SACD Opinions: Gimmick? Like it? Don't? Why?

SACD is for real no gimmicks.

Of course there is a big differrence on SACD,
the SACD is way much better than redbook,I
have the sony 9000es signature mode with tube
output,SACD shines on this player,its true
also if the recording are bad,then its bad,
what can you do, play it on the boombox.
my peso opimion.

Jb3, if you decide to go high resolution, do yourself a favor and get a universal player that can handle both SACD and DVD-A so you won't be a victim of the format war when it finally ends.

I agree that SACD is a subtle, yet definite improvement over CD.

SACD seems to correct my two biggest complaints with CD. First, there is a foundation to the music which I cannot get past in CD. Second, the flow of the music restored, as opposed to 1s and 0s I sometimes feel chops up everything. Both of these complaints are why I feel vinyl so superior to CD.

That being said, I feel that SACD is still not up to the level of vinyl done right. But, that is just me, and I am holding out hope for the future.

I would not recommend a universal player. This is not the way to
get great sound. I own the Yamaha U-player, which I bought for
$1,000. Then, I moved up to a Sony SCD XA 777 ES CD/SACD
player, which I bought slightly used on Audiogon for $1,600. The sound quality of the Sony was a quantum leap forward. You pay a sonic price when they try to stuff everything in one box. I would recommend splitting your digital play-back into two boxes. Get a dedicated CD/SACD player like the Sony and then get a DVD/DVD-A player such as the Denon 1200. You'll get better sound, a top notch DVD player and you'll have everything covered -- plus, your upgrade path is easier and more cost effective from two boxes. If you want to upgrade from a U-player, you'll end up using your U-player as a very expensive DVD player with capabilities you no longer use. Spend a little more to get two boxes and you'll be richly rewarded.