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

I've owned a Levinson 39, 37 & 360s combo, sony SCD-1 & 777es as well as a BAT VK-D5 and Wadia 860...many others have also been demo'd at my home! SACD is not better than truly well recorded (current) redbook recordings from the likes of labels like New World Records etc... Redbook playback and software has come a long way in the last 4 years or so...so much so that with good equipment throughout a system you can place yourself in symphony hall!!! My last toy was the 777Es from sony...what a great piece..so much right about it that the rest doesn't matter! I am awaiting my Krell SACD player..Stereophile's Michael Fremer loved it!!! FYI...power cords, cables, outlets and component interactions vary so much that most people hardly ever hear what they have to it's fullest...and that is what drives many..including myself at times running for the next great thing. By the way, I've owned tons of amps and preamps as well..all absolute sound or stereophile category 1 and class A material..tubes and non tubes...at the end of the day I have found current generation Krell Class A components to deliver the best balance of both...i.e..you can close your eyes and be transported to the hall, goose bumps intact!

I myself have listened to the format where I work and I have'nt heard a real good "sound" yet. I am from the old school (Carver,Hafler,Nakamichi,etc). I right now own a Pioneer Elite Changer 20 Bit, and it sounds just fine to me. I have heard a slight difference in timbre response in the SACD format, but I can't say that it is any different then anything else I have heard, to make me want to go out and spend money on it. I think if you would update the D/A converter to an external device in the 24 bit - 96/192KHz range you might come close to the sound of SACD in sound depth and appeal, the problem with this format is that it has to be a certain type or it won't play on a standard cd player at that level and it is a waste of money if the cd player at home is sacd and the one in the car is not. It has to be hybrid or it just won't play at "full throttle".

This is my opinion of course, I hope this sheds some insight.

The IAR article in Kana's post above, says it all, I think. SACD doesn't work above 8k hz. Although, it does sound very good below that range. DVD-A has the potential to be the superior medium, as soon as they get serious, and start to pump out some titles that are 24/192, in 2 CH.
I think people that are in this hobby deserve better than what has been handed out by the HI-REZ companies. Audiophiles seem to get the short end of the stick, when it comes to producing software, and hardware, for that matter. Perhaps we should form a lobby group, so WE can inform them, what we want.
From my experience, most people that listen to music in surround sound, turn on their MP3 players and press the "HALL" button on the receiver!
So to answer the question about SACD, I think it's a temporary fix, until the next format comes along. I would suggest an inexpensive universal player, for now.
Sonny

HI JB3, Gimmick no, however; SACD is in its infancy as CD once was. The question you pose is complex and multi-faceted, in that it depends on what equipment you are playing now. If you have a high end CD front end as in transport, dac and upsampler you would be IMO wasting your money buying a one box SACD at this point of time. Is SACD good yes, the timbre is dead analog and spacial relationships are real good, however; if you have a real high end system and objectively a/b CD to SACD you might be surprised. My current CD front end is CEC transport, Mark Levinson Dac and a DCS Purcell upsambler. I owned a Sony SCD-1 and although pretty good, my CD front end crushed it. Not that the Sony did not do timbre better, it did, but everything else was clearly better with the CD front end. I sold the Sony. My Audiophile friends have brought over their Krells, Esoterics, Modded Sonys and Linns all with the same result. In comes one my friends with a DCS Elgar/Verdi duo and my CD front end was finally trounced. The duo was better in every respect. Therefore, IMO opinion, SACD, if successful is the future, I would however; wait for the two box Sacd combinations to come to the marketpace as in, the rumored Mark Levinson and MBL. I've heard through the grapevine that the MBL combination is astounding.

There *is* a two box combination on the market. It is the Meitner Emm Labs Dac + transport. It comes in a two channel version or multi-channel. Its CD playback is second to none -- and it's SACD playback is even better. There's no contest. As amazing as is the CD playback, it is a clear step down from SACD. There's no way I would choose to listen to CD over SACD. Plus, more and more music is being released on SACD. My SACD collection is now over 100 SACD's and multiplying rapidly. Doesn't make any sense to me to spend this much on the rest of my system in search of better resolution and then limit myself to a lower resolution playback system. There is no CD player that can compare to SACD playback on the Meitner. I don't think there are even any CD players, DAC + transport, etc -- that can compete with the Meitner's
CD playback, much less its SACD playback. This is, of course, going by my ears, my taste in music playback, etc. But, even if one wants to limit oneself to CD and wants the ultimate player, I would still recommend the Meitner -- its CD playback is that good. But, its SACD playback is still better.