SACD 2 channel vs Redbook 2 Channel

Rcprince: Actually I didn't make any points, I just brought up good points that I feel have some merit to this enjoyable conversation we are all having and nothing more. As to people agreeing or disagreeing to them, the ball is in his or her court to decide that for themselves. But in the end, its all about the music. And yes my CD12 does a great job of letting me enjoy the music. Many times I feel as if I am truely listening to an LP. To me it's that good. I have been looking closely at another cd player too, hopefully I will be able to take a test drive of it before the big holiday arrives. This is all part of the fun in the hobby for me as I am sure it is for many.

Tbg:It is actually very much about the music. Read above.As for the rest of your comments, I am having a bit of difficulty following along except for the software comment. This could be taken as varied opinion no doubt. One person may think the software is lacking, while another party may find the opposite. I personally find it lacking presently. But one thing I will say is that I personally feel that the next generation digital format should be a large step above redbook in terms of sound quality where there isn't this whole "which is better" debate.Everyone should be "moved" by the music from the next format, especially considering how far our technological advancements have come. The fact that this debate exists on this board and many,many others I feel is an argument in itself about how SACD really isn't living up to the hype it had 4-5 years ago in many ways.

Durham: Having been through the LP revolution and the cd revolution, I expect that I never thought the hype for either DVD-A or SACD would hold true. My other comments merely center on my not thinking theoretical criticism of the format has anything to do with its sound. At one time there was an article saying sacd could not work?? I hear what I hear, that is all that matters to me.

High end CD players. If you're looking at the top CD players,
you're talking about the $20,000 Linn, the $40,000 Burmeister, etc.
The redbook playback on the Meitner Emm Labs Dac6 is competitive with those players and many people find the redbook
playback on the Emm Labs to be superior. Still, the SACD playback is even better than the CD playback. It is absolutely false
that high end CD players can beat SACD due to the maturity of
redbook technology or for any other reason. Further, why would a
high end CD player out-perform a low end SACD player? The answer is that, though SACD DOES sample at a rate exponentially
higher than CD, this isn't the ONLY issue with digital playback.
Other issues are; The quality of the transport, jitter, power supply,
quality of the DAC, etc. etc. etc. Anyone who bypasses SACD because a low end SACD player didn't illustrate the advantages of thne medium or because a low end SACD player didn't surpass the playback of a high end CD player with all the attendant advantages of a high end digital player -- is seriously misguided. You don;t want to go around saying that on an audio site -- you need to become informed. An analogy might be hooking up Wilson Watt Puppies to your Sears audio system and then complaining that you don't hear all the detail and air you were promised in the review. You've got to spend some money if you want to enjoy your Watt Puppies and you have to spend some money to hear the advantages of SACD, but if you are in search of
better sound, you aren't going to stick with that Sears audio system
and you aren't going to be happy with CD when you know higher resolution is out there waiting. It would be silly to upgrade your amps, speakers, interconnects, get dedicated circuits, power conditioning, and then say, "but, I am happy with the lower sample
rate and digital gaps of redbook CD, I don't want to spend another grand or two to get a better SACD player." It doesn't make sense. You're spending all that money to get HIGHER resolution. Finally -- again -- I don't know why anyone bothers to try to fortell the future of SACD -- you might as well go into business selling miracle disease cures over the internet -- you'll have a better chance of getting people to believe you have the power to cure Alopecia through a few visits to your web-site to put one's hand on the image of the magic monkey than you will of getting someone to believe you can fortell the future of a new technology. The only issues are -- is SACD superior to CD? Of course it is. Exponentially higher sample rates and more information on the software is better. Is there a SACD player in your price range that gives you the type of CD playback you also find satisfactory? If yes, then get it for the redbook playback and dabble in SACD. I bought the Meitner because it has the best CD playback, the SACD playback is just a great bonus. Are there enough SACD titles to interest you? If no, then avoid the medium until more software comes out, but don't bother preaching to those who are busy listening to some of the 1500+ titles available and enjoying their high end or modified SACD players -- you're wasting your breath. Saying, "I have decided to avoid SACD and that spells death for the medium" is not exactly persuasive. Other technologies have taken off without your help, it stands to reason, so can SACD.

