i chose sacd because i believe sony will win this one. at issue in the format war is the choice between sony/phillips' dsd (i believe it stands for digital stream data) and hi-res pcm (pulse code modulation).

dsd is a 1 bit system. the most glaring advantage is that dsd can be converted to ANY digital format. indeed, current sacd players convert to pcm @ 24/96 multichannel and 24/192 stereo, making the 2 formats identical.

currently, there are studios around the world with priceless master analog tapes that are deteriorating to the point of absolute ruin. they are being and will all be converted to a digital format if only to save them from extinction.

now...if you own a master and you want to archive it digitally, if you choose pcm at the current highest res available, once you do that, it cannot ever be re-converted to a higher res when that option comes along in the future.

if you choose the dsd 1 bit system to archive, it can be re-converted to any digital scheme at any time in the future. sony's engineers (and these are the guys who have been on the cutting edge of recording hardware for more than 30 years) are so convinced that this is the smart way to proceed (and time is of the essence do to the 'once the tape is gone, it's gone' situation), they have convinced sony/phillips to donate the expensive equipment (with strings attached i'm sure) to studios for archiving purposes.

dsd is actually an incredibly simple format. i like that. less manipulation=better sound. always has, always will. i understand also, that all that is needed to convert dsd is a high quality, high pass (like about 70khz) filter.

as far as what a human can hear (more like perceive), sony/phillips conducted extensive double blind tests. short story...you'll know the difference.

on the subject of what resolution ends up at your ear, currently, soundhound is correct. i love multichannel for this obvious and much overlooked reason: (though the soundstage and effects options being endless as a palate is also appealing to any artist from a purely artistic standpoint).

for many years you have had only 2 channels into which to 'place' all of the information contained in your musical piece. saturation of those two channels available headroom caused the invention of compressors, limiters and the like. they work, but they do as their names imply. they compress and they limit.

you now have 6 discrete channels into which to 'place' your information. each channel now has much less to handle, with more headroom than ever before. the simple bottom line is astoundingly better clarity and, with proper speaker placement, a soundstage you have to be 'surrounded' by to appreciate.

btw, the audioholics articles sited above never call into question anything i've just said. they only point out the problems of lack of standardization and limits due to greed and piracy issues. i choose to ignore the downside and look for the few mixes by producers who get it and artists who work with them.

borrow a player, pay $20 bucks for spyro gyra's 'in modern times' multichannel sacd, tweak your system's levels, placement and eq and LISTEN. if you don't hear a quantum leap forward in quality over stereo cd, let me know. short of doing that...it's all just academic discussion.

soundhound...you should never have brought that soapbox out...it's addictive. sorry all for the long-winded rant.