sacd,vinyl, and rebook....


Just to echo some common remarks:

"sacd is like vinyl without the clicks and pops"

"sacd is a marginal improvement, if any, over redbook"

"sacd is a smoke and mirrors ht campaign designed for multi-channel use and copyright protection agendas"

at any rate...which of the above best describes this format?
128x128phasecorrect
I really do not understand what the purpose of this thread is. I have great capability to play LPs, cds, sacds, dvdvs, and dvdas. I certainly do not have every performance in all of these formats and no intension, even were they available, to have everything in multiple formats. I find LPs superior when everything is perfect but a major pain in the ass. I have had an enormous improvement in the quality of my cd performance thanks to modern dacs and clean power. Now I could listen to cds exclusively. I have found sacds to sound more realistic than cds with a considerably better sense of the sound stage, but with less dynamics (XRCD24 clean their clocks). I thought that few if any dvdas were worth having, but system improvements have shown some are excellent. I am not looking for a victor in the format wars and just enjoying what is available. I will continue to buy sacds when they become available.
Of all the posts, I find Gaudio_eek's quote of Ivor Humphreys the most salient; why do so many of us in this hobby chase tweaking the noise? Really, Albert's referenced article is dealing with a worse case scenario of -40db in the upper register. Please! There's 10,000 times more other stuff going on with these recordings!

At a certain level (just for a guess, I'd say a $5,000 system) the details we're hearing are mostly the decisions of the recording engineer and mixing artist (yes, artist). And while I love 'air' and 'etched details' and 'palpable' and all that other stuff, there's some lower order terms we tend to miss in all this minutia: things like rhythm, melody, harmony, and tonal communication.

In other words: music!

I'm not attacking those who can hear the differences between formats (for they do exist, and yes, I have heard them). Instead, I am asking why do we feed this machine? Why do we buy this equipment when there are satisfactory formats (CD for simplicity, Vinyl for high res playback, MP3 for portability)? And this is hardly a Luddite anthem, but it is an appeal to reflect on the rationality of our purchasing behavior with respect to the primary goal: the joy of music.

Sincerely,
Hope you guys understand that the article was pointed out only for discussion.

I don't have conclusive proof of which digital format is best or what the engineering limits are in the various digital formats.

I am strictly an analog guy and the sum of my investment in digital is a Sony 9000es. It is capable of playing SACD, but I have so few titles I would hesitate to compare.

No doubt the new generation machines such as the EMM Labs would crush my stock Sony, the problem comes (for me) paying the price for the EMM Labs and having it crushed by my analog rig.

Still it's an interesting debate and I thought the link I provided was worth sharing since it was precisely on topic.
The subtle differences between SACD and DVDA, and perhaps CD may require a high end system to be distinguished. On the other hand, even the most lowly LP system reveals, and is limited by, clicks, pops, warps and skips due to dirt balls on the stylus and/or the slightest damage to the grooves.
Eldartford, your LP rig might be limited but mine is not. Perhaps it's not prudent for everyone to buy a Walker or Rockport, but for those of us that want the ultimate and have an existing library of analog music, it is well worth the investment.