Are "Redbook Only " CD players Obsolete?

Gunbei,
It really is great, it got a rave in HiFi+. In fact it's so good I'm constantly trying to sell it or trade it, always the mark of a great piece of gear. What the heck is wrong with me anyway?

Metralla: That is not hard to believe. I agree that the redbook performance of most Sony SACD players I have heard is only adequate at best. They excel at SACD only, unless, as you argue, they are modified. Then the redbook and SACD improve greatly. I still think modified players are a quality, cost effective, way to go if you want a multiformat player. For me though, there is a comfort level in owning modified gear that I just don't have. I am probably going to dump my single-sided Hi-Rez discs and save up for a great redbook only player.

SACD did get me into jazz and classical music though, so I do not consider it a waste of time and will keep the vast majority of my hybrids.

Er Dennish. Time to fish or cut bait. The inmates have spoken. LOL
Larry

and like everyone can afford a $2000 player

I've had the Marantz dv 9500 for a week now. It's gotten a lot of use so I would say it's broken in. I have several sacd's and cd's of the same title that I've compared very carefully. I can't tell the difference, they sound identical!!! Excellent, but identical. I also have a half dozen dvd-a discs and they all sound inferior to the same title cd. All listening has been in stereo. I was going to sell my Sony cdp-707es, but now I'm thinking I should sell the Marantz. I believe the Marantz sounds as good as the Sony, but no better, and the Sony is 11 years old and works perfectly. The Sony also weighs around 40lbs and may outlast me. The only reason to keep the Marantz is the convenience of an all in one player, plus the ability to play surround sound sacd's which I will soon be able to play. Overall, I believe the Marantz is a fine product if you don't have a high quality cd player, but I am disappointed that sacd's sound no better than cd's, and dvd-a is inferior to both.