Thanks for your comments. I slightly disagree with you comment about mixing dismissing tests. The things they have to do to fit/use each format IS what matters. For example, my initial tests were only to be about dynamic compression on CD (it is just pure luck that my brother had four exact same edition SACD (bought by accident) and then I turned it into something more) and man, recording sessions or not, for almost every single thing I have both in DVD/SACD/CD, they is significant compression on CD.
Same for DVD-a and SACD. Even with differences in mixes (which is WHAT matters in different format), statistics gets into the picture and, again just as an example, on 100 cases like mine, if 60% prefer SACD over DVD-a, it could just mean that sound engineers are just better equiped/prefer/better-trained on SACD, it would still be a reality and would still the only thing that matters as a result (i.e. regardless of capabilities, one format would end up "better" just because it is used better by the engineers)
Most of the posts I have read in this forum where differences in mixes were brought in ("pointed out previously") were for politeness reasons; a "let's agree to disagree and... BTW... here's a convenient excuse for why we could be both right".
The mixing factor DOES NOT submerge technique, the mixing factor IS the manifestation of sampling frequency and bit depth. Those are the tools used by the sound engineers. The question has never been which tool is perfect, but at some point if they needed new tools (still need) or not.
In summary, the above paragraphs are not a defensive stance. I just felt this was the appropriate moment for me to put my two cents on the fluidic mixing thingy.
Thanks all for your reading/posting.
