" I've had SACDs in the collection for quite a few years now, and though what I hear is (to agree with the above post) perhaps a slight improvement over good old 44.1 (well, 96 now with my reclocker), I wonder if an average listener could hear the difference in a blind test? That's why I was so curious about hearing unconverted DSD."
Hopefully, we don't fall into the category of average listeners. But I think I should clarify the comments in my last post. I didn't mean to suggest that the difference between SACD and CD was very small. Its not. I think many people expected the difference to be like vinyl and CD. Some things a record can do fairly easily that it takes a very good CD player to equal. The difference SACD makes isn't that big, but the format is still clearly better than CD. If you were to get a universal player like the Ayre 5 U2, you can easily hear the differences between formats.
Hopefully, we don't fall into the category of average listeners. But I think I should clarify the comments in my last post. I didn't mean to suggest that the difference between SACD and CD was very small. Its not. I think many people expected the difference to be like vinyl and CD. Some things a record can do fairly easily that it takes a very good CD player to equal. The difference SACD makes isn't that big, but the format is still clearly better than CD. If you were to get a universal player like the Ayre 5 U2, you can easily hear the differences between formats.