely you're not referring to me. That's the last thing on Earth I could resemble.
Nah, the cd layer is just the same as the bog standard cd 💿
Sony "touted" SACD's for their multi-channel capability and to eventually replace the two-ch CD standard with built-in copy protection.
I bought a few of them between 2005 and 2015 back when they cost about $15.00 each. I won't buy them anymore. In many cases the CD layer just sounds better.
If sacd doesn’t sound better when played through dsd player - send it back !
I have a problem with your claim dsd layer sounds better than cd layer! Cd already exceeds human hearing capacity. That’s why (unless cd layer has been sabotaged), humans can’t perceive a higher resolution than cd. Only with a double blind INdEPENDEnT test, could we believe sacd or dsd64 sounds better! You repeatedly claim dsd sounds better than cd. There’s zero proof of that. I agree that on medium cd players sacd sounds better on a sacd device. But that’s due to the transport and dac, and the mastering of sacd v the mastering of cd. Yes sometime the cd layer is sabotaged to make the sacd layer sound better.
Double blind testing reported in AES in 2007 found humans cannot distinguish between cd and high resolution playback of the same recording-provided they are equally well mastered. Nobody can hear above the 22.05khz cd offers. And cd gives 96db dynamic range. Not a single recording comes near that range. Even telarcs Tchaikovsky 1812 was found by stereophile to have a 40db dynamic range.
So just forget high resolution unless you want surround sound because for stereo a properly mastered cd equals sacd sonically.
We get swept up by the marketing hype but science shows that we don’t get any sonic benefits from sacd over cd in stereo if the cd is properly
mastered.
Downsampled dsd to CD (16/44.1) sounds like crap. If you want to hear it on cd, just record it natively from the source.
CDs do not sound like crap. Its MP3, AAC and streaming which sounds like crap.
@@judenihal Read what i said again. I said dsd converted to cd sounds like crap. If you want to listen to quality cd you have to record it natively in pcm. You went in a whole other direction.
Perhaps your downsampler is the problem? I need to downsample everything except 24/48 and really, DSD downsampled sounds fine (even way better then my DAC that plays DSD ever could, miles better). Those HiRes files very slightly inprove the sound in my system, 24 bit (my DAC only does 18 of those bits, hopefully), but natively or downsampled, its the same, at least, in my system.
@@judenihal MP3 sounds very sweet and nice actually and could for a lot of (low end) DAC's be an outcome. And streaming, if done properly, sounds at least as good as CD, as a CD player has many parts that are even so harmful to the sound as a streamer. But a very good CD player would set one back a lot of money as well as a very nice streamer would.....
@@380stroker If converting a DSD to CD sounds like crap and Analog to CD doesn't, then it's definitely the fault of DSD. Have you tried converting playing DSD to Analog and then Analog to PCM?
Talk about beating the proverbial dead horse, SACD "died" long, long ago...
Still not dead man ,believe me there's a niche for this format and many new titles pop up each week ! I should know i buy them often and have thousands in my collection !
Worldwide SACD releases of SACD, as of the end of 2022, saw 2 straight years of increases. There were 747 new SACD releases worldwide in 2022. In total, there have been over 15,500 SACD releases worldwide since the format debuted 24 years ago.
My thought is that the CD-layer on a SACD should sound worse, at least as time goes, say 3-4 years or more from now. I can never accept that it sounds better than plain CD anyway.
Why do you think that?
@@AmazonasBiotop Because they could make the aluminium layer thicker on standard CDs (I guess) and you have nothing that could affect the CD-layer in any way, as it (perhaps) can on SACDs.
If I only want a CD and will never use the SACD layer I buy a normal CD, even if the SACD is 2 dollar cheaper.
@@birgerolovsson5203 Ok. So you say "perhaps" and "maybe".
That express FUD and just to be safe than sorry.
Anyway I have worked for 10 years as software developer on optical testing hardware.
I can assure you that the aluminum layer on the CD layer is fully reflective and is as tick as they want to make it.
On a CD the information layer is closest to the label and sometimes only a UV hardened lacquer.
So as you probably know the laser is reading the disc from the under up.
It is 1.2 mm thick and that polycarbonate acts as a part of the optics and has a different diffraction Index than air. So the laser focus on the track after 1.2 mm.
But you are right in a way that the SACD hybrid disc make it harder to read the CD layer.
The SACD layer is like in the DVD 9 gb case molded into a "half disc" that is 0.6 mm thick and then glued together with another half disc that is if course also 0.6 (that is why a SACD/DVD feels stiffer when it is a lamination of two half discs.
The first half that is closest to the disc is containing the SACD layer. So it is in the middle of the disc.
That is treated with a very thin layer of reflective material so it is "semitransparent".
When we need to be able to reach and read the CD layer.
There is specifications on how reflective that SACD layer should be. When to thick and to reflective then we have issues to read the CD layer. To thin and to transparent then we can't read the SACD layer.
So what actually happens when we read the CD layer is that the unfocused light need to go through the SACD layer. Some of the light is reflected and lost. The remaining light is going to the CD there it is focused at, bouncing back and now need to get trough the semitransparent SACD layer again. And again loose some % of its light. And lastly it it will hit the photodiode.
So yes it is little bit cumbersome to read the layers on a hybrid disc. But we should also keep in mind that it is not something unique when the DVD 9 had also the same argument with two layers and one of them semitransparent but both of them in the middle (0.6 mm) of the disc.
And the optical formats were rather rubust with multiple stages of error corrections that computers installed software and even operating system from. And if anything a computer gets buggy if not all information is correct.
But I think there is not a specific reason to believe that anything would go sideways after 3-4 years in my experience.
I thought that the colour of the SACD was beneficial to the reading of the laser of a CD player.
What a stupid question, not gonna bother watching this because of how obvious the answer is
I don't think that an SACD should have a CD layer.
Why not, you might want to play it in your car, or lend it to a friend who only has a cd player .. or even repeatedly play both layers to yourself revelling in thr fact of how much better the sacd sounds compared to the cd lol
Exactly. Its existence encourages people listening in sub-optimal conditions instead of purchasing better gear. Should be removed.
@@geddylee501 The kind of music that I purchase on SACD is 4 critical listening, not the kind of stuff I listen 2 in the car......& I NEVER lend my babies 2 my friends; they can't B trusted.
@thejoojooman6538 I don't understand why it would ever matter to you if there is a CD layer. 😕
@@thejoojooman6538 lol nuff said