I DON'T GET IT!
The sides are;
1)SACD machines sound better than any or most cd players in "redbook cd" playback
2)SACD sounds great but there are better "redbook cd" players
3) there is still a small group that don't want to know the answer until it's announced at the next Lakers game.
What the heck is this argument even about?
Linn came out with a $20,000 single box player, and Burmester's has it's $33,000 processor and their $27,000 transport, and hey let's add a $7000 d to d converter, and now let's compare this system to a $2000 SACD player. O.K. that was unfair, just stay with the $16,950 Levinson processor and a $9495 transport and compare.
What is the purpose of this argument. Just for fun, I'll say anything over the benchmark $26,500 Levinson without up-sampling will beat SACD redbook playback, even though this is being challenged.
I still ask, what is the argument? Let's see, $2000 vs $25,000 for the same redbook cd playback, forget the SACD bonus so we can stay out of the nothing is available discussion.
Why don't Levinson, Burmester, Linn and the rest just get trashed on this site? We'll argue $500 vs $1500 power cords and interconnects and call the manufacturers every name for stealing from us. The SACD player comes along at 5% of the cost of the reference systems and arguably beats out most of them, and we question the "suits"?
Am I missing something or is there such a fear of progress that we'll come up with any argument just to keep the status-quo?
Please help me here, is it me, or is it you? J.D.
The sides are;
1)SACD machines sound better than any or most cd players in "redbook cd" playback
2)SACD sounds great but there are better "redbook cd" players
3) there is still a small group that don't want to know the answer until it's announced at the next Lakers game.
What the heck is this argument even about?
Linn came out with a $20,000 single box player, and Burmester's has it's $33,000 processor and their $27,000 transport, and hey let's add a $7000 d to d converter, and now let's compare this system to a $2000 SACD player. O.K. that was unfair, just stay with the $16,950 Levinson processor and a $9495 transport and compare.
What is the purpose of this argument. Just for fun, I'll say anything over the benchmark $26,500 Levinson without up-sampling will beat SACD redbook playback, even though this is being challenged.
I still ask, what is the argument? Let's see, $2000 vs $25,000 for the same redbook cd playback, forget the SACD bonus so we can stay out of the nothing is available discussion.
Why don't Levinson, Burmester, Linn and the rest just get trashed on this site? We'll argue $500 vs $1500 power cords and interconnects and call the manufacturers every name for stealing from us. The SACD player comes along at 5% of the cost of the reference systems and arguably beats out most of them, and we question the "suits"?
Am I missing something or is there such a fear of progress that we'll come up with any argument just to keep the status-quo?
Please help me here, is it me, or is it you? J.D.