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.
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.