DVD-A vs. SACD? Who freaking cares anymore! (Warning: Serious Rant)

[aaharvel]

Let's rewind abit guys. Remember 1999? The year of SACD and DVD-A. Remember the hype? Remember the gorgeous $5,000 SCD-1? Is there anybody here that didn't lust after that piece? Remember all the arguments we had over which format was better? Remember the one thing that was more important than the arguments was the enthusiasm we all shared for "The Next Big Thing"? The next big evolution in Home Audio and Hi-Fi?

Well that was then muchachos.

Now, DVD-Audio is dead. Shown the door long ago by retailers due to the fact that the creative geniuses in DVD-Audioland woke up one morning and decided they wanted their new play toy to have zero compatability with the millions of CD-Players worldwide, despite the fact they both share the same 23year old recording technology. Brilliant. :rolleyes:

On the Retard Alert System, a scale of 1 to DIVX, I'd give that brainfart a DIVX.

SACD- not much better. While not quite DOA like the PCMking, it's definitely being handed it's hat. Telarc and a few other loyalists to the format are releasing as many Jazz and Classical discs as they can but sad to say they're only slowing it's own demise. In order to survive, SACD needs mainstream exposure with the record labels and pop culture musical genres supplying the ammunition. Period.

Speaking of utterly and completely retarded- Someone should have told the SACD Suits that it's an utter waste of time to stuff a tiny little brochure inside a (still)cheap Jewel case- informing the SACD buyer about how much SACD kicks ass. ATTENTION MARKETING DUMBASSES: WE ALREADY KNOW SACD RULES! THAT'S WHY WE PURCHASED THE FREAKING DISC! :rolleyes:

Adding insult to injury, SACD creators Sony & Phillips are now in bed with DVDaudio's LOWER-Fi heir apparent, Dual****disc for god knows what and god knows why. When all is said and done- you've got to hand it to Sony. They didn't create "the successor to the CD"- but did one better: They created "the successor to ****ups like D.A.T. and BetaMax." Again. Brilliant. :rolleyes:

This post brought to you by a very disappointed and pissed off SACD fan. :mad:

[F1nut]

I hear ya, bro.

[MacLeod]

I think the problem is that most people dont listen to music for long periods of time so 5.1 music would be worthless to most consumers.

I admit Im guilty of this as well. I dont listen to music that much when Im at home. Sure I like to occasionally sit down, sip some gin and listen to a few choice selections but 85% of the time my speakers and receiver are faithfully reproducing either Law and Order re-runs or Max Payne!

[jrausch]

Sacd,dvd Audio=demise/lawyers+triple Royalties.

[madmax]

I think the main problem is the mainstream buyer of today doesn't really care if it is mp3 quality or SACD quality. Given most popular music I can see why.
madmax

[jdhdiggs]

MM- Absofreakinlutely...

Most people wouldn't know good sound if it kicked them in the crotch, so why spend more money on SACD when you can rip the MP3 for free (or nearly that)

[TroyD]

The fact of the matter is, the 'common man' has no real interest in higher resolution. Period end of story. Therefore, as a mainstream product, both were doomed from jump street. Peer to peer filesharing is the way of the future, that is what the masses are going for.

Any inroads to be made will be done via hybrid discs, but again, mark my words...any sort of hard copy media is already a dinosaur.

DVD-A is all but dead, SACD will continue to exist as a niche market, and for me, that's perfectly acceptable. I could really care less in a high resolution copy of Britney Spears. As hifi enthusiasts, we aren't mainstream and as lower resolution media becomes more the norm, we will get farther from it.

BDT

[heiney9]

I have to say I never got too excited about SACD or DVD-A. Most mastering and production standards today sound like complete ****e! Why would I want 5.1 channels of the same 2-ch ****e. Take the millions of $$$ spent on marketing these 2 formats and send the engineers back to school to learn how to properly mix and master a disc that actually sounds good on a high resolution system like most of us have that participate in this forum. Damn that's a long sentence. The fact is we are still at the mercy of the recording engineer no mater what format we use. Said engineer can make or break the sound. I'm sure there are fabulous sounding SACD's and DVD-A's just as there are fabulous sounding Redbook cd's. But just stop trying to sell us on the fact that these formats, just by their very nature, automatically sound better than the equivalent Redbook cd. That's what has turned me completely off about these 2 formats. I'm not sure every SACD or DVD-A always sounds better than its Redbook counterpart.

