SACD 2 channel vs Redbook 2 Channel

Why is music that is not titled in English removed from the list??? The vast majority of all music ever played was not written in English! Does that mean it is not good enough to play?

Ritteri, how many hours a day do you listen that 500 SACDs would not be enough? Probably 2% of my music is on SACD, but that doesn't mean I am not interested in the format.

Many of the arguments against SACD are simply sophmoric and not worthy of rebuttal.

One thing that is worthy of attention is that 44.1 has been known to be undersampled for nearly twenty years now. CDPs have been tweeked and twisted all this time so that now some of them are actually capable of reasonable sound quality. The obvious immediate benefit of SACD is that the sampling rate is up near where it should have been twenty years ago.

If SACD made no other improvement over redbook CD this would be enough to justify it's existance. What will SACD sound like twenty years from now with dozens of good companies trying to improve the quality of them???

SACD should not be compared to current CDPs, it should be compared to the first CDPs.

If music companies had not forced consumers to buy CDs they never would have lasted this long! Now people are not having SACD jammed down their throats. People who have it, bought it because they wanted to buy it!

...and Beta??? Are you kidding, Beta was far and away the better format. Twenty years later VHS still sucks! Beta died due to bad marketing, not poor quality!

If people are content with the poor quality of redbook CD as their musical medium of choice, stand aside and let SACD die, if people want something better than that they need to support new mediums. If people choose not to decide they still have made a choice!

Right on Nrchy! I will choose Freewill...and SACD:-)

Will a universal sacd player do redbooks better than a redbook player? Anyone know?

Nrchy: Though I applaud your response, there are some area's that need to be adressed.

1. Why non-English titles should be removed from the list.

I personally listen to music written in my native tongue(assuming were talking about music with VOCALS here)as most people do. Im sure there are sime bi lingual people, but this is a very small minority comparitively.

2. Alot of the SACD titles arent even popular music or top 40. Not all of us listen to 25 different variations of "Allegro" or even care to. Get the point?

3. 44.1 is/was/whatever known to be undersampled, but with some of the breakthru's of the edge of the art cd players, CD is proving that there is still life and has shown to have just as much musical information as some of the newer formats currently.

One such example I have used on occasion for people who want a demonstration is the DSOTM CD from Pink Floyd. Maybe with a basic cdp its only so-so compared to an SACD version. But with a few SERIOUS high end CDP's the SACD doesnt sound as great as once thought. Again this is just an example and nothing more. You would think SACD would be head and shoulders above ALL current cdp's, not just the ones you would pick up at circuit city.

4. SACD's SHOULD be compared to current cd's, as that is what they are supposed to replace and be 100% superior to isnt it? You want to compare em to cd's from 20 years ago?Might as well compare em with 20 year old cdp players too. If that is the case, they should be better. BUt I could go get an $60 cd player from circuit city that sounds better than some of the "reference" players from back then too.

5. CD's were jammed down people's throats? At the time I think that was a good thing. Never was a fan of cassette tapes, and LP's have alot more downside than people realize, especially 20 years ago.

6. As for the Beta comment, you must really be thick headed, it was used as a poor analogy and nothing more. Dont be a complete moron please.

7. As for supporting new mediums Im all for it. But that medium had better be a BIG STEP UP from CD. Not a marginal at best step up, and in the case of the current Edge-of-the-art CDP's SACD isnt a really a step up at all, and in fact in many cases(how well the cd has been recorded and mastered) is a step down CURRENTLY(which means down the road this may change). Thats the whole point. A point alot of people here are missing completely.

1) This is YOUR opinion, which matters to such an insignificant few, and is a poor argument. Just because YOU don't like something doesn't mean that you are right and everyone else is wrong! Stating your personal preference as a universal maxim, however, is consistent with your foolish pride and arrogance oozing from your every post.

2) Poor argument! Most CD's aren'the top 40, if you want to use that logic! How about top 40 DVDA'a? Does one even exist?! Talk trash about SACD's when one can throw even more trash at DVDA? Yer not being careful enough, making rebuttals far too easy.

3) Many would argue that the info is NOT on the disc. Your upsampling, downsampling, interpolation, extrapolation, reincarnation or whatever you wish to do with the data is artificail filling in of all the blanks, it's not high fidelity in the truest sense.

4) You still haven't given us a list of your so-called SUPERIOR redbook CD's that clearly better a SACD. I'm sure we're all still waiting....

5) This makes no sense. You sure are opinionated, but saddly you can't see that your opinion carry with it no water for an intellectual argument.

6) This makes less sense, but the argumentation approach at least is consistent.

7) The only appears to be one person here "missing it completely...."