Hello All,

Several formats out there. I know that SACD is just the CD mixed in 5.1 just like in the studio, need a player that plays SACD, and a receiver that plays it. How different is HDCD? I know still just 2 channel stereo, but what is the audio difference, or is there really any that you can hear?

Anyone have any HDCD or SACD that they can burn me, or let me borrow to listen to? Have an OPPO DVD 981HD that plays SACD & HDCD, and a Rotel CD that plays HDCD. want to try them out in that format.

Anyone have any DVD-A? Know where to buy any of the above locally, new or used?

Regards,

Frank

Well, this is sure to open up some conversation :)

SACD can be higher resolution stereo, multi-channel, or both on the same disc. You're right that you do need to have the proper player for SACDs, but most players have regular old analog outputs so you can play them through most any preamp/amplifier

HDCD was a system developed back in the 90s that allowed an extra 2-bits of audio information to be folded into a standard 16-bit CD. This provided a bit more detail, but it's hard to tell as most of the HDCD discs that were out there were from perfectionist type artists/labels which sounded awesome anyway. Special decoding (either in a CD player or outboard DAC) is required to play HDCDs in all their glory, although HDCDs will play on any standard CD player with standard 16-bit CD fidelity

DVD-A was Toshiba/Time-Warner's attempt to get into the HD disc-based video game, and they lost. Not a ton of audio-only DVD-As out there, and what was issued was mostly 5.1 in nature.

Another one to look out for are the rare Dualdiscs that were issued by Warner...CD on one side, high-resolution DVD-compatible stereo (usually) on the other. I've got a couple of these that just sound amazing.

About the only thing all these formats have in common is Neil Young, who issued and re-issued most of his catalog on one or all of these formats at one time or another. :)

As for finding discs, check out your used record stores, online auctions, etc...since Tower folded there really isn't a great national chain where you can find all these formats, but Best Buy et al surprise me every once in a while.

Good luck in your search and have fun!

SACD is completely different from CD. The sampling frequency of DSD SACD is 2822.4 kHz compared to CD's paltry 44.1 kHz. Everything you always wanted to know about SACD can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD

SACDs cannot be ripped or burned.

Not all SACDs are 5.1. A lot in fact are simply Stereo. Some are three-channel stereo.

Pretty hard to find locally. Best Buy has them mixed in, if available at all, with all the other CDs. A couple years back they had a high resolution section.

If you like classical, Amazon has the RCA Living Stereo SACDs on special for $7.97 each:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=rca+living+stereo+sacd&x=0&y=0

They are simply amazing.

Jeff

Well, this is sure to open up some conversation :)

SACD can be higher resolution stereo, multi-channel, or both on the same disc. You're right that you do need to have the proper player for SACDs, but most players have regular old analog outputs so you can play them through most any preamp/amplifier

HDCD was a system developed back in the 90s that allowed an extra 2-bits of audio information to be folded into a standard 16-bit CD. This provided a bit more detail, but it's hard to tell as most of the HDCD discs that were out there were from perfectionist type artists/labels which sounded awesome anyway. Special decoding (either in a CD player or outboard DAC) is required to play HDCDs in all their glory, although HDCDs will play on any standard CD player with standard 16-bit CD fidelity

DVD-A was Toshiba/Time-Warner's attempt to get into the HD disc-based video game, and they lost. Not a ton of audio-only DVD-As out there, and what was issued was mostly 5.1 in nature.

Another one to look out for are the rare Dualdiscs that were issued by Warner...CD on one side, high-resolution DVD-compatible stereo (usually) on the other. I've got a couple of these that just sound amazing.

About the only thing all these formats have in common is Neil Young, who issued and re-issued most of his catalog on one or all of these formats at one time or another. :)

As for finding discs, check out your used record stores, online auctions, etc...since Tower folded there really isn't a great national chain where you can find all these formats, but Best Buy et al surprise me every once in a while.

Good luck in your search and have fun!


DVD-A is not only multi-channel - DAD was a 2 channel format of that and very very hi-rez made from the original studio tapes.

I also have 3 cd's that do not say they are SACD, they just say 5.1 DTS on them. They will not play in my car CD.

Just thinking that if there are not that many SACD/HDCD/DVD-A in rock/jazz/pop/alternative, then there is no sense in spending the extra money in buying a CD or DVD player capable of those formats. I do have a couple Dual Discs. No special player needed for those, right?

