SACD 2 channel vs Redbook 2 Channel

Sorry, but I have yet to hear ANY SACD player put out a better musical signal than a competently built "redbook" player.

All this talk of extra "ambiance" or depth of soundstage or whatever you want to call it is all a joke CURRENTLY. If the disc sounds better, you can thank the sound engineer who recorded the disc, not the disc itself. This is what I disagree with at an "extreme level". Even marketing executives at Sony stated a while back that some SACD's are getting better performance through recording process only just to help sell the format(and this has been back up by MANY magazines and publishings). They even have gone on to say that its done to help push the new format to the general public but due to current technology other than future potential its really no better sounding than current high quality recorded CD's.

As for differences in cable subtlty, the jury is still out in many regards as to what they actually do sonically other than noise rejection. But differences in cable sound can be due in part to noise rejection potential and attenuated frequencies(Like MIT and Transparant designs).Other than that though is something for another argument.

When an SACD(or whatever format)player comes out that truely is a step up from redbook, Ill be there in line to pick one up. Until then, its all marketing gimmicks.

Little Milton: I bet you were one of those tin ear'd snobs back in Dec.99' at the unveiling of the SACD right? ;)

You should have helped us convince the Sony reps to let us demo that SACD setup against our "basic" Adcom components for all the people who were invited to the unveiling. They didnt like the idea when we brought it up to them, wonder why? ;)

Ritteri...The dreaded science card!

You may be right about SACD resolution not being all it's cracked up to be. I read an analysis on another site that claimed that above 8000 Hz, SACD is inferior, and any improved sonics must be the result of the most important musical content being below 8000 Hz. (I didn't completely follow the argument...does anyone else have thoughts about this?)

Resolution of a CD or SACD or DVD-A depends on how much dynamic range you want to have. If you compress the loud peaks, the LSB can have better resolution, for any kind of disc. A 16-bit CD could be better than a 24-bit DVD-A, but it would trade off dynamic range. For rock music that is loud all the time this is a reasonable thing to do.

One thing is certain: the 44.1 Hz sample rate of CD's is very marginal. The Nyquist criteria of communication theory says that to capture an analog signal without loss of information, the digital sampling rate must be twice the highest frequency of interest. Thus many people think that 44.1KHz is OK for audio. However, the Nyquist criteria applies to sine waves. Music is not sine waves. The increase of sampling rate to 96KHz (or 192KHz for stereo DVD-A) and (if you believe Sony) similar improvement for SACD, is technically appropriate, although not everyone's ears can appreciate the sonic benefits. I prefer to call CD's "low resolution" and SACD and DVD-A "OK resolution".

I've been very impressed with SACD on my Denon 5900, and it's certainly been better than redbook in direct comparisons, however, with my Musical Fidelity Tri-Vista DAC arriving on Friday, that may just even the playing field, or push redbook ahead. I actually hope SACD still sounds better, but something tells me I may be in for redbook re-awakening :)

Its impossible to do a direct comparison with redbood cd's for one simple reason. The recording mastering process is different. Its a well known fact that the 99% of the SACD's on the market have been "remastered" to give the illusion of "better sound". This could all change down the road Im sure, but at this time the future doesnt look anything better than cloudy.

Ever check out one of those old Sony recievers with all the differnt modes of ambiance? Like "Hall", "Stadium","Live" etc etc?? Basically thats whats done to the SACD in simple terms.

Ritteri- Look into Emm labs(aka Meitner) it offers exactly what you claimed doesn't exist. And yes SACD's(for the most part) sound MUCH better then any redbook cd I have ever heard from any high end cd player. Compare Sonny Rollins- Saxaphone Colossus or Way out West on any redbook version(including XRCD2) vs. analogue productions SACD- the sacd offers more detail, its no single bell or whistle but the whole piece sounds closer to that "you are there" sound. Another example Offenbach: Gaite Parisienne, Fiedler/boston pops- the SACD version is almost surreal! And the original in living stereo version was good, the XRCD took it to yet another level and the SACD elevates the listening experience even further. Don't get me started on Peter Gabriel, Beck, The Police, Allison Krauss, Roxy Music, anything from Mobile Fidelity. I could go on and on with specific examples if you would like but suffice to say I would not have invested in SACD had I not heard the difference. Its more then merely new mastering, if that were the case new remasters of redbook discs would impress me the way SACD's do- but they don't.

I had full intentions of staying out of this thread, but the misinformation and ASSUMPTION from a lot of people finally got to me.