ric wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:

Only that in quite sujective A-B tests, only those with a tin ear
could not hear the vast difference between CD and SACD.

There are no known CDs and SACDs that were mastered identically and
comparably, subject only to the differences in the media. . It
would be quite easy to do this, but in fact there are no known
instances of it.

It is quite easy to switch back and forth between CD and SACD on
hybrid SACDs. The difference is dramatic. Nice try, though.

The layers aren't the identical same recording. Nice try, though.

Of course not. One is SACD, and one is regular CD.

That's obvious, but thanks for trying to turn this trivial and obvious
information into a debating point.

What I'm talking about is that the mastering is different.

The regular CD layer is equal to or better sounding than that on a regular
CD. (I've
compared.)

It sounds different, no doubt. That was the plan. You ever hear of "brighter
is better"? You ever hear of "louder is better"?

Believe it or not, many of these CD layers are more highly compressed (i.e.,
less real-world dynamic range) than older versions. In other cases the
original recordings were made in formats that have more distortion, less
dynamic range and more spurious variations than the CD format, by far. You
can put SACD *lipstick* on an old pig of a recording, but its still gonna be
a pig.

The SACD layer blows it away. So the SACD layer is
superior sounding to the CD layer or to the sound on a regular CD.

What's your point?

My point is that they are different artistic works, because the mastering
for the two formats is generally different in other ways than merely the
format.

Indeed, you must have seen the big brag by John Atkinson. He's bragging like
this because of the problem I just described.

Man, what a pile of convoluted logic. Yeah...IT'S A CONSPIRACY!

It's called business as usual.

What business?

The business of making minor changes to legacy masters and getting people
who think that every change has to be a vast audible improvement, to buy the
same old basic recordings again and against.

To substitute a superior sounding format for an inferior one?

Superior distribution formats can't provide an audible advantage when the
older format wasn't the weakest link.

At roughly the same price? THOSE *******S!

There's no audible difference due to the formats because of the technical
limitations of the original recordings, the limitations of even the finest
home systems, and the limitations of the human ears.

The CD audio format is just fine as a distribution format. It's raw
capabilities are far in excess of the original recordings regardless of
format. Furthermore, the CD audio format has more dynamic range than
virtually any home system can handle. Finally, believe it or not, your ears
can't hear every technical difference.

Look out for the black helicopters!

Whatever winds your clock!