Someone in a previous post put it nicely. The differance between SACD and CD is "subtle yet profound". I think Badwisdom should give it another listen. As mentioned, SACD players need alot of break-in. I swear my 9000es improved up until around a thousand hours.
SACD : why ?
I have a local dealer here in Paris, France who has become a very good friend. SACD technology is just starting to hit our shores, and after hearing several CDPlayers, inc. the Accuphase 100 transport, we just didn't get it. The differences are just so tiny and are entirely software dependend (a bad SACD sounds worse that a great mastered CD) that we can't see it becoming a new standard. Nor spending thousands of dollars for so little.
We did a blind test for 15 of his customers. We told them we would play them a normal CD version first, and then the same music but with the SACD version. 15 out of 15 said they thought the second sounded much better and that SACD was an amazing technology. They were surprised, shocked and embarrassed when they found out we had switched the order of play and they actually preferred the 'standard' CD.
Here is my prediction : SACD is dead, long live DVD-A. Not because DVD-A is better, it *technologically* speaking isnt, but it makes much more market sense.
We did a blind test for 15 of his customers. We told them we would play them a normal CD version first, and then the same music but with the SACD version. 15 out of 15 said they thought the second sounded much better and that SACD was an amazing technology. They were surprised, shocked and embarrassed when they found out we had switched the order of play and they actually preferred the 'standard' CD.
Here is my prediction : SACD is dead, long live DVD-A. Not because DVD-A is better, it *technologically* speaking isnt, but it makes much more market sense.