SACD Player vs. CD Player in CD reproductions

In my experience I have found very little differences in CD players. Certainly not as much as I would have expected given the price differentials of some of the players I listened to. Were the higher priced units better "yes" but only with the subtle nuances within the music and only when comparing redbook to redbook. When comparing SACD to redbook on the same player SACD won everytime (IMO). Actually my old Philips CD-80 held its ground very well when compared to some of the much higher priced units. I was very surprised. However, SACD was usually always better to my ears than standard redbook irrespective of the player. SACD while still not high end analog (read vinyl) certainly is much closer to the real performance than redbook. Again just my thoughts

Chuck

I have never heard any two high-end cd players that sounded alike in any way. They all have their own unique sound.

In my experience, Sony's SACD players consistently offers the best SACD performance throughout its product range. Their redbook performance to me generally sounds flat and lifeless. To me, it is the subtle nuances and better reproduction of tonal colours within the music that makes music music. If you're not certain about SACD, I would say that even Sony's budget players are surprisingly good in SACD reproduction, perhaps mainly due to the superiority of the format over redbook.

With that said, I run a DAC with my Sony SACD player. SACD is important to me and I've been looking for a mid-priced solution that do both things as well as any player in its price range (in other words get good value). Unfortunately, I have not found one that I'm confident in yet. Since you talked about Musical Fidelity, take their $6500 Trivista player for example. From the reviews I've read, there's a general consensus that the Trivista's SACD performance is similar to the $3000 Sony XA9000ES. In fact, I haven't read of any mid-priced player that beat the XA9000ES in every way in SACD performance. So what does that mean? That I'm paying an extra $3500 +/- a thousand or two to get better redbook performance? I'll probably get similar or better performance buying a dedicated player or DAC, although I would save money on cables and have the advantage of convenience. Have you notice that most reviews of SACD players and of modded players talk about redbook comparisons only? Perhaps SACD performance is simply too similar to make meaningful comparisons?

Howie,

Having owned both the Sony and Tri-Vista I can tell you first hand, the Sony isn't even close on either SACD or CD.

I have been wondering about this issue. Recently I have made some comparisons between good remstered redbook CD's and their SACD counterparts. I have done this on a few different systems of varying quality (mid-fi, very hi-end). Some of the discs I have compared are Bill Evans -- Sunday at the Village Vanguard and R.E.M. Reveal. To my ears, the most recent redbook remaster is AS GOOD as the SACD or DVD-A. This comparison is using the same CDP, levelling the volume as much as possible.

Of course, the SACD blows away earlier version of the redbook, like first or second generation CD transfers from the 80's and early 90's. But when it comes to the most recent redbook remaster. The difference is insignificant (IMHO). Now, if it is a pure DSD recording, then that is by far the best sound I have ever heard -- but there are not enough of those for me to take it seriously and most of the music I love will never be newly recorded. I am seriously thinking of investing in the best redbook player I can afford, and selling my non-hybrid SACD's.

I am thinking SACD has been a good ride -- it opened up new genres f music listening for me (jazz and classical) -- but I think I may be done with it.