SACD - what gives?

Eldartford is pretty much right, but part of the problem also is that some of those master tapes weren't so great to begin with, particularly with some labels who seemed to like to put mikes in musicians' laps or which had producers who wanted a "hot" mix to better catch your ear on a small transistor radio. In those cases, the warmth and lack of absolute ultimate resolution of vinyl are a Godsend, as they let you enjoy the music instead of hearing the recording.

When I attend a live concert, do we hear lots of details and something extra which is not "musical"? I would say "yes" we do, hope most people agree. If that did not prevent us from going live performance, it means that details or some noise will not kill a good music performance. For a properly set-up SACD and good engineering recording, I usually hear much less the machine added "edgy" sound than CD format.
If someone hate the details even though it is not "edgy", could I propose the performance is simpley not good? The orchestra simply did not perform well on the recording!?
I believe Beethoven will blame on the conductor or orchestra. Hardly I would believe he would blame on the machine which can bring out every note of his work.
If you were Michael Jordan, would you prefer a slot motion HDTV to show your move, or you like a blur tape and claim it is more "artist".

I've owned and listened to friends SACD players over the last few years, the one I owned having been moddified extensively taking it to a level well above the stock ( and quite good)unit. My previous impressions mirrored many of the above, it was good, often better than redbook, but not THAT much better. Throw in the software issues etc, and I guess I was less than enamored. Lost most of that gear in a spousal parting of the ways, and over the last year or so have re-geared, and in the process had the opportunity to listen to, and subsequently purchase the Meitner DAC 6 and transport. I have been reborn. This is like nothing I've ever heard. THIS is what I had in mind when I first heard of SACD: transparent, resolute, great bass without any of the digital "boom" that even the best redbook players had, musical and an ease of presentation that only vinyl had previously offered. Incredible micro-dynamics, and an ability to listen deeper into the music than I had previously experienced. No digititis, no fatigue, and seamless. I don't hear any problems with the upper registers, but then again I probably lost a good bit of hearing in that frequency range in the last year of marriage. And quite possibly Detlof has better hearing, I certainly respect and value his impressions. DSD recordings do sound a tad better than anolog sometimes, but not always, it seems to be recording dependent. Some of the DSD's sound so good it's like listening to a direct feed. So I really can't disagree with many of the above posts in their less than enthusiastic embracing of SACD, I was there. What I can say is my perspective has changed significantly after having heard this format through the Meitner. I hear the argument all the time that redbook is many times limited by the hardware, and redbook playback can be superb if the player gets it right. I think the same can be said of SACD. The software may not be the rate limiting factor. The difference between vinyl playback on a middle level tt and something such as the SME 30 or Rockport is amazing, and not because the mid level tt is not good. It's just very apparent how much more information the SME or Rockport extracts. I've found my recent experience with SACD to be similar. I'm not trying to convert anybody here, just relating my experience as a response to the initiating question. YMMV.

Maybe many of us had our hopes up too high, looking for immediate gratification thru sacd... No-one however condemns this format outright. Rather methinks the discussion puts forth a number of issues directly related to our enjoyment of MUSIC thru sacd.

-- for older recordings yet again, we are at the mercy of the remastering process; (i.e., it's a vulnerable process and thereby NOT a completely foolproof, repeatable thing) Call me deaf but, frankly, my S Yorke TT (no SiriusIII, no Goldmund reference, etc) smoked two excellent sacd players on B Walter.

-- for older recordings we ALREADY have LP and redbook -- i.e. the music is already in our library, or available in the market. If we're digital only and we wish to improve on our redbook player, we need to INVEST in NEW hi-performance h/ware...

-- Hi performance h/ware doesn't come cheap (yet; will it EVER?). Presently, it's the MOST expensive rig (but that gives us hope for the future)

-- the MANUFACTURING process is, again, a "process"; so, we hope the latest disc we buy belongs to the "good" batch. OK, we had that with all previous media.

-- the dsd originals DO sound better... Amen!
BUT i have to join Detlof in questioning the artistic value of these releases. I agree with Rcprince that the Mahler is interesting, not only for the music but for the ray of hope it transmits for the future. BUT having some (past) links with the music industry, I'm worried about its difficult financial state and wonder if the present day W Legge's will have the means to record great music. I hope they will.

The terrible thing is, I can't afford the Meitner and I believe that Mes (et aliae) has done the right thing in getting soemthing that gets out of the way of his music.

Worse, what to I do with a few thousand lp's and a few cd's? Ooof, buy the cd's in better format I suppose. I feel too poor, too old, too deaf. Think I'll spin a vinyl (BTW, I used to be VERY frustrated with analogue 25 yrs ago).

So, for the time being, I am condemned to wondering why the Insider refuses today to give me the esoteric info I know is on/in that black spinning plastic. (You know, overhang, VTA, azimuth, the arm bearings, the temperature, the psychology,
whatever).
Over & out

Beautiful post Greg!