sacd vs xrcd

I too have had the same experience as Czbbcl. I think you cannot keep out of the equation that the xrcds (which I agree sound stunningly good, but I still prefer the vinyl so I haven't bought many) are made from master tapes of some of the greatest recordings ever made. Have you listened to an all-DSD recording such as Telarc's Mahler 5 or Sea Symphony, or the San Francisco Orchestra's Mahler 6, exteremely well-recorded discs (forget those old remastered Columbias, save for a few, those recordings can't compare to the Mohr/Layton efforts)? That's a better comparison of the two mediums. While you may not find the differences earthshaking, I think they will be noticeable if you listen to them through the same player's analog stage.

Dandreescu, in answer to your question, I've now heard the Pines/Fountains of Rome, Sheherezade, and Heifietz Mendelssohn Violin Concerto XRCDs on my system, and will probably get some more, as they are very good, giving up some ultimate ease and bloom to the Classic Records reissues on vinyl but not much more. Easily some of the best CDs I've ever heard, far better than the major labels' efforts. But following them up with the new Linn Poulenc Organ Concerto SACD, the SACD was much better in the retrieval of ambience and analog-like ease of presentation, and easily more than a match dynamically (keep in mind that my Sony has been modified and is far better than the stock version; stock ones are decent, but really can be improved in the analog stages). And the SFO Mahler 6 is better in similar ways. Mgottlieb's post is interesting; if only I liked that title better. And I agree with him, the vinyl is better, that's why I've been holding off on buying many xrcds.