H9

[aaharvel]

i've never seen a SACD yet that DOESN'T sound better than it's Redbook counterpart- the closest one being Norah Jones' C.A.W.M. and even the DSD watered down version of that sounded better (at least to my ears) than the cd pcm version.

Sound quality isn't the problem. Marketing, the lack of adopting ONE standard, and the stupid 6 cables you have to use to play the track. The new digital SACD cables and jacks came about 6years too late if you ask me.

[Danny Tse]

I think it's the whole culture of iPod/downloading that limited the success of SACD/DVD-A. The typical mass consumer doesn't care about the ultimate in sound quality; it's always convenience that will win out. On top of that, the lure of music via "free" downloading also help to drive, not only hi-rez, the music industry's decline. Think of hi-rez as a Porsche....not everyone will know how to appreciate it.

BTW, SACD just became HDMI V1.2 compatible. And the SACD of Sheryl Crow's "Globe Session" is now available at yourmusic.com for $5.99.

[heiney9]

i've never seen a SACD yet that DOESN'T sound better than it's Redbook counterpart- the closest one being Norah Jones' C.A.W.M. and even the DSD watered down version of that sounded better (at least to my ears) than the cd pcm version.

Sound quality isn't the problem. Marketing, the lack of adopting ONE standard, and the stupid 6 cables you have to use to play the track. The new digital SACD cables and jacks came about 6years too late if you ask me.

I admit I'm not into multi-channel listening at all, maybe that's why no interest in these formats. But you can't honestly say that if a Redbook cd is mix/mastered poorly that when they do the 5.1 mix it's always better. Yes, there are more channels/processing to fool with. Maybe some of the glaring deficiencies are glazed over when more channels are invloved but somehow I doubt it sounds better....different but maybe not better everytime.

I'm just not sure how one would go about assembling a true high end 5.1 system. I know I'd have seperate amps for each channel. The best speaks for each channel. The best cabling for each channel. Now here's where it gets sticky for me. I'm a big believer in outbaord Dac's...so I'd have to have a seperate Dac for each channel and a processor that's capable of adding no color to the sound what so-ever. I'm not sure this is realistically feasable and if it is, I wouldn't want to see the $$$ tag on it. Yeah I know you can get the Dac's built into the processor etc....but that doesn't cut it. How can one reasonaly assume a $300-500 Sony SACD player is going to give true high resolution sound? I have 3 times that wrapped up in my cdplayer and outboard Dac...and it sounds damn good, but there are better out there to be had. The general opinion of the public is more channels = better sound. That's not nec true for every situation.

Just my POV on why I won't accept SACD or DVD-A as being the better alternative to Redbook sound. I'm older...set in my ways and have yet to be convinced multi-channel audio is the way to go.

[shack]

SACD is not about multi-channel - Most of the early (and some of the best) SACD titles are "stereo only". SACD was a true Hi Rez effort. The MC stuff came about as a mechanism to take the technology mainstream and piggyback on the HT phenomenon. DVD-A was always aimed at being a MC format. I have numerous SACD discs (stereo, MC/stereo, hybrid/MC/stereo) and there is only one that I listen to in MC: The Dark Side of the Moon. I will occasionally listen to the MC track of a new CD but I always go back to the 2 channel. SACD may survive as a niche format because it started out as THAT niche format and tried to branch out which didn't work. The premise of a Hi Rez digital is viable for that niche so it should have a chance to survive, albeit in a limited way

[madmax]

Redbook CD's sound glorious on the right equipment, far better than SACD or DVD-A on average consumer level components. I just had to throw that in.
madmax

[PolknPepsi]

What an enjoyable rant to read..... :D

......and you are right, someone needs to settle on a single format.

