"ric" wrote in message ...
GT wrote:

And this has *what* to do with your assertion that you "thought you
said
you were 'right'" ?? I *never* said that SACD is *the* future, or that
everything will be released as hybrid SACDs. What I have *constantly*
said was since SACD players also play normal CDs and/or DVDs, and
since
hybrid SACDs play on normal CD players, that there is no risk in
getting
involved in SACDs. I also said that most *SACDs* will be released as
hybrid SACDs. Those "articles" address NONE of these issues, and your
assertion that they somehow prove me wrong is just ludicrous.

Only *some* have been released as hybrids, ric. Not all.

Reading disorder strikes again? Please note above that I said *most will*,
not *all have*.

Semantics again, ric.... semantics.... I know what you said, but *I'm*
saying it. For your benefit.


Again, this has *nothing* to do with your statement "Who are we to
believe? You?" since I have not offered an opinion on the subject.

Of course you haven't. You don't have an opinion on the matter because
you
know I'm right.

That statement is so idiotic, it's as if sum1 made it.

Hey, it's true. Oh well.... (head-shaking...)


I obviously don't know which format will become dominant, since I
got a player that plays both DVD-A and SACD. I have only said that
I prefer SACDs over DVD-As. But you know this. You've been told
countless times. You just enjoy acting obtuse.

I mentioned that in very first post I made to that thread.

You mentioned *what* ?? That I have a player that plays both DVD-A
and SACD? That I prefer SACDs over DVD-As? You sure don't express
yourself very well.

Well obviously I've expressed myself well enough that I've gotten your
attention for the last 50 posts or so.


Why? I have no vested interest in either format. Again, and you know
this already, my player plays BOTH formats. The only comment *I* have
is that the actual sales figures are a better barometer than is a poll
of 2900 consumers (much like telephone election polls versus the
actual
election results. Only the actual results really count.) But, again,
you
already know this.

Well if you have no vested interest in either format, then why are you
arguing with me?

Because you keep making asinine statements like:

No vested interest.... Are you sure that's all, dude...?


* "They are formats for anal-retentive audiophiles who obsess over
every note."
* "Besides, you have to buy two ****ing players in order to cover
everything."
* "You'll be stuck with the equivalent of an old laserdisc or DAT
player."
* "And how many models are out there that'll cover everything? One?
Two? Three?"
* "And those that are stuck with the losers product, wind up with a
pile of unstandardized junk."
* "And yes, there is a difference, I never said there wasn't. But not
enough for me to justify replacing my current collection with
expensive SACD versions
* "No, you were making a suggestion that by default, he go out and
spend lots of money and turn himself into an audiophile."
* "You are missing out on great sound...." How 'bout saving on the
pocketbook, ric."
* "All one has to do is look back and see what happend [sic] to formats
like Beta, DAT, MiniDisc (in the U.S.), Laserdisc, Videodisc
(and maybe some others that I can't remember offhand) where
consumers thought they had a good thing, only to see it ripped
out from under them after only a few years."

That's one of my favorites, since the backward compatibility of SACD
has been explained to you countless times, and none of the above were
anywhere close to being backward compatible.

I know you've been repeating "backward compatible" for quite some time, but
so what.... There's still plenty of SACD-only discs around. Tower Records
has little section of them off all by themselves, in one little corner.
Funny those say "SACD-only" on the covers....

In fact, some of them have a little black sticker on the front explaining
how they will only play in SACD players. Hmmm....


Not to mention your opposing statements, such as in one breath saying
that "obsessing over every last note" is for "anal-retentive audiophiles",
but later complaining that "hybrid" players don't get the "maximum
*aual* [sic] benefit" from SACDs, DVD-As, etc.

Yes, that's true. With the former statement, I was being true to myself,
with the latter statement, I was playing the devil's advocate...


Then there's your "GTisms" such as "six times less" in price. That one
provided more than a few chuckles.

Add to that the URLs that you posted, saying they showed I wasn't right,
when in fact they did no such thing.

I said there's *no consensus* out there, ric. That was the main point.
That's why I asked; "What's going on, ric?"


And your reading comprehension problems, such as claiming that I said that
I "taught a statistics class". My statement clearly stated that "I was
taught in a statistics class that..."

More patronizing again, ric?



Obviously you have something at stake here....

If it's so obvious, tell us what it is.

I dunno, ric. You tell me. You're the one that's been slowly getting more
and more hysterical with each subsequent post.


Give it up, ric. You're not gonna sell me on it. You should already
know
this by now.

I'm not trying to sell *you* on it. Just trying to post some FACTS (such
as backwards compatibility, pricing, etc.) to counter some of the utter
nonsense that you are posting. Why should I try to convince you? Your
listening room is your car.

You over a format that I don't believe will be around in 5 years? I don't
think that's utter nonsense at all and I've told why I believe so. Why
don't you just accept that?


At "little or no extra cost"? You mean the $1,000 dollar + amps and the
$10,000 + speakers to go with it?

Ignorance again. You don't need the above any more for an SACD system
than you do for a normal CD system.

Oh but aren't 'we' back to getting back to the 'full, aural benefit' of SACD
thing, again? Yes? No?



Well assuming that most people already have a good CD player out there,
maybe one that isn't SACD capable, then the SACD machine would be moot.

My neighbor's DVD player was SACD compatible (many are) and he didn't
even realize it. He knew it played CDs, but he was clue less about SACDs.

Well isn't there a little logo they emboss on the front of each SACD player?
Isn't it printed on the outside of the cardboard box? I would think since
SACD is the considered the 'second coming of Christ', they would at least
make that selling point known to the general public.

I guess it's sort of analgous to the SACD not being embossed on the front of
those Stones remasters... Or why amazon.com buries that feature down in the
middle of their description on their webpage....

The 'fine-print', huh ric...


People buy new DVD or CD players all the time. Getting SACD compatibility
at little extra cost is just a bonus.

Yes and wonder how many new (or reissue) CDs are coming out every week that
are non-SACD compatible.... As opposed to those that are....


It's the future, ric. Better get used to it. I know many of you
audiophiles were having withdrawl symptoms when the LP went out of
style.
It was so bad, some of you all needed rabies shots.

Rabies shots, eh. For withdrawal symptoms? [My new favorite "GTism"]

Human rabies, ric. It was pretty bad. Maybe they should've been put to
sleep.... (laughs)


But for *others*, the no risk venture into SACDs is highly worth
considering.

Sure, if all you're willing to settle for is limited choices.

How's that? It'll play all that a normal CD player will, plus SACDs.
That's *more* choice, not "limited choices." You *do* have a
comprehension problem, don't you?

Let's see what....2,000 titles where one can take advantage of the SACD
benefit...out of out of tens of thousands...millions.....

Yeah that sounds like a lot of big choices all right....



And you wonder why I continue to answer your posts...

Whatever you say, ric.....whatever you say.....