Another thing I have noticed on the SACD and HDCD players is that they are played through the 5.1 analog or stereo analog jacks, not the digital out jacks. Something to do with copy protection.

I also have 3 cd's that do not say they are SACD, they just say 5.1 DTS on them. They will not play in my car CD.

Just thinking that if there are not that many SACD/HDCD/DVD-A in rock/jazz/pop/alternative, then there is no sense in spending the extra money in buying a CD or DVD player capable of those formats. I do have a couple Dual Discs. No special player needed for those, right?

SACD titles available here (total currently 5875):

http://www.sa-cd.net/home

Total in Pop/rock 465.
Total in Jazz 961.

I'd say that's quite a few for a dying format.

No special player needed for Dual disc. Although certain players have problems with the thicker discs - one reason Dual disc essentially died. I avoid any dual disc purchases, regardless of how important the artist is to me.

The DTS 5.1 is a DVD format. You need a DVD player to play them.

Jeff

The DTS 5.1 is a DVD format. You need a DVD player to play them. While dts is most often used for the audio portion of DVD movies, there are also dts-Digital Surround CDs that will play in a CD player with either a built-in 5.1 digital decoder or output a digital bit-stream to be decoded in a dts-capable 5.1 sound system. dts released a number of popular titles using this format. This was the 5.1 audio format before DVD-A and SACD joined the 5.1 surround party.

that is what i picked up at a flea market, 3 dts-digital surround cd's. one is Eagles Hell Freezes Over, One is Cutting Crew. won't play in a regular CD player with just stereo analog out. These, i believe, can be burned.

that is what i picked up at a flea market, 3 dts-digital surround cd's. one is Eagles Hell Freezes Over, One is Cutting Crew. won't play in a regular CD player with just stereo analog out. These, i believe, can be burned.

Yes they can be burned and played on a DVD player or CD player with a digital out(Toslink or Coax) into a Surround System

SACD is completely different from CD. The sampling frequency of DSD SACD is 2822.4 kHz compared to CD's paltry 44.1 kHz. ...

That's an apples-and-oranges comparison. SACD uses delta-sigma conversion, so its word length is a paltry 1 bit vs. 16 bits for CD.

The leading academics disagree on whether SACD's Direct Stream Digital (DSD) recording process can even equal Red Book CD's 16-bit PCM, let alone surpass it. Wikipedia has some good information on the debate at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Stream_Digital.

Of the 3 I always liked DVD-Audio the best....

Shame it didn't catch on...

Maybe Blu-Ray will come up with an audio format...

That's an apples-and-oranges comparison. SACD uses delta-sigma conversion, so its word length is a paltry 1 bit vs. 16 bits for CD.

The leading academics disagree on whether SACD's Direct Stream Digital (DSD) recording process can even equal Red Book CD's 16-bit PCM, let alone surpass it. Wikipedia has some good information on the debate at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Stream_Digital.

Actually the frequency comparison was an apples to apples comparison. You are right about the word length - it is indeed different and can't be directly compared since we're talking about two different conversion processes.

But I would stress that as your link points out the disagreement merely shows that there is some disagreement as to which is better, not that one is clearly better than the other. And whether Lipshitz and Vanderkooy are "leading academics" is also debatable as evidenced by the two cited papers that refute their theory.

It is clear to me in listening that there is something clearly different between CD and SACD formats - and in most cases I prefer the sound of SACD over CD.

Of course, this is not AES approved evidence; it's merely a general feeling I have when comparing recordings in my listening room in a relaxed, informal atmosphere - the kind of thing I usually do to decide what I like best and least in the hobby of audio.

Jeff

My Rotel RCD 1070 decodes HDCD. It is difficult if not impossible to A/B the same recording with/without it because as Redcoat said, many HDCDs are high quality recordings in the first place (e.g. Olu Dara's Natchez to New York)

But a lot of catalog titles were reissued in HDCD (The whole Grateful Dead catalog as well as Joni Mitchell, Buffalo Springfield, and some Neil Young titles). But since they were also remixed or remastered for the reissue, you can't really A/B them with older issues.

I've never been blown away by a huge difference in HDCD. It's nice, but honestly, I wouldn't know a disc was HDCD if the light didn't come on on my player.

...

