SACD 2 channel vs Redbook 2 Channel

Bottom line: If one wants to see what digital has to offer -- either
CD or SACD, one needs to be willing to spend some money on a
front end. If one wants to be in a win/win situation, one might want
to audition CD players with SACD capability. If one wants to have
all formats covered, I recommend getting a high end CD/SACD player and combining it with a DVD/DVD-A player. In two boxes,
you will have great music and DVD playback and all your formats covered.

Needless to say Rsbeck as usual you avoid the specific points I made.
I think my last post and your reply speak for themselves.

You wrote....

"I wasn't compelled to buy a better Redbook player because my previous Redbook set up...beat the Sony."

Then, you wrote......

"I spent more cash because I love music and wanted to upgrade, wanted more out of my music."

Maybe you *are* making really powerful points that I am avoiding,
or maybe you don't communicate all that clearly. It seems to me that you first argue against my contention that you traded up to get more out of redbook CD -- which goes against logic -- and then you go on to confirm that this is exactly what you did.

I don't think rhetorical gambits like this need a response.

I cannot see where I have fouled you in any way. At least I stuck to the topic. Your final post contains nothing at all about audio. I call *that* a foul.

Happy listening.

Rsbeck I find it incredible you can read that post again pick out two parts that aren't questions and completely miss the first part of the post.
I'll try to be clear these were the questions you haven't answered.
Did we know the original posters budget was(?) and therefore wasn't my original post valid since it was very possible that the poster would have less than $1500 to spend?
Can you state that at this price limit SACD is indeed the superior format?

What you continually seem to miss is that I am only saying this is a more complex issue than is being stated.
Of course the original post was vague,no price limits,idea of how important other aspects were.
I can agree you replied in a broader sense of what the poster asked and that those points were VALID.

You never seem to think any of my points are vaild because you think I am writing from ignorance or limited experience.
It appears you will never get away from that regardless of how wide I broaden the argument.
It's pointless to keep this up.

Show me where I state to the original poster NOT to try SACD?

You clearly don't read a lot of what I write because it always take numerous attempts to get you to reply to the specific points,your last post is a totally classic example.

What is interesting Rsbeck is that through this and the other debate ongoing at the moment even the guy (Ears)who agrees with you most about my "hollow" stance have differing views about other aspects of SACD.
You think you can get quality Redbook replay from a SACD machine around $1600 (used),he thinks at least $4k.
By his measure I cannot afford Redbook replay of the standard I would like on a SACD machine.
Is he right and you wrong?
No both your viewpoints are valid from your respective perspectives and experience.

This is what I was aiming at with my original post,an opinion based on my experience with SACD,I only asked the poster to consider my points and find his own experience.

Please explain to me why this is not a valid reply to the question?

These forums are about debate it would appear you would just rather leave it at SACD is superior,all the time for everybody,end of story.

I was unimpressed with SACD when I had only heard it on the Sonys. (I own an entry level 775, and auditioned a 999ES.) When I switched to the Denon 5900 universal player, I changed my mind. I feed the Denon into a Bel Canto DAC2 for Redbook. I love that combination, but as good as it is, it isn't as good to my ears as the SACD. I only own a few SACD disks, all hybrid, and I prefer the SACD layer. With some the difference is dramatic, with others it's more subtle. (BTW, the 5900 is not a bad Redbook player on its own, but I wouldn't be satisfied with it.)