Completely true. Unless producers are really 'dumbing-down' tracks from DVD-A to CD then new recordings using a higher resolution end format, at worse, will be the same quality of CD, all else being equal. That said, there is obvious potential for the high rez format to 'sound better'.

I can tell the difference between Peter Gabriel's UP (SACD stereo) and Trey Anastasio (DVDA stereo) over their CD counterparts. There is the possibility of the mix being different, but I seriously doubt it in the Trey Anastasio case as it has been said the poor 5.1 mix was 'generated' by a computer from the stereo master. I suppose there could be two stereo masters. If companies are really doing this, it is quite sad.

Perhaps I notice the high-end a little more as I have Rocket speakers which really are dull on the high-end. Again, mix withstanding, Steely Dan's Everything Must Go has more, cleaner-sounding treble energy played on the 192Hz stereo tracks than on the DD version. (I don't have a CD copy to compare).


Prices have been 10 - 20% higher than equivalent CDs that I have purchased. I'm sure there are instances where this gap is higher, but I'm stating MY experiences. For this 20% mark-up, I have received (in some or many cases): better sonics, multiple mixes, lyrics, hybrid playback capability, and misc. extras (videos, interviews, etc.) To me, the 20% premium is well worth it. I understand that this premium may not be worthwhile to others.


So maybe, I'm just 'hearing' things. Maybe everyone else here is (or isn't) too! I get frustrated when people complain about a new format and I will defend it when I see a benefit of this format to myself. I did the same thing when CD came out 17 years ago and DVD followed some 10 years later. There were numerous people who told me I was a fool for being an early adopter of this format. To date, I have proven them otherwise.

Please don't help crush the DVD-A/SACD format. If you don't want to buy it, don't! Everyone needs to hear each format and decide for themselves.