Actually the frequency comparison was an apples to apples comparison. You are right about the word length - it is indeed different and can't be directly compared since we're talking about two different conversion processes.

By the same token, the sampling rates can't be directly compared because of the difference in the conversion processes.

But I would stress that as your link points out the disagreement merely shows that there is some disagreement as to which is better, not that one is clearly better than the other. And whether Lipshitz and Vanderkooy are "leading academics" is also debatable as evidenced by the two cited papers that refute their theory.

Having read past papers and articles by Lipshitz and Vanderkooy, and having read the first of their papers linked in the Wikipedia article, I would be very reluctant to dismiss them as cranks. In fact, I would give more weight to their arguments, which come from two people with strong technical credentials and no ties to industry, than I would to the refutations from the brain trust at Philips or Sony. As good as the latter people are at their chosen profession, their employment raises questions about just how objective they're allowed to be about the virtues and vices of DSD.

That said, I will go back and read the rest of the papers to see if the refutations raise valid points about the technology.

It is clear to me in listening that there is something clearly different between CD and SACD formats - and in most cases I prefer the sound of SACD over CD.

Of course, this is not AES approved evidence; it's merely a general feeling I have when comparing recordings in my listening room in a relaxed, informal atmosphere - the kind of thing I usually do to decide what I like best and least in the hobby of audio.

Jeff

Interesting thread. I have a great cd player, and a pretty good DVDA/SACD player. To me, my modded cd player is far superior in sound due to the excellent upgrades a friend of mine made to it. No matter how arguably good the format is, your player influences the sound enormously.

I was thinking about getting a Denon blue ray player, but decided against it for now. My next new 'source' is going to be a computer paired with a very good dac. It just seems like the most logical way to go. A computer seems to bypass some of the issues with older formats, and is itself a great storage medium. It's an infinitely flexible audio component.

By the same token, the sampling rates can't be directly compared because of the difference in the conversion processes.

Well, we can agree to disagree here. The sampling rate in both cases is taken from a continuous signal - just a matter of how that signal is first derived (the conversion process).

Having read past papers and articles by Lipshitz and Vanderkooy, and having read the first of their papers linked in the Wikipedia article, I would be very reluctant to dismiss them as cranks.

Didn't say they were "cranks" or disagree about their technical experience. I was disputing your interpretation of them being "leading" academics. It's no question they are indeed academics in the field. But to say that they somehow "lead" the industry or the academic field of sound is disputable. Like so many AES authors they're opinions are often divorced from actual listening experience and IMO often over rely on measurements alone to concoct theories about the audio hobby.


Jeff

The problem in comparing oversampled multi-bit PCM converters with 1-bit converters using even higher sampling-rate multiples is that 1-bit conversion requires the higher multiples to meet even minimal standards of listenability. A simple 1-bit converter would have to run at 65,536x to offer the same resolution as a 16-bit converter running at 1x. Running the 1-bit converter at lower multiples introduces slope-overload distortion on high-frequency, high-amplitude signals, blunting transient impact. While this is probably not a major issue on music signals, which seldom approach 0 dBFS in the top audible octaves, it is still a distortion mechanism, albeit a subtractive one that is not offensive to the ear. It may in fact make such systems sound more "analog" in the sense that analog tape equipment also offers less high-frequency extension as the recorded level approaches 0 VU. Admittedly the post-conversion filtering job is easier at a high multiple of the sampling frequency than it is at 1x or even 4x, but is this benefit worth the cost of watered-down high-frequency transients?

Most delta-sigma converters in CD players actually use more than 1 bit in the converter as a means of addressing this shortcoming in part. DSD does not, and Lipshitz and Vanderkooy offer the following comments about it:

