Is the SACD Format Flawed?

I don't think SACD is flawed. It is like any source, if you listen to a well recorded SACD, it sounds wonderful. If you listen to a poorly recorded disk, well, it sounds pretty rough.
In a good overall system, CD's can sound excellent. You'll never get that analogue sound out of them but they are more than good. SACD comes closer, much closer on good recordings.
I haven't heard a multi-channel disk that I cared for but its kinda fun to fool around with.
SACD would have worked based on its superior format but what did it offer regular folks who make up most of the market? Absolutely nothing. No big bucks there!
SACD IS a better format than CD. It is unfortunate that its possibilities will never be realized. Sony kind of gave up before it got started. I don't think anyone ever accused Sony of being a well run company. They come out with the periodic good component to tweek interest then go back to making the "How to make money" stuff.

I love SACD on my EMM labs equipment. A big improvement over CD. How does SACD compare to CD on your APL player? For me I don't want to listen to CDs on the EMM. SACDs are very close to "perfect" in many ways provided it is a great recording. Most of my friends fealt I was "done" in my stereo chase. But CD is still wanting & Vinyl is great & depending on the LP & who you speak to is very close in sound to SACD as far as the format is much closer to music than CD. This is just my experience.

Check out this article, it tells some of the story.
http://www.iar-80.com/page17.html
There are a few other similar online reports, I will try to find them as well.
I agree that there are some very good SACD recordings, but that's not the question. It seems that DVD-A should be far superior, if done correctly.
Sonny

"ooooo, sssss"? I always thought it was "boo, hsss".

Iseekheils, very interesting read. IAR had an older report that I saw several years ago but I can't remember if this is the same article by Moncrief or more of an updated follow up.

In either case, if there's any truth to Moncrief's words, then a lot of people have been and continue to be dup'ed.

And I am curious what others think this may say about Ed Meitner the person and his gear.

I myself have owned a Sony SCD-1 SACD/cd player for the last 3 years and love it. I think it plays both formats well, but redbook cds always seems a bit more lively or energetic than the SACD.

Some of the more significant and/or recent ways I've been able to obtain a more lively sound is through certain line conditioners, misc. electrical tweaks, cryo-treatments, and implementing engergy transfer vibriation control methodologies.

I rarely play SACDs anymore, but when I do, I simply do not notice the same improvements in the upper frequencies that I do with Redbook cds. Perhaps Moncrief's explanation explains why.

I think Moncrief is a real straight shooter and perhaps head and shoulders over most other reviews/columnists. But I don't think the SACD sound has been anywhere near as bad as he claims, but then again, I hear rumor that he has some extraordinary hearing abilities.

I'm sticking with redbook as I still think there's a lot more musical info yet to be extracted.

Thanks for the url pointer. It's good read.

-IMO

I have read from a couple of sources that SACD's actually have less resolution, dynamic range, and a lower signal-to-noise ratio in the mid and upper treble frequencies than regular CD's!
Has anyone else read about this, or heard this?