It may. Then again, it may not. Sufficient is such an inadequate word. My hypothesis is that there are a whole bunch of things which go in to making a digital source sound good. Some are transport stability, jitter of digital signal protocol, power supply quality, output stage quality, DAC, jitter or other ugliness in the places where signal is passed off from one chip to the next, and then, lest we forget, how cool the thing looks. Blue lights are definitely better than red lights, except perhaps for the red lights on the old Bow ZZ-8, which exuded cool because it just had those big LEDs, and the funky disc cover, not to mention those cool, gold sliders. The ZZ-8 sounded excellent even without a disc in it - it was that good. But I digress...
I have compared several SACD players (same music, same other components, blah blah blah) and have found that there are differences which matter to me. I have heard some ridiculously bad-sounding SACD players. They sounded as if they had terribly cheap power supplies, op-amps, etc. My bet is that they did.
One could probably propose the opposite hypothesis as well and find takers. Because SACD has more information than CD, and because it has more intrusive filters in the treble, one needs the utmost in implementation to get the utmost of the benefit of SACD.
But FWIW, the SA-15 isn't a bad player... I could live with it.
I have compared several SACD players (same music, same other components, blah blah blah) and have found that there are differences which matter to me. I have heard some ridiculously bad-sounding SACD players. They sounded as if they had terribly cheap power supplies, op-amps, etc. My bet is that they did.
One could probably propose the opposite hypothesis as well and find takers. Because SACD has more information than CD, and because it has more intrusive filters in the treble, one needs the utmost in implementation to get the utmost of the benefit of SACD.
But FWIW, the SA-15 isn't a bad player... I could live with it.