In Reply to: XRCD v. SACD - interesting comparison posted by Luciano,IT on November 20, 2006 at 09:22:21:
Don't know about the Monster product. The only title I have that is available on both formats is Dire Straits "Brothers in Arms." The SACD is clearly better. I always thought the XRCD was as good as many hi-rez discs that I have and I wouldn't have expected the SACD to be better - but it was.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: XRCD v. SACD - interesting comparison - HighEndWire 09:40:05 11/20/06 (6)
- Re: XRCD v. SACD - interesting comparison - Ozzie 11:11:50 11/20/06 (5)
- Norah Jones: Stereo from 16/44.1, Multi-channel layer from analog - chriscmore 07:55:04 11/21/06 (2)
- Uh uh Chris... - Ozzie 10:14:56 11/21/06 (1)
- Chris is right - racerguy 13:11:24 11/21/06 (0)
- Re: XRCD v. SACD - interesting comparison - HighEndWire 16:09:15 11/20/06 (0)
- It all proves that 16/44.1 is really not that bad a way to encode music. (nt) - jsm 15:34:01 11/20/06 (0)