Super Audio CD

I would be surprise if I have not? What do you have Wadia, Krell? I am familiar with those as well as Meridian. Just difference of technology. I do not care how fast a prop plane you own, a jet plane will outperform it. 96/24 and SACd just sound better when done right that cd at it's best to my ears. "Different strokes for different folks." If I can hear the differences after years of bare knuckle, full force karate comp. with has included one busted ear drum though it actually test above normal, anyone should. I am confused as to why other do not. In time when you adopt the technology, I will be there to say I told you so.

Karate, hmm? I could still give you a pretty good punch, before you got any good moves carried through, perhaps...heh heh heh. The prop plane to jet plane is a funny analogy, but not a very good one (some propellors are even driven by jet engines...those happen to be the most fuel efficient designs/per gross weight, in existence, BTW). Would it matter if I told you what CD player I have? I submit that it would not......................WE ALL KNOW that higher resolution digital is better than CD, but unless you only own a few CD's, and ALL the SACD and/or 24/96 titles.....the new digital formats are TOTALLY irrelevant, until there are many hundreds of times the number of titles available, as there are now. Why can't you get that through your busted eardrum (no offense)?

Ok, if you are willing to admit that Cd is inferior to SACD then end of discussion. Of course they don't have any titles now. In the mid-80's that was the same case for cd. I am still betting that a little "cry baby" man like yourself is waiting on the fence to see what happens and then you will be on this site argueing about which SACD player is better. We will see.

Enough of this bickering 1 The price of the processor does not make it high-end. The performance does. 2 As good as the SACD format may be. There are still limiting factors. The mastering, the processor, and the amp (The signal needs to be amplified to line level). The fact that they made it backward compatable is a double edged sword. 3 DVD transports do a very poor job on audio signals. The jitter, bit errors, and signal loss is much worse than moderately priced CD transports. I've measured them. Even moderately priced transports lose a lot with high frequency data. (Over 10kHz) and it gets worse as the frequency goes up. 4 SACD is not better than CD. It has the potential to be better. Now the 96 KHz is a big step up although 192 would be better. The 24 bits is a big improvement also. Better than the 21 bits theoretically needed. ( This number was deduced by some engineers in the early to mid eighties, re an article in the AES Journal) There should be much less problem with roundoff error. But will it meet the potential? So far there are only a few disks. These disks sound good, but will all the rest be this good? I doubt it. Will SACD be sold to the masses? Will millions of people discard there CDs for SACD disks? I doubt it. Don't get too eager yet. Let's wait to see. I'm still waiting for something as good as my old Blue Note LPs or my Roy Orbison albums.

Bluesman, yes, I agree. The new version of my CD player upsamples to 700 kHz/24 bit..............Bullshagger, I'm not going to get personal with you. And really, you are completely wrong about the SACD to CD comparison of the mid 80's. There's zero chance that the public will get behind any new format, now that they think they're getting "perfect digital quality" MP3 and other audio off the net for FREE. Just not gonna happen, so you need to wake up and smell the coffee.