sacd,vinyl, and rebook....


Just to echo some common remarks:

"sacd is like vinyl without the clicks and pops"

"sacd is a marginal improvement, if any, over redbook"

"sacd is a smoke and mirrors ht campaign designed for multi-channel use and copyright protection agendas"

at any rate...which of the above best describes this format?
128x128phasecorrect
See:http://www.stereophile.com/news/110104aeshirez/

I love this quote:

Regarding SACD vs DVD-A, Hawkford(Professor at UK's University of Essex),stated that SACD could be better in lower-priced equipment, but that "cost-no-object gear may favor DVD-A." In either case, "bass management is a major pain," he stated to sporadic applause. Hawksford also left little doubt as to his feelings about SACD releases sourced from PCM recordings: "They should be banned!" File under the heading "Weapons of Music Destruction."
This issue with the same people replying has been covered time and time again- we all know the lines have been drawn and for what ever reason your on one side or the other. There aren't many middle ground people in this debate. Let the good horse die with out another beating.
SACD is a boring improvement over CD and to me not worth the limited amount of software and players. Its like HDCD taken too seriously.

Mostly due to bandwidth difference, below my particular price/quality point I would rather listen to a SACD/CD player over a turntable. In actualizing full potential, however, vinyl is the best by a hell of a margin.
Tireguy-

I know you're a dedicated audiophile/music lover, and hopefully, we're all in this for the music, and the thrill
of finding a way to get closer to it.

Unfortunately, with DSD, Sony/Philips has turned their backs on the music in search of greater profits.

Even the genius of EMM Labs can only do so much to make
DSD perform.

Lets hope recording engineers made a 24/96/192 or analog copy of all their recent work, otherwise, we've lost a lot of great musical information.