SACD 2 channel vs Redbook 2 Channel

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.

little milton...FWIW, there is considerable audiophile interest in DVD-A if you look outside the USA. The DVD-A protocol permits great flexibility in how the data space on the disc is allocated. So, for example, we have the MMG label using what they call a 2+2+2 multichannel speaker configuration instead of 5.1. If super stereo is your objective you can have 192 KHz sampling instead of 96 KHz. There is much more oportunity to tweek DVD-A than SACD, and tweeking is an audiophile thing to do.

IMHO...Disc mastering and playback equipment is by far the most important factor for all formats,DVD-A, SACD, and CD. Some DVD-A and some SACD are worse than the best CDs. However, the best DVD-A and the best SACD can't be matched by a CD. As to SACD vs DVD-A...it's too close to call. And who cares? Enjoy both.

Aroc and the rest reading this thread: I appreciate the fact that someone understands my point of view.

And just to set the record straight, remember people, I also stated and fully acknowledged that SACD has more future potential than redbook. Its just that the potential isnt there...............yet.

Just like when CD came onto the market 20 years ago. It was great for what it was. But take a high end CD player from today, and pit it against a reference cd player from 20 years ago. There is going to be a big difference.

Right now, between todays high end CD players and SACD players that "big difference" doesnt yet exist, its sublt at best, and only on a few scattered discs. Im sure this will(if the format survives, but I would bet on DVD-A being the real future)change eventually, but that day is not here yet.