RobertLang wrote:
There is no question that among the hundreds of CDs and SACDs that I own
that on SACDs recordings exhibit more dynamic range. The quiet passages
are quieter and the louder passages are louder. This helps SACDs sound
more true to life than most CD recordings.

Note that I said SACD "recordings" have (as a rule) more dynamic range
than CD recordings. I did not say that SACD has more dynamic range because
from a "practical" standpoint it does not. However, the smaller audiophile
labels that make up a great many of the SACD labels that support the
format are more apt, for better or worse, to push the limits of usuable
dynamic range in their quest to make superior recordings.

Another reason may be that some kinds of dynamic range limitation that are allowed
in Redbook, aren't in SACD spec.

Some 'audiophile labels' e.g. Telarc, have shown themselves to be willing to apply
compression to the CD layer that they don't use on the SACD layer.

Clearly, the dynamic range of recordings must be ?managed?. However, I have found that in
recent years, especially with originally recorded DSD SACDs, the expansive dynamic range
really hits the mark. Significantly more so than one hears on almost all CDs that I?ve
heard. The best ones keep the quiet passages just above the noise floor with little
compromise on dynamic range.

This was true for classical (and most pop) CDs prior to 1990 or so as well.

--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow