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).
hdomke

Showing 2 responses by rar1

Hdomke:

You ask for feedback. You get it. Then, you question my truthfulness and/or my ability to make distinctions. It's been awhile since I have been treated like a 3rd grader. Thanks pal.

So, why not just listen for yourself? If you like, compare the Redbook CD and SACD only versions of the following titles and see if you can hear differences and if those differences are important to you.

1. Mark O Connor "Hot Swing Trio"
2. Blood, Sweat, & Tears - 2nd Album
3. Louis Armstrong Plays Fats Waller
4. Louis Armstrong plays W.C. Handy
5. Byrds' Greatest Hits

Have fun,

Rich
Hdomke:

If you don't already own any SACD's, now would not be the time to start acquiring a collection. You can hear the differences between Redbook CD and SACD, it's just whether the difference is big enough or important enough to matter to you.

From my comments, it's may seem obvious that I own a SACD collection and a player that what was "A" rated by Stereophile five years ago. The format never really got traction and I find myself buying SACD's more because I own a SACD player, than any other reason. I listen to a lot of opera and there are few SACD offerings.

Buy the best Redbook CD that you can afford and forget about SACD.

Regards,

Rich