SACD - M. Davis - So What

Ben, I think your experience sums up SACD.

The two things I hear SACD do much better than CD are the two things you listed. First, there is a foundation to the music's lower registers that is absent from all but the exotic CD players of the world. I would say that from 200 Hz on down, SACD is much closer to what we are aiming at; reality. No other upgrade, preamp, amp, or speaker can provide this level of improvement when spinning CD.

Second, SACD is more clean and clear than CD. Much more. You mention detail, and I think that is a fair description. Midrange and treble offer that greater insight into the music, but not in a harsh, sterile, or anylytical way. Rather, it is more flowing and graceful. I often think it's analogous to a cable upgrade in this area.

No, I still think that vinyl is superior to SACD. Mostly, in terms of realness. It may always be that way. But, for now, SACD is the format that will take the baton from CD leading us down the next road. Once companies beyond Sony and Philips start to really work on this technology, it will move in the direction we want to go, upward. Some company will be the Audio Alchemy of SACD. I just read that Musical Fidelity will be introducing an SACD player. As will Audio Aero. The drip is getting faster. DVD - A is not where our way lies. 5.1 channel and the need for a tv monitor? No, thank you.

Instead of chasing Sony's "new, more, and better" by throwing in multichannel, SACD high - end companies should invest in making this a better sounding stereo format with the same determination that they improved upon Sony's interpretation of what CD sounds like. I don't mean to say that multichannel SACD players should not be produced. If the software has multichannel, the player should reproduce it. Just that I have heard multichannel(hated it), and will keep my system stereo for the forseeable future.

On Kind Of Blue, my experience also parallels yours. I especially like the improvement in upright bass. More shimmer to the cymbals is also appreciated. Better in every way to the 20 bit CD. If you are a Kind of Blue lunatic with a SACD, you need to buy the SACD!

Trelja-er think you picked me up wrong the Mastersound CD sounded better on the bass than the SACD!
My girlfriend who's hearing is much better than mine agreed also.
She did mention the bass was more subtle on the SACD but overall she could hear much more detail (fingers on the strings on the opening bars)on the CD.
I think from the very very little I heard your description in general is true about SACD but not with So What in my system at the moment that is why I asked the question.
I found this track to be a major disappointment and what worried me a little it was the only track I was really familar with.

Others have described Kind of Blue as one of the major disappointments of SACD. On the other hand, I have a Japanese SACD of In a Silent Way, which is quite excellent.

It took about 500 hours for my 9000ES to sound it's best. Give it a few weeks and tell us what you think then.

Hey Ben, I'm not familiar with either the SACD or Mastersound (mine is the Columbia/Legacy), but...the details that you mentioned (fingers on strings) are the sorts of details that tend to rise to the top and become more audible the more a signal is compressed. Compressing the bass *could* produce the differences that you noticed. I'm not saying that's necessarily the case in this situation, but it's ALWAYS possible with modern redbook CDs (the labels have all gone compression crazy). One way to tell if that is the case is to listen to the dynamic range of both. If one is compressed more than the other it will not have the same range. Of course, a compressed signal could sound better. It all depends.

By the way...were you playing the redbook CD on the same machine, or a nicer CDP?? If you used different players, the difference could be due to better redbook CDP vs. cheap Sony SACD circuitry.