I only have 3 Classic DADs, but they do sound better than the originals. More subtle details, and they're mastered much better...I actually get to use my volume knob! I think that's their big advantage. Most modern CDs are mastered too loud, and that's a form of compression. Most labels do it because they want their CD to sound "louder" than the next. Properly mastered CDs will sound smoother and less fatiguing than CDs that are mastered too loud. I do think that remasterd 20/24 bit CDs are a big improvement over the originals. They are more detailed, but the DADs still sound a bit more natural to me. They seem to reproduce the details in a much more organic way.
SACD vs. DVD-A and Audio DVDs
My experience so far using Muse DVD equipment is that the best redbook CDs sound as good as the best Audio DVDs from Chesky or Classic Records. It would seem that the recording and mastering process has more impact on the final sound than the medium. It reminds me of the notice on early CDs which stated that the CD's resolution "could show the limitations in the source recording" or something like that. Does anyone else think that well executed redbook can be almost indistinguishable from 24/96 Audio or even SACD ? By the way, my experience with SACD has been that the sound is very dry and clinical, and I am wondering whether SACD will fare the same way as CDs, namely that it will take years before the recording and manufacturing process are up to par with the technology. This was evident in redbook CDs. The sound of the best conventional CDs has improved dramatically since four or five years ago.