SACD 2 channel vs Redbook 2 Channel

Acoustic Reality now mods the 963sa also.
Look under whats new at www.acousticreality.com

It would help if someone on either side of this debate added some real scientific evidence rather than their own opinions! There are very few people posting on AudiogoN whose opinion I would accept apart from evidence, and none of those people are commenting on this thread.

I don't care if anyone likes or dislikes SACD. Show some evidence if the debate is going to continue. Ritteri, you claim to have made some factual statements. I have yet to see them. You have made bizarre generalizations and given poor examples, and then taken offense at those who questioned them. THEY ARE YOUR WORDS! How is anyone supposed to know what those words mean, if the meaning isn't clear in the words? What is any of this doing for the quality of our dialog?

I am not one of the 'measurements are everything' crowd, but neither am I willing to blindly accept the opinion of people I don't know.

Science indicates that 44.1 kHz is undersampled, 96 kHz is not. Which would be the better format? I am not asking who has the better transistors, capacitors, lenses, or op-amps inside their CDP or SACDP, I simple refer to the format.

Nrchy: Seriously, dont be an idiot. I posted a few links with much SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE on some of the downfalls(pros and cons) of SACD. There is also much scientific evidence that will back up the fact that the 44.1khz isnt necessarily the limiting factor for sound quality but rather the actual recording process itself in the studios.A reason why alot of mfgs continue to make imrpovements on redbook players while forgoing SACD presently.

Take a cymbol crash. Its all midrange and high frequency range right? Wrong. A cymbol crash's frequency response actually starts right around 15-20hz all the way up into the subsonic stratosphere where our ears cant even hear em.Most studio's dont relay 15-20hz information onto a disc. Many of them take a stereo signal in the bass range and sum it into mono signal, not the best thing to do to help SQ potential. You want a real big improvement in sound quality? Talk to the folks with the budget for recording the disc to begin with. Dont put it all on a disc being undersampled. THats just alot of horse sh!t.

Links that repeat your opinion are of little value. There are many places on the web to read absolute foolishness, not just your responses.

I'm sure the reason for Mfgs staying with redbook CD rather than going to a new format has more to do with cost than an aversion to the new technology.

Your cymbal crash example goes along way to show the shortcomings of the 44.1 sampling rate, since not only does it begin in the bass registers, but it also exceeds audible listening levels. By removing the inaudible, audible ranges are effected. i.e. things you cannot hear affect things you can hear.

44.1 on an equal playing field will never be able to compete with 96 kHz. There is too much of the music missing! If you don't care about the quality of the music, continue to ridicule new formats thereby assuring that better formats will never become a reality. No one is forcing you to buy an SACD player, but don't use your junk science to talk others out of investing in a better future!

Quote from Nrchy: "Links that repeat your opinion are of little value. There are many places on the web to read absolute foolishness, not just your responses".

Oh, so first you state that I posted no scientific proff, then you state that scientific proof that backs up some of my points isnt valid? You are an idiot. And a very closed minded idiot at that.

Quote from Nrchy: "I'm sure the reason for Mfgs staying with redbook CD rather than going to a new format has more to do with cost than an aversion to the new technology."

Actually the liscensing fees for SACD is alot cheaper than for redbook presently. Sony is doing all they can to get mfgs to jump on their bandwagon with their technology to produce SACD players and SACD software. I would post the link proving this fact too, but considering how you just admitted to us all that you are a close minded moron on scientific links its kind of pointless.

Quote from Nrchy: "Your cymbal crash example goes along way to show the shortcomings of the 44.1 sampling rate, since not only does it begin in the bass registers, but it also exceeds audible listening levels. By removing the inaudible, audible ranges are effected. i.e. things you cannot hear affect things you can hear."

Once again your IQ shines through. It has nothing to do with limitations of 44.1khz. 44.1khz can register a 15-20hz bass note no problem, it can also reproduce a note beyond 20khz no problem. The real problem lies at the hands of the budget and recording of the artist themselves, and how much time and effort they want to put into a recording, not 44.1khz. Do you want me to post a few scientific links on this as well? Or is it null because it backs up my point?

QUote from Nrchy: "44.1 on an equal playing field will never be able to compete with 96 kHz. There is too much of the music missing! If you don't care about the quality of the music, continue to ridicule new formats thereby assuring that better formats will never become a reality. No one is forcing you to buy an SACD player, but don't use your junk science to talk others out of investing in a better future!"

Well guess what bud, were not on an equal playing field. And SACD has proven to have shortcomings in high frequency reproduction. Why is this? Read the above scientific links to validate the point. As for stating that there is too much of the music missing, your just backing up my claim even further. It is missing. But its not due to 44.1khz, its due to the actual recording artist and engineers themselves. And one of my points up above were that some of the SACD that DO sound better than their redbook counterparts is in large part due to the fact that the recording process was done properly to begin with.
No the fact that it samples a 96khz.

As for talking others out of investing in a format, I do no such thing. But I will point out, the "better future" doesnt necessarily lie with Sony's SACD format which is far from perfect. I dont ridicule new formats. I hope they do come out and soon, but I also hope they are a true step up in sound reproduction. SACD currently is not in many respects. Will it be in the future. Im sure it will at some point. But to be honest with you, I hope DVD-A gets it straight and comes on strong because DVD-A has alot more potential than SACD without the high frequency reproduction and noise floor problems inherant in SACD's format. I want their to be a next generation format thats universally accepted and soon like everyone else here Im sure.