I love SACD. I use it exclusively in a dedicated listening room in only a two channel system. I bought a Sony 333 in 2001. It replaced a Nakamichi CD2 that I had bought new in 90/91. It was a definite improvement in regular CD over the Nak, (it made the Nak sound kind of like a cracker jack plastic kazoo-and I love and own other Nak gear). In SACD it was a whole other ballpark. Very very clean but full. The people (and I am one of them) say analog like. Incidentally, I own and use two turntables and never gave up records/analog. I personally prefer SACD over analog. I just bought a SCD 777ES a month ago from another Goner and just love it. It has better depth and extends the image/soundstage farther out to the sides than the 333 on both CD/SACD on my Logans. I recommend you listen for yourself, but I honestly cannot understand why SACD which was introduced, marketed, and designed for the audiophile market doesn't have more boosters/public acceptance.
Nothing is perfect and recording quality varies on SACD just like redbook or records for that matter. However, on quality recordings I think it is a big step up from redbook.
I have a "good" setup, CJ tube pre & amp, Thorens and JVC tt's, Revox R to R, and Martin Logans. I am extremely impressed with SACD. Go Listen!!!
Have Fun
Nothing is perfect and recording quality varies on SACD just like redbook or records for that matter. However, on quality recordings I think it is a big step up from redbook.
I have a "good" setup, CJ tube pre & amp, Thorens and JVC tt's, Revox R to R, and Martin Logans. I am extremely impressed with SACD. Go Listen!!!
Have Fun