SACD 2 channel vs Redbook 2 Channel

Rsbeck-really my final words this time.
If you see a theme fine,if I was sure I could have bought a SACD player that gave me the Redbook playback quality of the Ayre-I would have bought it and hopefully got the benefits of SACD a machine of that quality .
If I could afford an Emm Labs system I would have it and if eveything I hear about it is true then I would obviously reinvest in SACD software.
I think you fail to realise at your level you get a win,win situation below it there is much more debate.
I am not anti-SACD-it is a more complicated issue than just to come to the conclusion that it is a better or worse format-there are many different levels and issues within the argument.
As for the Stones SACD/Hybrids as far as I can hear and know the mixes on the SACD and Redbook layers are identical.

The fact remains that you were not happy with the redbook CD playback of your prior player -- so you moved up to a high end
redbook CD player -- but, you were *unable* to audition high end CD players with SACD capability because they were not available in your area -- so, for this and other reasons, the route you took enabled you to explore high end CD playback, but did not enable you to further explore SACD.

I have no problem with the route you took and the rationale behind it, but IMO, when you hi-jack SACD threads to make negative comments regarding SACD [and players you have not personally auditioned], your admitted lack of experience with SACD [in relation to your more extensive experience with redbook CD] calls your comments into question.

What you can tell us is that you enjoy high end redbook CD playback better than low-end CD playback.

Further, I do agree that having a high end CD player with SACD
capability puts me in a win/win situation. I also agree that there is debate with regard to the price point at which SACD's superiority
can be discerned, but -- without trying to be rude -- I think that debate should take place between posters who have had experience with these machines, rather than between posters who *have* had experience versus a poster who can only offer 2nd hand hearsay.

Finally, on that point, I have written that I could clearly hear the
superiority of SACD on a Sony SCD XA777ES which I bought
used on Audiogion for $1,600. This player had excellent CD
playback -- far superior to my previous player, which was a
Yamaha s2300 Universal Player, which I bought new for $1,000.
Still, the SACD playback of the XA777ES was superior to the CD
playback. That was my experience with a player I had in my system for a few months.

Rsbeck really this is boring,I'm trying to get out of this debate but what you've written is not correct on a number of issues.
I only wanted Matchstikman to hear of other experiences,which at least two other members have agreed with in general terms on this thread.
Why don't you call them on that?
Others have also elsewhere.
Perhaps he could comment if my posts were worthwhile or not,he's probably quit the thread a while back.
My experience with SACD involves listening to a highly rated payer for over a year which I still own,which has been reviewed as clearly showing the differences between Redbook and SACD.
I current own about 20 SACD hybrids-I owned and heard about another 15 SACD discs.
Big deal, my fault for not buying a more expensive machine to show off the format to it's best-as for the hearsay comment well show me where I have made detailed analysis about anything I haven't heard.
You've done this on every thread,ignore the points you are called on (at least 4 or 5 above)and make the same point my experience isn't valid over and over again.
Anyone who wishes to enter into SACD deserves to hear at least an alternative viewpoint,made to consider some of the drawbacks with the format and be aware that they may not hear the differences they are expecting.
I have NEVER said at a certain price point or level that SACD isn't better.
Martin Collims who is a well-respected journalist recently wrote in his Krell SACD review he had serious doubts and issues with the format.
I will post elsewhere more detailed thoughts on the format.

>>I have NEVER said at a certain price point or level that SACD isn't better.<<

Well, this was the subject of the thread. So, if you agree that -- at
a certain price point, SACD reveals its Superiority -- one can only wonder why you would jump into the thread to debate against those who are arguing that SACD is superior.

>>my fault for not buying a more expensive machine to show off the format to it's best<<

Your less expensive player obviously didn't show redbook CD to its best, either -- or else you would not have been compelled to buy a high end CD player. So, this simply adds weight to the argument that *any* format will reveal more of its strengths with a high end player than with a low end one.

There's no wonder in it Rsbeck-I made the consideration that the original poster may not have more than $1500 to spend on a SACD player-if you read my original reply it should make sense.
Can you state that SACD is superior at that price limit?
We still don't know the original posters budget.
I wasn't compelled to buy a better Redbook player because my previous Redbook set up (Audio Alchemy DDE3,DTI2,POWER STATION 2)beat the Sony.
The Sony is a good audio player for the money,it really is.

I spent more cash because I love music and wanted to upgrade,wanted more out of my music.