SACD vs Regular CD's

Edorr,
I agree, in very well setup systems with high quality Red book players the gap is quite narrow and with considerable overlap depending on the individual recording.
Regards,

SACD is a system what I never Liked. For my work I bought a lot wenn it was still not sure if it would be a succes. I had always the DVD-A recording as well. In all the cases the DVD-A was always better compared to SACD. By the blind auditions people took the DVD-A for preference. Most people always thought that the DVD-A would be the SACD. DVA-A was superior in focus and depth. Sound was more analogue compared to the sacd version. The biggest problem is that the focus of many sacd's is often not natural anymore. At a show of Philips they used the Nautilus 801 for demo. The used a recording I know well. The voice was much too big. Wenn they went to the redbook version the voice became the normal dimension again. So I said: I did not know if the person had such a big head. They did not know what to say. It was a fact that the voices were all too big. SACD I would not want it for free or even wenn they give me 100 euro every day.

I have both SACDs and DVD Audio discs. I have the NECESSARY speaker array to

enjoy these. For someone just now starting to consider SACDs know that SONY

dumped on us, abandoning the medium for Blueray which I won't touch.

I have a bunch of Blu Rays, SACDs and DVD-A. They can all sound anywhere ranging from crap to stellar, mainly a function of the recording / mix quality, not so much the format.

recording quality is still more imporant than format. Sony used a lot of bakcup copies for SACD ( because the mother tapes are not always there anymore). These SACD all sound thin and harsh.