"ric" wrote in message ...

As usual, your reply has *nothing* to do with what I said. I said new
hybrid SACD releases outnumber non hybrid SACD releases, contrary to
what you wrote. Your commenting on the number of non SACD releases is
about as relevant as comparing it to DVD releases. Totally irrelevant.
You were wrong, so you changed the subject. Typical.

No ric, I was mocking your previous statement. Gee, did that need to be
spelled out for ya...


Again, irrelevant to the point being discussed. You said that the
backwards compatibility of SACDs depends on if the SACD
"catches on to the public at large." That's what my above reply
is about. Again, you were wrong so you
attempted to change the subject. How transparent.

No ric. You keep talking about "backwards compatibility". I'm talking
about *marketing* it to the public. I'm talking about 'apples', you're
talking about 'oranges'.

Jesus you're an even bigger dumbass than I first thought.


Uh-oh, more ad hominem attacks from ric.

No, just a fact. When you make no sense (which is often), I'm not
gonna sugar coat it.

Did I hurt your touchy-feely feelings, ric? Aww... Me so saw-wee....

*YOU'RE* the one moaning about attacks, not me. What a moron.

Gee maybe I should've put it in CAPS on it and made it sound more
melodramatic for ric. Do you think that would make me sound like I was
"moaning" for ya?

Get a ****ing clue, dude....


I would rather have a SACD compatible player and have the CHOICE to
listen to SACD recordings when available than have a standard CD
player and NOT have that choice. Now, twist that around to mean
something completely different.

But I don't need that choice, ric. That's a choice for audiophiles who
know that the only way their precious format will survive is to
piggyback it
on to the CD format. It can't stand on it's own an *you* know it.

Again, this has *NOTHING* to do with your erroneous statement that
getting a SACD compatible player limits one's choice. Again, you try
to change the subject because your original statement was erroneous
and could not be defended.

Sure it does. With SACD-only CDs, your choices are limited. With only
2,000 titles available, I don't see how the **** you can deny that. Unless
your head is stuck so far up your ass in denial that you can't pull it
out...


Notice a pattern here?

Anybody else hear banjos?

Whatsa matter, ric? Forgot to take your medication?

Or is it only the SACD player you forgot to turn off....

-GT* wrote:

As usual, your reply has *nothing* to do with what I said. I said new
hybrid SACD releases outnumber non hybrid SACD releases, contrary to
what you wrote. Your commenting on the number of non SACD releases is
about as relevant as comparing it to DVD releases. Totally irrelevant.
You were wrong, so you changed the subject. Typical.

No ric, I was mocking your previous statement. Gee, did that need to be
spelled out for ya...

Your statement, "And if you bothered looking, you would see that new
standard CD releases vastly outnumber SACD releases, hybrid or otherwise"
is mocking? Hardly. Just you making a comment that is irrelevant to
what I said. Say something irrelevant, GT. We're getting used to it.

Again, irrelevant to the point being discussed. You said that the
backwards compatibility of SACDs depends on if the SACD
"catches on to the public at large." That's what my above reply
is about. Again, you were wrong so you
attempted to change the subject. How transparent.

No ric. You keep talking about "backwards compatibility". I'm talking
about *marketing* it to the public. I'm talking about 'apples', you're
talking about 'oranges'.

You start by saying SACD equipment will become a "pile of unstandardized
junk," and when its backwards compatibility is explained to you for the
umpteenth time, you claim to be talking about marketing? No, backwards
compatibility has *NOTHING* to do with marketing.

Again, this has *NOTHING* to do with your erroneous statement that
getting a SACD compatible player limits one's choice. Again, you try
to change the subject because your original statement was erroneous
and could not be defended.

Sure it does. With SACD-only CDs, your choices are limited. With only
2,000 titles available, I don't see how the **** you can deny that. Unless
your head is stuck so far up your ass in denial that you can't pull it
out...

Your reading disability is showing again, GT. SACD compatible player.
They play normal CDs, too. They're not limited to only SACD releases.
They have just as many choices, and more, than a regular CD player.

You are such a moron.

Anybody else hear banjos?

Whatsa matter, ric? Forgot to take your medication?

I suggest you watch the movie "Deliverance." Every time you post,
banjos play.

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

As usual, your reply has *nothing* to do with what I said. I said new
hybrid SACD releases outnumber non hybrid SACD releases, contrary to
what you wrote. Your commenting on the number of non SACD releases is
about as relevant as comparing it to DVD releases. Totally irrelevant.
You were wrong, so you changed the subject. Typical.

