SACD 2 channel vs Redbook 2 Channel

Jade: Let my comments stick. Let the record show that I have also had quite a few different high end CDP's and DAC/Transports to do direct comarison with SACD players.

Doing comparisons with SACD players were done through 2 preamps I owned at the time last summer including the Adcom GFP-750 and the Pass Labs X2. Neither of these preamps color the sound in any way. And if your stating that a good quality preamp can change the test results for the SACD players I had vs. a few cd players(some used digital volume control, some actually went through the same Preamp), then you are simply driving my point home further.

SACD has yet to really seperate itself as being "better sounding" than redbook. And this is the whole point. THen you add to the fact how lethargic the format is evolving, add the very limited library available and you have a doomed format. As for universal players some people speak about. I would be open to one, but I have yet to find many(maybe one or 2)that perform excellent on all formats.

Well Little_milton, we as audiophiles should not underestimate the effect masting engineer (is that right word?) has on the final product. Most (I inclided) would argue his impact is more profound than the end media technology (in this case SACD vs. redbook).

My $0.02

Points taken Ritteri. But I still feel SACD is a nice niche format, even if it isn't going anywhere. Maybe I'll have to try a high end redbook player some time. Even still I think my low end SACd player does enough stuff correctly to warrant keeping it and building a library. I will likely get a better SACD player at another date. Thank you for responding.

Ritteri, before I start, know that I'm not disrespecting you, the person outside of this discussion at all, it's just your highly flawed and what could be seen as deliberately misleading "arguments" that I'm having problems with in your posts, nothing more. I'm just letting you know how your comments appear to the half-way intelligent reader:

"As for companies getting on the SACD bandwagon, after 4 years since its introduction there are probably still less than 3-4 dozen players total. MOST are from Sony and Philips, and that is a poor sign....Do you know how many companies had CD players out 4 years after the introduction of CD???? HUNDREDS."

That's complete B.S.. Nice story, however. Seriously, what are you talking about here? Please feel free to back this one up. If you're going to BS people at least don't make it so easy for people to call you in yet another untruth....

"Its well known that SACD isnt going anywhere (BS). If anything should take off its going to be DVD-A which I feel is a better format to grow for future sound improvements (more BS). As for my "Betamax" analogy, its based on the fact that your not going to get many SACD's released (BS really flowing now). After 4 years how many SACD's are there? A few hundred (completely uninformed BS here).WHo released most of em? Sony. (yet again, way off base)."

I see what's going on here, finnally! Don't know how I missed it originally, it was evident from the get go. You're a DVD-A fanatic with sour grapes! You see near 2,000 SACD titles full of excellent musical material and have ~600 piss poor DVDA titles to choose from, to play on only a handful of audiphile caliper machines and get defensive. You see the horrendous upcoming release list for DVD-A next to the exciting list of promised and current SACDs, the lack of backwards compatibility, the need for a tv monitor in your system, the nonexistent audiophile or customer enthusiasm and get even more defensive when folks bring these fact to light or even mention that "other" format.

That a given format is not prospering is no reason to take the event as a blow to the ego, it's not personal, just business, as the saying goes. To make up complete BS stories like those above to deliberately delude people into following in your cause and presumabley bolster the ego isn't a pretty thing, not good for ones self or others. Seen this story before, too many times, actually. It's all about music, regardless of the gear or software, let's not forget that. Where all in this for the music, hopefully, and not for back-pats or otherwise complete circle-jerks of like-minded folks with the gear/format/software that we found to have more MUSIC to our liking....

I'm done, there's nothing worth arguing over here. I'm sorry to have been involved, as I'm sure most everyone else saw this coming and I was too nieve to see it....this time, at least.

You know what market is exploding? MP3. Does this mean that
compressed music sounds better? No. A lot of people eat at McDonalds, does that mean McDonalds has great food? No. So,
let's not get confused here. The POPULARITY of a format has
nothing to do with the QUALITY.

Second, after the invention of the automobile, it took decades for
the infrustratucre, gas stations and paved roads, to develop to
support it. Trying to make calculated guesses about the future of
any technology while you're in the early stages is impossible.

Third, VHS was replaced by DVD, which is higher resolution.
SACD and DVD-A are higher resolution than redbook CD. So,
if you take a longer time-frame, the Betamax analogy doesn't
work. In the long run, it was HIGHER RESOLUTION that won out.

Fourth, as Arroc has argued so well, the market is going towards
UNIVERSAL PLAYERS, which was impossible with Betamax and
VHS. Personally, I don't use a UNIVERSAL PLAYER. I own an
EMM LABS DAC6 and a Denon DVD/DVD-A 1200. So, this will
be just like usual, the mass market will use one player to play
digital and the Audiophile will separate his/her digital play-back into two or three boxes for better sound.