SACD 2 channel vs Redbook 2 Channel

Ben --

I am not sore -- I just think your comments should be put in the
context of your experience. After purchasing a high end Ayre
CD-only player without auditioning any high end CD/SACD players first -- and then campaigning against SACD on this
board -- you finally got some experience with a high end Linn
Universal Player, and found it "didn't do a lot for you." But --
again -- this just seems like another attempt to justify your purchase of a high end player without SACD capability -- so,
I see a theme here.

The question that the original poster asks with regard to CD and SACD is, "are they the same? Is one Superior?" Someone claimed that a high end CD player would out-perform a high end
SACD player. Since I believe I own one of the top CD players
available in the Emm Labs Dac6 and since it also has SACD
capability, I think my experience in this regard is exactly on the point. The highest end CD player I have experienced -- The Emm Labs Dac6 -- is amazing, but still -- the SACD playback is superior.

With regard to the Stones hybrid, "Let it Bleed," I have said that
I prefer the *MIXES* on some of the CD tracks, but that the SACD tracks still show the superiority of the *MEDIUM.*

Since this thread is about the *MEDIUM* of SACD compared to
the *MEDIUM* of redbook CD, my comments about the Let it Bleed hybrid can only be used to support the argument that the MEDIUM
of SACD is superior.

Further, I have also owned the Sony SCD XA777ES, which I
purchased on Audiogon used for $1,600 and this player -- which
has excellent redbook CD playback -- also demonstrated clear
Superiority on SACD playback.

So, my answer to the original poster, based on my experience, is that CD and SACD are not the same, a high end CD player will not out-perform a high-end SACD player, and SACD *is* superior to
CD.

My experience, and from what I read from others, is that even the cheapest DVD-A player sounds a lot better than CD, but to get good results from SACD requires a relatively expensive player. So the answer is: yes...SACD is superior to CD but only if you can afford an expensive player (which probably makes the CDs sound better also). So I don't give a lot of credit to the media. (Sorry Sony).

Ears-just for the record the only comparison I do between Redbook and SACD is on the Sony.
Which I find surprising.
Comparisons with the Ayre would be largely pointless due to the obvious price difference.

Rsbeck-really my final words this time.
If you see a theme fine,if I was sure I could have bought a SACD player that gave me the Redbook playback quality of the Ayre-I would have bought it and hopefully got the benefits of SACD a machine of that quality .
If I could afford an Emm Labs system I would have it and if eveything I hear about it is true then I would obviously reinvest in SACD software.
I think you fail to realise at your level you get a win,win situation below it there is much more debate.
I am not anti-SACD-it is a more complicated issue than just to come to the conclusion that it is a better or worse format-there are many different levels and issues within the argument.
As for the Stones SACD/Hybrids as far as I can hear and know the mixes on the SACD and Redbook layers are identical.