the SHM CD Experience

I only hope that RBCDs meaning 16/44k only discs will die, and we finally get Hybrid SACDs with 16/44.1 layer compatible with cd players but also high resolution layer for those preferring hi-rez music (stereo and/or multichannel), that way everybody could be satisfied.

SHM-CD, Blu-spec CD, XRCD etc are still low resolution redbook cds
http://puresuperaudio.blogspot.com/2009/01/hi-rez-demystified-are-there-high.html

moreover SHM-CDs are not even new remasters :(

SACD hardware isn't selling? Today almost every player has SACD playback, Denon, Marantz, Pioneer, Esoteric, Luxman, Mark Levinson, Yamaha, Sony, Playback designs, McIntosh etc. all are SACD/CD players, IMHO SACDs are not so popular because only audiophiles know why DSD is better than 16/44k CD and audiophiles are a niche

Personally I'm not buying red book CDs any more, maybe occasionally used CDs from ebay if they are extremely cheap but not new CDs, I hope that RBCD format will finally die this year as many people predict... and we finally get the high resolution music, whether it'll be SACD or Blu Ray Audio, or hi-rez downloads, but RBCDs? No, thank you even if they have super clear plastic they are still 16/44kHz, even if their pits and lands are burned with laboratory precision they are still 16bit redbook CDs. So what I can listen to 0,03% more bits or 1% more bits due to blu-spec CD when I have 400% more bits (information) on SACD or FLAC 24bit/96kHz recording

I don't think ALL people will switch to virtual downloads, personally I prefer physical product (with cover, booklet)to downloaded file

BTW CD sales dropped 20% in 2008, so it's definitely not a slow decline, I hope RBCD will die this year, eventually next, and we finally move to high resolution music

SHM-CD = same mass market remaster, 16bit/44,1kHz CD, clearer plastic used zzZZZzz

Blu-spec CD = same mass market remaster, 16/44,kHz CD, manufacturing process done with blu-laser (yawns..)

I wonder how long they will have the nerve to sell the same redbook CDs over and over again

"Probably as long as dumb posts like yours are permitted. "

what was so dumb about my posts? that I said due to super clear plastic (SHAM-CD) your cd player will be able to read 0,03% more bits or 1% more bits, and on high resolution recording (SACD of FLAC 24/96) you have 400% more bits (musical information), or that SHM-CD and blu-spec CD are not newly remastered cds, they are same mass market remasters already available on the market?

these are just facts.

bottom line is $500 SACD player sounds better than $500 CD player, $1000 SACD player sounds better than $1000 CD player, $1500 SACD player sounds better than $1500 CD player, $2000 SACD player sounds better than $2000 CD player... and high resolution recordings sound better than low resolution compact disc

and like I said, due to super clear plastic on your compact disc, your player will be able to read maybe 0,03% more bits or 1% more bits, or even 0% more bits (assuming you have a good cd player that never had any problems with reading CDs).

'i will assure you that my meitner cdsa-se is fully capable of extracting every nuance of information from any cd'

that's why SHM is useless, you will hear 0% more music (bits)

Calloway, if you want better sounding recordings, SHM-CD won't do it for you as your cd player is 'fully capable of extracting every nuance of information from any cd' whether 16bits are pressed on normal plastic or super clear plastic your player will read them correctly, thus SHM-CD won't bring any improvement at all, maybe some users with cheapest $99 DVD players will benefit from super clear plastic, other than that sham-cd is useless, if you want better sounding recordings you have to look somewhere else...good luck