sacd vs xrcd


On my rig [ mf 300 amp, mf a3cpd, ap oval 9 and dynaudios 1.3] the difference between cds and XRCDs is quite remarcable. Sure, the XRCDs are 25 bucks, but the price should go down in a mass market production.
If a cd can sound great and be played on all cdps available, why sacd?
dandreescu
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.
You can answer the question this month directly for about $70. The imported SACD of the RCA Gaite Parisienne is due out, and so is the XRCD. My own impression is that SACD through my Classe Omega slightly beats out upconverted CD (including XRCD) through my dCS Purcell and Elgar, while XRCD definitely beats out even gold Cd's of RCA Living stereo material. But until there is a direct comparison, it's all apples and oranges. And anyway, I bet the vinyl still wins.
thanks every body for their input. I did not have the chance to listen to the same recording on the same rig in XRCD and SACD format-anybody had that experience?-[ there are some available from FIM as exemple] but all my XRCDs seem to be superior to the SACD that I remember...also, I have the benefit of a superior sound that can be played on any of my 5 cdps[ car stereo, walkman and so on...]and can be copyied any time. The XRCDs can be make out of any recording- some of them are RCA 1950's and still sound great. if the cost of making one is, divided to a couple of hundred thousands-like a J.Lo album, the result will be a much better sound for a couple of cents per album....

czbbcl and Rcprince, what XRCDs and SACDs you compared?
I have had the opportunity to listen to a few FIM discs in both SACD and XRCD and the SACD sounds better on the same system. I stand by my assertion that the SACD medium has much greater potential, to say nothing of multichannel. ;-)
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.