[Scott[_6_]]

On Sunday, September 22, 2013 6:50:24 AM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote:
On Saturday, September 21, 2013 2:18:56 PM UTC-7, Scott wrote:

On Saturday, September 21, 2013 9:58:39 AM UTC-7, Arny Krueger wrote:



On Thursday, September 19, 2013 6:09:53 AM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote:



SACD was envisioned as a replacement for the "flawed" and

less-than-audiophile-quality CD. It turned out that the for the vast

number of music buyers in the world, the CD was "good enough" and the

general market essentially ignored SACD and other high-definition audio

formats.



I agree with the idea that any improved SQ from the new releases had to come

from the mastering.



The fact that the new format contributed nothing tangible is underscored by

the fact that depending on who you listen to, from 1/3 to 1/3 of all SACD

and DVD-A releases were made from lower rez masters, many 44/16 or 48/16.



Nothing tangible? I think the multi channel enthusiasts may have something to

say about that...



This eventually became more-or-less common knowlege, but I can't recall

anybody blowing the whistle on the producers until it did become known.