Is SACD really this lousy?

Bought a Sony SCD 1 and this is boring me in my system. Have had it for 2 weeks and just cannot get interested. Previously I had a CAL CL2o and we were astounded by how the DVD DAD's sounded-fall into the soundstage, reach out and touch the performers. Also the dynamic range used every bit of the VTL's 275 watts into the Maggies. The 44/16 side of the CL20 was at best lukewarm. This after coming off a Meridian 508 20. Then I tried the Wadia 270/27ix. In my system, all the write ups were proven wrong. Then I went to the Linn Ikemi. It was great except I couldn't forget that sound of the DVD's with the CL20. I went to get the Sony SCD 1. I don't have a dealer here but trusted it wouldn't dissappoint. WRONNNG! I called Steve Huntley at Great Northern Sound to see if he could do anything. He said it was a great player, it's just that Sony missed the boat when it came to the analog section. He is in fact drawing up a mod to deal with this very thing that he says will approach the Accuphase. That however will cost anywhere from $1500 roonies for the SACD side to $3500 for both. Anybody have any comment on this or am I the only one experiencing disappointment?
I'll just leave you alone.You got a small part of it.And forgive me, but Armstrong?He is not even a musician,let alone artist.I suggest Miles Davis instead.
David; The study you refer to by german psychology student J. Ackerman, and reported on by M. Sauer in Jan. and Feb. 2000, Stereophile issues has not reported statistical significance and so, at least this time,it is only opinion, speculation, conjecture, or anecdotal evidence that Ackerman's hypothesis (unstated) is true. No reputable scientific journal would publish a study without statistical significance, and the 95% confidence level (that the hypothesis is correct) is the desireable level to achieve, but the 90% level, while weaker, is publishable. But Stereophile is in the business of selling magazines, and this particular subject took up quite a few "sort of interesting" pages. If Ackerman's study were statistically significant, I would think that Stereophile would have followed up and reported it by now-- but I've seen nothing. As for the girl that heard Ackerman's music 150+ times, M. Sauer made much of this, but in fact it amounts to an uncontrolled study with only one "sample"-- meaningless (except to the girl). I once conducted a study that involved the collection of hundreds of samples over a year and a half only to find out (from statisticians) that my hypothesis only had a confidence level of 52%, ie meaningless; frustrating and disappointing. I hope this post hasn't excessively bored Audiogon readers, but Ackerman's study needs some perspective. Craig.
Craig, your observations may or may not be entirely accurate, but I wonder if you are predisposed to assume that Stereophile's article would have little or no validity in the first place?.......David, please, I'm still evaluating the tube amp. I like it, but it's hard to tell exactly what I like about it. Relax, I'll talk plenty about it later.
And I've heard Britney say she hasn't had surgery, but I'd really need to see her sans top to decide for sure. They can be quite perky and nice when they're short on years, as some of us might now...And gee, I hate her "music". That fad certainly will die out quickly, it can't be too soon for me. Problem is, it'll be replaced by something worse, like monkeys and kangaroos gettin their groove on...or something.
Hi Carl; My predispositions are not relevant here (but I think I have an open mind). The statistical significance of Ackerman's study is highly relavant (but unreported). Universaties will often informally publish (in-house) MS and PHD theses even without statistical significance-- after all, negative information can be valuable too, and in these cases, it is the effort and quality that is graded. Reputable scientific journals don't publish non-significant results because they can't afford to-- methods and results have to stand up to peer review. I would just like to see the FINAL result(s) of Ackerman's study. If they aren't significant, I'd guess we'll never see them though. Craig