John Smyth wrote:

>I heard SACD for the first time today: MTT's Mahler 3rd in 2 channel
>sound on a modestly-priced player and system.  I have to use the hackneyed
>phrase: it sounded as though a veil was lifted.  It made me want to throw
>my CD collection away, and this, after committing my emotions to a $3000
>CD player.
>
>To all you CM industry insiders out there: Is SACD inevitable?  Can I
>expect to be able to match my present collection's depth before I'm 80
>and my ears have eroded to 16-bit in the meantime?
>
>Just had to share my enthusiasm.

I don't know if SACD is inevitable.  I'm afraid that in this next round
of advancements in audio reproduction, sound quality will be somewhat
compromised in order to accommodate home theater.  SACD or DVDA can only
hold so many bits of information.  I'd rather see those bits spread
across two channels rather than five.  John, I'm glad that your comparison
was made with SACD two channel.

I had a conversation with the owner of a high end audio store (Audio
Consultants in Evanston, IL) about SACD vs.  CD. His opinion was that
there is plenty of information to be gleaned from CDs, and that a high
quality CD player will sound better than an average quality SACD player.
However, your experience doesn't seem to agree with this, since the SACD
you heard sounded much better than CDs on your $3000 CD player.  If you
don't mind my asking, what CD player is that?  I bought my CD player
used for $1500 (separate transport and DAC @ $750 each).  Of all the
upgrades I've made to my sound system over the years, this one gave
me the biggest bang for the buck.  I'm very skeptical that an average
quality SACD player from Best Buy would sound as good as my CD player.
(Of course, I have an open mind, and am anxious to experiment.)

Also, I read a review in an audio magazine about a year ago, where SACD
was compared to DVDA.  Several people participated, and unanimously
favored DVDA.  Two channel was used for both formats.

Mike Leghorn
Evanston, IL.