SACD finally taking-off? non-classical listeners

I wasn't ever impressed on SACD compare to the regular red-book CDs or HDCDs. Why jump over there if we still can't read enough from the red-book CD? SACD automatically implies on the more complicated equipment that maybe have a future but for now it simply sucks.

Face the fact: from my simple listening test between two sources a good CD player(Gamut CD1) still outperforms a good SACD player(SONY SCD1) in both playbacks especially on red-book.

Onhwy61, There is a logical conclusion that you cannot get away from analogue unless you're mastering directly to the neccessary format wheather it's CD or SACD with bit-to-bit sample-to-sample correspondence.

Why would we realy need to record digitally on the first place if we still have to mix it into the analogue in the most cases? Isn't it more expences and time involved there?

A mastering Question:
How is it managed to transfer larger number of digital samples to the smaller number of digital samples to meet red-book CD standard?
Let's have the case that we have two recorded samples together that need to be one sample on the CD with one amplitude that has a value of 2 bits and another amplitude has a value of 20 bits?
There are only three answers:
1. Have one sample with 2 bits amplitude
2. Have one sample with 20 bits amplitude
3. Have one sample with 11 bits amplitude(average)

In all three cases we implement a huge error transfering these samples by either loosing too much information or adding distortions and colourations.

Wouldn't that be easier to transfer it to analogue prior to mastering?

Albert, I agree with you on digital vinyls. I personally possess 80% of ECM (vinyl)catalogue along with WATT. I luve these masterings and so CDs aren't bad as well.

Pardales, what CD player or combo do you or did you have before?
I've listened to Gamut CD1 with red-book CDs and I've never heard anything sound even close for the price range offered.