Which SACD sound better than Vinyl

coffee2 - statements like "None that's the answer" are obviously highly subjective which, in my opinion, reduces its credibility. If you had said "I have not heard any SACDs that were better than the vinyl equivalent" it wouldn't be such an absolute statement on an ambiguous subject.

None that's the answer

My experience as to which format is best is recording dependent ..

once your sytem has reached a certain level of resolutions,You would realize that the Quality of the recordings and where it is pressed is perharps more important than the medium itself....That is why it comes to no surprise that SACD done correctly could surpass vinyl

Yes, I have some SACD's that sound better then their vinyl counterparts. Miles Blue comes to mind as just one example of the SACD being better. I think the future is Blu-Ray audio. Sony had promised earlier this year that Miles Blue would be the their first blu. Still waiting. It appears that Sony got sidetracked with the mega Miles reissue for $1.2K. Marketing suits told them to hold off the blu ray as it would interfere with the mega promotion.

It's true that SACDs have the potential to sound much better than red book CDs, however the very best RBCDs generally sound better than mediocre SACDs. Exceptional SACDs are much better than even the best RBCDs. As an example for anyone who doubts this try the Blue Coast Collection, The E.S.E Sessions, a hybrid SACD from 2007. Beyond that, you might try recordings made with the Grimm Audio AD1 analog to digital converter, such as the Mahler 4th from Channel Classics ( CC generally does a good job with their SACDs ). As far as sounding better than vinyl, I think vinyl advocates would say nothing sounds better than vinyl. However, I think that as of this year we now have the technology and general knowledge to make digital recordings that do sound as good as vinyl, and even better in some ways. Unfortunately, most recording labels are behind the technology curve and, even worse, do not put the effort into making high quality recordings most of the time. For that we only have ourselves to blame because if the market demanded it, we would have it. I could recommend many other SACDs however, I do not know your taste in music.

I would agree SACD's done well are great.
SACD's not done well stink.
I have several of both.
This makes it hard to spend the extra money on SACD's.
DVD-A's are a crap shoot too.
I do not have any SACD's that sound better than vinyl.
Vinyl has its problems too though.

I would agree that sacd's are excellent. I've also noted that the redbook layer on sacd's is generally well done as well. The hybrid cd's are the best of both worlds because you can play them on anything without limitation.

SACDs done well will make you forget momentarily about Vinyl;they are CLEARLY superior to Redbook CDs in EVERY aspect.

The Titles are too many to mentioned ,but if you are just beggining to have a taste of what SACDs are meant to sound ,start with Stockfish titles

From what I've seen, sacd's sound on most albums is not very good compared to good sounding regular cds. The sacd version may be beter than the regular version, but who cares if it still sounds poor? I can see why sacd's have gone the way of beta. When blue ray came out, no one had to guess which is better compared to dvds--sacds can be really nice all the way to crap. By the way, I have a very nice system with a fully loaded Modwright 9100 cd/sacd in case someone tells me my player isn't up to it. To answer the question, very very few. The good cds sound so nice, I have no intention of getting any more sacds unless someone I know and trust tells me a certain sacd sounds just too good and the music is also good. I personally haven't found that combo in sacd yet--don't have a ton of sacd experience and probably don't want to at this point. Bob