SACD 2 channel vs Redbook 2 Channel

Socrates it is a nonsense to both say I am the only dissenting voice and that I am anti-SACD.
Try a search on the subject and see what it throws up.
Even better still try and work out the extensive amount of SACD players and software available 2nd hand.
I actively try to avoid the same old debate but apparently it is ok to make the same pro-SACD comments over and over again.
I drive to give a balanced viewpoint-I DO NOT say I am right-I explain what my experience is.
I ALWAYS state you should hear for yourself.
Say the original poster only has a limited amount of money to spend on a SACD machine?
Even those who are pro-SACD admit that at the lower end you will not hear a massive if any difference.
Is my experience not valid?
I actually saved a pro-SACD thread recently by making a post and getting the pro-SACD poster some answers.
For me it's about music and SACD limits very much my choices in listening to music.
I have to say I recently heard the Linn Unidisk playing SACD and I didn't hear anything to get excited about.
Disagree with me by all means but please do not misrepresent what I have said in the past.

SACD surely has superior performance over Redbook. I have AB comp with several album (try Kenny G Live US Redbook against SACD Hybrid or Diana Karl). SACD gives you much better detail, depth and musical.

Even the DSD layer can win over Redbook.

SACD player in SACD player sounds better then playing its DSD layer over a decent Redbook CD player.

If you feel not trust worthy, try yourself and you will know.

I've heard redbook versions of CDs sound way better on a top-quality CD player (usually a 24/192 upsampler type)than the SACD version on an expensive SACD player. The format is of no advantage unless you have a truly good quality player to translate that data into MUSIC.

I'm sorry for the confusion on my part. SACD is a vastly superior format than CD.

FWIW I have never been happy until the last year or so, with digital recordings and playback gear. After 20 years on the market CDs and CDPs are finally putting out good sound. The medium was flawed from the outset. But that's another arguement.

SACD is doing what CD pioneers claimed their original format would accomplish. The treble is not as harsh as redbook; the midrange is much more pure and natural than what we experienced before; the bass is deeper and fuller.
The sound from top to bottom is more natural.

I will still say that I prefer the sound of vinyl, but SACD is getting to where digital should be! If the format lasts long enough and the improvement continues as it did in redbook CDPs the potential improvement is incredible. This time they will be building on a solid foundation, as opposed to the sand they built redbook CD upon.

I hope that was more helpful!

Great stuff,
Right now I have a ModWright Pioneer CDP that is making great music for me with my existing CD collection. I use the Pioneer as a tranport with a Bel Canto DAC, plus I use a Decware pre-amp and TORII amp. The sound is very good and getting better. I have a few DVD-A selections that were, frankly, disappointing. I hear so much about SACD that I have been wondering if it is that much better than redbook.

I would rather get into vinyl that SACD or DVD-A, but I am afraid that the maintence and upkeep required for vinyl is more than I could handle.

As it is, at the local music shops where I live, vinyl has a bigger presence that SACD or DVD-A. In fact, vinyl takes up an entire wall where SACD and DVD-A combined take up a little more than half a rack, if that. Also, I have alot of friends that have never even heard of SACD or DVD-A. One of them bought a Police SACD and was frustrated because he couldn't play it on his redbook player until he noticed the label that read "for SACD player only."

I think a music listener could stay with redbook and be happy for the rest of this century if they so desired, right?