SACD 2 channel vs Redbook 2 Channel

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.

Threads like these are a great opportunity for discussion. Ultimately, in a hobby such as ours in which subjectivity is so prevalent, it is impossible to provide a definitive answer to whether SACD is better than redbook. We all have too many variables in our systems and in software to make one answer fit for everyone, and no diatribe about engineering or marketing statistics is going to convince someone that one format is better than another. The choice is a personal one. I own too many redbook CD's at this point, and I don't find enough sonic superiority in SACD disks to justify the expense of an additional box and software. So, I've chosen to optimize my system for redbook listening until the format wars conclude. Now, let's all sing Kumbaya and try to get along.

RSBeck, well said. I perceive tho art a diplomat.

Your post above is one of the most straight-forward, calculated, and well-thought out responses I've yet read in these parts of cyberspace.

-IMO

Rsbeck: Once again you took a figurative statement I made about the "hall ambience" as me claiming fact which is the farthest thing from the truth of the matter. What you should have done is to focus on what was said on the posts before and after that figurative statement was made. Your own statements made in your last post should have already pointed you what I have said earlier. You do a good job of pointing out some of my own statements that is put in a figurative wording and of an opinion, but do an equally good job of avoiding points that show some downsides to the medium that is in question.