[Scott[_6_]]

On Friday, September 20, 2013 3:59:22 PM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote:
In article ,
=20
Scott wrote:
=20
=20
=20
On Thursday, September 19, 2013 6:09:53 AM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote:
=20
In article ,
=20
=20
=20
SNIP
=20
=20
=20
SACD was envisioned as a replacement for the "flawed" and=20
=20
=20
=20
less-than-audiophile-quality CD. It turned out that the for the vast=
=20
=20
=20
=20
number of music buyers in the world, the CD was "good enough" and the=
=20
=20
=20
=20
general market essentially ignored SACD and other high-definition aud=
io=20
=20
=20
=20
formats. The truth is that few consumers have equipment that will=20
=20
=20
=20
resolve any difference between regular Red-Book CD and SACD or any ot=
her=20
=20
=20
=20
so-called hi-res format for that matter. In fact, there are=20
=20
=20
=20
knowledgeable people who post here all the time who regularly state a=
nd=20
=20
=20
=20
restate that there is NO audible difference between these formats and=
=20
=20
=20
=20
are quite willing to cite studies that purport to prove that assertio=
n.