SACD 2 channel vs Redbook 2 Channel

Aroc and the rest reading this thread: I appreciate the fact that someone understands my point of view.

And just to set the record straight, remember people, I also stated and fully acknowledged that SACD has more future potential than redbook. Its just that the potential isnt there...............yet.

Just like when CD came onto the market 20 years ago. It was great for what it was. But take a high end CD player from today, and pit it against a reference cd player from 20 years ago. There is going to be a big difference.

Right now, between todays high end CD players and SACD players that "big difference" doesnt yet exist, its sublt at best, and only on a few scattered discs. Im sure this will(if the format survives, but I would bet on DVD-A being the real future)change eventually, but that day is not here yet.

Little Milton: Your telling me that there wasnt a few hundred CD players out for sale in the mid 80's?There was no format war worth speaking of back then to slooooow progress down compared to today. Oh please prove me wrong here.Show me where Im putting up BS. Please be aware that I sold audio/video for many years.

And please update me on how many SACD models are currently available. You say its BS about only a few dozen players available?, well prove me wrong here. You wont be able to.

And telling me that its BS that SACD isnt going anywhere is also a bit premature. Have you checked to see how poor sales are on SACD's??? If it dont sell it wont stay afloat. Just remember there is a wider audience than just the USA. Globally the other format is doing better. And Global sales normally is a good indication of what becomes mainstream.

As for DVD-A, I personally could care less about DVD-A or SACD currently. Please start reading my threads a bit more carefully. As I will state again, the potential is there, but its going to be a few years before anything groundbreaking comes out from any of the next generation formats. But if I had to choose, Ill take DVD-A as my future choice based on real world potential.

If you want to pull out the BS card on me, thats fine, but put up some links or something to back it up. You cant do that on any of my comments.

Of course SACD and DVD-A only offer subtle improvements. What piece of gear have any one of us upgraded to that had more than a subtle improvement? Sure, it may seem dramatic to us, but that is because we are all geeks. 99% of the people in the world wouldnt be able to distinguish a 20k system from a 100k system. What is nice about SACD is it gives a significant improvement (to my ears) for virtually no extra cost. The only commercially available format that betters SACD is vinyl, and you have to spend much more on a quality turntable than on an SACD player to get a marked improvement.

The DSOTM the moon SACD is worth it for mutlichannel alone, and the SACD sounds decidedly better than the redbook version.

A good example of remastering versus format is the recently released MoFi version of Los Lobos Good Morning Aztlan. I popped this in and was very pleased with the newer remaster, and glad I had spent the money on it. After listening to around 7 songs, I wanted to see how the redbook remaster compared to the SACD remaster. It was then I realized that I had been litening to the redbook layer. The SACD version was another order of magnitude better than the redbook remaster. This is one example that shows that the format does have something to do with the quality of sound. Of course the mastering plays a huge part, but here is an example of a remaster by MoFi on redbook and SACD of the same piece, and the SACD sounds better.

For the near term most SACD releases will not have been recorded in the DSD format, but will instead have been converted from analog or PCM sources. Very, very few recording studios have DSD recorders and even fewer (possibly less than 10 in the U.S.) have DSD processors (EQ, compressors, etc.) or editors. It is this lack of DSD processors that makes pure DSD recorders impractical for standard pop/rock recordings.

Most studios have only recently, if at all, upgraded to 88/96kHz PCM and they see little to no demand for DSD capabilites. With mastering studios the situation is different. DSD has firmly established itself with the top echelon of mastering houses. Artists typically send analog or PCM final mixes to be mastered and it's during this stage that the final consumer available format is determined.

Multi-format playback machines will make someones preference for PCM or SACD fairly irrelevant. I suspect that the situation will evovle in a way that mirrors the current movie distribution model. Larger budget films are distributed to theaters in multiple SDDS, dts and DD formats.

Ritteri, I'll do no such things that you ask. There is a popular saying that aetheists like to throw around in the heat of a philosophical battle, namely that "the burden of proof lies in the believer." Same applies here, it's actually a well established logical principle found in any introductory textbook. I don't have to disprove what you can't prove in the first place! Face it, you have no evidence to back up your posts. Anyways, thank you for playing, and have a nice day....