badwisdom, you seem to be the victim of bad wisdom. hehe, sorry,i couldn't resist.
if you listen to a piano or horn recorded in dsd on sacd and compare it to 16/44 of the same recording there an overwhelming difference. the additional resolution of sacd reveals a depth and completness of each note. the 16/44 recording has a roughness that pops out in direct a/b comparison with sacd. presence and bass foundation is on another level with sacd. the 16/44 seems flat, the sacd seems alive.
i agree that not every recording equally reveals these differences. but most dsd mastered recordings do. i could easily find 16/44 recordings that would be similar in sacd.
for these comparisons i used my linn cd-12 and my marantz sa-1, with nordost valhalla balanced interconnects, levinson #32 preamp, #33 amps, and watt/puppy 6 speakers.
the sacd format, properly implimented, is a definite improvement over the best 16/44 avalible today. but not all environments and recordings might reveal that fact.
if you listen to a piano or horn recorded in dsd on sacd and compare it to 16/44 of the same recording there an overwhelming difference. the additional resolution of sacd reveals a depth and completness of each note. the 16/44 recording has a roughness that pops out in direct a/b comparison with sacd. presence and bass foundation is on another level with sacd. the 16/44 seems flat, the sacd seems alive.
i agree that not every recording equally reveals these differences. but most dsd mastered recordings do. i could easily find 16/44 recordings that would be similar in sacd.
for these comparisons i used my linn cd-12 and my marantz sa-1, with nordost valhalla balanced interconnects, levinson #32 preamp, #33 amps, and watt/puppy 6 speakers.
the sacd format, properly implimented, is a definite improvement over the best 16/44 avalible today. but not all environments and recordings might reveal that fact.