Ritteri -- you wrote;
"Ever check out one of those old Sony recievers with all the different modes of ambiance? Like "Hall", "Stadium","Live" etc etc?? Basically thats whats done to the SACD in simple terms."
Many of your claims -- like this one -- have proven erroneous.
You appear to have one left -- your claim that there are only a few dozen SACD players on the market. But, instead of conceding that you've been incorrect on many counts, it seems you have taken to insisting your only claim left standing was really your "important" one. Let's assume, for the moment, that it is your "important" point.
We will return to it in a moment.
You are also trying to rehabilitate one of your other points -- the one regarding the relative number of SACD's available. But, there's a problem; You claimed DVD-A has more potential than SACD. There are fewer DVD-A titles. It doesn't seem logical to claim that SACD has LESS potential based on the number of titles, then to go on and predict GREATER success for the format with FEWER titles. Wouldn't you agree? Then again, maybe this isn't one of your *important* points. [Sorry -- a little jest.]
I don't really see where you've made any credible points in the debate, EXCEPT your claim regarding the number of SACD players available. But, to those who are currently enjoying one of those SACD players and the titles available, your "important" point would seem to be moot.
Bottom line: *YOU* have made a choice to avoid SACD for whatever reasons. Maybe you have good reasons, but the explanation you've provided here is shot through with errors, shaky speculation and internal contradictions. You should get the facts so you can debate the topic with some credibility and should you choose to reject SACD, you can do so for the right reasons.
"Ever check out one of those old Sony recievers with all the different modes of ambiance? Like "Hall", "Stadium","Live" etc etc?? Basically thats whats done to the SACD in simple terms."
Many of your claims -- like this one -- have proven erroneous.
You appear to have one left -- your claim that there are only a few dozen SACD players on the market. But, instead of conceding that you've been incorrect on many counts, it seems you have taken to insisting your only claim left standing was really your "important" one. Let's assume, for the moment, that it is your "important" point.
We will return to it in a moment.
You are also trying to rehabilitate one of your other points -- the one regarding the relative number of SACD's available. But, there's a problem; You claimed DVD-A has more potential than SACD. There are fewer DVD-A titles. It doesn't seem logical to claim that SACD has LESS potential based on the number of titles, then to go on and predict GREATER success for the format with FEWER titles. Wouldn't you agree? Then again, maybe this isn't one of your *important* points. [Sorry -- a little jest.]
I don't really see where you've made any credible points in the debate, EXCEPT your claim regarding the number of SACD players available. But, to those who are currently enjoying one of those SACD players and the titles available, your "important" point would seem to be moot.
Bottom line: *YOU* have made a choice to avoid SACD for whatever reasons. Maybe you have good reasons, but the explanation you've provided here is shot through with errors, shaky speculation and internal contradictions. You should get the facts so you can debate the topic with some credibility and should you choose to reject SACD, you can do so for the right reasons.