SACD 2 channel vs Redbook 2 Channel

Rsbeck I find it incredible you can read that post again pick out two parts that aren't questions and completely miss the first part of the post.
I'll try to be clear these were the questions you haven't answered.
Did we know the original posters budget was(?) and therefore wasn't my original post valid since it was very possible that the poster would have less than $1500 to spend?
Can you state that at this price limit SACD is indeed the superior format?

What you continually seem to miss is that I am only saying this is a more complex issue than is being stated.
Of course the original post was vague,no price limits,idea of how important other aspects were.
I can agree you replied in a broader sense of what the poster asked and that those points were VALID.

You never seem to think any of my points are vaild because you think I am writing from ignorance or limited experience.
It appears you will never get away from that regardless of how wide I broaden the argument.
It's pointless to keep this up.

Show me where I state to the original poster NOT to try SACD?

You clearly don't read a lot of what I write because it always take numerous attempts to get you to reply to the specific points,your last post is a totally classic example.

What is interesting Rsbeck is that through this and the other debate ongoing at the moment even the guy (Ears)who agrees with you most about my "hollow" stance have differing views about other aspects of SACD.
You think you can get quality Redbook replay from a SACD machine around $1600 (used),he thinks at least $4k.
By his measure I cannot afford Redbook replay of the standard I would like on a SACD machine.
Is he right and you wrong?
No both your viewpoints are valid from your respective perspectives and experience.

This is what I was aiming at with my original post,an opinion based on my experience with SACD,I only asked the poster to consider my points and find his own experience.

Please explain to me why this is not a valid reply to the question?

These forums are about debate it would appear you would just rather leave it at SACD is superior,all the time for everybody,end of story.

I was unimpressed with SACD when I had only heard it on the Sonys. (I own an entry level 775, and auditioned a 999ES.) When I switched to the Denon 5900 universal player, I changed my mind. I feed the Denon into a Bel Canto DAC2 for Redbook. I love that combination, but as good as it is, it isn't as good to my ears as the SACD. I only own a few SACD disks, all hybrid, and I prefer the SACD layer. With some the difference is dramatic, with others it's more subtle. (BTW, the 5900 is not a bad Redbook player on its own, but I wouldn't be satisfied with it.)

Mr. Campbell --

Obviously, the whole topic of SACD is a complex one *FOR YOU.*
It is also apparent to me that, for you, this issue goes far beyond music. I guess I am supposed to go through your posts and figure out what I should answer and what I am supposed to ignore, which are your real points and which are just meant to act as filler between them, and then I am also supposed to validate the points you think you've made, ignore the points that contradict each other, ignore the holes in your experience, accept your 2nd hand hearsay -- even though I notice you misquote and misuse my statements in some of these rambles, etc. etc. etc.

For me, it is simple. From my first experiences with audio onward,
I have accepted that the equipment I use and the music I play on it
will be out of the mainstream, will cost more, will take some time and trouble to acquire and to "get right." But, it is worth it to get great music reproduction. So, frankly, I find all your "consumerist" complaints about SACD irrelevant -- ESPECIALLY on a board like this one. You know damn well there are web-sites that carry SACD, SACD's are NOT difficult for an audio enthusiast to find --they are difficult for a mainstream consumer to find. EVERYONE knows we are in the early phases and we are limited to the 1,500
or so SACD's available. Why should it matter to anyone who has the opportunity to explore SACD that your choices are limited by the shops in your town? I've never seen anyone else dog a piece of equipment because it isn't available at their neighborhood shop. Again -- this is STANDARD experience in this hobby. Frankly, it seems to me that you want others to validate your belief that because *you* have had a little bit of disappointment with your initial foray this must spell doom for the medium. But, I would wager that everyone on this forum has been disappointed by some highly rated piece of equipment and/or software on the road to audio nirvana. This is typical. So, I doubt you are going to get a lot of sympathy here. Your objections -- like your speculation that SACD will only live on as a toy for audiophiles -- would spell doom for everything we do on this forum. I find it objectionable that you have let your little disappointment -- whatever it was -- with one machine turn into this personal little crusade of yours -- especially when you pass on 2nd hand comments about equipment you've never heard. i consider that a foul. Then when you add the fact that you are sitting there with an esoteric piece of high end audiophile equipment listening to your redbook CD making these comments about SACD, I find your comments ironic to say the least.

Now, the original poster wanted to know about two channel SACD.
Pretty specific question. I would guess the poster wanted to know
if he/she needed a 5.1 system to enjoy SACD. My answer is, "no."
He/she also wanted to know if SACD is superior to CD. Who in the
world would think he/she was asking whether there was better
selection of SOFTWARE on SACD as opposed to CD? Short answer -- NOBODY. This is just common sense. I assume this
poster is interested in finding BETTER DIGITAL REPRODUCTION.
This road is going to lead to a consideration of SACD. My answer
is "yes, SACD sounds better." Finally, I didn't play guessing games
with the original poster's budget -- because I don't NEED to know
his/her budget. I assume the poster wants to hear the EXPERIENCE of other posters, so I shared with him/her the two
pieces of equipment -- at two different price points -- that I have personally had in my system and enjoyed. I also assume that this is probably one of the first questions on this poster's journey. When he/she wants to know about players in his price range, how much it costs to get great reproduction, where to find software, how much is available -- HE/SHE WILL ASK. If the pieces I mention are too expensive, I assume he/she will say so, I also assume others
will offer their EXPERIENCE at other price points -- etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. IMO, what you have to offer is that you
had a machine in your system and you didn't hear enough of a difference -- and then you didn't audition any other players because they were *UNAVAILABLE* in your area -- and that will be weighed against others who've had the same piece of equipment and DID hear enough difference, people who've heard SACD players that were UNAVAILABLE to you and enjoyed them, etc, etc, etc, etc. Then, the original poster and anyone else with interest in this thread will sift and weigh all this information and will form impressions, follow up questions, etc, etc, etc, etc.

Rsbeck any chance if I ever make it to the States getting invited up to your place to hear your rig?

I think enough has been written,the thread is here for Audiogoners to read and come to their own conclusions.

Happy listening!

Ben --

If you ever come to the States, drop me an e-mail, I would be happy to have you over to spin some tunes.

Thanks for the discussion,