[heiney9]

SACD is not about multi-channel - Most of the early (and some of the best) SACD titles are "stereo only". SACD was a true Hi Rez effort. The MC stuff came about as a mechanism to take the technology mainstream and piggyback on the HT phenomenon. DVD-A was always aimed at being a MC format. I have numerous SACD discs (stereo, MC/stereo, hybrid/MC/stereo) and there is only one that I listen to in MC: The Dark Side of the Moon. I will occasionally listen to the MC track of a new CD but I always go back to the 2 channel. SACD may survive as a niche format because it started out as THAT niche format and tried to branch out which didn't work. The premise of a Hi Rez digital is viable for that niche so it should have a chance to survive, albeit in a limited way

Thanks for pointing that out....that shows how little I remember when I read about it when first introduced. I'd be curious to hear DSOTM on Sacd because I have the original redbook release and it just doesn't strike me as a great sounding cd. Lifeless is a word that comes to mind. Maybe the redbook remaster is better...who knows. The thing I find with my personal system is it tends to really make the marginal recordings sound like dog s**t. Any little defeciency in the recording is very obvious. But on the flip side a well recorded disc sounds incredible. I guess it's really a matter of personal preference sometimes :)

H9

[heiney9]

Redbook CD's sound glorious on the right equipment, far better than SACD or DVD-A on average consumer level components. I just had to throw that in.
madmax

You summed it up in one easy to comprehend sentence. I would take a high end redbook set-up over an average level SACD or DVD-A system any day. That's what I've been trying to say only I used about thousand more words...and still wasn't as eloquent as you MM :cool:

H9

[polkatese]

I heard this modded Denon 3910 in action, and redbook CDs played on this player sounded a whole lot better than any SACD players within the same price point. (http://www.aplhifi.com/DENON.html) Chuck really knows what he's talking about :)

[Danny Tse]

SACD is not about multi-channel - Most of the early (and some of the best) SACD titles are "stereo only". SACD was a true Hi Rez effort. The MC stuff came about as a mechanism to take the technology mainstream and piggyback on the HT phenomenon.

I listen to SACDs with my headphones (Grado SR60 w/ Sennheiser 414 pads). There seems to be a misconception that SACD requires having a multi-channel setup....that just isn't true. A good sounding SACD sounds extremely good, even on my budget-priced Sony DVP-NS500V.

[RuSsMaN]

Redbooks, Vinyl. All I could ever want, or need for that matter.

[shack]

Redbook CD's sound glorious on the right equipment, far better than SACD or DVD-A on average consumer level components. I just had to throw that in.
madmax
Apples and oranges. You can use that analogy on just about anything.
Spend the same amount of money on similar quality gear and the SACD is better IMO.

[reeltrouble1]

Apples and oranges. You can use that analogy on just about anything.
Spend the same amount of money on similar quality gear and the SACD is better IMO.


Expecially two channel which both SACD and DVD-A discs have.

So now I read where the younger ones 30-40 have notable hearing loss as a result of plugging buds into their ear and cranking the volume, well of course you have to crank it to fool yourself into saying how it sounds any good at all. They were not talking standard stero headphones but the IPOD MP-3 and cell phones. The 10-30 crowd will catch and surpass them as far as early hearing loss but it takes a while.

Like gas I expect to be paying more dollars eventually for hi-rez, but I really dont care. I definetly prefer it over redbook but as I improve my redbook components they are getting closer, of course I have not upgraded my SACD player. Maybe the techno's will continue to find a way to improve redbook, but lets face it, the rock genre is lacking right now for old birds like me, so yea give me old bands on SACD. Remember the better band the less the recording has to work. As long as its 2 ch I dont care, I would do vinyl but until I have the dough to drop on a TT setup that can match SACD sound its high rez for me then redbook.

RT1

[aaharvel]

Apples and oranges. You can use that analogy on just about anything.
Spend the same amount of money on similar quality gear and the SACD is better IMO.

right on.
IF it's only available on redbook, I almost always burn the music. I know it's wrong- but jimmy crack corn & I don't care. If I CAN get it on SACD- I ALWAYS throw down the cash for it; and it's always worth it.

[F1nut]

I love SACD 2 channel, far better than redbook in almost all cases.

[ND13]

I love SACD 2 channel, far better than redbook in almost all cases.

Never knew you could do sacd on 2 channel. Is there a setting for that on the player?

Or would I just hook up the L & R channels only??

[F1nut]

Well, my SACD player was designed for 2 channel playback only, so I would say that if you were to only use the left and right interconnects on yours that you would get 2 channel only by default.

[ND13]

I guess I answered my own ?, huh?

Can't wait to get to meet ya in person Jesse. See ya Friday :)

You gonna bring over any gear to sell?

[Danny Tse]

Never knew you could do sacd on 2 channel. Is there a setting for that on the player?

Or would I just hook up the L & R channels only??

