SACD 2 channel vs Redbook 2 Channel

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.

Tireguy: Too bad alot of people dont believe your words(and alot of these people are in the industry), and this is from hands on experience. SACD does not garentee better sound. And as stated, if the recording sounds better, most likely its due to the remastering process. So why dont redbook cd's get remastered? How many people do you think in the general population care about remastering obscure CD's such as the ones listed? Demand. If there isnt demand for it, who is going to waste money to re record tracks for such negligible performance increases? If SACD was such a grand stepping stone(which it isnt)and had a profitable future then alot more mfg. would be jumping on the bandwagon to produce SACD players. WHich brings me to the next sentence............

One word: BETAMAX. SACD is already heading down the same path.

And one last thing tireguy, for every cd you listed that may sound better on SACD from your opinion, Im sure I could pull up just as many(and many more) that sound as good or better on a regular cd.

Ritteri writes:

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".

What about brand new DSD recordings such as Telarc have produced. These are not remastered.

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

What players have you heard?

Regards,