If the SACD is, in the opinion of many highly regarded and award-winning recording engineers (and myself, for whatever that's worth) "the best thing out there," then why hasn't it taken top spot in the mind of most audiophiles? After all, aren't we all searching for the best sounding source material we can find?

There are numerous answers to that question, several which I'm about to post, and others that I'm sure will follow. For starters, SACD had a rough start, having the misfortune to be introudced almost simultaneously with a competing, and incompatible format: DVD-Audio. Most audiophiles chose to wait it out to see who "won," and fortunately, SACD is the declared winner in that batte. Still, it lingers. Why?

Early SACD players simpy didn't sound very good, and were particularly bad redbook CD players. The consumer/audiophile could purchase an SACD player, but still had to hang onto his CD player if he wanted quality sound from his collection of discs. Few wanted two different units, and so, few bought those SACD players.

Next comes the matter of multi-channel recording. While at least one AR member (Feanor) feels that multi-channel is the primary benefit of SACD's, I feel it's its greatest detriment. Most audiophiles or audio enthusiasts (whatever it is we're calling ourselves these days) just don't have any interest in multi-channel systems. We spent years and years accumulating the gear we have for our 2-channel systems, and either don't have the financial wherewithal to duplicate our equipment for the rear channels, or the space to do so either. Those who have HT systems in their homes usually have them in one room, with the 2-channel, "serious" system in another.

I won't deny that the home theatre system my wife's former CEO had in his multi-million dollar home was far and away the best sounding I've ever heard, it also cost him well over six figures. I'm certain that the multi-channel SACD's that I own would knock my socks off if I had been able to hear them on his system. Also, having a 10,000 square foot house enabled him to dedicate a room as his home theatre that's not much smaller than many a small commercial movie theatre. Us commoners just can't afford such stuff.

Then there are those who eschew digital recording no matter what. I have a real problem with that, as my ears tell me that digital recording has improved exponentially over the years, and that no LP I've ever heard comes remotely close to the sound of a well-engineered CD, and the gap is even wider when compared to a well engineered SACD. Worst of all is that many of these people have dismissed the SACD out of hand without ever having heard one. That, of course, is condeming a book by reading its cover.

I had no interest at all in SACD's since there weren't any SACD players that concentrated on the superior sound in 2, rather than multi-channel format, and were also top-notch redbook CD players as well. All that changed with the Marantz SA-8001.

In the Stereophile review of the 8001, they tested the CD playback of the unit by connecting the Benchmark DAC to its digital outputs, and compared the sound of that combination, to the 8001 by itself and couldn't detect any differences. That says quite a lot, at least in my book. The Benchmark DAC alone costs more than the 8001, and the 8001 also plays SACD's!

The 8001 has been replaced by the 8003, which has received attention here at AR, but with conflicting observations: one poster says it's better, while another claims it's decidedly inferior to the 8001. I'll wait to see what Stereophile has to say on this matter myself before coming to any judgements. Hopefully, other manufacturers will follow Marantz's direction and make comparable 2-channel SACD players that are also outstanding CD players as well.

Still, there is no question that, as good as CD's sound on the 8001 (or the 8003), SACD's sound significantly better. The difference isn't night and day, but quite noticeable. Words like "lush," "full," and "robust" come to mind, but that which stands out above all else is "lifelike." I suspect the lifelike sound of the SACD layer when compared to the CD layer of the same disc is a result of the extraordinarily wide dynamic range of an SACD: 120db! No CD has that great a dynamic range, and no LP comes even close. I suppose there's some benefit to the 0-100,000HZ frequency response too, but I'm hard pressed to know what it is.

I can't dismiss the still unpleasant experience one undergoes in purchasing SACD's. Far and away, the vast majority of SACD's avaialble are of classical music. While that's just fine by me, only 3% of consumers of recorded music purchase classical music. I could argue from now until the end of time that classical music provides a better source to adequately demonstrate a system's true capabilities, but that won't go very far, as I'm very much in the minority. Add to that, the better classical music websites (ArkivMusic, ClassicalMusicDepot.com) still don't list the discs in any order that makes any sense, so finding a particular title is needlessly difficult.

So, what's the answer? I wish I knew.