Good & Bad quality recordings of SACD's?

Greetings All,
Have any of you with SACD players noticed both the GOOD recording quality and the POOR recording quality of some SACD's? When they are well done, they are wonderful! When not, they SUCK pretty bad and are a real disappointment. I'm just now getting into SACD and I'm sure there are many others headed that way too. If you've had the same observation about GOOD & BAD, would you tell me/us about both please? Here's my example - the Sony SACD sampler that comes with the player: Willie Nelson-"Stardust" is the best sounding cut on the disc...and I'm not a big C&W fan. It just sounds like he's THERE in the room. The rest of the cuts are so-so and I would not buy ANY of the SACD's that they are from. I have REGULAR CD's that sound MUCH better then the other SACD cuts on the sample. Example - Patricia Barber - "Nightclub".
Your comments & personal observations are appreciated.
Happy listening!
Nothing has changed since the vinyl days, the format does not determine sound quality. It is the engineering/production/studio that makes the difference. I own vinyl that sounds better than most SACD. Another disappointment; I read on the Audio Revolution web site that DVD-A is winning out over SACD. Reminds me of the Beta/VHS wars, not good for the consumer. Not enough software either. I'll stick with my redbook...
I feel that the Sony SACD sampler is wretched. Seems like someone decided to juice-up the sound on many of the cuts to impress the innocent. A brilliant strategy for selling a 3k or 5k player, eh?
The few SACDs I've listened to have been pretty good overall but, like you say, variable.
You guys are waaaay off base regarding the sampler disc, and SACD in general. I don't know what your CD system is like, but mine is pretty good: CAL Icon as transport to an Assemblage 3.1 DAC. Most cuts on the sampler, especially the older or acoustic recordings with simple recording set-ups, are far superior to CD counterparts in their tonal qualities and dimensional information. I don't think the music is juiced at all, and I am not one of the ignorant or innocent. I don't believe you can say that CD of Blonde on Blonde sounds anything like the SACD version. And the Miles Davis cut is so far beyond CD version in every respect. It is not juiced at all, but simply more realistic.
Thanks for your comments in this thread. However, I don't REALLY think you are listening to SACDs through the CAL/Assemblage set-up you described. That configuration will NOT allow you to hear the SACD recording....maybe you've got 2-layer SACDs and are hearing the regular CD version. (any comments on this from others?)
Also, just like with regular CDs, some SACD's ARE well engineered and recorded and they sound WONDERFUL and some of them are VERY disappointing, therefore, my comment, "they SUCK!" I'm pretty sure other folks have had this same observation too. I'd just like to hear comments from others on what they've heard in SACD recordings that are GOOD (so I/we could know what to buy) and what's BAD (so we could know what to NOT buy).
Thanks again and happy listening!
I am, too, confused by Madisonear's comment unless he has a totally revamped CAL Icon that is SACD-capable.

I am using Marantz SA-1 for both SACD and CD playback and own roughly 30-40 SACD for the moment. I tend to agree with Myraj that SACD quality does vary, especially the Sony/CBS reissues. For example, "Time Out" and Beethovan 6th/Walter is much better than the CD(although not as warm as the original LP.) But the Wagner suites/Szell absolutely sucks.

Telarc is generally acceptable and most of the Groove Note and FIM are the must-haves.
Sorry, goners, I forgot to mention my SACD is Sony 9000ES CD/SACD/DVD combo. I was comparing CD's through the CAL/3.1DAC to SACD's on the Sony.

I do not dispute that there are some crummy recordings getting made into SACD's, but when it's done properly with a good recording, the CD does not even come close to what you can hear from SACD. I am now using Siltech FTM-4 IC's from Sony to the preamp, and the sense of space and three dimensionality, the presence of some voices and instruments in the room is freaky, dudes. I have been lucky to not get any of the stinker SACD's yet, but I'm sure they're out there, lurking, waiting to snag and waste my money and time. From what I've heard so far, the best SACD's feature simple recording set-ups of voices and acoustic instruments with little electronic processing. Electronic stuff with lots of production nonsense and gimmicks does not come across as well. Unfortunately, some of the vintage recordings Sony has chosen to reissue were bad to begin with, and SACD will probably not do much for them, maybe even make them sound worse. I listened to Blonde on Blonde again tonight, which has never sounded good. Remastered on SACD, it sounds almost like real music. I eagerly await more triumphs like that, and I believe they will outnumber the failures.
About 9 months back the family gathered around to listen to my new 333ES player and I played identical cuts (verified by liner notes) from 2 Tony Bennett discs - the Ultimate Collection on sacd and a recently released remastered disc. The only person who felt the sacd was superior was an older buddy who is a vinyl guy. All others (even the wife who said "you paid how much for that thing") perferred the clean and hissless remastered version. If you are listening with people who have been born in the 80's,have never heard vinyl and are listening to older recordings (as opposed to recent DSD recorded cuts) then be prepared for some strange stares as you attempt to inform them that they are closer to the real thing with sacd...