Is SACD really this lousy?

I dont feel analog is dying.Of course it will never dominate again.From all I have read there is a renewed interest in analog.I feel some people are disappointed in the state of digital and are starting to doubt the future.I know we are a minority and are looked upon as old folks(Im just 45) My kids never saw a record until 3 years ago and refer to them as "big CD's" There are so many albums for sale its not funny.I buy mint LP's frequently for almost nothing.To me they sound so awesome compared to CD's.I will NEVER go back.I sold ALL my CD's 3 years ago and dont regret it at all.All my stereo money goes into analog now.My $20 NEC yard sale CDP is fine for the amount of time I use it.If a friend brings a CD over I dont have on vinyl or the kids want to listen to Britney Spears (she's HOT,especially since she got a boob job) Did I write that??? Anyway,No analog wont die in my life time. Beyond that,I dont care.

Albert,music is manufactured because listeners are manufactured.Besides,how much are you ready to spend on each album?$100.00? $200.00?Guess not.You are an important part of this system.Don't complain.I,myself have 60 albums,though heard thousands.My best wishes.

To 3141510, I'm not sure I understand what your posting means. I will try to address your comments, and apologize if I am wrong. Some rare LP titles that are important to me cost over $150.00. There are many others that were less than $10.00. Last week I purchased "Louis Armstrong Plays King Oliver," This is a new reissue from Classic Records. The price was only $20.00, and the sound is astounding! The reason I mention this specific LP, is the fact that it was recorded basically using only two Telefunken microphones in front of the performers in a "X" pattern. There are no overdubs, and the mixing is extremely minimal. This is an extreme example of what I meant when I described "created" music as opposed to "manufactured" music. Louis Armstrong had so much talent, and was so spontaneous, he could perform for a recording, or in front of a live audience and always made a amazing show of his ability. By contrast, some of today's artists rely so heavily on special techniques that they have difficulty in concert, even when equipped with an entire stage of assistants and electronics. On the subject of my being part of the "system," Although my music is primarily LP's, probably near 6,000 titles. I have also purchased over 2000 new CD's. I have never recorded music to tape to avoid paying for an artists work, nor ever taken songs from the radio, or MP3 files. The conditions that exist in the music industry are not due to a lack of support by me. If I cared more about music than I do now, I would have problems feeding myself and my family.

I'll just leave you alone.You got a small part of it.And forgive me, but Armstrong?He is not even a musician,let alone artist.I suggest Miles Davis instead.

David; The study you refer to by german psychology student J. Ackerman, and reported on by M. Sauer in Jan. and Feb. 2000, Stereophile issues has not reported statistical significance and so, at least this time,it is only opinion, speculation, conjecture, or anecdotal evidence that Ackerman's hypothesis (unstated) is true. No reputable scientific journal would publish a study without statistical significance, and the 95% confidence level (that the hypothesis is correct) is the desireable level to achieve, but the 90% level, while weaker, is publishable. But Stereophile is in the business of selling magazines, and this particular subject took up quite a few "sort of interesting" pages. If Ackerman's study were statistically significant, I would think that Stereophile would have followed up and reported it by now-- but I've seen nothing. As for the girl that heard Ackerman's music 150+ times, M. Sauer made much of this, but in fact it amounts to an uncontrolled study with only one "sample"-- meaningless (except to the girl). I once conducted a study that involved the collection of hundreds of samples over a year and a half only to find out (from statisticians) that my hypothesis only had a confidence level of 52%, ie meaningless; frustrating and disappointing. I hope this post hasn't excessively bored Audiogon readers, but Ackerman's study needs some perspective. Craig.