In recent years, we have seen the consumer audio industry perform a remarkable feat of salesmanship by proclaiming that 1-bit converters are better than multi-bit converters, and succeeding in marketing 1-bit products as preferable for the highest-quality performance. The original primary motivation for pursuing the 1-bit converter architecture was not superior performance, but rather the fact that it is cheaper to manufacture, consumes less power, and can operate well at the voltages used in battery-powered portable equipment. This has now become secondary, as 1-bit converters are currently used in consumer audio equipment at all price and quality levels. The manufacturers of high-quality converters struggled mightily to produce 1-bit devices that met the performance goals of the industry. But, they could never eliminate all the undesirable artefacts of such converters, and after more than a decade of trying, they came to the realization that they could produce better performance by using multi-bit converter architectures in their products. The one inherent advantage of the 1-bit architecture, namely its avoidance of the levelmatching difficulties found in multi-bit converters, turned out not to be as significant a benefit as one might have thought. If one examines the current data-sheets of all the major high-quality converter manufacturers, one finds that they have almost universally given up on the 1-bit sigma-delta topology in favor of oversampling converters using more than two levels. Such converter architectures can avoid the intractabilities of both the 1-bit and the 20+ -bit designs. They can be properly dithered, and can thus be guaranteed to be free of low-level, limit-cycle oscillations (“birdies”). Moreover, they do not suffer from the high-level instability problems of the higher-order, 1-bit sigma-delta converters.

In light of the above, it is with alarm that we note the adoption of the single-stage, 1-bit sigma-delta converter architecture as the encoding standard for a next-generation (and supposedly higher-quality) consumer digital audio format. We refer, of course, to the Direct Stream Digital (DSD) encoding which forms the basis of the Super Audio CD2 format introduced recently by Philips and Sony (see, for example, [5] and [6]). The original intention to have the digital audio data at every stage of the processing — from the original analogue-to-digital conversion, through all the editing and mastering operations — stored in the DSD 1-bit format has apparently now been abandoned. This was a wise decision. The conversion to the final 1-bit DSD format, however, still represents a required, and quite unnecessary, degradation of the quality of the audio signal. Every single 1-bit data conversion entails an inevitable loss of signal quality in a way which need not occur with multi-bit, linear PCM. The original rationale for storing a 1-bit DSD format signal on the Super Audio CD has now entirely vanished. The analogue-to digital and digital-to-analogue conversions, and all intermediate digital signal processing, will likely be done using multi-bit converters and storage formats. There really is no point in degrading the signal, by squeezing it onto a 1-bit Super Audio CD for transmission to the consumer, only to have it converted back to multi-bit PCM in the process of being played back.

BTW, I don't own an SACD player, but I have heard the format in a very high-quality system and compared it to Red Book CD played back on a player of somewhat lesser quality than the SACD player in use. I heard differences between them in sighted testing, but would have a hard time choosing either one as preferable to the other. Further, I doubt that I could reliably detect the difference in that system in a blind test -- it was that subtle and program-dependent.

I am personally a fan of the HDCD "format" it's really simple. A standard cd that yields better sound quality than other cd's on a player with the proper dac and it's still playable in the car too. I just wish all cd's were encoded in it. Most people already own a few cd's with it in their collection. Here's a partial list:
http://www.goodwinshighend.com/music/hdcd/hdcd_recordings.htm

Another benefit of HDCD is that it's not cursed with aggressive digital rights management, as both SACD and DVD-A are. You can copy tracks to a mix CD, and as long as you set your copying software to make a bit-accurate copy, the HDCD encoding won't be lost in the process. (You can also rip HDCD tracks, convert them to MP3 and put them on a portable player, but you'll lose the HDCD encoding when you do this.)

The problem in comparing oversampled multi-bit PCM converters with 1-bit converters using even higher sampling-rate multiples is that 1-bit conversion requires the higher multiples to meet even minimal standards of listenability. A simple 1-bit converter would have to run at 65,536x to offer the same resolution as a 16-bit converter running at 1x. Running the 1-bit converter at lower multiples introduces slope-overload distortion on high-frequency, high-amplitude signals, blunting transient impact. While this is probably not a major issue on music signals, which seldom approach 0 dBFS in the top audible octaves, it is still a distortion mechanism, albeit a subtractive one that is not offensive to the ear. It may in fact make such systems sound more "analog" in the sense that analog tape equipment also offers less high-frequency extension as the recorded level approaches 0 VU. Admittedly the post-conversion filtering job is easier at a high multiple of the sampling frequency than it is at 1x or even 4x, but is this benefit worth the cost of watered-down high-frequency transients?

I've never heard "watered-down high frequency transients" in SACD playback. If anything the top end is much improved and more extended over red book - not saying much since redbook high frequency sounds like crap. But there is also a better delineation of recording space in SACD that I've never heard in CD playback. So something is clearly going on here when we sit down and take the time to listen.