ND13,

Almost all SACDs contain a distinct 2 channel stereo hi-rez mix, which is located on the same layer as the hi-rez multi-channel mix (if there's one). There's no downmixing from multi-channel to 2 channel stereo with SACD.

However, just hooking up the L & R channels only may not get you the appropriate hi-rez mix if all you want is 2 channel stereo hi-rez. My Sony SCD-CE595 SACD/CD changer plays, by default, the hi-rez multi-channel mix (if there's one). If I load a multi-channel SACD into this player, and with only the L & R channels hooked up, I only hear the L & R channels of the multi-channel mix. So check your player's manual, there should be some way to set your preference as to what gets played first.

[F1nut]

Hmmm....good point Danny, I have heard that some player do that.

Noel, ditto and I have no plans to sell anything at this time.

[ND13]

Just trying to find a tube amp that can pair up with the ELP to drive my 1Bs, that should be here by Monday, I hope. Going to retire the 2Bs to the bench for now.

[danger boy]

I have up on SACD and DVD-a at the beginning of this year.. the releases on DVD-a stunk. SACD had better releases.. but still.. i had to buy a player to listen to them on.

I find like others..that Redbook still reigns supreme.

[2DualsNotEnough]

Ive owned both dvd-a and sacd players,and Id have to say it all comes down to the production quality of the individual title.My DVD-A multi channel versions of Fleetwood Mac-Rumours,and espescially,Steely Dan-Everything Must Go are far superior to the redbook versions.More detail,much,much better imaging,IMHO.I bought most of the SACD reissues of the vintage Dylan releases on the same day in a mad impulse buying spree,and I was seriously bummed.My vinyl kicked its ass.Like any format,its hit and miss,since mastering and production quality varies so much from release to release.I mean,how many more modern releases really sound as good as a lot of those Mercury Living prescence titles from the 60's?And it seems that every format that comes down,one of the first things that gets released is Brubecks Time Out.So much for "modern recording is ALWAYS better,huh?
Jimmy

[aaharvel]

nice feedback Jimmy. and welcome to the forums.

[madmax]

You summed it up in one easy to comprehend sentence. I would take a high end redbook set-up over an average level SACD or DVD-A system any day. That's what I've been trying to say only I used about thousand more words...and still wasn't as eloquent as you MM :cool:

H9


I must have been wrong... :D

madmax

[reeltrouble1]

I find like others..that Redbook still reigns supreme.


No way its supreme in sound, it cant be. If your interested in the number of titles available at price points might as well say MP-3 reigns.

edit--Vinyl is the only format with the potential to exceed SACD.

[shack]

Never knew you could do sacd on 2 channel. Is there a setting for that on the player?

Or would I just hook up the L & R channels only??
Like others have said, you can just hook up the L and R channels, but you have to select the SACD layer you want the CDP to play (if there are options - as stated - some SACDs are stereo only). Fortunately my CDP defaults to 2 channel and I have to select Multi Channel.

[reeltrouble1]

My Denon will dowmix if you only hook up two cables, my Pioneer you have to set the default in the menu.

RT1

[ND13]

Well ,I thought that I was going to be getting a universal player next week, but that has been nixed by the seller. :( So I guess that it'll have to wait til I can afford to get a new one or one comes up for sale in the FM or maybe someone will have one at PFest to sell or trade.

[madmax]

edit--Vinyl is the only format with the potential to exceed SACD.


If mixed right, pressed right, maintained properly, played on proper equipment, synergy, correct settings etc.

Although bass is often lighter on vinyl it is usually correct. I have often thought bass may be slightly heavier on SACD (in general) than real life?? CD's and LP's are fairly close to each other concerning bass. Anyone else think this?

madmax

[aaharvel]

speaking of screwed up studio mastering- no wonder there's so much confusion with the "hi-rez" formats. Not only is there not a standard over format- but there seems to not even be a standard in mastering. I see DVD-A discs mixed in 44.1 all the time- and many times the DTS track on the disc is superior!

And being an SACD loyalist- this one hurt the most: the only SACD i've heard that doesn't improve upon the redbook version- and in fact is far inferior when it comes to bass and bass management in the muZic.

http://www.stereophile.com/digitalsourcereviews/1104fifth/

edit: Btw, Blue Note Records still hasn't responded to my email about a refund.

[heiney9]

If mixed right, pressed right, maintained properly, played on proper equipment, synergy, correct settings etc.

