SACD 2 channel vs Redbook 2 Channel

Tireguy: Too bad alot of people dont believe your words(and alot of these people are in the industry), and this is from hands on experience. SACD does not garentee better sound. And as stated, if the recording sounds better, most likely its due to the remastering process. So why dont redbook cd's get remastered? How many people do you think in the general population care about remastering obscure CD's such as the ones listed? Demand. If there isnt demand for it, who is going to waste money to re record tracks for such negligible performance increases? If SACD was such a grand stepping stone(which it isnt)and had a profitable future then alot more mfg. would be jumping on the bandwagon to produce SACD players. WHich brings me to the next sentence............

One word: BETAMAX. SACD is already heading down the same path.

And one last thing tireguy, for every cd you listed that may sound better on SACD from your opinion, Im sure I could pull up just as many(and many more) that sound as good or better on a regular cd.

Ritteri writes:

Its a well known fact that the 99% of the SACD's on the market have been "remastered" to give the illusion of "better sound".

What about brand new DSD recordings such as Telarc have produced. These are not remastered.

Sorry, but I have yet to hear ANY SACD player put out a better musical signal than a competently built "redbook" player.

What players have you heard?

Regards,

Any Wadia player,Linn,Burmeister,ML,CLasse,BAT,a few select Adcom units, a few select CAL units, among many others.

As for DSD recordings, how many discs are released? Read the Betamax comment.

Im going to be more in line that DVD-A will be the next mainstream upgrade over the CD, but who knows whats going to happen in the next few years........

Beta continued to be used by viedograhers, VHS was replaced by DVD. So, Betamax is a bad analogy.

Yes, it probably was a bad analogy but I think it was close enough to get the point through =)