SACD 2 channel vs Redbook 2 Channel

I never claimed to be able to hear above 22 kHz! My point as I clearly made in a previous post is that sounds which are not audible affect sounds which are audible. Just like multiple waves on water affect oneanother, so higher frequencies affect lower frequencies. Sound does not stop at the point where the human ear can no longer hear!

You make my point when you suggest that the limits of studio recordings is the problem, not the 44.1 sampling rate! The problem is that studios using digital recordings do not record music, they record sine waves. Then they expect the undersampled 44.1 redbook CDP to playback what happened minus all the music which was never recorded.

Many SACD recordings are from the remastered analog tapes, which are vastly superior to any digital tapes. Those are typically the SACDs which sound good. You cannot blame the SACD format for undersampled 44.1 kHz digital recordings. That is like blaming a CD for tape hiss!?!

As even a man of your limited understanding would have to admit, there is a lot more to a good CDP or SACDP than the basics found in a Sony/Philips playback unit. If that is not the case why are so many companies making a healthy living modding CDPs and SACDPs??? There is room for considerable improvement, just like there was for CDPs when they first came out. Try not to forget that although this is similar to redbook CDPs, it is a new and different technology. Improvements to this will be different than those put into CDPs for the last twenty years.

To rebutt your second to last paragraph, you are the one who began resorting to name calling when your arguement was proven to be without substance. The first new barbs I assumed to be due to the heat of emotion, but the continued assult I attribute to your natural character. I may be guilty of responding in-kind, but your name calling does nothing to prove your point (which again, has been evacuated of any substance) and does a lot to cause others to question your credibility. You have not harmed me in any way, but you have hurt yourself!

I own a Sony SCD 777es. I have several 15-20 multi-layer redbook/SACD and have listened to all of them. I have never heard SACD to be inferior in any respect.

The issue might be: why are you defending the top-end of a format that has for 20 years been know to be overly bright. Should SACD continue with the mistakes of the previous format???

Sacd is superior because the sample rate is higher, producing
more information over the entire spectrum. Ritteri claims he hasn't
heard the difference between SACD and CD even with trillions of
dollars worth of equipment, but we cannot get pas his unfortunate
claim that SACD is the equivilent of adding music hall echo. What
this tells me is that Ritteri *DID* hear the difference, but simply did
not understand what he was hearing. The ambient information to
which he refers was due to SACD's higher sample rate which allows the recording to pick up more ambient information -- this is
what gives SACD the ability to recreate more of the subleties of
the performance and gives you more of the feeling that the performance is happening in your listening room. If you think you're hearing "echo" that was put into the music by the engineer,
how could you appreciate this additional information? Perhaps
Ritteri doesn't appreciate that information, but when he alludes to
"music hall echo" is stands to reason that he indeed heard it. This is sort of similar to Steve Martin's character in The Jerk. Upon being served 1861 Lafite Rothschild, Martin spits it out and yells, "take this away and bring me something FRESHER!" Obviously, Martin's character TASTED everything that makes the vintage wine superior, he just didn't understand what he was drinking. On the other hand, it *is* possible that some people don't care for the secondary and tertiary flavors in vintage wine and some people might prefer a lower sample rate, lower resolution, and less ambient information. But, if Ritteri did actually work in audio sales, as he claims, we can only wonder how many others were exposed to this misinformation. How many others are out there thinking the ambient information was actually just music hall echo due to
Ritteri's misunderstanding? Taste is one thing, but ignorance is dangerous.

I personally don't think anyone on here has shown any true "merit", not just Rittori. And to be quite frank, there is alot less "misinformation" on this forum thread than what a few other Audiogon members above would lead people to believe. But regardless of the matter it sure does not change the fact he is not alone on feelings of the SACD platform. Myself personally and many others have very similiar feelings which is very obvious when filtering through the posts.

Man, I can't quit laughing at this entire thread, especially looking back on the nature of the original inquiry! I like to stir up poop as much as anyone but you guys have really let Ritteri drag himself through the mud and toss himself in the gutter here! It borders on mean, cruel and unusual to see a reputation destroyed like this; he may have to have to change his screenname or move to another board if the insanity continues! I'm shocked that his condescending personal attacks where posted on this censored forum, but not stunned to see the deserved response. Anyways, let's stop kicking the dead horse! :) I may have started this but am feeling bad for the guy and his sock puppet supporters now, seeing that reason and logical (yet often funny as heck) retorts have fallen on deaf ears (was that a funny?)! Seriously, the best way to end this is to stop feeding the monkey, to paraphrase a Big Lebowski line. It's painful, it is a train wreck. Agree to disagree and simply quit wasting time and energy on this....unless of course there's more opportunity for the funny stuff from following Ritteri posts after he reads this one :)...just kidding!(sorry!)