IMO a better comparison is to match up a quality XRCD against the SACD
XRCD is the uncompressed hi-Rez "normal CD pressing" without the max 16/44 format first introduced for airplay.
E.g. Dire Straits - Brothers in Arms discs are issues in both SACD and XRCD pressings.( there are many others including inter alia, The Eagles)
My observations
(1) Any comparison is system dependent sensitive for sure as highlighted by the prior posts . The better the system ...... Yada Yada ....
(2) I've heard both including A-B .
(A) In my system, the XRCD wins out and the difference is not subtle because of (1) above and also because of the preferred results embedded in the actual recording.
(B) I've heard them in more modestly priced audio systems and the the results vary even to the point that the SACD prevails.
(3) in all cases, audio reproduction through a multi channel receiver always lagged far behind the audio performance of hi-end and quality built separates. There is no escaping the time-honoured tenet in this hobby that you only get what you pay for.
XRCD is the uncompressed hi-Rez "normal CD pressing" without the max 16/44 format first introduced for airplay.
E.g. Dire Straits - Brothers in Arms discs are issues in both SACD and XRCD pressings.( there are many others including inter alia, The Eagles)
My observations
(1) Any comparison is system dependent sensitive for sure as highlighted by the prior posts . The better the system ...... Yada Yada ....
(2) I've heard both including A-B .
(A) In my system, the XRCD wins out and the difference is not subtle because of (1) above and also because of the preferred results embedded in the actual recording.
(B) I've heard them in more modestly priced audio systems and the the results vary even to the point that the SACD prevails.
(3) in all cases, audio reproduction through a multi channel receiver always lagged far behind the audio performance of hi-end and quality built separates. There is no escaping the time-honoured tenet in this hobby that you only get what you pay for.