SACD vs Regular CD's

I really tried to make SACD work, but ultimately, I decided to stay with CDs. In my case, I found that multi-function players did not play CDs as well as a dedicated CD player at similar cost. I got as far as a 5K player before giving up. Perhaps the more expensive players do a better job with CD. Second, if you are only going 2-channel, you have to remember that many of the intitial recordings were recorded digitally at 16/44, so you can never get more bits out of it. In your case, the Meridian is a very good CD player and I don't think you're going to better it with a cheaper SACD player, despite the theoretical advantage of hi-rez. All this aside, I was still considering one of those new Oppo 105s, which play SACDs and give you Blu Ray as well. Seems like it would be fun to fool around with.

I would agree with some that you will not best a great CD player with a cheap SACD player. I would suggest the Ayre C5xeMP as a universal source. It does both formats incredibly well. The difference on a good system is definite.

To my ears, some SACDs sound much better than the CD of the same music, others not so much. The quality of the original recording and what happened to it on the way to the SACD or CD have a lot to do with how different the two sound, of course.

There is something I like about the sound of some SACDs though, an ease or flow to the music, even compared to high res files.

To all who have responded, many, many thanks. I do appreciate the responses.

Regards,

AEW

One thing your Meridian has is trifield, which there are few recordings and players that can process it. You might search out recordings that have it. Just something I forgot to mention.