For best CD playback is SACD needed?


I’m looking to significantly upgrade my stereo. I am planning to use CDs as my only source and I listen primarily to Classical and Jazz. Should my CD player have SACD capability?

I ask this for two reasons.
1. SACD seems to be fading away. Many new high end players (like the Nagra CD player) don’t support it. Most new music releases are NOT in SACD, in fact it seems that the number of new SACD discs is on the decline.

2. Some would argue that even though SACD clearly has better numbers on paper, that in the real world it is impossible even for experienced listeners to hear a difference. I’m referring here to the September 2007 issue of the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society (Volume 55, Number 9).
hdomke
Rich,
You ask for feedback. You get it. Then, you question my truthfulness and/or my ability to make distinctions. It's been awhile since I have been treated like a 3rd grader. Thanks pal.
Please forgive me if my post came across that way, that was not my intention. It's just that I am naturally skeptical, I'm from Missouri, the "Show Me" State.

So, why not just listen for yourself?
Actually, I have been trying. I got an SACD copy of "Kind of Blue" by Miles Davis to compare to the Redbook Version. So far, I can't hear much of a difference, and I fear some of the differences may be due re-mastering.

I am a novice at this. You have more experience, that is why I am asking for opinions.
You say you listen primarily to classical and jazz. As far as classical releases go, the marketplace still seems to be supporting a fair number of sacd releases. I'm thinking of the European "boutique" labels like BIS, Channel Classics, Pentatone, and several others -- they continue to put out new, multichannel DSD recordings and are getting acclaim for their musicality and good sound. There are many more new issues every month than I can afford to buy.

I have a player that combines upsampling CD, multi-ch SACD, and HDCD capabilities, and I'm glad I have all three. True DSD recordings are indeed sweeter and more characterful. But I think the multi-ch also contributes significantly to the difference, and the US audiophile audience has largely not gone there. So that might be a factor for you. Also, I find that the upsampled CDs are much, much closer to DSD than what you could hear even from the best players ten years ago.

My classical listening is mainly instrumental: piano, chamber music, and symphonies. (Some of the Living Stereo reissues have been revelatory.) But in terms of vocal, it is possible that the new hi-rez dvd formats will largely supplant all sorts of audio-only playback. That is, we'll all be *watching* opera with TruHD or other enhanced audio tracks (again, multi-ch capable) in future. So you may want to wait a while to see if that takes off (not much sign of it yet -- the first HD-DVD opera dvds are just now being released.)
If you cannot hear much of a difference, then I would ask what are you listening through? Looking at your system link, my guess is that you are basing your conclusions from a $200 Onkyo receiver and MB quart speakers. Sorry to be blunt but I don't think that that gear will be able to show you the differences between SACD and CD.

Forget what the journals say - higher resolution sources will be clearly evident through better equipment and will go a long way to change your perspective. I recommend you audition different players and setups at a dealer and see for yourself.
Hiend Sony SACD is Stereophile Class A and can be brought to level with a $5-6K outlay with purchase and then modification from folks like Dan Wright that make the equivalent to $20K offerings from Linn,Meridian,etc.
Sony,Marantz,and Denon are all good stock performers at reasonable prices.And all three have a number of hot rodders.Now you have to think about some "HD" obsolescence.
But ones Red Book CD,and SACD's still sit thier so if your ready to go do it and it another type of discs sticks (SACD seems to be cooling off and may be dropped as have so many other formats.
Cheers
Chazz