Terry9 says:
"Were it true that ultrasonic distortion was inaudible, SACD would be no improvement on CD, which is not observed. Therefore, I stand by the assertion that total distortion is what is important, until it is proved otherwise."
Actually, on various hybrid CD/SACDs from Telarc and Mobile Fidelity, so the recording is the same, this is exactly what I have observed. I still have very good hearing, and on a moderately high-end system (Revel Salon 2s) I can't hear any improvement with the SACD layer over the CD layer. Not a bit.
I suppose there will be those that say my SACD player isn't good enough (Sony 5400ES), or that I'm not a good listener, or whatever, but if there is a difference it is very subtle.
I think a lot of CDs don't sound very good because they weren't mastered very well. I think a lot of SACDs sound better than CDs because they were mastered well. But I've never heard an SACD that sounds better than the best CDs I own.
I have downloaded a few high-res files, but I can't directly compare them to CD, because I don't have CD versions. But the high-res stuff are all purist recordings, so naturally they sound good.
Is analog better than any digital format? Better for recording than 24/192? 30ips 1/2 inch tape is pretty good, but can it compete with a noise floor at least 20db lower? Or no wow and flutter at all. If I were trying to make the world's best recording I'd start with digital.