Redbooks: as good on Sony SACD as on Cary 303?

I just traded in my Sony SCD777es for the new Cary 306/200. I couldn't be more thrilled! After having the Sony for about 6 months, it seemed I was just not satisfied with what I was hearing. I was constantly looking for other players even though I had a brand new one on my shelf. Sony SACD was very detailed and open but still had a digital or bright sound to it (not to mention the lack of available titles)! I never A/B'd them side by side but I have no question as to the improvement I felt with the Cary. I found the musicality I was missing. With the Cary, the warmth and fullness was more present and the detail was there. The biggest surprise was that the sound stage seemed to double in size! Cary blows the Sony redbook out of the water, no doubt. The SACD on the Sony is good but I much prefer the melodiousness of the Cary.

If you want a bright, detailed, hard edged, in-your-face type player, Sony is definately the one for you. If you still want the detail but like a warmer, sweeter, enveloping player, you should find a way to audition the Cary 306/200!

In my experience, I've found that THD (total harmonic distortion) and S/N (signal to noise ratio) are the best indicators of sound quality - newer chipsets, increased power supplies and DACs notwithstanding.

For example, the Cary 303 has a spec'd THD of 0.0008%(1 kHz) and a S/N of 120 dB(1 kHz). The Cary 306 has a spec'd THD of 0.0008%(1 kHz) and a S/N of 122 dB(1 kHz). On paper, the 306 should sound a tad better because of the higher S/N - the THD is the same. This appears to be the consensus of posts I've read about the two players. I've heard both myself in a side by side comparison and the 306 was just a little bit better, but not much - IMHO the sonic differences were so slight that the 306 didn't merit the increased cost.

I think folks get so caught up in the chipset/power supply/DAC "thing" that they disregard basic sonic measurements. These measurements are quite palpable. IMHO, all the commotion about SACD vs. DVD-A vs. HDCD vs. Redbook CD is just a bunch of hooey. I don't think format should be the deciding issue. In fact, one can read about many instances where a high-quality CD player (playing Redbook CDs) sounds better than a lower quality SACD player. Most times, the quality differential is in the sonic measurements of the machines, NOT the chipsets, etc.

In short, first look to the specs. of the player(s) you have in mind(regardless of format) to weed out inferior machines. Then, A/B audition (if possible) to choose what sounds best to your ears.

People get caught in the hype. That's spelled BS. You're right. The upsampling vs oversampling vs this chip vs that chip is all marketing crap trying to get people to blow their money on different products and then spending absurd money on the software. Since CD is the "perfect" media, why do we need any more?

Blues_man, you are joking aren't you? To a certain extent I agree that its marketing crap but on the other hand there have been significant improvements in the digital domain over the past few years. 18-bit DAC's vs 24-bit DACs. Improvements to the digital filters like the Burr-Brown DF1704 vs Pacific Microsonics PMD-100 and PMD-200. CD isn't "perfect" media and if all CD players were the same, I'd be using a $99 Emerson or other brand from JC Penny or Sears.

There have been some improvements in hardware, but mostly hardware has become cheaper not better. I still think that the HDCD system is the best and should be used by all manufacturers for CDs. Digital filters are getting better. They couldn't get much worse. How is a 24 bit DAC better than a 20 bit or an 18 or a 16. Again just marketing. CDs are 16 bit. CDs ARE THE perfect media. The audio industry wouldn't lie to us would they? They told us 20 years ago that this would be perfect sound. Do you think then that this was all marketing hype?