[soundboy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif You know what? It's all good. Good music is everything, the format is just a means to an end.

I agree. If the music is good, then it's even enjoyable on mono AM radio.

I forget to give a reason for my choice of stereo SACD. If the engineering aspect of the recording is good, my opinion is that SACD sounds the best....it's just more realistic and more "there". Hard to put into words. A well-engineered CD can be excellent sounding, but it lacks that last degree of resolution which SACD can give.

 

[skeeder]

I don't really collect alot of CD's. And if I do I always manage to misplace them, my music collection on my computer is large enough to keep me happy, about half of it is in LAME the rest in FLAC. I prefer FLAC it seems to hold the detail more. I cannot tell a difference between FLAC and a Audio CD from my soundcard. Perhaps later down the road...

 

[robm321]

1) Vynil (King)


2) SACD
3) HDCD
4) CD



5) MP3 (if I'm traveling or desperate)

 

[GlendaleViper]

Quote:

Originally Posted by soundboy /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hard to put into words. A well-engineered CD can be excellent sounding, but it lacks that last degree of resolution which SACD can give.

Totally agree - it's hard to describe, but it's really amazing what an SACD can do to a recording that justifies such high resolution. DVD-A is a good format as well, but I just find it too damned user-unfriendly.

 

[ProzacMessiah]

Quote:

Originally Posted by soundboy /img/forum/go_quote.gif A well-engineered CD can be excellent sounding, but it lacks that last degree of resolution which SACD can give.

Very well put.

I prefer SACD to RBCD when a recording is available in both formats, but it's not much of a factor when choosing between performances. Beyond that, quality of recording trumps quality of format. I haven't heard either HDCD or XRCD, and my SACD experience is confined to classical music.