When does SACD make sense - my theory


I purchased a SACD player a few weeks ago. Sony SCD-C555ES. Also purchased about 15 SACDs.
Tried Kind of Blue by Miles Davis and compared to my vinyl. Vinyl was better. Tried the new Dark Side of the Moon by Pink Floyd from 2003 and compared to vinyl. Vinyl also better.

My thinking is that Vinyl will always better from old stuff that was captured on Analog and mixed for Analog/Vinyl. Never purchase SACDs with 50s, 60 and 70s music. Rather focus on the period when the CD was young, the recordings were captured digitally and now need a major re-mixing to sound good.

My theory.
1. When there is vinyl it will always be better than SACD
2. SACD players do good job on CDs too. My a couple of years old CDs sound at least as good as when I played them on my previous Rega Planet. Consequently, do not replace a few years old CDs with a SACD version. Very small difference.
3. Replace early CDs - 80s and early 90s, before the figured out the technology that are very cold sterile recordings that will sound much better in SACD.
Looking forward to everyone's comments.
dcaudio

Showing 1 response by pbb

Usual trendy analog/vinyl can't be beat line. I don't spend my time comparing the same recording on different media. I don't own the type of equipment that the previous poster owns, but one thing I can say is that my $200 CDN Sony SACD player sounds better playing SACDs than my Arcam FMJ CD 23 does playing CDs most of te time. The Arcam does better on CDs than the Sony. I have yet to hear an SACD that does not provide very good to great sound. Each recording should be enjoyed for what it is, without trying to pigeonhole it. A priori thinking is the motor of subjective audio.