RobertLang wrote:
So let's compare apples to apples, please. SACD vs. XRCD.
Name an example where the SACD has more dynamic range than
the XRCD. Then we can perhaps actually measure whether this
is true. Because dynamic range is measurable.

I don't think I'll take the bait. I could name dozens of examples very
easily, so I must be missing something here. So, before I get embroiled in
endless debate tell me where are you going with this? If I gave you some
titles what information could you derive from it and what would you do
with it?

Besides, its OK for you (not you personally) to say, with impunity, that
XRCDs sound better as a group than other CDs. It has a biblical acceptance
with no proof being required. (And I don't need any proof). But the minute
I say that my SACDs sound better than my XRCDs then I have to "compare
apples to apples", "name, names", "provide measurements" etc.

Your statement that SACDs sound better than XRCDs isn't at issue. Your
statement that SACDs have greater dynamic range than XRCDs is. That's
why Steven asked for specific examples that could be measured. If
you're right, that would be a very good thing for audiophiles to know.

snip

Not to mention that XRCD is far
too expensive.

Well, yeah, if you pay JVC prices. But JVC relicenses many of its
masters back to the original labels, which issue them at much more
reasonable rates. See, for example, www.fantasyjazz.com.

bob