No ric, I was mocking your previous statement. Gee, did that need to be
spelled out for ya...

Your statement, "And if you bothered looking, you would see that new
standard CD releases vastly outnumber SACD releases, hybrid or otherwise"
is mocking? Hardly. Just you making a comment that is irrelevant to
what I said. Say something irrelevant, GT. We're getting used to it.

Well it was mocking, ric. And you say I have a "reading comprehension"
problem?


Again, irrelevant to the point being discussed. You said that the
backwards compatibility of SACDs depends on if the SACD
"catches on to the public at large." That's what my above reply
is about. Again, you were wrong so you
attempted to change the subject. How transparent.

No ric. You keep talking about "backwards compatibility". I'm talking
about *marketing* it to the public. I'm talking about 'apples', you're
talking about 'oranges'.

You start by saying SACD equipment will become a "pile of unstandardized
junk," and when its backwards compatibility is explained to you for the
umpteenth time, you claim to be talking about marketing? No, backwards
compatibility has *NOTHING* to do with marketing.

Well it it doesn't have anything to do with marketing ric, then there
shouldn't be any need for hybrids being made, now should there...


Again, this has *NOTHING* to do with your erroneous statement that
getting a SACD compatible player limits one's choice. Again, you try
to change the subject because your original statement was erroneous
and could not be defended.

Sure it does. With SACD-only CDs, your choices are limited. With only
2,000 titles available, I don't see how the **** you can deny that.
Unless
your head is stuck so far up your ass in denial that you can't pull it
out...

Your reading disability is showing again, GT. SACD compatible player.
They play normal CDs, too.

Once again, ric. Not *all* of them do. As mentioned before, the market
share for SACD, hybrid or full, is absymal. But you refuse to see that.

They're not limited to only SACD releases.
They have just as many choices, and more, than a regular CD player.

I'm talking about the CDs now ric, not the players. 2,000 is still a small
number. Are you really that *dense* or what....


You are such a moron.

Have you looked in mirror, lately.... (duhhh....)


Anybody else hear banjos?

Whatsa matter, ric? Forgot to take your medication?

I suggest you watch the movie "Deliverance." Every time you post,
banjos play.

I suggest you take your meds, ric. You're hearing things....

-GT* wrote:

Your statement, "And if you bothered looking, you would see that new
standard CD releases vastly outnumber SACD releases, hybrid or otherwise"
is mocking? Hardly. Just you making a comment that is irrelevant to
what I said. Say something irrelevant, GT. We're getting used to it.

Well it was mocking, ric.

Maybe you ought to look up "mocking" in the dictionary. (That's the
thick book with all the definitions in it, GT.)

You start by saying SACD equipment will become a "pile of unstandardized
junk," and when its backwards compatibility is explained to you for the
umpteenth time, you claim to be talking about marketing? No, backwards
compatibility has *NOTHING* to do with marketing.

Well it it doesn't have anything to do with marketing ric, then there
shouldn't be any need for hybrids being made, now should there...

This comment makes absolutely no sense. Backwards compatibility is
engineering, not marketing. Please try again, GT.

Your reading disability is showing again, GT. SACD compatible player.
They play normal CDs, too.

Once again, ric. Not *all* of them do. As mentioned before, the market
share for SACD, hybrid or full, is absymal. But you refuse to see that.

Name the model number for one that doesn't. And the market share for
SACDs is completely irrelevant as to whether or not SACD compatible
players will play normal CDs. You're in a rut, GT. All of your
statements are either asinine or irrelevant.

They're not limited to only SACD releases.
They have just as many choices, and more, than a regular CD player.

I'm talking about the CDs now ric, not the players. 2,000 is still a small
number. Are you really that *dense* or what....

If the players played *only* SACDs, you'd have a point. But they don't,
so you don't. Quit with your obtuse act. (I *hope* it is just an act.)

In summary:

SACDs are a low cost way to hear improved sound out of your present
stereo system. SACD compatible players will play normal CDs, too (so
your choice of music is not limited) and often DVDs as well. There is
no danger of owning a "pile of unstandardized junk" in 5 years. In
addition, hybrid SACDs (which constitute the majority of new SACD
releases) will play in standard CD players. The retail price of SACDs
is now about the same as for standard CDs, and SACD compatible CD and
DVD players are not very expensive, starting at less than $150. One
need not purchase new expensive speakers or amplifiers to enjoy the
improved sound of SACDs. SACD improvements can even be heard using
headphones. SACD/DVD-A universal players (starting at less than $500)
are also available for those of you who want to enjoy both SACDs and
DVD-As.

