XRCD vs. SACD


Having listened to several JVC xrcd's on some state of the art redbook gear, I am of the opinion that most that I have heard sound more natural to me than SACD on a budget Sony SACD player. I have not, however, listened to any higher-end SACD players in my system. I would be very interested to hear from those who have made this comparison and can provide some input with regard to how the XRCDs compare.
jmslaw

Showing 2 responses by mgottlieb

I recently made a direct comparison of the RCA-BMG Fiedler Gaite Parisienne on imported SACD (a hybrid from BMG Hong Kong) with the JVC XRCD reissue. SACD was through my Classe Omega SACD player, a $12,000 player built on the transport of the SCD-1. CD was from the digital outs of the Omega, as transport, to a dCS Purcell upconverter and dCS Elgar. Rsesult: the JVC sounded superb, but the SACD was noticeably warmer, richer and had more of an analogue sound. Same comparison with the RCA-BMG Fiedler High Performance version of the Carmen Suite: the RCA 24 bit transfer sounded in your face superb, but the SACD had all of the same detail and was a bit fuller, richer and had a wider spread. Any negative analysis of SACD made on a $500-$1,000 Sony SACD player versus an Audio Aero Capitole or something like that is playing ostrich and denying that SACD, played back on comparable quality equipment, is simply better than CD, and however poorly initially marketed, deserves to succeed.
Brucegel: whether or not your count is accurate, your comment is irrelevant to the XRCD vs. SACD question asked, which is what I, at least, was attempting to respond to. The issue isn't whether anyone has to repurchase their collection, it's about what's going to happen going forward. If SACD is killed off because the "experts" tell everybody "no better than remastered CD", everyone loses. Not every current or future release is or will be a reissue, and LP is certainly the best of the formats, but there won't be a hell of a lot of new LP's coming out very soon (which aren't reissues, that is, which makes your comment even more perplexing).