# How many Hi-Res discs do you own? (SACD, DVD-A and Blu-ray Audio only)



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

I thought I had quite a few Hi-res discs but then one day I made a project for myself. I literally went through my entire collection of discs.

Turns out I have a fair number or quality discs, like HDCD or MoFi but relatively few SACD's.

Do you know how many you have? You may have less than you think.


----------



## rspader (May 14, 2014)

eljr said:


> Do you know how many you have? You may have less than you think.


As far as I know, I don't have any, so I may have more than I think.

I am sure that I never deliberately purchased any but I buy most of my CDs second hand so there may be some in my collection.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

Over 500 if I include hi-rez downloads. Somewhere between 300 and 400 are classical.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

I voted "none" because I don't even know what a Hi-Res disc is, so probably don't own any. If I do it is quite by accident.


----------



## Antiquarian (Apr 29, 2014)

I have altogether too many SACDs, DVD-audio, and Blu-ray audio discs. I really don't know how many HDCDs I have, because it was rather an under-advertised format, but probably in the low hundreds. Talking about hi-res formats, wasn't there one back in the days of vinyl that required a sort of decoder box that "expanded" the sound on special LPs? I think it was supposed to go between the turntable and the preamp. If you did not use the box then the records were unlistenable. I'm not talking about "Digital Recording" LPs, that were little better than analog, and a rather deceptive marketing tool, but a failed format that really did improve the sound of the LP format by boosting available dynamic range. I think I may have a few of those too, or gotten rid of them.


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

I have none so thats that.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

I will count them and report back.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

jegreenwood said:


> Over 500 if I include hi-rez downloads. Somewhere between 300 and 400 are classical.


I purposely left off downloads, just discs.

Very impressive collection you have !


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

Antiquarian said:


> I have altogether too many SACDs, DVD-audio, and Blu-ray audio discs. I really don't know how many HDCDs I have, because it was rather an under-advertised format, but probably in the low hundreds. Talking about hi-res formats, wasn't there one back in the days of vinyl that required a sort of decoder box that "expanded" the sound on special LPs? I think it was supposed to go between the turntable and the preamp. If you did not use the box then the records were unlistenable. I'm not talking about "Digital Recording" LPs, that were little better than analog, and a rather deceptive marketing tool, but a failed format that really did improve the sound of the LP format by boosting available dynamic range. I think I may have a few of those too, or gotten rid of them.


HDCD's is a bit different.

I have about as many of those as SACD's.

I thought I had an easy 200 SACD's but when I counted, just 90!


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Some LPs required a DBX disc decoder, and there were certain receivers that had that decoder built-in. I never used it. I'm satisfied with the higher resolution of sound that comes with a pair of audiophile headphones, such as the Grado GS 1000. I like stereo and I get all of the resolution of frequencies that I want, and it's reliable and it's not a technology that's here today gone tomorrow.


----------



## haydnfan (Apr 13, 2011)

Any hi-res audio in my collection is purely by accident because I consider it snake oil. If I had the ears of a bat and ultra high end gear, maybe I would think differently. But I'm only human.


----------



## Antiquarian (Apr 29, 2014)

Larkenfield said:


> Some LPs required a DBX disc decoder


That's the one! It was supposed to reduce surface noise too... Ah, the memories...


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

haydnfan said:


> Any hi-res audio in my collection is purely by accident because I consider it snake oil. If I had the ears of a bat and ultra high end gear, maybe I would think differently. But I'm only human.


at what point do you consider hi-res snake oil?

MP3 is the gold standard and all else is oily?

Seems to me, one man's snake oil is another's gold standard.

But still, even with aged ears, it's hard to miss 5 channels vs 2. Strictly speaking for myself of course.

Not sure your snake oil comment is relevant to the thread but thanks for your perspective anyway.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

I have a few SACDs but no SACD player. Do I care? No! I got them cheap so I don't care and play them on a standard CD player (where they sound great anyway).


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Over 100. Most of them are multichannel though. I find no benefit to two channel SACDs.



eljr said:


> at what point do you consider hi-res snake oil?


He's talking about high bitrate/sampling rate audio. That's been sold as sounding better, but all of the advantages are outside the range of human hearing.


----------



## haydnfan (Apr 13, 2011)

bigshot said:


> He's talking about high bitrate/sampling rate audio. That's been sold as sounding better, but all of the advantages are outside the range of human hearing.


Yes this. Have no idea why the other poster is talking about mp3. The thread is about physical media. I consider red book cd as the standard for physical and flac 16/44.1 for digital files.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

bigshot said:


> Over 100. Most of them are multichannel though. I find no benefit to two channel SACDs.
> 
> He's talking about high bitrate/sampling rate audio. That's been sold as sounding better, but all of the advantages are outside the range of human hearing.


Trust me, I understood..., I still don't understand why that comment was needed though so I though I'd ask him to lay out all his cards. Still, I do not understand how one can't hear a difference between 2 channel and 5 channel.


----------



## Guest (Aug 11, 2017)

I have better things to do besides count them, but I'd guess around 250-300.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

eljr said:


> I purposely left off downloads, just discs.
> 
> Very impressive collection you have !


Excluding downloads I have over 450 discs (counting each physical disc). That's the box I checked.


----------



## Joe B (Aug 10, 2017)

I have 15 SACD discs at this point (5 Mobile Fidelity 2 channel SACD's and 10 multi-channel Chandos SACD's). I've only had a player capable of SACD playback since last August. If want I want is on CD that's great. If it's available on SACD, that's even better. The multi-channel playback of an SACD shifts the listener into the sound field of the recording, which is pretty cool. I will say though, that I don't think I will ever buy an SACD that is not hybrid. I want to be able to listen in my car as well.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

jegreenwood said:


> Excluding downloads I have over 450 discs (counting each physical disc). That's the box I checked.


that is impressive

i see you are a fellow nyc guy, very cool


----------



## proffrink (Dec 2, 2016)

Only a couple: a Blu-ray with Karajan's 1963 Beethoven cycle and a hybrid SACD on Telarc with suites from Rosza's film scores. And both of those were at bargain prices. (Plus a few high-res downloads.) Versus the hundreds of CDs I own.

