I feel I have to chime in here as well and feel compelled to add, that apart from being of the same opinion with everything said above, I feel that SACD -even with the "best" players - is a distinct disappointment as far as the upper highs are concerned and considering the financial state of the larger recording companies, we can wait a long time for new issues, which are musically or sonically worth their money. I own about 6 new issue discs and found them mostly lacking artistically and sometimes also sonically (high end of the spectrum). As far as the reissues are concerned, I must bluntly state, that my old LPs sound worlds better on my rig. ( They "breathe", whereas with SACD the highs are "dead" or blotted out by that omnipresent hiss, which you invariably get, if you have tweaters worth writing home about ) A disappointment, because I had put high hopes in this technology. So my SACD players is collecting dust and no Vigggen, no way, nor more SACDs, at least not for the time being.... (-:
SACD - what gives?
So, I finally purchased a dvd player, which also happens to play SACD's. So, being all excited, I run over the to local Best Buy to grab some SACD,s. Much to my surprise, it seams that every SACD that they had (about 200) was a remaster of an anolog recording. I also checked amusicdirect.com and just about everything they carry ( over 700) is also remastered. So, my questions is: If SACD is such an advanced format then why is everything re-issues of older recordings? You would think that they would be issueing direct digital recordings. Now, I know why this format is not catching on. Let me put this in perspective: I spend about a thousand dollars on a SACD/DVD player so I can listen to re-issues of the complete Rolling stones catalog. No offense to Stones fans, but I aint paying for these recordings for a third time (LP, CD). Any insight or comments?