"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Karl Uppiano wrote:
"post news" wrote in message
...
What's the story here?

One of the big differences is that the CD was based on sound
mathematical and engineering principles for sampled data systems,
and
SACD is based on a rather bizarre internal data format and
"marketecture". But marketing will probably win out over good
engineering, which is sad. If you're interested in a highly
technical
discussion, try this: http://sjeng.org/ftp/SACD.pdf

Which is a posting of Audio Engineering Society Convention Paper 5395:

Why 1-Bit Sigma-Delta Conversion is Unsuitable for High-Quality
Applications by Stanley P. Lip****z and John Vanderkooy Audio Research
Group, University of Waterloo Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1, Canada.

As I recall, AES discussions of this topic caused Sony to eventually
admit that their professional SACD encoders don't actually use DSD to
directly digitize analog signals for recording purposes.

Well, I can see why Sony would prefer a consumer format to be "in principle
imperfectible". It would make it impossible for consumers to make studio
quality duplicates of SACD recordings. Still, I see it as a big step in the
wrong direction. If I could see an elegant engineering design, I'd probably
be an early adopter. As it is, I'll be a grudging, reluctant adopter if and
when I can't find what I want to hear in any other format.