SACD- my intial thoughts....

It stands to reason that a well made sacd player will sound excellent on sacd and excellent on redbook by virtue of its excellent construction and attention to detail -- So, a Sony SACD 1 should sound better then a SCD333ES on redbook and SACD. Better quality, better sound, right?

I understand that there are exceptions to every rule, and comparing different technologies gets us into the apples and oranges thing. My specific point is, that we should not expect a revolution out of a $500 player just because its SACD. It takes a lot (parts, engineering, good recordings, etc.) to make good music. That's my two cents....

I guess the point I was trying to make was this.
The reason DVD has been such a massive success was that everybody could see the improvement in picture quality and sound over video tape-word of mouth and actual experience has made this format massively successful.
Whilst it wouldn't be fair to expect that kind of difference on an audio format-I think it's crucial a new format exhibits reasonable advantages over what has went before.
The price of the player hasn't really got much to do with it if that player cannot exhibit a reasonable improvement on a hybrid disc.
Many audiophiles have given up on the format due to this,even at the top range and well the lack of software arguement has been made many many times.
Joe Public just isn't going to be impressed when he hears the SACD layer on the new Stones discs on that Sony DVD player he just bought because the CD layer sounds just as good.
Why is he going to support the format?
I don't think it should be underestimated how damaging this could be.
SACD as a format is just trickling through to the public,the longer the present problems continue the more likely it'll never get the word of mouth support any new format needs to break through.
I respect those who are enjoying the improvements that SACD brings them.
However I think there are just as many who hear only marginal improvements.
I want the format to succeed and I believe it has potential but I fail to be convinced that it will even though inevitably I will be supporting it.

Some people don't care sound quality, and some are not well educated to tell the difference.

I am an engineer, so let me put it in this way.
Higher sample and more bits of info need more data storage. What you gain from there? Higher sample rate will have higher bandwidth and therefore make it easier for smooth high frequency sounding. A similar DAC/amp CKT will sound more refined and smooth on SACD format. More bit will give you more dynamic sound. For example, most of music are in the middle loud range, so a CD will give 12 bit (just for example) to record the music to cover enough detail for most of music in moderate loud range. However it leaves only 6 bit for very loud or quiet level. Therefore a CD might lose the resolution or layers when the music comes to very loud or whisper quiet.

In real life, a SONY 775 playing SACD rivals redbook player >$500 (even >1K redbook machine). Why? a higher sampling rate makes DAC/amp CKT easier to achieve high resolution and smooth sound. So 775 may not have a fancy OP or DAC, but still not bad for SACD. A redbook player has to have expensive DAC/amp to sing not be edgy. A expensive redbook can get rid of edgy sound by good DAC/amp design (which SACD can do too), but they will not have the same layers (namely dynamics) as LP/SACD.

For dynamics, did you ever wonder why a pop CD always give you the same punch in the music? Some are from electronic instrument, and some are from the compressed data in CD format. They ain't sound bad acoustically, but just lacks of layers like drummer is repeating his work without emotion. Try to hear a LP or SACD playing symphony, the drum or bass/cello winding low freq. They have loud, Loud+, very loud, damn loud...., suddenly all layers are there, and the music is more exciting. Then you realize that the performers are more creative than you thought hearing in CD. It sound more like a human playing not a robot. The extra bits help SACD to sing more like a analog source.

Of course, some people don't care, they are happy with what they have. Some enjoy VCR as much as DVD, nothing wrong with it. You save $$ if so. But "people don't care" is not "there is no differece".

Some do care and maybe they are willing to buy the products which makes music more expressive.

Bluefin-it's interesting what your saying my friend was saying his biggest disappointmet with SACD was the LACK of dynamics.
As you explained he thought the potential was there for a big improvement over CD-he expected to be blown away.
He simply can't hear any improvement and he has a reasonably serious system.
All the theory in the world is great but if you can't hear it,you can't hear it.
The only difference we both can hear on SACD at this stage is a smoother sound which shouldn't be dismissed but dynamics,detail and even realism?
Not yet.

Tbadder brings up an excellent point about the hybrid discs. I don't have SACD but bought 2 SACD/CD of the Rolling Stones recently. I was so impressed with the sound I was thinking how much better could it be on SACD? Some of the tracks were better than others and I did notice more clarity and greater dynamics. I was dissapointed with "Sympathy for the Devil" which had a thin sounding bass line (and I love that bass line too!) but most of the tracks are great! I too think that all SACD's should be hybrid discs because after I own enough of them, I'd probably buy an SACD player. The other thing Sony needs to do is put out some more "popular" re-releases - i.e., albums that have a high sales track record. DVD-A is all over Sony on this aspect, with a bunch of great releases, including the release of Pink Floyd's Dark side...Moon later this month. Suprising we haven't seen Sony scrambling to put out the Beatles on SACD.