SACD 2 channel vs Redbook 2 Channel

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?

Not exactly...try LP's, it makes the above challenge a mute point.

Matchstikman you really need to try and demo a SACD player in your own system.
As regards the software SACD has a large slant towards Jazz and Classical-there are a few new rock/pop/alternative releases but not many.
Of course there are quite a few rereleases-the most notiable being the Stones,Dylan and The Police.
The double edge sword with SACD hybrid releases is that the Redbook layer is remastered too,I have found at my level (check my system)the Redbook layer is enough for me because my more expensive CD player is my best playback machine and these discs sound (mostly)great but also on my SACD player(a mere $750 list in it's day) the difference between layers is not noticeable to any great extent.
It's long been my contention that SACD will survive probably only as an audiophille format and I think the releases so far pretty much reflect that.
Sales are up on SACD but I do think this is due to the big name hybrid releases such as Floyd,The Stones,Dylan and The Police-all of which sound great on Redbook and the vast majority were probably bought for this.
Try for yourself.
Oh and I won't bother trying to get some manners out of some people on these discussions,they seem incapable of it.