SACD Player--Do you use it and feel you'd replace it if it broke?

I would absolutely replace my SACD player if necessary.  I only own about 15-20 SACDs but six or eight of them are my favorites (can’t live without).  My son streams from Tidal and I’ve tried to share this music with him but much of it just isn’t available on Tidal. So not only is this some of my favorite music, the sonic quality is superb.

I'm in SACD since it started in the early 2000s and own today a collection of over 3500 SACDs - both hybrid and single layer (SACD only). If the player is high end you can notice a difference - more detail, more tonal colours, especially more space. But this you will only experience with a good and expensive machine. I also bought a cheap pioneer D06 SACD - but it is not worth the money. Even with redbook CD my ML 390s shatters it to little pieces. A quite different picture with big Marantz SA-players. In a KI Ruby or an SA10 that old Levinson finds its master.
When you buy an SACD player, keep in mind, that digital out only functions with CD. For SACD data the digital interfaces (koax or optical) are blocked, if you use digital out you will only get redbook data stored on the cd layer. If you play back a single layer SACD, you will get no digital signal at all. Only very few high end player/dac combinations, fe dcs, were using an interface capable of transporting the SACD digital data.

Greetz, Hans

I have 763 CD's of various types including 82 SACD's, all but one of which are hybrid.  They are a mix of pop-rock, jazz, classical, etc.  I have owned a Marantz SA-8004 SACD player for a couple of years but did not want to be out of luck if it broke, so this spring I bought a Denon DCD-A100.  It turned out to be a nice upgrade, but I am keeping the Marantz as backup.
Is SACD worth the effort?  Other things being equal, it will offer better sound quality--clarity, detail, and nuance, especially--than redbook CD.  But other things are seldom equal.  Quality of the recording and mastering come before format.  SACD hit its stride in the middle of the loudness wars, and many pop-rock SACD's were mastered louder and with poorer dynamic range than previous redbook CD's of the same titles.  Early CD's produced from 1982 to about 1995 tended to more closely resemble what one heard on the LP record, and it is common to see them recommended over a later remaster.  I sorted through six versions of Elton John's Goodbye Yellow Brick Road, and set aside five of them to be sold (including the 2003 multichannel SACD) before settling on the one to keep.  I have learned to check the online dynamic range database (http://dr.loudness-war.info) and user comments before buying.

Some music lacks the nuance to benefit much from SACD.  Reliving my teenage years, I bought all of the Creedence Clearwater Revival albums on SACD.  The remastering is consistently very good, but redbook CD would have served just as well.
SACD shines when the music is vocals, acoustic guitar, piano, jazz, or classical.  The 2012 SACD remasters of Norah Jones' catalog are a great example, especially in contrast to the infamous 2003 SACD release of "Come Away with Me" that reportedly used a previous redbook CD mastering for its stereo layer.  Others are "Count Basie and the Kansas City Seven" and Diana Krall's SACD's.  It's a great format when done right.

@ericsch I’m using a DOGE Audio DAC 7.  It has taken first place over my NAD Masters M51.  I just couldn’t see dropping $5k on a DAC when the technology has changed so very much in the last decade. 

I was excited to get a highly regarded Oppo for blu ray and SACD, bought some SACDs, especially a series of Oscar Peterson's 'for my friends'. (wonderful in any format!).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusively_for_My_Friends

What's the difference between CD and SACD? My take is the noise floor is lower, the music comes from 'liquid black' if that makes any sense. Michael Jackson, .... some other excellent recordings to begin with, that is my simple summation.

Is such quiet natural? Is listening for a difference distracting? Is it as involving?

In either case, as with all digital, I think digital does not get the overtones 'as right' as analog does, also my simple summation of why I prefer analog (and tubes).

I decided not to bother with the SACD versions. I listen to a lot of vinyl and R2R tapes, the noise floor is nowhere as low as SACD, but both Analog formats are more involving than either CD or SACD. I still enjoy my CD's, but nearly always go to vinyl or R2R for fully immersive music, and those have been culled for excellent recording quality as well as primary artist and musician's talents and of course the specific selections. 

Younger people listen differently than my generation. I am 71, we learned to listen to radio singles and whole albums at home. R2R and Vinyl, I listen to the whole album, in the order that was selected for presentation. CD's, not often, but frequently, I select which tracks. I had a programmable turntable (linear tracking for that). I used it to make tapes of selected tracks, that was great, but when listening to the album, I listened to the whole album as usual. Of course, it wasn't the highest quality, so I reverted to my Thorens/SME/ShureMR and gave the tracking TT to my friend. 

The problem with R2R is the format/pre-recorded content stopped, so my most involving format is limited by content.