I disagree with those who say don't buy a sacd hybrid unless you are going to buy a sacd player in the near future. From my experience so far, the cd layer on a hybrid is the best sounding version of the performance (when comparing it to other cd versions). They also can be had for not much more or less than than a regular cd. I bought the Stones hybrids for $ 9.99, the others for prices ranging from $11.99 to $18. Examples of good sounding hybrids, Stones, Dylan, Who, Junior Wells, Coltrane/Monk, and the Animals retrospective. Why would you buy the cd only version of these when the hybrid sounds better, for pretty much the same price? In addition, if you ever decide you want an sacd player, you've already got a start on your collection. I don't understand what the downside is if you don't buy an sacd player? I do understand why you wouldn't want to buy the sacd ONLY version. Then you have to have a sacd player.
SACD/CD Question
I've got a question for you SACD guys. I don't have SACD, but have a high-quality two-channel system. I recently bought my first so-called hybrid compatible CD/SACD, a Sony recording, made live in the Berlin Philharmonie in 2002, of the Tchaikovsky Piano Concerto played by Arcadi Volodos, with the Berlin Philharmonic under Seiji Ozawa. I have no idea what this one sounds like on an SACD system, but on my two-channel system the orchestral sound is just conspicuously AWFUL! This was all the more surprising to me because I'd earlier bought the same pianist's performance of the Rachmaninoff Third Piano Concerto, also recorded live, in the same hall, in 1999, with the same orchestra under James Levine, also on Sony (but with a different recording engineer), and this one's NOT a hybrid compatible CD/SACD but a plain stereo CD, and it sounds just fine. Can anyone shed some light on what is going on here? I'm reluctant now to buy any more so-called hybrid compatible CD/SACD discs after getting burned.