The best CD Player for the money

Mtkhl567, thanks for the link.

so, why people keep coming back to redbook format while there is alot of better format available today, such as HDCD, XRCD, audiophile version, etc?

Milen007, that's because the world today generally is not interested in higher quality sound but more interested in a downloadable, compressed, portable, convenient way to enjoy music. So all these higher quality formats only find their way to hardcore audiophiles. Btw many RBCDs sound as good or better than high-rez recordings out there, it all depends on the label and their recording process. Anyway, all media will be available for a long time to come, however high rez music server systems are the way of the future for the audiophile. But here is just an idea about the quality gap that exists expressed in bits (8 zero's or one's) processed per second:

Downloads = typically 128 or 192 kbps
RBCD 16/44.1 = 1411 kbps
High rez CD 24/96 = 4608 kbps
SACD 1/2822 = 2822 kbps
SACD 1/5644 = 5644 kbps
LP = higher than SACD

HDCD and XRCD are based on 16/44.1, but with greatly improved ording techniques that make them sound better than most standard RBCDs. SACD would be considered the next real step up, but the marketing strategy failed and the world was going to less vs higher resolution...

Go figure!

mtkh, I think I start to agree w you. When my system getting better and more revealing. I start to find that the DSD or XRCD format getting less natural. Its sound fake compare to the normal cd. Though I think some redbook do sound bad. But with the good company production, it sound way more natural than highly 'markup' cd format. Are DSD or XRCD are markup' version?

Opinion?

Sorry for going off topic.

The problem with SACD is that your choice of machines is limited. None are non-oversampling, and if you want to hear it all (believe me, there is a whole lot more contained in 16 bit than most people know), try a really good non-oversampler.

Milen007, DSD is a fundamentally different way of reading the bits of a disc than PCM. The laser is thinner and the bits are smaller so hence can read more data. XRCD is a recording process, I think owned by JVC, that optimizes the recording and transfer via supreme wordclocking tools. Its a bit technical here, but it fundamentally increases the timing accuracy, which benefits soundstage clarity, micro resolution, tonal definition, providing a more analog listening experience. Diana Krall's Look Of Love is a good example, I have RBCD, SACD and XRCD and the XRCD sounds the most analog of them all, and most satisfying.

I agree with Muralman on the fact that its not really the format, but the recording and transfer process that defines how good it sounds. If both come together than DSD well recorded can sound out of this world, for example the Blue Coast Records ESE sessions is an excellent DSD recording.