QUOTE (Vidiot @ Dec 31 2007, 11:22)

I think the truth is that quite a few SACD discs sounded better than earlier CDs, simply because the mastering was better. Put head-to-head, though, comparing a 2-channel SACD layer with the red book layer, the differences are subtle at best.
One could make a good argument that many (if not most) of the SACD players that were released had better D/A sections than previous CD-only players. Given that, it's possible that a lot of the audible differences some people heard could be due to improvements in the D/A's.
I have to say, though, when I first heard the SACD reissues of the Rolling Stones albums, I just about fell off the couch. Most of those albums never sounded that good, certainly not back in the 1960s. But I attribute that more to good mastering and better source tapes than SACD per se.
It's kind of a moot point, because SACD is pretty much dead these days. I think Sony made more money on MiniDisc, and that wasn't exactly a success, either.
You have many valid points. But the JAES-paper linked elsewhere in here, ruled them out by arranging a large-scale doube-blind test where the source always was SACD/DVD-A, but where the "CD-qualtiy" was obtained by degrading the hirez output by patching in a CD-recorder with 16 bits/44.1kHz.
This way, the content was exactly the same, and the DSD D/A-converter was also common. The only difference was the insertion of a sub-optimal 16bit/44.1kHz AD/DA-converter.
The could not conclude that the audio-format of SACD was any better than CD for critical, normal use.
They did find, however that many listeners preferred SACD because of the
content.
Normal users arent free to swap content and delivery format individually, therefore we get these somewhat stupid discussions where people claim that 44.1kHz is "clearly inferior" based on listening to some SACDs vs listening to other CDs.
-k