SACD 2 channel vs Redbook 2 Channel

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.

I never claimed to be able to hear above 22 kHz! My point as I clearly made in a previous post is that sounds which are not audible affect sounds which are audible. Just like multiple waves on water affect oneanother, so higher frequencies affect lower frequencies. Sound does not stop at the point where the human ear can no longer hear!

You make my point when you suggest that the limits of studio recordings is the problem, not the 44.1 sampling rate! The problem is that studios using digital recordings do not record music, they record sine waves. Then they expect the undersampled 44.1 redbook CDP to playback what happened minus all the music which was never recorded.

Many SACD recordings are from the remastered analog tapes, which are vastly superior to any digital tapes. Those are typically the SACDs which sound good. You cannot blame the SACD format for undersampled 44.1 kHz digital recordings. That is like blaming a CD for tape hiss!?!

As even a man of your limited understanding would have to admit, there is a lot more to a good CDP or SACDP than the basics found in a Sony/Philips playback unit. If that is not the case why are so many companies making a healthy living modding CDPs and SACDPs??? There is room for considerable improvement, just like there was for CDPs when they first came out. Try not to forget that although this is similar to redbook CDPs, it is a new and different technology. Improvements to this will be different than those put into CDPs for the last twenty years.

To rebutt your second to last paragraph, you are the one who began resorting to name calling when your arguement was proven to be without substance. The first new barbs I assumed to be due to the heat of emotion, but the continued assult I attribute to your natural character. I may be guilty of responding in-kind, but your name calling does nothing to prove your point (which again, has been evacuated of any substance) and does a lot to cause others to question your credibility. You have not harmed me in any way, but you have hurt yourself!

I own a Sony SCD 777es. I have several 15-20 multi-layer redbook/SACD and have listened to all of them. I have never heard SACD to be inferior in any respect.

The issue might be: why are you defending the top-end of a format that has for 20 years been know to be overly bright. Should SACD continue with the mistakes of the previous format???

Sacd is superior because the sample rate is higher, producing
more information over the entire spectrum. Ritteri claims he hasn't
heard the difference between SACD and CD even with trillions of
dollars worth of equipment, but we cannot get pas his unfortunate
claim that SACD is the equivilent of adding music hall echo. What
this tells me is that Ritteri *DID* hear the difference, but simply did
not understand what he was hearing. The ambient information to
which he refers was due to SACD's higher sample rate which allows the recording to pick up more ambient information -- this is
what gives SACD the ability to recreate more of the subleties of
the performance and gives you more of the feeling that the performance is happening in your listening room. If you think you're hearing "echo" that was put into the music by the engineer,
how could you appreciate this additional information? Perhaps
Ritteri doesn't appreciate that information, but when he alludes to
"music hall echo" is stands to reason that he indeed heard it. This is sort of similar to Steve Martin's character in The Jerk. Upon being served 1861 Lafite Rothschild, Martin spits it out and yells, "take this away and bring me something FRESHER!" Obviously, Martin's character TASTED everything that makes the vintage wine superior, he just didn't understand what he was drinking. On the other hand, it *is* possible that some people don't care for the secondary and tertiary flavors in vintage wine and some people might prefer a lower sample rate, lower resolution, and less ambient information. But, if Ritteri did actually work in audio sales, as he claims, we can only wonder how many others were exposed to this misinformation. How many others are out there thinking the ambient information was actually just music hall echo due to
Ritteri's misunderstanding? Taste is one thing, but ignorance is dangerous.

I personally don't think anyone on here has shown any true "merit", not just Rittori. And to be quite frank, there is alot less "misinformation" on this forum thread than what a few other Audiogon members above would lead people to believe. But regardless of the matter it sure does not change the fact he is not alone on feelings of the SACD platform. Myself personally and many others have very similiar feelings which is very obvious when filtering through the posts.