Does it make sense to buy SACD of old recordings?

HI, I am very new to the world of SACD. In fact I just purchased an SACD player (for reasons other than SACD) and I do not yet have any SACD. So I was wondering if SACD makes a difference for old jazz recordings like Ella Fitzgerald, Sarah Vaughn, Wes Montgomery, etc? My initial thought is SACD will not make a difference since these old recordings are of such poor quality anyway that SACD would just reveal more of the bad recordings. Along the same lines, is SACD really most beneficial for modern recordings?
I can't speak for what you are refrring to but my decision to buy a SACD player was on here the difference between the redbook and SACD versions of a Diana Krall album. Wheather that would also apply to older recording I do not know but those within the last few years I would say definitly
You could try searching the reviews at:
Tboooe writes:
My initial thought is SACD will not make a difference since these old recordings are of such poor quality anyway that SACD would just reveal more of the bad recordings
Many of those old recordings are great recordings, but I'm not convinced that the greatest of those by the artists you mention have made it to SACD.

I have around 900 SACDs. The only Ella on SACD I have (and I think is extant) is "Ella and Louis" on Verve - not her best work. And the one Sarah Vaughan I have is also on Verve and doesn't sound that great.

Still, there are plenty of other good SACDs - Bill Evans, Art Pepper, Louis Armstrong, Chet Baker, Ray Brown, Brubeck, Miles, Benny Carter ....

I agree with Metralla. I have about 100 SACDs. I believe they are generally an improvement over redbook, but that is variable. I like "Ella and Louis" on Verve, but also like Sam Cook, Diana Krall, Patricia Barber, Norah Jones, Ray Charles duet album, Nat King Cole, Natalie Cole. I also like the ones mentioned above including Ray Brown, Bill Evans, Miles, and Brubeck. And there is alot of well recorded classical music reissued on SACD... some much better than the old, in my opinion. has much of what's available, but you can't preview.
I suspect it depends on what source was available at the time of recording. If the performance was capured in much higher fidelity than the distribution medium, e.g. standard mass produced CD or vinyl -- send hate mail elsewhere, then DSD remastering seems to be of great benefit.

Definately look for reviews on the sound quality. I have Dave Broubek's Time Out and it sounds amazing.

But I've been burned by buying older recordings that were just tranferred over to SACD and sound terrible.
Robm321: where do you suggest other than for reviews?
To be honest is the best place. The next option is hi end magazines, reviews SACDs/CDs and mentions sound quality. Or look for what you want on SACD and then start a thread asking for other owners if it's worth it sound quality wize.
if you ask kevin halvorsen of muse, he'll tell you he doesn't like sacd (some kind of coloration).
he prefers pcm to sacd and considers dvd a much superior to both.
I'm also pretty sold on SACD. Have some older recordings such as Sonny Rollins, Charles Mingus, The Allman Brothers Band and a few others that are worth the price of admission for my money.

For what it's worth, my Sam Cooke and Byrds SACDS are not quite up to the same standard.