SACD is it worth it?

I have had SACD's since their inception and I thought they were wondeful until a I tried CD players from Bluenote. They have two models the Koala and the Stibbert. These units made the sweetest music I have ever experienced and that was from redbook CDs. Save your money and buy a new CD player that is light years above what has been avaialbe no matter what their price was. CD's that I found to be unlistenable sounded better than SACD's on my 5K SACD player. Avoid they hype and make every CD in collection sound better then the SACD. Don't waste your money and for a modest sum you can enjoy your entire collection like never before. Don't take just my word for, read the article in Asoulte Sounds latest issue about the Stibbert

there are at least a few companies who initially shied away from making their CDPs SACD-compatible but have now done so (CARY, for example). this would seem to suggest that SACD's oft-predicted demise may still be a few years off. it might not cost you any more to at least have the option of SACD, especially if you're buying a CDP now. as mentioned, you can always get better DACs later for redbook.

If you don't have a TT, I would definately get a player that does SACD or universal. Make sure it playes redbook well also, or get an outboard DAC. Some of the posts above seem as if you are choosing between redbook and SACD, but you get both. You pay a little more for the SACD, but that's your whole front end in one box. SACD (pure DSD) is better than redbook otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. Don't bother with the SACD disks that aren't pure DSD, they aren't any better than redbook and sometimes worse.

On the other hand, if you are into vinyl (or thinking about it), it betters both redbook and SACD by losing that digital edge. And most of the jazz and classical software that you can get on SACD, you can also get on LP and much more. So the ultimate would be TT and good redbook player. It get's a little expensive to have 3 different formats, so I don't recommend all 3 formats, but that's an option and frankly once you get into vinyl, you may have a hard time justifying spending time listening to CD anyway.

IMHO,
Rob

I'm firmly in the cd camp. I feel that the small library and inconsistent sound quality of sacd's makes them a worthless proposition for my money. I have an excellent cd player and think that redbook replay, both in terms of hardware and software seems to be at an all time high. Also, it may be my innate cheapness, but the idea of rebuying music I already have in a new format is unappealing, especially when sacd remasters are from the same analog or pcm masters as cd's. Most new music that's truly dsd mastered isn't of much interest to me, especially at $25 a pop. Besides just think into the future as downloaders abandon cd, we'll be able to get almost anything we want in the used bins as we do with lp's today.

I can't see the point of getting into SACD now, if you only have a two-channel system. The improvement is debatable, and the selection is always going to be anemic. But if you have a 5.1 system, SACD probably offers your largest selection of uncompressed multichannel music. And excellent SACD or universal players can be had at a very low premium over CD-only machines.