BTW, I don't own an SACD player, but I have heard the format in a very high-quality system and compared it to Red Book CD played back on a player of somewhat lesser quality than the SACD player in use. I heard differences between them in sighted testing, but would have a hard time choosing either one as preferable to the other. Further, I doubt that I could reliably detect the difference in that system in a blind test -- it was that subtle and program-dependent.

I doubt that anyone could detect anything meaningful in a blind test...but that's another thread.:D

This is what bothers me: there are a few folks out there who have limited listening experience with SACD yet proclaim it's inadequacies based on a few "authorities" who rely on measurements alone to evaluate it's sound quality.

It doesn't surprise me that a technical examination of the DSD process yields some less than favorable results. Technical measurements of most any tube amp often reveal less than stellar results too. Same with vinyl and analog. By the same token, there's also a chance that a speaker that sounds bad may also measure very well.

What IS surprising to me is finding anyone who says CD sounds better than SACD (or no different) who has listened to both formats over an extensive and extended period of time.

Thanks for pointing out that some folks do indeed believe such stuff. It was an interesting read.

Enjoy your CDs.

Jeff

I've never heard "watered-down high frequency transients" in SACD playback. If anything the top end is much improved and more extended over red book - not saying much since redbook high frequency sounds like crap [Emphasis added]. ...

If you're hearing bad high-frequency response from CD, you're listening to a bad player and/or a badly-recorded CD. There are plenty of both on the market; in fact, it's almost as easy to build a bad-sounding CD player as it is to play an LP back badly. Do a Google search on "slope-overload distortion," a topic well known to any EE student who's taken a senior-level course in communication theory, and consider what this distortion mechanism does to HF transients in a 1-bit A/D converter such as the one used in DSD.

I would like to hear more of 2-channel SACD, preferably in an environment where both the CD and SACD front ends are of very high quality and there are discs available that offer the same music in both formats. I want to give the format a fair hearing and add it to my system if it offers enough benefit to justify the cost. Perhaps this type of comparison would be a good topic for a future SMAC meeting.

I guess it depends on what you and I mean by the phrase "bad high frequency response." You seem to be talking about measured high frequency response. Undoubtedly, this is superb in CD. But the translation to the human ear IMO is brittle edges with harsh transients - an overblown high frequency that sounds plain ruthless to me. Is it bettered in high-end cd players? Of course. I've listened to mutiple well-regarded CD players and DACs that make CD listenable. SACD still sounds better to these ears.

Yes, I agree. This would make a great comparison for a future SMAC meet. I think most folks are as naive as I am and simply believe without question that SACD is the better format. Be nice to present Lipshitz, et al in non-technical language too - are you up for it?

Jeff

I've never heard "watered-down high frequency transients" in SACD playback. ... This is what bothers me: there are a few folks out there who have limited listening experience with SACD yet proclaim it's inadequacies based on a few "authorities" who rely on measurements alone to evaluate it's sound quality.



There are critics out there who trust listening tests much more than measurements and agree with the tech-types who find SACD wanting. Here's a link to an interesting article by J. Peter Moncreiff in International Audio Review, in which he criticizes DSD for dulled transient response in the treble region -- exactly what an information theorist would predict after looking at the data conversion architecture and the bandwidth it's called upon to handle. http://www.iar-80.com/page39.html has the details, and here's an excerpt to whet your appetite:

... Through DVD-A, the leading edge of a transient attack was just where it should be, at the leading edge. DVD-A was especially remarkable at sounding phase coherent, such that the spectral extremes of the music were all in the same phase as the rest of the music, pushing together or pulling together. Indeed, DVD-A sounded far better than CD and even better than many electronic audio amplifiers, at presenting treble information with excellent coherence, instead of the rounding, softening, or dulling we hear from components whose phase response rolls off (rotates) in the trebles.

In contrast to DVD-A, the trebles of DSD/SACD were virtually the opposite in their sonic qualities. They were indirect, diffuse, fuzzy, defocused, soft, veiled, slightly dulled, and very incoherent, both temporally and harmonically. Through DSD/SACD, the leading treble edge of a musical transient was not at the leading edge, but instead was buried later within the note, or disappeared altogether into a sea of soft, fuzzy noise. The violin's overtones became silvery sweet and soft, again as if the violin had been miked playing behind a velvet curtain. ...

This is beginning to remind me of being at work....where a common expression is, 'Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in the mud. After a while you realize you are dirty and the pig likes it.'

