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

In my system, the most noticeable quality of SACD is a sense of ease, a kind of relaxed sound. Next is smoothness...which could actually be a defect for some people, who prefer a more etched high-end. On better recordings, there is a sense of what I would call 'tonal colour'. Overall, the difference is noticeable but not huge. I'd love to hear one of the top end players, e.g. a Meitner or dCS.

SACD is a definite improvement over redbook cd's. The whole frequency range is clearer, and sounstaging is much larger. However, that being said, there isn't enough software out there for me to go bonkers over SACD. I own a Sony DVP-S9000ES, which serves my DVD as well as SACD needs. You may want to look in this direction. I still prefer my tube cd player over the Sony for regular cd's. In my experiences, I found DVD a good reason to try and enjoy SACD. I cannot recommend a expensive SACD only player, only because of the very limited software choices.

BTW, when I really want to listen for unrivaled musical bliss, I choose LP's.

Regards,
John

What else is there now or in the near future? I've heard more than one oversampling dac/player. Some redbook cds sound good to me oversampled, some don't. If I ever buy an oversampler, I want the option of oversampling or not!
I own a Sony SCD-777ES player. It sounds very good on redbook CDs & GREAT on most (not all) of my SACDs.
I have $1427.00 invested in this player. I have heard better redbook players at my local dealer (DCS-$34K, YBA-$8K, Electrocompaniet-$5K).
If something better shows up anywhere near the Sony's price , I'll buy it.
Shane Buettner states in his review of the Musical Fidelity Tri-Vista CD/SACD player: "While the upper-end Sony players have been consistently good to excellent SACD players, they are all thoroughly mediocre as CD players".
I say he's full of it! And my fellow local audiophiles agree.
I do believe he's just another video reviewer masquerading as an audiophile.......

I agree with most of the comments above. That is, on a decent player with a good recording, SACD is capable of measurably smoother sound with greater detail and spacial cues than a competitively priced mass produced redbook player. BUT, and this is a BIG "but", the quality of recording is the main factor here. I have purchased some SACD's that sound like crap i.e. just as crappy as the redbook versions. As such, i've been pretty selective about what i've purchased on SACD. I'm not going out of my way to buy SACD's, but if i've got the choice between a strait SACD or hybrid disc and a straight redbook version, i'll buy the SACD or hybrid first.

As far as multi-channel SACD goes, the majority of older recordings are being re-mastered by incompetent idiots. Just as engineers liked to fiddle with the pan pots ( balance controls ) when we switched from mono to stereo, these guys are in their second childhood with five or six channels to play with now. While the effects that they come up with might be cool if you were totally inebriated or looking for a "sound effects" recording to demo your multi-channel system, it isn't much good for listening to music. At least not on the majority of multi-channel discs that i've heard, which isn't too many. Like everyone else though, i'm willing to be convinced, so if somebody knows of either "killer" SACD's or multi-channel SACD's, i'd like to know about them. Sean
>

I just bought a Sony DVP-S9000ES with SACD and was trying out the difference on a Hybrid of Boccherini's "Stabat Mater" and the SACD layer seemed what I expect from music, so alive and present. The CD layer was shockingly flat in comparison but then I realized that it had the sound I was used to... I can imagine hearing the differences in the makers of violins with SACD. It is amazing. It's not just one thing that's better, it's the seductive whole. Just one guy's opinion.