SACD vs. Vinyl

Mikelavigne - SACD looks pretty much like output of sigma delta converter before filtering (1-bit). SACD is equivalent to about 20/96 and it supposed to sound better than redbook layer. Problem is that many people dislike sound of any form or PWM (Sigma-Delta converters, class D amplifiers) - they might not like SACD as well.

I've never considered SACD since it was initially too expensive with very few titles and no option to make backup-copy (of very dense disk) not to mention that my music resides on Hard Drive (server).

New standards should be promoted. It should be advertised. SACD should be, initially at least, cheaper than CD - since it doesn't cost more to print and being impossible to copy, prevents piracy that cost industry a fortune. Unfortunately greed took over and they started selling SACDs over $30 a piece killing pretty much any interest (including mine). I remember seeing similar failures with Sony Beta, Iomega Zip drive, Sony Mini-Disc, HDCD, DVD-Audio and few others.

Mikelavigne - I did not say that SACD is flawed. I think that it is vastly superior to redbook (as Beta was to VHS). In addition to better quality (20/96) DSD used in SACD is created without antialias filters that screw-up transient response in traditional A/D conversion. Transients are used by brain for spatial localization.

You mentioned easy format switching but it was from analog to digital and not digital to digital?

SACD is not good candidate for the server not only because of copy protection but because of its scheme (PWM).

As it is right now - SACD selection is very limited, I cannot use it on the server, cannot make backup, is still too expensive and format might become obsolete.

Stereophile mentioned that format might be dead since many Blu-Ray don't even have SACD decoder.
I know that you can still buy SACDs but the same is true for DVD-audio. Would you buy DVD-Audio now?

Mikelavigne - I wish I could see operation of recording studio. I will look - they might have tours.