Although bass is often lighter on vinyl it is usually correct. I have often thought bass may be slightly heavier on SACD (in general) than real life?? CD's and LP's are fairly close to each other concerning bass. Anyone else think this?

madmax

I don't know MM, I understand the appeal of vinyl and it's associated sound. Is there a TT rig that is able to give S/N ratio >100db or Dynamic Range >100db or Channel Seperation >100db ? Let's be reasonable...no $25,000 system here. I'm talking a reasonable amount in $5000 range that most serious audiophiles could afford if they so chose to do so. As far as vinyl goes this has always been the limiting factor for me...it maybe more of mental, can't get past it, type of thing. Don't get me wrong I've had the chance to audition some very nice TT rig's, although long ago. Vinyl certainly has appeal well beyond published specs. It's just these 3 areas where I've thought the CD format was the hands down winner and part of why CD format appeals to me.

Both vinyl and CD have there own assoicated upside and downside.

H9

[Danny Tse]

This is probably the best price you can get for a name brand universal player....$60.00 shipped for a Toshiba SD-4960.

http://www.hhgregg.com/ProductDetail.asp?SID=6B677715BAA34BD785DEF64439C2 4277&ProductID=11750

It's a "true DSD" player, one that doesn't do a DSD >>> PCM conversion for SACD. Unlike the Pioneer models....or the mega-buck players from Accuphase. And you can mod the heck out of the Toshiba for improved sound quality.....

http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/viewtopic.php?t=12613

I think I will get this so that I can hear Elvis in hi-rez (on DVD-A)

[reeltrouble1]

If mixed right, pressed right, maintained properly, played on proper equipment, synergy, correct settings etc.

madmax


Thats why I said it has the potential to be better, I agree with your assesment on SACD and bass though. Also, it just seems so logical to me that the TT is playing the original recorded wave form not trying to recreate it through samples/qauntization levels. Of course the recording has got to be there to begin with but thats true for all medium is it not? I just dont have the coin to drop on a TT system that will even get close to my SACD players/systems.

RT1

[ND13]

Danny,

Thanks for the heads up on the Tosh. Looks like a good one to start with, and if I don't like sacd, then I'm only out $60 and still have a decent dvd player.

[madmax]

Also, it just seems so logical to me that the TT is playing the original recorded wave form not trying to recreate it through samples/qauntization levels.
RT1


Not really. Yes it plays what was recorded but look at what was done before recording it. Once the master tape is mixed it is "adjusted" before being put on vinyl. For example: Highs are cut below a certain level to eliminate the esses. Also, they adjust the bass loudness depending upon how long the performance lasts vs how many sides. More bass equals more groove space. Of course the whole RIAA curve thing too. I'm surprised you have any sound left by the time all is done. :eek:

H9, $5K buys quite a nice audiophile class starter setup. If you buy used you can hit the mid-line stuff like I have for that amount of coin. (Plus the nickel for the tone arm of course). :D

madmax

[heiney9]

This is probably the best price you can get for a name brand universal player....$60.00 shipped for a Toshiba SD-4960.

I think I will get this so that I can hear Elvis in hi-rez (on DVD-A)

I mean absolutely no disrespect to current or future owners of this Tosh....but now who's comparing apples to oranges. No way anyone will convinve me a $60 SACD player is going to better a quality redbook player. Sorry not going to happen. Noel, I bet you AMC Cdb-8 would run circles around this Tosh, SACD or not. Start with atleast a quality "base" player to do some comparison's.

I have a friend with a Sony universal player, I forget the model but he probably paid $300-400 retail for it. I had him bring it over to compare to my set-up of the Nak running thru the Adcom Dac. The only thing that we weren't able to do is compare the same version of disc on SACD and redbook. But I will tell you every SACD he put in didn't really impress me maybe not because of the cd itself but maybe becasue of the cd player itself. My redbook system consistently bettered it. And there was absolutely no competiton redbook to redbook. So maybe if you get an equally high end SACD player and have a recording that isn't botched maybe you could hear differences, dunno :confused:

I will still choose a transport w/a seperate DAC everytime. The benefits are too great to give up. I haven't even ventured into the area of upsampling yet.

H9

[madmax]

Sony product, universal player, $300. What can I say. I'm sure any of the Toshibas I modified would put it in its place... :)
madmax

[fredv]

Shouldn't read this forum at work, but it is lunch time..... the plastic has $60 less limit now. Danny, thanks for the Toshiba ref!!!