I don't think I would ever pay top dollar for high-res audio, unless the master used was significantly better than the Redbook release. I've done tests downconverting high-res files and I simply cannot hear the difference.


----------



## Joe B (Aug 10, 2017)

proffrink said:


> I've done tests downconverting high-res files and I simply cannot hear the difference.


I think the big draw to SACD and hi-res downloads, as stated elsewhere, is the multi-channel playback feature. I enjoy it, but do not find it a necessity, just a perk.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

proffrink said:


> I don't think I would ever pay top dollar for high-res audio, unless the master used was significantly better than the Redbook release. I've done tests downconverting high-res files and I simply cannot hear the difference.


I have been in several conversations about this over the years and what I first said years ago, I stand by. Generally speaking, it continues to hold true. I find SACD's more enjoyable to listen to, not because more is revealed, my ears are just not that good, but because generally the remastering has enhanced the performance. 
And if it has not, I still prefer the SACD because I have confidence that it is the at least as good as the Red Book. So, no downside. A couple extra pennies to insure I get the best, worth it.

I respect all who think it's not worth it.

of course, 5 channels is 5 channels, so, like 5 channel or not, it is not the same.

This is not what this thread was supposed to be about..... but, as it is now, my 2 cents. Thanks for the reply and thanks to all that voted.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Round about 100, stopped counting then.


----------



## haydnfan (Apr 13, 2011)

eljr said:


> I do not understand how one can't hear a difference between 2 channel and 5 channel.


I can hear the difference between stereo and surround. I don't think you understand what hi res audio means. It means higher sample rate and bitrate. It doesn't necessarily mean surround sound. If you buy a dvd of an opera in DD or DTS you will get surround sound but not hd audio. If you buy a stereo sacd only you will get hd audio but not surround sound.

If you buy hi-res discs because you love surround sound, that's fine by me. I don't like surround sound for my music. That doesn't mean that I think they sound the same. They don't.

I'm not trolling your thread. I wasn't trying to get a rise out of you. I just don't care for hd audio. I think it's just the industry trying to get us to rebuy our collections again without anything valuable in return. If you think surround sound is valuable to you, then fine.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

haydnfan said:


> I'm not trolling your thread.
> I wasn't trying to get a rise out of you. I just don't care for hd audio. I think it's just the industry trying to get us to rebuy our collections again without anything valuable in return. If you think surround sound is valuable to you, then fine.


Good to hear, thanks. I think I already expressed my views on everything you speak to in this post.

Thought I was clear in the thread title, "SACD, DVD-A and Blu-ray Audio only."

Not that any of this is important. Just mildly interesting as it's a hobby.

I have many Hi-Res downloads, only one set of which is 5 channel so yes, I am aware of what all these formats are. I even have non hybrid SACD's. Strictly stereo. They are still hi-res.

--------------------------
--------------------------
--------------------------

and the thread was certainly was not meant for as a platform for someone to tell us they have better things to do. If the the thread is beneath a poster, just move on.

thanks to all but the busy guy!


----------



## Biwa (Aug 3, 2015)

Well over 500!  ...but not everything ever released. LOL!

Except for some older recordings, most are surround. Love 'em! :tiphat:


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

Biwa said:


> Well over 500!  ...but not everything ever released. LOL!
> 
> Except for some older recordings, most are surround. Love 'em! :tiphat:


Very very cool!

Thanks for your entry in the poll.


----------



## David Phillips (Jun 26, 2017)

When stereo first came in people would play their old mono LPs through the two speakers and say they experienced a stereo effect. I have started to play my stereo CDs through surround speakers and I get a similar sense of spaciousness as when I listen to SACDs. Has anyone else noticed this?


----------



## Joe B (Aug 10, 2017)

David Phillips said:


> When stereo first came in people would play their old mono LPs through the two speakers and say they experienced a stereo effect. I have started to play my stereo CDs through surround speakers and I get a similar sense of spaciousness as when I listen to SACDs. Has anyone else noticed this?


I understand what you mean, but I only do this when I am not in the living room (HT/listening room). Having the surround speakers playing moves the sound through the house much nicer. But, if I'm in the living room listening to 2 channel playback with the surrounds playing, the image of the soundstage is destroyed. Its just music everywhere. Multi-channel SACD's put me into the soundstage and the imaging is great.


----------



## Antiquarian (Apr 29, 2014)

David Phillips said:


> When stereo first came in people would play their old mono LPs through the two speakers and say they experienced a stereo effect. I have started to play my stereo CDs through surround speakers and I get a similar sense of spaciousness as when I listen to SACDs. Has anyone else noticed this?


It depends on the CD. I do know that Telarc back in the 90s produced a number of regular CDs that were marketed as "Surround Sound". It used a method of mixing that relied on _Spatializer_ technology that worked with Dolby Pro-Logic. It also was promoted as having the ability to "enhance the listening experience" on regular stereo systems. I have a few of these discs, and tried them on both settings. To my untutored ears it actually did make a difference, however, I felt at the time that it was probably only my psychological expectations that "made" them sound better. I've tried regular CDs on the various settings "Hall" or "Church" and others, but never was very satisfied by the experience. I know where you're coming from, though. But I thought about this, and come to the conclusion that fiddling with the audio engineer's mastering by adding my own doesn't work well for me.


----------

