|The point of SACD with an SACD player is that it SHOULD be better than redbook using the same equipment.
...even if the same equipment is used, there are different electronics for CD and SACD. It's possible to make the CD section sound better than the SACD section. Not that this must be the case here...
My critics on the equipment have a further reason: with mediocre electronics you sometimes get confusing results; so it's possible that fuzzy, smeared highs are perceived as more enjoyable than more accurate ones. Or MP3 sounds better than the uncompressed original wave file... The sonic difference from SACD is
a subtle one! That must not mean that it's trivial for an audiophile.
|If SACD is needing crazy expensive equipment then really it is a dead format.
I fear that's the case. The only SACD player I heard so far is the top Accuphase model; with it, I clearly preferred the SACD layer. I never heard lower-priced SACD players though, but from the reviews I've read they don't show a significant superiority of SACD compared to pure CD players of the same price class.
See it that way: for Joe Consumer the CD already is the perfect audio format. How can you launch a new format to replace a perfect format? No offense meant to Joe Average, BTW; our own excessive occupation with high fidelity isn't the benchmark for «normal» people. But within this forum a 20-persons test with 17 non-audiophiles is of minor interest, IMO. I don't want to know if Joe Average can hear the difference, but I'd like to know definitely if audiophiles rate it better than redbook, and how they rate it in comparison to DVD-A.
No, I it's not that I don't like the result; I just have made a different experience, and I don't count myself to Joe Average in terms of music reproduction. So what conclusion shall I draw from this test result? Well: Joe Consumer can hardly hear an advantage of SACD over CD. I think I knew that before...JaZZ