Is there an SACD that can play cds well?


I've read through the threads and read the Stereophile reviews. They all seem to say that high end SACD units playing SACDs are superior to similar CD units playing cds.

I have a Resolution Audio 55 playing cds into ML380S and ML335 and Dunlavy SCIV. Very, very good. But, no, I want better.

Now help me.

What specific SACD units in YOUR EXPERIENCE will play cds in equal detail and depth to the RA55/ML39/EMC-1?
lakefrontroad
Marantz SA-1 thin and bright???? I beg to differ with you Czapp. I just bought my Marantz
SA-1 SACD player last week and have been doing some heavy listening and comparing. This Marantz player is Gorgeous and plays redbook CDs accurate , detailed with full rich sound . It blows my over $10K Wadia digital front end. Now when playing SACDs, well all I can say is SACD is superior by a long shot to any redbook CD sound. I Love my Marantz SA-1 ! Go out and buy one with your Tax refund.
Perhaps the Marantz that Czapp auditioned was not fully broken in? The Marantz SACD I heard was excellent, and if I had to ascribe a quality to it I would say if was very detailed with a clear, resolved bass without bloom, but I would not call it thin.
Albert, I look forward to hearing the results of the 777 vs.9000ES face-off, should that happen. I am considering a switch to a 9000ES and would appreciate any feedback in comparison to other SACD players. To date I have heard the Sony SACD-1, 777, 9000ES and the Marantz SACD player. All were excellent, but it was when listening to the 9000ES that I had the strongest reaction, the SACD 1 was next. Of course this is not a valid comparison as they were heard at different times and on different systems, with different material, and may not have been broken in yet, but my curiosity was certainly aroused. Also I remember being impressed when comparing the same disc's redbook playback to it's SACD playback on the 9000ES. The redbook playback was really smooth, but not dull, and held its' own against SACD, even though it was clearly inferior. Anyone have any idea why the break in on the SACD players seems to be so crucial?
I've A-B the Marantz SA-1 and Perpetual P1A/P3A/Monolithic with regular CDs for over one month and must honestly state that the Marantz is better both in sonic virtue and value. Sonically, the Perpetual has a tiny bit more air but lacks the bass definition. By it I don't mean quantity but quality. Considering that I paid less than $4K for my Marantz and over $1800 for Perpetual for D/A only, I must say Marantz is a far better buy even if you use it to play noththing but CDs. With its SACD capability, the Marantz is a steal. The only strike against the Marantz is that it doesn't support HDCD.
Rdr4b, you are correct sir. When you consider what's out there, the Marantz SA/1 is a great machine for both today and tomorrow's use. I am sure Levinson, Wadia, Krell are going to have there SACD machines but from whom's technology. Then they double or triple the tag or quadruple like Accuphase and advertise the hell out of it and get the magazine reviews. My Wadia two piece digital front end which I paid over $10K 2yrs ago and retailed for $16K is no match in sonics to the Marantz SA/1. Let's give both Marantz and Sony some credit for both having worthwhile machines and great values. I built my recent reference audio system on simply value and quality products without taking the shortcuts. At the same time, I cancelled my TAS & Stereophile subscriptions.