"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
I said

A far larger number of people
have
already expressed a preference for SACDs based on informal, uncontroled
comparisons.

Mike said


Which are therefore meaningless.

Wrong. They may or may not be accurate but they are far from meaningless.

From a scientific standpoint they are meaningless.

I said


Whether or not you like it, that is good enough for most
consumers.

Mike said




Other than when the music is mixed for surround sound, I can't tell any
difference between SACD and CD.

Then I would say you may be having problems with your hearing perception.

And your statement would be meaningless from a scientific standpoint.

While
there may be some debate over whether or not the media matters there is no
debate I know of over whether or not the mastering matters. Unless all
your
comparisons have been with CDs and SACDs that have identica; masterings
you
atre failing to hear real and accepted differences.

A good mix can be had in either format and has nothing to do with the sound
of the format only with the sound of the mastering.


I said



I haven't really been following the format wars of late but I would
suspect that it will take inexpensive portable players and autochangers
for the
car for SACD or DVD audio to take off. That is what it took for CDs to
take
off.

Mike said




The format took off therefore there were inexpensive portable players,
not
the other way round.

There were reletively inexpensive players well before the format ever took
off.
That is a fact.



Mike said




CD's took off because they sound better and they take up less space than
an
LP. Mostly sounding better accounted for their popularity.


They took off because they sound better and are more durable than
cassettes and
every bit as convenient and portable.