Ben, I apoligise as I had forgotten that eventually, you made it clear that your comparisons were done on the cheap Sony and not whith the Ayre.
Others anti SACD posters claim that Sony and Phillips are using inferior Redbook on there SACD players to make the SACD version sound better, yet you say that the redbook version was equal to SACD on a cheap player.
Well....you can't both be right imo.

As far as having to spend 4k or more for decent redbook on a Universal or multi player,I meant to be in the same quality range as your Ayre whith redbook and not an overall rule.
Some are happy whith 2k or less multi player redbook sonics and some are not.
There are cheaper players such as the Phillips 963sa whith full mods that are wonderful SACD and redbook players that compete whith or beat some hi end universal players or multi players for 11-1200.00 total investment for people not wanting to spend 4k or more.

I no that there are dozens of the modified Phillps 963sa's out ther but you never see one for sale.
For those wanting quality SACD and redbook on the cheap. I highly reccomend it.
For those that want great redbook and SACD whithout mods, your going to need to spend some bucks imo.
Another option is a stock player that does SACD well along whith a dac for redbook.

All of the above is just IMHO as I am sure that others will disagree whith some or all of it.

Results from the Stereophool poll listed above.

Have you bought one or both of the high-rez audio formats?

I've got a universal player 15%
I've got a DVD-A player 4%
I've got a SACD player 32%
Don't have either but will soon 12%
Don't have either and don't care 34%

It is very interesting that 51% have some form of hi-rez in there systym.
It is also very interesting that the SACD format has around an 8.5 to 1 advantage over DVD-A among audiophools in this poll.

Most audiophools do not buy cheap multi players but rather mid fi to hi end so the "Got SACD free whith my 200.00 dvd player" argument to boost the SACD sales #'s does not apply here.

I also believe that among the 34% that don't care are a lot of die hard vinyl fans that could care less about any digital format.
This makes the #'s in the poll seem even more crystal clear that among audiophools, SACD has become the hi-rez format of choice.

The poll results closely match everything I have read on several forums since hi-rez arrived.

FYI...I did not vote in the poll.

The latest issue of the Music Direct catalog has 15 pages (non-advertising) of SACD’s and four pages of DVD-A’s. They have 14 pages of “redbook” and 18 pages of vinyl. Of course this is not a reflection of what is available in all formats, but it is a reflection of the marketing to the Audiophile. The point is the SACD catalog of music is growing very quickly and is being marketed to those who have interest in hi-resolution audio playback. As for hardware they have Philips, Music Hall, Berendsen, Marantz, McCormack, Esoteric and Shanling. This is one catalog from one music supplier to the Audiophile. Hardware is a secondary market to this company, yet the variety of players available shows me the market is growing, and more companies are devoting R&D budgets to SACD. If the next two years follow the curve of the past two we will find a whole lot to choose from!
As to the argument continuing on this thread, I feel some important issues have been left out. Ritteri has lead the anti-SACD argument. It’s time we look at who is making these comments. Clearly he has some experience in an audio store. Judging from the equipment he has talked about this is a mid/high end store, but clearly not the audiophile level. His comment “Adcom GFP-750 and the Pass Labs X2. Neither of these preamps color the sound in any way.” Made on 11-21-03 clearly shows his inability to impartially state the facts. All pre-amps color the sound in some way. In the case of Adcom in bi-pass mode and Pass it hardens the sound in my opinion. Edgy and electronic, in comparison to natural and neutral. I continue my analysis of who Ritteri is with his system. Wadia CD player, Aragon amp and Voodoo cables. Can you say harsh and edgy? I’m surprised he’s not touting Krell, Theta, Ayre and electrostatic speakers, but I’m guessing his “store” is not of the ilk to attract these manufacturers. My point is this equipment is good equipment but clearly not neutral or natural in sound reproduction. My feeling is this is playing into his opinions on the SACD format and his comments on analog.
I ask Ritteri to back off his “I know because I work in an audio store” platform and realize his view is extremely limited and his taste hardly represenitive of an audiophile.