XRCD vs. SACD

You're asking people to compare apples and oranges. XRCD is a very careful mastering process. SACD is a digital format. If an XRCD mastering job were put on a SACD, it would probably be indistinguishable from a 16-bit disk.

I recently made a direct comparison of the RCA-BMG Fiedler Gaite Parisienne on imported SACD (a hybrid from BMG Hong Kong) with the JVC XRCD reissue. SACD was through my Classe Omega SACD player, a $12,000 player built on the transport of the SCD-1. CD was from the digital outs of the Omega, as transport, to a dCS Purcell upconverter and dCS Elgar. Rsesult: the JVC sounded superb, but the SACD was noticeably warmer, richer and had more of an analogue sound. Same comparison with the RCA-BMG Fiedler High Performance version of the Carmen Suite: the RCA 24 bit transfer sounded in your face superb, but the SACD had all of the same detail and was a bit fuller, richer and had a wider spread. Any negative analysis of SACD made on a $500-$1,000 Sony SACD player versus an Audio Aero Capitole or something like that is playing ostrich and denying that SACD, played back on comparable quality equipment, is simply better than CD, and however poorly initially marketed, deserves to succeed.

Dear Mgottlieb...It makes no difference whether sacd sounds better than xrcd because no one is repurchasing the bulk of their collections in this new format...only their favorites and maybe not even then.Only vinyl can yield significantly greater results over digital media which I believe has been stated 12,863 times already if my thread count is correct

Brucegel: whether or not your count is accurate, your comment is irrelevant to the XRCD vs. SACD question asked, which is what I, at least, was attempting to respond to. The issue isn't whether anyone has to repurchase their collection, it's about what's going to happen going forward. If SACD is killed off because the "experts" tell everybody "no better than remastered CD", everyone loses. Not every current or future release is or will be a reissue, and LP is certainly the best of the formats, but there won't be a hell of a lot of new LP's coming out very soon (which aren't reissues, that is, which makes your comment even more perplexing).

Thanks for some insightful responses. All day today I have been auditioning my brand new Philips SACD 1000 player ($399.99 at Tweeter), comparing its sound on SACDs to my venerable $25,000. Jadis redbook cd rig. I must say that while the Jadis shows its considerable advantage over the Philips unit on redbook, the SACD player presents a sense of spaciousness and depth of soundfield I have never experienced. This is fresh out of the box! Why on Earth aren't more high-end manufacturers producing SACD players? Yeah, yeah, I've heard the nonsense about limited titles and concerns over viability of the format. Do you really think Conrad johnson or Audio Research would be able to keep up with the demand for a sub-$5,000. SACD/DVD-A player? How many of us would put down deposits right now, sight unseen ( or unheard)? If a $400. Philips player sounds this good, what could a CJ or ARC do with this format? Maybe I'm just in the midst of "new toy" euphoria and I will tire of SACD in a week, but I seriously doubt it. As long as this format sounds this analog-like, there will be enough audionuts to support its continued existence, even if it is rejected by the masses. Esoteric companies will make them, and MOFI-like companies will record them. I don't see SACD dying!