JVC XRCD versus SACD

Yes,......I realize that.
love it or hate it.
Because I do not use the vaseline or sugar .....makes me a bad guy now?????
Being honest and frank isn't the crime.......is it???
If you like a sweat talk........I am not that guy.
Sorry.

Regards
Mariusz

I agree with AFeil - it takes highly resolving system to fully appreciate what this format has to offer.
Pricey but IMO - worth it.

Please note - IMO at the end of my post. YMMV.

XRCD is comparable with any CDP.
SACD is a dieing breed......only my opinion. If I want Hi-resolution format......there is always that old, beat up Lp that when setup correctly - will sound a lot better then most of what is out there today....and for silly 99c.
However, both XRCD and SACD are just the addition in my music library ......which I enjoy regardless of format.

PS
Owning Puccini proves nothing......no need to flush your bling, bling to prove the point. Beinng unable to tell the difference....well , that is another story.

Mariusz

Nothing personal - just tring to make a point.
"Respectable" source ??? - like what? ....and how many audiophiles' opinion is disregarded or pissed on based on their gear or limited budget....etc.....???

Now - going back on topic.
SACD in general do sound better then ordinary CD.....but it is not always the case. XRCDs - (from my poor experiance) sound excellent on 99% of my collection. Price of xrcd is in fact very high.....and I agree with your suggestion that, it is not the solution to compensate for locking cd source.

I mentioned LPs as the alternative to both CD & SACD formats.
If you concider the resolution, value, uncompressed reproduction and number of titles......LPs start to look more and more like the worty contender for the crown.

All formats have something to offer as well as shortcomings which we have to put up with. But at the end it all leads to the same old conclusion..........