SACD 2 channel vs Redbook 2 Channel

Ears in this never ending debate I think it's been forgotten I wanted to try and enjoy SACD, not bury it,my player originally retailed for approx $750,£500 here in the UK.(I bought somewhere in the region of 40 SACD's).
Without repeating various points we simply don't have the choice here in the UK to pick up modded players etc.
I've never stated my experience is the definitive one,far from it but from a starting out point I think it's a valid experience my other points are represented elsewhere.
I think this debate is worthwhile and what is interesting to me is that I think Rsbeck probably made his best post on SACD yesterday,not that I agree at all with everything he wrote but I actually found that through his obvious frustation he found a better way to put things......
I would still love to be in both camps and as I've always said I may return to SACD at some stage.

Jadem6: Also you own comparison of my personal system is pretty funny. Calling my system "harsh and edgy" without ever hearing is is a complete and total joke. I doubt you have ever even heard the combo. So how can you otherwise comment? More BS opinion.

So you have personally "heard" voodoo cables on an extensive basis?Did you know that my Voodoo cables are not the 100% silver cable that they advertise and sell? They are actually cryogenically treated Silver/copper hybrids of the Silver reference, very similiar in design to the Vahalla's and almost identical in presentation/voicing. You've had the chance to sit down with an 861se extensively too? How about the Palladiums? How about Palladiums with some specific modifications? My god! Your running a Class A SS Plinius amp and calling my Aragon's as "harsh and edgy" when you run an amp that has very similiar voicing!Plinius sounding like single ended tube amp? I want a smaple of what your smoking! LOL! Extensive listening again?How about the SCD-1, which Ive also owned in the past? If ever there was a player you can call a bit harsh and edgy its this player! Even with the audiocom superclock mod to help clean up the jitter problem. Harsh and edgy!? You got to be kidding me. So you must have heard all the components combined too right? Especially in a room thats been EQ'd correctly? This is what people need to read less of. Talk about "limited views", Id have to say that you may be the ultimate hypocrite for stating what you just did.

But how would you know my system is "harsh and edgy"? Sure isnt from experience.Sure wasnt from a trip to my house.Sure isnt what other members form Agon have stated from real experience listening to my system. Its too bad alot of opinions come from people like you with knowledge that doesnt extend past your keyboard.

And stating that the Adcom 750(or X2) preamp in bypass mode hardens the sound shows me that your mind tells you more than your ears actually do. Especially on the X2.

Just curious, why do you have $25,000 worth of cabling driving $5000 speakers which are above average at best? You make mention of all the "mods" done,some internal components are mentioned(like black gate caps etc)etc. but if you ever cracked open those SCIVA's you would find some really poor quality components populating the crossover boards. Upgrading those crossover components alone would equate to a bigger sound improvement than all the cables and component mods put together that you've already done. :rolls eyes:

Why is it that when someone is caught making factual errors on
the internet the next thing they will do is pull out all their credentials? You can have 18 PHd's and that won't change the fact that Ritteri claimed SACD was nothing more than the equivilent of putting music hall echo into the music mix. How in
the world can you work in several high end audio stores and still
believe something like that? I think we've all had a salesman
like this somewhere along the line. I had one like that in my lone
visit to a Tweeter. It is probably just an unfortunate coincidence.

factual errors? Alot of people feel the same way I do. Its a perception and nothing more. Alot of real engineers feel the same way.Alot of sound critics also feel similiar. Translating what looks good on paper pressed into reality doesnt always garner the expected results. Im not alone here. And from the gathering on this thread, more people tend to agree with some of my opinions and facts(backed up with some excellent links) than people who dont.

Rsbeck: One thing you amongst other pro-SACD consumer folks have in common. You take an angle on a specific comment I made(and make it more than it is)and twist it. If you actually had alot of daily real world experience with alot of top gear you would probably feel different. But you dont. Most people base their experiences on magazine artlicles,hearsay and limited experience of what they may hear in a showroom(which is more than likely setup very poorly with equipment they dont even have). Very few people can claim that they have had dozens upon dozens of amplifiers,source units,speakers,cables etc in their own home in a well setup room for critical evaluation over the course of weeks and or months at a time. The ones that can normally are part of the industry directly and/or are very rich. How many people here can say they actually have the luxury of owning an RTA or other critical listening/setup tools to help EQ their room quickly an easily and to allow fair comparison when judging equipment? Little things like these tools help to gain real world experience. I still have my own personal opinion. I may even have some bias(who doesnt?)too, but at least I can honestly say "I see the big picture". Alot of you I dont think honestly can(at least you state that with some comments that on the surface seem just as ignorant as you may think my comments are), and prove that with moronic/childish rebuttals at best.

If this isnt the case and I am wrong, then my original comment on SACD having more future potential over redbook would have also been brought up. But alot of people seem to have let my original comments get lost with many hypocritical statements.

Credibility doesn't come from saying you have a lot of experience in audio or from claiming other people agree with you -- it comes
from the quality of your claims. When you claim that SACD is
the equivilent of adding music hall echo, you show a basic ignorance of the format about which you are attempting to debate.
If a high school drop-out tells me SACD means a higher sample
rate and more information on the disc, he/she, by nature, will have
more credibility. Further, on the internet, anyone can claim anything. I once debated a guy who claimed expertise in politics because he claimed he teaches history at his local University. Later, in the same debate, the guy claimed he understood science because he works in a government laboratory. Busy guy, huh? My experience is that people who make credible comments don't usually have to shore them up with these types of claims. So, I will say that I have no idea what is your experience and it doesn't really matter. The credibility of your comments has been undermined by these errors you've littered throughout this debate.
They were undermined further when you failed to acknowledge
these errors. What is needed now is not your credentials -- these
citations only beg the question -- how can someone work in high
end audio and have such erroneous information? The answer is --either you are fibbing about your audio experience -- highly possible since many people use the internet to try to carve out
alternate personalities -- or you were just another mis-informed
salesman. My experience is that I usually know a lot more about
any piece of gear I am auditioning than the salesman at the store,
no matter how high end, but especially at places like Tweeter.
These guys are usually better at sales than they are at audio --
talkers. So, these types of credentials wouldn't help you even if
you weren't making all these erroneous claims. Any way you look at it, you are better off getting better informed than you are trying
to rehabilitate yourself in this manner. That's just my opinion.