Some days I come home, put on a CD, put my feet up, relax and enjoy. Other days I come home, put on a SACD, put my feet up, relax and enjoy! Both days/ways I find some enjoyment!

The real question is, just who is responsible for the "Audiophile" sound in my wife's 2006 Ford Escape, where I never put on a CD, put my feet up, relax and enjoy??

Btw, HDCD can also appear on the CD layer of a hybrid SACD. For example, the hybrid SACD version of Dave Brubeck's "Time Out" features a HDCD-encoded CD layer, along with both a 2 channel stereo and a multi-channel surround version on the SACD layer.

After reading Moncreiff's review,didn't it sound like DVD-A was just a little too perfect,& SACD was really too shitty to be a real & subjective review.He sounded like he had an axe to grind to me.Perhaps just another mouthpiece for rent,like so many others in the Audio-jouralism bizz?

After reading Moncreiff's review,didn't it sound like DVD-A was just a little too perfect,& SACD was really too shitty to be a real & subjective review.He sounded like he had an axe to grind to me.Perhaps just another mouthpiece for rent,like so many others in the Audio-jouralism bizz?

That's quite possible. I only cited his statement to demonstrate that it's not only "meter readers" who have found fault with SACD. The division of opinion is the main reason that I want to hear SACD in a system that's good enough to reveal its virtues and vices, so I can decide for myself if it's something I want in my own audio system.

Im seeing some "Hybrid" SACDs that say they can be played on a SACD player or regular CD player.

What's the deal with that?

Well you could run across some very good systems that sport SACD players at SMAC meets.That's the only way to decide,with your own ears.

Im seeing some "Hybrid" SACDs that say they can be played on a SACD player or regular CD player.

What's the deal with that?

The Hybrid SACDs contain different layers giving them the ability to played on different format players.

The Hybrid SACDs contain different layers giving them the ability to played on different format players.

Do they perform well?

Do they sound as good on each of the different systems as a disc that was coded specifically SACD or regular CD?

And what is the reference to "Red Book" layer?

Do they perform well?

Do they sound as good on each of the different systems as a disc that was coded specifically SACD or regular CD?

And what is the reference to "Red Book" layer?

I've never noticed a difference."Redbook" is the term for regular CDs.

I've never noticed a difference."Redbook" is the term for regular CDs.

Thanks for the info.

I had never heard the term "Redbook" in reference to a CD. :sigh:

Don't all (red book) cd players sound like crap? more or less?
he, he, he!

I tried reading that stuff, IT MAKES MY HEAD HURT.

Seriously, aside from all the techno mumbo jumbo, my ears (which are highly sensitive tuned instruments) can clearly and easily hear something nice going on in vinyl, tube amps, or SACD's and something less than that in red book cd, even on some of our most modest rigs. Red book cd leaves me nervous and disinterested, by the most part...and I don't like to feel nervous and disinterested. God, I'm glad I didn't go to engineering school or give up my records.

Happy (Analogue) Listening!

Don't all (red book) cd players sound like crap? more or less?
he, he, he!

Too many of them do. Not all, though.

I tried reading that stuff, IT MAKES MY HEAD HURT.

Seriously, aside from all the techno mumbo jumbo, my ears (which are highly sensitive tuned instruments) can clearly and easily hear something nice going on in vinyl, tube amps, or SACD's and something less than that in red book cd, even on some of our most modest rigs. Red book cd leaves me nervous and disinterested, by the most part...and I don't like to feel nervous and disinterested. God, I'm glad I didn't go to engineering school or give up my records.

Happy (Analogue) Listening!

There are ways to make Red Book playback sound more analog. You could hunt down an old Magnavox CDB-650 player from the late 1980s and use its additionally filtered outputs, which roll the treble off by about a dB at 20 kHz to soften the transient impact. Alternatively, you could buy a tube buffer. These devices typically roll off the extreme treble, elevate the noise floor and add a touch of second-harmonic distortion. The result is less accurate than a good player's undoctored output, but it may be more pleasant to the ear on the many recordings that suffer from mediocre or worse session recording, mixing and mastering.

I like the sound of SACD discs to me. They may not be accurate, but they do sound more like analog.

I wonder if the distortion from playing SACD discs may be partly why we like its sound more? Sort of like what tubes do to audio.

That said I will still buy SACD discs because I find PCM audio harder on the ears, with a more edgy sound.