Is the SACD Format Flawed?

Also, Moncrief went out and got a McCormack UDP-1 multi-player, which gives one pause...if SACD is so bad and DVD-Audio is pretty well dead - why bother? (Plus we went on & on & on again about how bad SACD is, regurgitating what he had spent half a lifetime writing about in the first TWO SACD articles...I guess we're all deaf and stupid here on the 'Gon)
He pronounces the UDP-1 as the best player on the planet, after comparing it to a four year old Audio Aero Capitole Mark One, which has been improved-on hugely since with the Mk.II. What kind of critical review is that?
Verbal diarrhea - no credibility at all!

SACD is better than redbook. Period. If you have ears, you know this. I'll admit that redbook play can possibly equal SACD if you have gobs of money to spend, but on a reasonable budget, come on! SACD sounds like music and makes me want to not do all the other things I'm supposed to be doing and just listen to music. Like vinyl. CD actually turned me off of music until technology caught up and made it sound decent.
I am hopeful that SACD will survive as an audiophile format. I know it won't become mainstream, because we are in the minority, wanting the absolute best in sound quality.

Cheers.

In my personal opinion, DVD-Audio discs that are very well recorded sound better than CD or SACD, but still not quite as good as an excellent vinyl set-up.
From my experience, a well recorded DVD-Audio disc has better focus and top-end air than either a CD or a SACD.
Just my 2 cents.

Robm321, I think I kinda' argued above that redbook sounds better and perhaps a few others have also. And no it doesn't take 'gobs of money', as another claimed.

-IMO