On 20 Dec 2005 02:51:59 GMT, "RobertLang" wrote:

My experience has been completely the reverse from your experience. That
is, my SACDs, especially (but not only) originally recorded DSD SACDs
*consistently* sound closer to live and thus sound better to me,
significantly better, than my XRCDs.

Ahh, but are you properly qualified to judge the closeness of your
system to the sound of live music? :-)

My XRCDs probably don't crack the top
100 in my collection in this regard. Why? I can't say for sure and I am
not saying it’s a format issue. But when it comes to dynamic range the
XRCDs, as do most other CDs, simply don't compete with the SACDs in my
collection. And you are right, when you factor in the multi-channel
capability of SACD; XRCD is strictly "old hat".

Actually, since no known *master* tape has a dynamic range of greater
than 85dB, that argument is clearly untrue. And of course, XRCDs have
the same dynamic range as any other 16-bit recording. OTOH, leaving
aside the multichannel question, I find no sonic advantage at all in
SACD. I wonder under what conditions you are comparing the two?

Regrettably, it looks like the public has given its verdict, and
*both* the 'hi-res' formats will be consigned to the dust of history,
along with other technically superior failures like Elcaset.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering