Oh dear!
Poor me, Mac user… 
With respect, shellac discs had “fancy cover art”
1 Like
Derek,
According to SA-CD.net, there are slightly more than 6,200 titles available. Half are classical music.
Regular CD’s, 3,598,785.
Now if you believe SACD’s are still viable, please enjoy the few you can buy.
(BTW, I own a Sony SACD player. And I have one disc. It’s AJA by Steely Dan. Sounds great.)
Do not get me wrong,
I am using Foobar for years
What I was saying to respond to other community member is SACD never fail
That’s great!
Why did SACD fail???
SACD never fail this is my latest released in 2020 in Germany
And my current set up of Foobar 2000 with 40 different VU meters
1 Like
Maybe the physical medium SA-CD is failing, but DSD downloadable format is very popular on the various High Definition music sites like HD Tracks, native DSD etc.
So maybe stop doing pointless semantics and enjoy the music?
Good for you I like Steely Dan too but beside AJA I own 800 other SACDs and most of them are
already in digital form of SACD ISO as back up
I can take them on external hard drive and play them in Audirvana on your system
They are also called SACD R
You can burn them to blank DVD media and play in many compatible DVD or Blue Ray players
They are no different than original SACDs
I am listening to Jazz and little bit of classical music
Those sacd titles that were produced are valuable classics
https://github.com/sacd-ripper/sacd-ripper/wiki/A-list-of-SACD-R-compatible-players.
Thanks for jumping in with your classless comments. We were discussing SACD’s. Facts are facts. Music is the point of these programs. And the various means to play that music.
Nothing classless about my comments. I said nothing personal and I presented facts. What is classless about that?
Two grown up persons arguing semantics and why? To prove to each other a completely off topic pointless point about SA-CDs, which has totally no importance whatsoever?
In the end it is about the music and not about some pointless statistics.
This topic here is titled Audirvana vs Roon
My point is that Audirvana is more universal player than Roon despite All other unimportant streaming, networking, artists info scrobble futures etc.
I can not use Roon for simple fact that it wouldn’t play SACD ISO
What is hard to understand ?
I don’t care how many SACDs out there
Marantz and McIntosh just released brand new SACD players
https://www.marantz.com/en-ca/product/cd-players/sacd30n
SACD is playing also multichannel audio besides stereo tracks in your home theater set up if you have one.
For people that never heard SACD multichannel in action it is not important because in most cases they can not afford to buy them or they are to cheap to buy them.
Than off course for them this format is dead and they would be writing negative comments with no basic knowledge whatsoever.
Audirvana is fine sounding unique software, but if you like Roon better, please leave this forum and go to bark somewhere else
I think we have here Roon insiders on this forum trying to take Audirvana down specially that Audirvana Studio is creating competition to Roon now.
Have a Great Weekend Everybody !
1 Like
Well said Derek 
I used to love SACD in it’s early days, I remember playing the very first SACD Steely Dan album (my all time favourite band) - Two against Nature almost full blast, (must be 20 years ago now) with a Rotel 1062 amp & Quad 220L floor standing speakers.
It blew the house down but the sound was quite extraordinary.
Not been able to go quite that loud recently with the streamed version (due to neighbours 
)
But the experience still remains a high light in the old brain cells 
1 Like
I am glad that you had good memories listening to SACDs
I can easy extract them to single DSF files but it is too much work and it is much easier to use Audirvana, or Foobar 2000 or Jriver Media Player to play them
The thing is that Audirvana has best SOUND !
It has Derek, I keep going on about the difference I hear but unfortunately not everybody agrees.
Thats ok, maybe it’s just a Mac vs Windows scenario BUT hey that’s another thread entirely!!
You Stay Safe & enjoy your music
1 Like
I agree, Audirvana 3.5 sounded better than Roon, HQP and JRMC on Mac.
A unique combination of detail, musicality and low consumption of system resources.
2 Likes
Paul McGowan founder of PS Audio is using Audirvana in his system.
Do not tell me that this guy do not know what he is talking about.
I like his videos where in very polite way he is helping people to answer their hi fi questions
Dear JDT,
I absolutely love the idea that you are prepared to take on board such descriptions of sound quality as :-
Nervous, Transparency, Blackness, Chesty, Juicy, Tubby & many more, that really makes me smile.
Following on from your insightful ponderings I presume the following is more than just hearsay :-
A big Fat cable will give a big Fat sound, I need to get down to my local Hi-Fi shop tomorrow pronto with my cheque book in hand.
Only teasing, but don’t you just love the thought of a Juicy, Tubby sound, Now I need to book my place at the Bristol Hi-Fi Show early next year just to be able to ask the question!!
1 Like
Derek,
Mac Mini is far superior to Windows NUC, especially with it’s New M1 chip
Dream on Microsoft!!
1 Like
What is LMS?
To which player do you refer?
Logitech Media Server
3 Likes
audirvana does subjectively sound better to me… and it MIGHT actually work better for my setup because i have no zones and just a laptop and wanted the integration between qobuz/tidal and my lossless library… but its clear that the seamless interface isn’t working well (roon already puts all your music into one seamless list, why have to heart every album to do that). and roon is much more sophisticated and well designed that with all of audirvana studios bugs i dunno if i will move to it completely any time soon
(also on the DSD debate… i dont really use it because i dont like spending a lot of money on music as i prefer vinyl over purchasing digital and not a lot of the music i like such as electronic, hard rock, pop, or hip hop are ever put on SACD)
1 Like
DSD is a prefect format with 2 deadly flaws. It’s as close to analog as we’ll ever get in the digital domain. It’s designed to be used for archival and to make the work of the digital to analog converter easier (just needs to do low-pass filtering).
It’s hard to process/mix, that’s why most of the new content coming in DSD is live recordings. The second deadly sin is the sheer file size which makes it impractical for streaming. This was less of a problem in the physical media age, the SACD is not bigger than a normal CD, but now when the preferred way for audio distribution is streaming it is a show stopper.
2 Likes