SACD 2 channel vs Redbook 2 Channel

Ritteri, the point I made with your cymbal crash was that it extends higher than 20 kHz, not that the bass wasn't being reproduced. The point is that 44.1 kHz cannot reproduce anything above 20 kHz, it has nothing to do with the bass.

44.1 cannot reproduce a single note beyond 20 kHz! That is the limiting factor built in a 44.1 kHz sampling rate. See the Nyquist theorum! It is impossible! 96 kHz can reproduce a signal up to about 48 kHz. How is the high end limited with that?

The music which is missing is due to the fact that it was not recorded because 44.1 kHz is simply too low to obtain all the information in the music.

Making an SACD copy of a 44.1 kHz recording is an exercise in futility. SACD can never add back what isn't on the recording to start with. This is one reason some SACD recordings do not sound as good as analog or higher resolution digital recordings. Rerecording a poor quality original is not going to improve it regardless of the format. When things are available that were recorded at 96 kHz then we will see the actual results of this new format. As of today, there are very few of those.

My point about SACD vs redbook has nothing to do with licensing fees. It is about all the technology involved in putting together a superior version of the basic Sony/Philips models. There is going to be a big financial outlay involved in redesigning a first rate unit.

Your continued comments attacking the intelligence of people who disagree with you points out the fact that you are an idiot. You know nothing about me that could lead you to beleive anything other than that I disagree with you. On the other hand, you have 1) shown serious gaps in logic; 2) consistantly used poor grammer and spelling; 3) and resorted to ad hominum attacks when the proof for your point was not in evidence. Again, this may be a result of a poor education, or maybe you are just dumb.

I have no way of knowing the reason for all of these glaring errors, but then again I really don't care. If you want to make a point there is no need for resorting to name calling when the proof is there.

Ritteri,
I’m so embarrassed, I had no idea we were in the e-presence of such incredible greatness. Please except my ever so humble apology for my ignorance and obvious naivety regarding audio equipment and it’s proper use. Had I simply understood your extensive genius on all things audio I would have never dared to call you on your earlier comments. Believe me, I’m convinced. I’ve already arranged to sell my whole system and follow your obvious wisdom. I plan to purchase your exact system, and with any luck I can convince you to fly here and straighten out my other shortcomings. My room acoustic must be completely out of control in that my knowledge base is hardly as worldly as yours.
I bow trembling at you feet, hoping you can overlook my sad little life and lead me to enlightenment. I know of no person on this earth with more experience than you have amassed, you truly are the chosen one. I finally understand that my ears are not well trained and thus are not worthy of determining such weighty topics as to wether SACD sounds better or worse than “redbook”. Thanks to your greatness I now see I’ve gone astray. 44.1 is digital bliss. These new formats are no way better, so for anyone to make the foolish assumptions I made and believe what they hear is facing the same embarrassment I have had to endure. Lucky for me it’s not to late. I can change, I will go happily back to my old redbook cd’s. Maybe I’ll venture outside the box with an Adcom pre-amp if I want to hook up my tuner, but I promise I will stray no further without first consulting my new found guru.

Nrchy...Mr Nyquist's rule says that a 22KHz SINE WAVE can be recovered without error if the sampling rate is 44KHz.
Do you listen to sine waves? 96 KHz is probably just barely adequate for music.

Don't give Ritteri a hard time. The poor guy is obviously deaf.

Nrchy quotes: "Ritteri, the point I made with your cymbal crash was that it extends higher than 20 kHz, not that the bass wasn't being reproduced. The point is that 44.1 kHz cannot reproduce anything above 20 kHz, it has nothing to do with the bass."

OK, even so, do your ears register anything above 20khz? Most people's ears dont register anything past 15-16khz. A 2nd point made was that just by improving the bottom 2 octaves(and a bit below even)dramatically improves what we percieve on the midrange frequencies and beyond. You dont need an SACD to do this do you? If recording studios put more time into properly reproducing the low range of the recording there may even be a stronger debate on the side of Pro redbbok people. Like I stated before and I will do it once again. The biggest limiting factor is the studio recording itself, not the 44.1khz smapling rate.

Nrchy quotes: "44.1 cannot reproduce a single note beyond 20 kHz! That is the limiting factor built in a 44.1 kHz sampling rate. See the Nyquist theorum! It is impossible! 96 kHz can reproduce a signal up to about 48 kHz. How is the high end limited with that?" I believe it can reproduce a perfect signal up to 22khz. You can hear 22khz signal? You can hear 48khz signal? Wow. I bet the govt is gonna want to have u in for testing..........

Nrchy quotes: "The music which is missing is due to the fact that it was not recorded because 44.1 kHz is simply too low to obtain all the information in the music."

Well I guess the human race has been missing out on alot of music beyond 20khz for a very very long time.

Nrchy states: "Making an SACD copy of a 44.1 kHz recording is an exercise in futility. SACD can never add back what isn't on the recording to start with. This is one reason some SACD recordings do not sound as good as analog or higher resolution digital recordings. Rerecording a poor quality original is not going to improve it regardless of the format. When things are available that were recorded at 96 kHz then we will see the actual results of this new format. As of today, there are very few of those."

Well guess what? Most(not some) SACD recordings are from original redbook recordings. Another point of mine your helping me drive home. Just another reason why SACD currently isnt what its all cracked up to be.

Nrchy states: "My point about SACD vs redbook has nothing to do with licensing fees. It is about all the technology involved in putting together a superior version of the basic Sony/Philips models. There is going to be a big financial outlay involved in redesigning a first rate unit."

Technology involved? Whats put inside the magical SACD box in design thats not put into a redbook player? A few chips that can decode a 96khz signal? There Nichicon caps that cost more than chips used to decode SACD. It doesnt cost a mfg. necessarily anymore to produce a quality SACD player than it does to build a quality redbook player.

Nrchy states: "Your continued comments attacking the intelligence of people who disagree with you points out the fact that you are an idiot. You know nothing about me that could lead you to beleive anything other than that I disagree with you. On the other hand, you have 1) shown serious gaps in logic; 2) consistantly used poor grammer and spelling; 3) and resorted to ad hominum attacks when the proof for your point was not in evidence. Again, this may be a result of a poor education, or maybe you are just dumb.

I believe that anything you point out to me could apply to you even further from your above quote. ANd if your going to point to me using poor grammer from me not really caring about a spellcheck, it just furthers my point about you avoiding what the real topic is at hand.

Why dont you tell me this? SACD can reproduce an unheard musical note past 22khz, but why is it inferior to redbook in the AUDIBLE high frequency range to begin with then? Its almost a catch 22.

A train wreck. It sure is ugly, but I just can't tear my eyes away! I am glad I read the entire thing though, because I know now to categorically ignore any post put out by Ritteri. He has consistently shown an inability to read and comprehend on one hand, and spew incomprehensible gibberish on the other. Nice! Keep up the good work man.