Enough of this bickering 1 The price of the processor does not make it high-end. The performance does. 2 As good as the SACD format may be. There are still limiting factors. The mastering, the processor, and the amp (The signal needs to be amplified to line level). The fact that they made it backward compatable is a double edged sword. 3 DVD transports do a very poor job on audio signals. The jitter, bit errors, and signal loss is much worse than moderately priced CD transports. I've measured them. Even moderately priced transports lose a lot with high frequency data. (Over 10kHz) and it gets worse as the frequency goes up. 4 SACD is not better than CD. It has the potential to be better. Now the 96 KHz is a big step up although 192 would be better. The 24 bits is a big improvement also. Better than the 21 bits theoretically needed. ( This number was deduced by some engineers in the early to mid eighties, re an article in the AES Journal) There should be much less problem with roundoff error. But will it meet the potential? So far there are only a few disks. These disks sound good, but will all the rest be this good? I doubt it. Will SACD be sold to the masses? Will millions of people discard there CDs for SACD disks? I doubt it. Don't get too eager yet. Let's wait to see. I'm still waiting for something as good as my old Blue Note LPs or my Roy Orbison albums.
