SACD 2 channel vs Redbook 2 Channel

Ben, here are two modders whithin shouting distance of you and they both mod the 963sa plus many other sacd players.
www.audiocom-uk.com
www.vacuumstate.com

Acoustic Reality now mods the 963sa also.
Look under whats new at www.acousticreality.com

It would help if someone on either side of this debate added some real scientific evidence rather than their own opinions! There are very few people posting on AudiogoN whose opinion I would accept apart from evidence, and none of those people are commenting on this thread.

I don't care if anyone likes or dislikes SACD. Show some evidence if the debate is going to continue. Ritteri, you claim to have made some factual statements. I have yet to see them. You have made bizarre generalizations and given poor examples, and then taken offense at those who questioned them. THEY ARE YOUR WORDS! How is anyone supposed to know what those words mean, if the meaning isn't clear in the words? What is any of this doing for the quality of our dialog?

I am not one of the 'measurements are everything' crowd, but neither am I willing to blindly accept the opinion of people I don't know.

Science indicates that 44.1 kHz is undersampled, 96 kHz is not. Which would be the better format? I am not asking who has the better transistors, capacitors, lenses, or op-amps inside their CDP or SACDP, I simple refer to the format.

Nrchy: Seriously, dont be an idiot. I posted a few links with much SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE on some of the downfalls(pros and cons) of SACD. There is also much scientific evidence that will back up the fact that the 44.1khz isnt necessarily the limiting factor for sound quality but rather the actual recording process itself in the studios.A reason why alot of mfgs continue to make imrpovements on redbook players while forgoing SACD presently.

Take a cymbol crash. Its all midrange and high frequency range right? Wrong. A cymbol crash's frequency response actually starts right around 15-20hz all the way up into the subsonic stratosphere where our ears cant even hear em.Most studio's dont relay 15-20hz information onto a disc. Many of them take a stereo signal in the bass range and sum it into mono signal, not the best thing to do to help SQ potential. You want a real big improvement in sound quality? Talk to the folks with the budget for recording the disc to begin with. Dont put it all on a disc being undersampled. THats just alot of horse sh!t.

Links that repeat your opinion are of little value. There are many places on the web to read absolute foolishness, not just your responses.

I'm sure the reason for Mfgs staying with redbook CD rather than going to a new format has more to do with cost than an aversion to the new technology.

Your cymbal crash example goes along way to show the shortcomings of the 44.1 sampling rate, since not only does it begin in the bass registers, but it also exceeds audible listening levels. By removing the inaudible, audible ranges are effected. i.e. things you cannot hear affect things you can hear.

44.1 on an equal playing field will never be able to compete with 96 kHz. There is too much of the music missing! If you don't care about the quality of the music, continue to ridicule new formats thereby assuring that better formats will never become a reality. No one is forcing you to buy an SACD player, but don't use your junk science to talk others out of investing in a better future!