sacd vs xrcd

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.

Funny, I have found just the opposite with SACD. Redbook is sterile, metalic, uninvolving, fatiguing and harsh when compared to SACD. I have listened to redbook through some rather highend pieces and SACD was still the superior format. But I guess you hear what you hear.