SACD 2 channel vs Redbook 2 Channel

I guess your sore Rsbeck because you are the guy who has admitted some Redbook layers sounded better than SACD on the same disc.
You are pretty close on my experience but not exactly right.
I won't bore everybody with the details.
Part of your problem is that you see a $750/£500 machine as low end-I think Sony will have sold vast quantities of machines below the $1000 many more than those players above it.
The fact that a "lower" end machine doesn't highlight the differences doesn't matter to you because you are way at the other end of the scale,to me it is highly damaging to the format.
It's also relevant to the original poster whom will probably be considering a lower end machine.
Doesn't it matter that low end SACD machines don't show the format off?
These forums are about opinions and experiences.
You've stated that SACD is bettter than vinyl-some people don't agree.
Shouldn't you be allowed to state that?
My experience isn't as simplistic as you make out but if it saying that makes you happy then fine.
However isn't your experience also limited because how many people in all reality can afford the Emm Labs equipment?
I won't expect a reply to these points because you seldom actually reply to the facts.
The crux of my argument is what happens on my Sony SACD player and NOTHING to do with my Ayre playback.
It's that simple.
Oh and now WOW I have had a real high end experience with the Linn Unidisk and it didn't do a lot for me.
Keep smiling and try avoid getting this threads pulled by losing your temper.

Sort of like saying with regard to Mexico, "I've only been to Tijuana, but I don't recommend going to Cancun."

Ben, I have not heard the Stones sacd's so I can't offer any input on those, but the DSOTM sacd sounds much better than any prior redbook release including the mofi version when played on equal players.

Are you saying that the DSOTM sacd played on a cheap Sony sounds only slightly better than the other layer played back on a hi end redbook player?.... if so, then that about says it all about which is superior.

I have some sacd's such as Bob Dylans Blood on the Tracks that sound better than the redbook version but not to the degree that you will find on other releases.
This is the original recordings limits that you hear whith any format.

Some people have raved about The Eagles Hotel California dvd-a and I find it to not only sound rolled off, but also sounds like some of the frequencys have been sucked right out of the recording.
I actually prefer the dcc redbook version.

The point I am trying to make is, we hear what we hear but any fair comparison should be done on equal gear imo.

When I compare redbook to sacd, I do not compare sacd played back on a hi end player to a 500.00 redbook player but rather something more equal in price.

Ben --

I am not sore -- I just think your comments should be put in the
context of your experience. After purchasing a high end Ayre
CD-only player without auditioning any high end CD/SACD players first -- and then campaigning against SACD on this
board -- you finally got some experience with a high end Linn
Universal Player, and found it "didn't do a lot for you." But --
again -- this just seems like another attempt to justify your purchase of a high end player without SACD capability -- so,
I see a theme here.

The question that the original poster asks with regard to CD and SACD is, "are they the same? Is one Superior?" Someone claimed that a high end CD player would out-perform a high end
SACD player. Since I believe I own one of the top CD players
available in the Emm Labs Dac6 and since it also has SACD
capability, I think my experience in this regard is exactly on the point. The highest end CD player I have experienced -- The Emm Labs Dac6 -- is amazing, but still -- the SACD playback is superior.

With regard to the Stones hybrid, "Let it Bleed," I have said that
I prefer the *MIXES* on some of the CD tracks, but that the SACD tracks still show the superiority of the *MEDIUM.*

Since this thread is about the *MEDIUM* of SACD compared to
the *MEDIUM* of redbook CD, my comments about the Let it Bleed hybrid can only be used to support the argument that the MEDIUM
of SACD is superior.

Further, I have also owned the Sony SCD XA777ES, which I
purchased on Audiogon used for $1,600 and this player -- which
has excellent redbook CD playback -- also demonstrated clear
Superiority on SACD playback.

So, my answer to the original poster, based on my experience, is that CD and SACD are not the same, a high end CD player will not out-perform a high-end SACD player, and SACD *is* superior to
CD.

My experience, and from what I read from others, is that even the cheapest DVD-A player sounds a lot better than CD, but to get good results from SACD requires a relatively expensive player. So the answer is: yes...SACD is superior to CD but only if you can afford an expensive player (which probably makes the CDs sound better also). So I don't give a lot of credit to the media. (Sorry Sony).