I recommend SACD even at this date because even if you can't hear a difference between a Stereo SACD program and its redbook counterpart (I can hear a big difference, by the way), you surely can detect a monumental difference between a multichannel SACD program and a stereo redbook version, if you're willing to set up a multichannel playback system. Amazon.com has thousands of used SACDs available at a fraction of their list prices. I have bought hundreds of them and have enjoyed them immensely.
For best CD playback is SACD needed?
I’m looking to significantly upgrade my stereo. I am planning to use CDs as my only source and I listen primarily to Classical and Jazz. Should my CD player have SACD capability?
I ask this for two reasons.
1. SACD seems to be fading away. Many new high end players (like the Nagra CD player) don’t support it. Most new music releases are NOT in SACD, in fact it seems that the number of new SACD discs is on the decline.
2. Some would argue that even though SACD clearly has better numbers on paper, that in the real world it is impossible even for experienced listeners to hear a difference. I’m referring here to the September 2007 issue of the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society (Volume 55, Number 9).
I ask this for two reasons.
1. SACD seems to be fading away. Many new high end players (like the Nagra CD player) don’t support it. Most new music releases are NOT in SACD, in fact it seems that the number of new SACD discs is on the decline.
2. Some would argue that even though SACD clearly has better numbers on paper, that in the real world it is impossible even for experienced listeners to hear a difference. I’m referring here to the September 2007 issue of the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society (Volume 55, Number 9).