SACD 2 channel vs Redbook 2 Channel

Nrchy: Though I applaud your response, there are some area's that need to be adressed.

1. Why non-English titles should be removed from the list.

I personally listen to music written in my native tongue(assuming were talking about music with VOCALS here)as most people do. Im sure there are sime bi lingual people, but this is a very small minority comparitively.

2. Alot of the SACD titles arent even popular music or top 40. Not all of us listen to 25 different variations of "Allegro" or even care to. Get the point?

3. 44.1 is/was/whatever known to be undersampled, but with some of the breakthru's of the edge of the art cd players, CD is proving that there is still life and has shown to have just as much musical information as some of the newer formats currently.

One such example I have used on occasion for people who want a demonstration is the DSOTM CD from Pink Floyd. Maybe with a basic cdp its only so-so compared to an SACD version. But with a few SERIOUS high end CDP's the SACD doesnt sound as great as once thought. Again this is just an example and nothing more. You would think SACD would be head and shoulders above ALL current cdp's, not just the ones you would pick up at circuit city.

4. SACD's SHOULD be compared to current cd's, as that is what they are supposed to replace and be 100% superior to isnt it? You want to compare em to cd's from 20 years ago?Might as well compare em with 20 year old cdp players too. If that is the case, they should be better. BUt I could go get an $60 cd player from circuit city that sounds better than some of the "reference" players from back then too.

5. CD's were jammed down people's throats? At the time I think that was a good thing. Never was a fan of cassette tapes, and LP's have alot more downside than people realize, especially 20 years ago.

6. As for the Beta comment, you must really be thick headed, it was used as a poor analogy and nothing more. Dont be a complete moron please.

7. As for supporting new mediums Im all for it. But that medium had better be a BIG STEP UP from CD. Not a marginal at best step up, and in the case of the current Edge-of-the-art CDP's SACD isnt a really a step up at all, and in fact in many cases(how well the cd has been recorded and mastered) is a step down CURRENTLY(which means down the road this may change). Thats the whole point. A point alot of people here are missing completely.

1) This is YOUR opinion, which matters to such an insignificant few, and is a poor argument. Just because YOU don't like something doesn't mean that you are right and everyone else is wrong! Stating your personal preference as a universal maxim, however, is consistent with your foolish pride and arrogance oozing from your every post.

2) Poor argument! Most CD's aren'the top 40, if you want to use that logic! How about top 40 DVDA'a? Does one even exist?! Talk trash about SACD's when one can throw even more trash at DVDA? Yer not being careful enough, making rebuttals far too easy.

3) Many would argue that the info is NOT on the disc. Your upsampling, downsampling, interpolation, extrapolation, reincarnation or whatever you wish to do with the data is artificail filling in of all the blanks, it's not high fidelity in the truest sense.

4) You still haven't given us a list of your so-called SUPERIOR redbook CD's that clearly better a SACD. I'm sure we're all still waiting....

5) This makes no sense. You sure are opinionated, but saddly you can't see that your opinion carry with it no water for an intellectual argument.

6) This makes less sense, but the argumentation approach at least is consistent.

7) The only appears to be one person here "missing it completely...."

I like Little Milton! Well, at least so far. But in these parts, you're only as good as your last post.

-IMO

Little Milton: You are a serious retard arent you? SO when are you going to name off some of my lists from up earlier? Still cant find more than a couple dozen SACD players?

In rebuttal to your 7 useless points from not thoroughly reading my above earlier posts

1. My opinion holds alot more weight than your poor rebuttals that have yet to show any significant intelligence whatsoever.

2. Once again you take a "figurative statement"(do you even know what a figurative statement is?) and show the true size of your small brain.

3. And SACD is?? LOL!

4. Already named off quite a few up above, but once again you show the "horse blinds" that are stuck to your head. SInce I already know that you have never truely heard a top tier CDP, this argument with you is a moot point.

5. Intellect? And you have shown some with your child like remarks?

6. I wouldnt expect someone like you to understand a poor analogy, you have yet to show any ability to take one's words in proper context.

But to put all of this aside I would be willing to put up $10,000 of my money vs. a measly $100 of your money that you couldnt tell the difference between a SACD player or high end CDP. In fact I would be willing to extend that bet that you couldnt tell the difference between a DAT tape or a SACD player. I have a few DAT units too.....

SO you want to make a quick "easy" $10k? Im dead serious and invite you to my place to show me how good you think your ears(and wit) really are. Bring your SACD player and your favorite SACD's(which have a CD counterpart)and well see if you walk away $10k richer. Just let me know if you need me to call a local newspaper to see if they have a paper route in your area where you can make a few extra bucks to save up that $100 on your end..........

Little Milton: And to keep this thread rolling here is an exerpt from an article which is basically a CD vs. SACD vs DVDA article:

Introduction
For a while I have been interested to find out how good the new high resolution formats Super Audio CD and DVD-Audio really are? I have visited some demonstrations, but not been impressed which may be due to other causes than the sound formats.

After reading many replies at different forums, it seemed like many audiophiles considered SACD to be better than DVD-Audio. I also thought so until recently read what Ing. Öhman wrote in the Swedish Audio Technical Society * journal

(*A non-profit organisation for sharing interest and knowledge in audio and sound reproduction)
The following are quoted from what Ing. Öhman wrote in the journal:

"It is nothing less than a tragedy that Sony/Philips system SACD still is considered to be a real competitor to DVD-A, though it has lower real resolution than the CD-system in the highest octave.

DVD-A does absolutely offer a much higher dynamic range than CD, but it is very questionable if SACD does.

SACD is in the high frequency range quite mediocre, even compared to a good CD-system one-bit DAC, and of course clearly inferior to a CD-player with a real multi-bit converter.

On the contrary, DVD-A is in theory 250 times better than the CD-system at all frequencies!

In today’s reality though, it is hard to achieve such hyper-resolution, but maybe in the future? If the potential exists, recording and playback technology can evolve. Today the DVD-A resolution is about 16 times better than the CD-system and the bandwidth extends up to 100 kHz to be compared with 22,050 Hz for CD."

Now I became curious! This is the opposite of what I thought. I asked Öhman for a follow up ...

You can get the full scoop here:http://sound.westhost.com/cd-sacd-dvda.htm

Though I dont expect you to fully read this article(let alone understand alot of the BIG LONG words), I will plug up a few more to keep in interesting. SACD has alot more limitations than most people realize, and its very sad and true that they are even considered by MANY to be inferior to CD's in a few important ways(noise, high frequency reproduction etc). Cant wait for another intelligent "rebuttal" from ya! You just email me when you have that hundred bucks saved up.......