For more information:

http://www.superaudiocd.philips.com/...lId=N2598A3463

You may have the last word, GT. Give us your best asinine, irrelevant
comments. Then go practice your banjo.

You shall now enter my "sum1 file" (kill file.) It's been fun.

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

Your statement, "And if you bothered looking, you would see that new
standard CD releases vastly outnumber SACD releases, hybrid or
otherwise"
is mocking? Hardly. Just you making a comment that is irrelevant to
what I said. Say something irrelevant, GT. We're getting used to it.

Well it was mocking, ric.

Maybe you ought to look up "mocking" in the dictionary. (That's the
thick book with all the definitions in it, GT.)

Aw, whatsa matter, ric... you're not gonna start pouting on me, are ya
now.... Jeeez....


You start by saying SACD equipment will become a "pile of
unstandardized
junk," and when its backwards compatibility is explained to you for
the
umpteenth time, you claim to be talking about marketing? No, backwards
compatibility has *NOTHING* to do with marketing.

Well if it doesn't have anything to do with marketing ric, then there
shouldn't be any need for hybrids being made, now should there...

This comment makes absolutely no sense. Backwards compatibility is
engineering, not marketing. Please try again, GT.

And what's engineering if you can't sell it and make a profit off of it.
Those profits go back into more engineering, ric. It's called marketing.

You know all that. Wise-up.


Your reading disability is showing again, GT. SACD compatible player.
They play normal CDs, too.

Once again, ric. Not *all* of them do. As mentioned before, the market
share for SACD, hybrid or full, is absymal. But you refuse to see that.

Name the model number for one that doesn't. And the market share for
SACDs is completely irrelevant as to whether or not SACD compatible
players will play normal CDs. You're in a rut, GT. All of your
statements are either asinine or irrelevant.

Without market share, it WON'T SURVIVE, ric. It'll be history. Nada.
Zilch. You can have the best enginereed product out there, but if it
doesn't sustain a market share that it'll survive on....well you can just
kiss it goodbye...

Besides, it wouldn't surprise me at all if SACD CDs, full or hybrid, are
selling at a loss. That's only way they'll be able to clear rack space.


They're not limited to only SACD releases.
They have just as many choices, and more, than a regular CD player.

I'm talking about the CDs now ric, not the players. 2,000 is still a
small
number. Are you really that *dense* or what....

If the players played *only* SACDs, you'd have a point. But they don't,
so you don't. Quit with your obtuse act. (I *hope* it is just an act.)

Even if they played CDs, ric, you still wouldn't get the full range of SACD
numbers you would with standard CDs. All you'd wind up with is a glorified
CD player that would have a marginal format included with it.


In summary:

SACDs are a low cost way to hear improved sound out of your present
stereo system. SACD compatible players will play normal CDs, too (so
your choice of music is not limited) and often DVDs as well. There is

Your choice of SACD hybrids are limited, ric. 2,000 titles? That's not
limited? Forget *backwards compatibility* for a minute, if you can. Only
2,000 titles that you'll be listen to in the SACD format.


no danger of owning a "pile of unstandardized junk" in 5 years. In
addition, hybrid SACDs (which constitute the majority of new SACD
releases) will play in standard CD players.

But they won't constitute the majority of new CD releases, ric. The vast
majority of new releases will not be SACDs, hybrid or otherwise. Therefore,
I still see limited benefit except amoung audiophiles.


The retail price of SACDs
is now about the same as for standard CDs, and SACD compatible CD and
DVD players are not very expensive, starting at less than $150. One
need not purchase new expensive speakers or amplifiers to enjoy the
improved sound of SACDs. SACD improvements can even be heard using
headphones. SACD/DVD-A universal players (starting at less than $500)
are also available for those of you who want to enjoy both SACDs and
DVD-As.

Yeah they're cutting their prices to see if SACD will catch on. Only thing
is Warner announced DVD-A has cut their prices too. Both of 'em are
desperate.


For more information:


http://www.superaudiocd.philips.com/...lId=N2598A3463

You may have the last word, GT. Give us your best asinine, irrelevant
comments. Then go practice your banjo.

Really ric, you should take your meds on schedule so you won't hear voices
or banjos in your head. Might be better for you instead of acting like a
sore loser....

You know I'm right. You know there's no future in SACD but you refuse to
listen because you've been brainwashed into buying a bill of goods.


You shall now enter my "sum1 file" (kill file.) It's been fun.

I'll just my alter my name, dude. You know how the *game's* played. If you
ignore me, that'll be your temptation at work, not mine.

So you better have a big kill file. You're gonna need it.