sacd vs xrcd

So sony can have a new product which holds a new patent and better protection for them. Also they get to sell the consumers(you and I) a whole new format of players and software incidentally available from sony- though not exclusively from sony(even they aren't that foolish). Answering your question of SACD vs XRCD I think it is really very player dependent, a XRCD sounds FAR superior on my capitole then any SACD I have heard on my 9000es. Some folks here swear by SACD but I prefer to stick with what I have that sounds already very good and TONS of available software. I think I have given Sony enough of my money, ironically Sony/phillips patent on CD's is running out soon and now all the sudden you see a rush to get new formats out from guess who phillips(dvda) and sony(sacd), its all about corporate greed and marketing- IMO.

First of all, XRCD is primarily a mastering process, and it's not clear that we can clone the geniuses at JVC who do it, so mass production and economies of scale may not be in the cards. Audiophiles are simply too small a market segment to make it worth taking that kind of care on every release.

That said, your comparison of XRCDs and SACDs suggests that what we need most is better mastering, not another format.

Multichannel.

Sacd is simply the superior format more info is, after all, more info. However, SACD (by design) is simply better than redbook ever will/can be.Comparing redbook to SACD is like comparing standard vinyl to 180g master cut vinyl.

I've found xrcd FAR superior to SACD ... to my ears, SACD is very harsh and fatiguing. More info doesn't necessarily mean better sound quality. Agree with Bomarc that better mastering is the key. Many redbook remasters I've heard sound far better than SACD ... XRCD is simply the logical extension of a quality remastering process.