SACD Opinions: Gimmick? Like it? Don't? Why?

SACD sounds more natural -- the differences between CD and
SACD are subtle, but profound.

I would not recommend a universal player. This is not the way to
get great sound. I own the Yamaha U-player, which I bought for
$1,000. Then, I moved up to a Sony SCD XA 777 ES CD/SACD
player, which I bought slightly used on Audiogon for $1,600. The sound quality of the Sony was a quantum leap forward. You pay a sonic price when they try to stuff everything in one box. I would recommend splitting your digital play-back into two boxes. Get a dedicated CD/SACD player like the Sony and then get a DVD/DVD-A player such as the Denon 1200. You'll get better sound, a top notch DVD player and you'll have everything covered -- plus, your upgrade path is easier and more cost effective from two boxes. If you want to upgrade from a U-player, you'll end up using your U-player as a very expensive DVD player with capabilities you no longer use. Spend a little more to get two boxes and you'll be richly rewarded.

Eldart -- I understand what you're saying, but I think we're talking about the difference between theory and reality. In theory, there
*may* be no reason a U-player like the Yamaha or the Denon
should be sonically inferior to a dedicated CD/SACD player like the Sony SCD XA 777ES. In fact, with all of the theoretical savings
in production costs, it *may* be that the less expensive U-Player
*should* be sonically competitive with the more expensive Sony.
But, in reality, there's no competition. The dedicated CD/SACD player is a quantum leap forward. So, I don't recommend the
U-Players. Perhaps the producers of the Universal Players are
charging a premium for putting everything in one box rather than
using the theoretical savings to increase the quality of the parts.
The Sony did MSRP for $3,000 which is three times the price of
these U-players and doesn't have DVD or DVD-A play-back, so
perhaps that explains it. Bottom line -- I still don't recommend the Universal Players -- I recommend spending a little more money to get player like the Sony, used, and combine it with something like a Denon 1200. You'll get much better sound, you'll have all your
formats covered, top notch DVD play-back, and your upgrade path will be easier and more cost effective. So, I will concede your point
that theoretically there should be enough room inside a U-player
to produce quality sound, but in reality, it doesn't work out that way.

No doubt redbook CDP's are evolving and there some great players, including the Emm Labs Dac6, whose redbook playback in second to none. Still, the SACD play-back is even better.
If your price point includes the Burmeister and Linn, you need to hear the Emm Labs Dac6.

There *is* a two box combination on the market. It is the Meitner Emm Labs Dac + transport. It comes in a two channel version or multi-channel. Its CD playback is second to none -- and it's SACD playback is even better. There's no contest. As amazing as is the CD playback, it is a clear step down from SACD. There's no way I would choose to listen to CD over SACD. Plus, more and more music is being released on SACD. My SACD collection is now over 100 SACD's and multiplying rapidly. Doesn't make any sense to me to spend this much on the rest of my system in search of better resolution and then limit myself to a lower resolution playback system. There is no CD player that can compare to SACD playback on the Meitner. I don't think there are even any CD players, DAC + transport, etc -- that can compete with the Meitner's
CD playback, much less its SACD playback. This is, of course, going by my ears, my taste in music playback, etc. But, even if one wants to limit oneself to CD and wants the ultimate player, I would still recommend the Meitner -- its CD playback is that good. But, its SACD playback is still better.