SACD 2 channel vs Redbook 2 Channel

Ritteri, before I start, know that I'm not disrespecting you, the person outside of this discussion at all, it's just your highly flawed and what could be seen as deliberately misleading "arguments" that I'm having problems with in your posts, nothing more. I'm just letting you know how your comments appear to the half-way intelligent reader:

"As for companies getting on the SACD bandwagon, after 4 years since its introduction there are probably still less than 3-4 dozen players total. MOST are from Sony and Philips, and that is a poor sign....Do you know how many companies had CD players out 4 years after the introduction of CD???? HUNDREDS."

That's complete B.S.. Nice story, however. Seriously, what are you talking about here? Please feel free to back this one up. If you're going to BS people at least don't make it so easy for people to call you in yet another untruth....

"Its well known that SACD isnt going anywhere (BS). If anything should take off its going to be DVD-A which I feel is a better format to grow for future sound improvements (more BS). As for my "Betamax" analogy, its based on the fact that your not going to get many SACD's released (BS really flowing now). After 4 years how many SACD's are there? A few hundred (completely uninformed BS here).WHo released most of em? Sony. (yet again, way off base)."

I see what's going on here, finnally! Don't know how I missed it originally, it was evident from the get go. You're a DVD-A fanatic with sour grapes! You see near 2,000 SACD titles full of excellent musical material and have ~600 piss poor DVDA titles to choose from, to play on only a handful of audiphile caliper machines and get defensive. You see the horrendous upcoming release list for DVD-A next to the exciting list of promised and current SACDs, the lack of backwards compatibility, the need for a tv monitor in your system, the nonexistent audiophile or customer enthusiasm and get even more defensive when folks bring these fact to light or even mention that "other" format.

That a given format is not prospering is no reason to take the event as a blow to the ego, it's not personal, just business, as the saying goes. To make up complete BS stories like those above to deliberately delude people into following in your cause and presumabley bolster the ego isn't a pretty thing, not good for ones self or others. Seen this story before, too many times, actually. It's all about music, regardless of the gear or software, let's not forget that. Where all in this for the music, hopefully, and not for back-pats or otherwise complete circle-jerks of like-minded folks with the gear/format/software that we found to have more MUSIC to our liking....

I'm done, there's nothing worth arguing over here. I'm sorry to have been involved, as I'm sure most everyone else saw this coming and I was too nieve to see it....this time, at least.

You know what market is exploding? MP3. Does this mean that
compressed music sounds better? No. A lot of people eat at McDonalds, does that mean McDonalds has great food? No. So,
let's not get confused here. The POPULARITY of a format has
nothing to do with the QUALITY.

Second, after the invention of the automobile, it took decades for
the infrustratucre, gas stations and paved roads, to develop to
support it. Trying to make calculated guesses about the future of
any technology while you're in the early stages is impossible.

Third, VHS was replaced by DVD, which is higher resolution.
SACD and DVD-A are higher resolution than redbook CD. So,
if you take a longer time-frame, the Betamax analogy doesn't
work. In the long run, it was HIGHER RESOLUTION that won out.

Fourth, as Arroc has argued so well, the market is going towards
UNIVERSAL PLAYERS, which was impossible with Betamax and
VHS. Personally, I don't use a UNIVERSAL PLAYER. I own an
EMM LABS DAC6 and a Denon DVD/DVD-A 1200. So, this will
be just like usual, the mass market will use one player to play
digital and the Audiophile will separate his/her digital play-back into two or three boxes for better sound.

The idea that SACD is simply a gimmick like putting "concert hall echo" into the music is seriously wrong. SACD is higher RESOLUTION, it is like the difference between taking a picture with a one mega-pixel digital camera and taking one with a 5 megapixel digital camera. There is more INFORMATION on a SACD, the digital gaps inherent in redbook CD have been filled in with music and ambience due to an exponentially higher sample rate. Unless we are going to argue that we prefer a lower sample rate and less information, we must agree that SACD is a superior FORMAT. The wonder of life is that people have different preferences. Some people may even *prefer* the lower sample rate of redbook CD, but now we're talking about a consumer choice, we're not talking about the inherent quality of the medium.
SACD is a Superior medium because it is higher resolution and
has an exponentially higher sample rate than redbook CD.

Here's another interesting irony: When *some* people listen to
an SACD player, they conclude there must be something wrong with its CD playback and this sends them scurrying for a better
CD player -- and -- somehow -- this is supposed to be a poor
reflection on.......you figure it out.....SACD.

Personally, it doesn't surprise me that after hearing SACD, one would become dissatisfied with anything other than a high end
CD player for redbook playback.