[aaharvel]

Sony universals are very underrated imo. My 5disc changer was $250 2years ago- even less n0w and it's an excellent performer for both progressive DVD and SACD (minus the fixed 100hz for bass management in it's 5.1 analog jacks). Redbook performance is a little less so I'm afraid, which is why i bought a vintage model ES single transport. But regardless the universal SOnys have excellent performance.

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/article.asp?section_id=3&article_id=632&page_number=2

$60 Toshibas that do it all? It's a bargain. $60.

STill- good luck trying to find SACD's and DVD-A's from artists you like.

[ND13]

My Tosh that I use in the living room, which isn't even hooked up right now(had to swipe the components), is hdcd capable. I know that hdcd isn't multi-channel, and I frankly don't care if it or the sacd player is or not, but how does hdcd and sacd compare in hi-rez music playback on a two-channel only rig?

BTW it's a sd2200 2 disc, with DD decoder built in, which I don't utilize either.

[Danny Tse]

My Tosh that I use in the living room, which isn't even hooked up right now(had to swipe the components), is hdcd capable. I know that hdcd isn't multi-channel, and I frankly don't care if it or the sacd player is or not, but how does hdcd and sacd compare in hi-rez music playback on a two-channel only rig?

BTW it's a sd2200 2 disc, with DD decoder built in, which I don't utilize either.

ND13,

Can't help you on the comparison between HDCD and SACD since I've never owned a HDCD-capable player. Just want to let you know that some of the hybrid SACDs out there contain a HDCD-encoded CD layers....such as those on Dire Strait's "Brothers In Arms", Vince Gill's "High Lonesome Sound", Lee Ann Womack's "Greatest Hits", etc. These discs, nor their packaging, display the HDCD logo. Kind of an "easter egg"-type deal. Others display the HDCD logo on both the disc and the packaging....

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v350/soundboy/hdcd1.jpg

[ND13]

I guess I'll just wait it out til PFest and corner some hi-rez guru for that answer, huh? :D Thanks, though, :cool: ;) :)

[VR3]

HDCD is 20 bit...

SACD, DVDA is 24 bit.

http://www.hitbutiken.com/hdcd/index.php

[aaharvel]

i thought DSD was 1-bit.
Beats the hell outta me.

[ND13]

Super hdcd, never heard of that

[aaharvel]

don't some receivers decode HDCD? I think H/K's do- but can't be sure. If that's the case- then using a digital out on a cd player should get the job done.

[heiney9]

Noel, add Jewel's Spirit to the HDCD list. My Dac decodes HDCD discs. It's a nice feature, but I woulnd't go out of my way to aquire HDCD compatibility. I do hear a very slight difference, possibly a bit more open...who knows if it just isn't mind tricks. Again it's a nice feature to play around with, but totally not worth the effort to seek out a decoder and then the software to go with it. It seems there are many HDCD compatible titles out there that aren't labeled as such.

Here's one linky:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/forpros/hdcd/hdcdabout.aspx

Here's another one that goes into way more detail:

http://www.cinenow.com/pdf/hdcd_ic_bro8_us.pdf

H9

[ND13]

I'll be playing it through tubes, not my HK. I'll have to hear this, I guess, before I spend the $$$.

I already have a Tosh SD2200 that is hdcd capable, I guess I'll hook it up to my Dodd and put on the Van Halen cd I have that has the HDCD label on the back.

HEADING HOME, BE BACK IN AN HOUR OR SO. sorry, didn't mean to scream

[heiney9]

It's from a foreign site but it lists all HDCD titles

http://www.hitbutiken.com/hdcd/index.php?p=base

[Danny Tse]

There used to be a list of titles encoded with HDCD at HDCD.com, but not even that list was complete. That list is no longer available. However, there's also an alternative HDCD titles list at head-fi.org that identifies unmarked HDCD-encoded CDs....

http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=67082&highlight=hdcd

[Danny Tse]

You always wanted a Mobile Fidelity CD? How about a Mobile Fidelity hybrid SACD? How about $14.97 for the new hybrid SACD of Earth Wind & Fire's "That's The Way of the World" (30th Anniversary Audiophile Limited Edition) from Mobile Fidelity?

http://www.deepdiscountcd.com/index.cfm?request=cd.cfm?upc=821797201667