SACD 2 channel vs Redbook 2 Channel

Again, look at all those titles. Still some that arent even in English, alot are not even music CD's(or 2 channel)native to this country and alot of these arent even true SACD's with the higher upsampling. And were still not even at 1000. I claimed "hundreds" of true released SACD's. That claim still holds folks.

If anyone has more than 100 or even 1000 SACD's I feel sorry that they wasted all that money because most of them havent even been "remastered" to 96khz and are no better(and from alot of articles actually WORSE)than redbook cd's.

Plus I noticed that noone will even challenge the fact that there are only a few dozen SACD players on the market. I made alot of points, you folks are only trying to zero in on one small point.

And lets be real, looking at that "wonderful" list of SACD's isnt getting my juices pumping very much to go run out and buy another SACD player.......

Someone should read Onhwy61's comment up above too. It adds alot of weight to my arguments.

Guys, let's just leave poor Ritteri alone....There's nothing we can do to help this one.

LittleMilton: Expected response from you. Other than the really weak argument for the Pro SACD people about there being more LIGITIMATE SACD's than a few hundred(which NONE of those lists show), noone has even tried to argue the other improtant facts like the fact that there are only a few dozen SACD players on the market still and that alot of the true high end mfgs of high end audio wont even touch SACD with a 10 foot pole. And with many good reasons.

Little Milton: you may have a very few limited backers on this particular thread, but the real fact is that its widely known that SACD isnt what its supposed to be currently.From the actual recording, to the actual players, to the very limited software available(and this can be subcategorized down to specific types of music available), and even from the support of mfgs. Being a previous owner of an SACD player, its still not a worthwhile investment on a format that has still yet to prove itself.

Ritteri writes:

Still some that arent even in English, alot are not even music CD's(or 2 channel)native to this country and alot of these arent even true SACD's with the higher upsampling.

Many SACDs are not native to the United States of America, although that's hardly surprising given that when SACDs were first released only three plants existed - one in Japan, one in the USA, and one in Europe. Sonopress in Germany was the first plant to produce hybrids, so many SACDs came from there. That matters not one iota. It's a global village.

By "true SACD" I'm guessing you are referring to recordings that were made with DSD right through the chain. There have been some, but it is only in recent times that expanded mixers that operate in DSD have become available. We are sure to see many more completely DSD SACDs in the future.

I personally don't think this matters much. I have excellent sounding SACDs made from analogue recordings and various resolution PCM recordings.

Regards,

Ritteri -- you wrote;

"Ever check out one of those old Sony recievers with all the different modes of ambiance? Like "Hall", "Stadium","Live" etc etc?? Basically thats whats done to the SACD in simple terms."

Many of your claims -- like this one -- have proven erroneous.

You appear to have one left -- your claim that there are only a few dozen SACD players on the market. But, instead of conceding that you've been incorrect on many counts, it seems you have taken to insisting your only claim left standing was really your "important" one. Let's assume, for the moment, that it is your "important" point.
We will return to it in a moment.

You are also trying to rehabilitate one of your other points -- the one regarding the relative number of SACD's available. But, there's a problem; You claimed DVD-A has more potential than SACD. There are fewer DVD-A titles. It doesn't seem logical to claim that SACD has LESS potential based on the number of titles, then to go on and predict GREATER success for the format with FEWER titles. Wouldn't you agree? Then again, maybe this isn't one of your *important* points. [Sorry -- a little jest.]

I don't really see where you've made any credible points in the debate, EXCEPT your claim regarding the number of SACD players available. But, to those who are currently enjoying one of those SACD players and the titles available, your "important" point would seem to be moot.

Bottom line: *YOU* have made a choice to avoid SACD for whatever reasons. Maybe you have good reasons, but the explanation you've provided here is shot through with errors, shaky speculation and internal contradictions. You should get the facts so you can debate the topic with some credibility and should you choose to reject SACD, you can do so for the right reasons.