Not necessarily.

Uh, the only CD's that I have played on both redbook and SACD stereo, are Diana Krall and Norah Jones. I didn't AB them, I played them one after the other. I thought the SACD sounded better. I must admit though, I understand your memory erases almost immediately. Plus, I probably was psychologically inclined to go with the SACD Stereo version even if it didn't sound better because I wanted the technology to be succesful, and I also probably wanted to justify my purchase. On the other hand, I did the same with Michael Jackson's Thriller and without a doubt the redbook version did sound better than the SACD version. I was EXTREMELY dissapointed. So I think that justifies me to say my ears are very discerning. So maybe 2 channel SACD DOES sound better than redbook!

With both played in stereo, I notice no difference.

In reply to:

---

does dvd-a /sacd give any benefit in 2-ch stereo?

---

If it does, I have yet to hear it.

Well, I am very aware of the "I want to justify this purchase- So I hear a difference" phenomenon, but I really think there is a difference in the depth, soundstage and separation of the the instruments between the Redbook & SACD Stereo versions of what I have bought so far. (Goobye Yellow Brick Road, Buena Vista Social Club, Gaucho, Tommy, Blackjack David, Blonde on Blonde, Pet Sounds, Blue Trane, ect...)
To me it is all in the small details. Nails on the strings, clarity of the cymbals, the space of the room.
I will admit that the difference is not huge, but to music that matters (to me), and music that I have listened to a lot, I think that there is a very real difference that I can hear.
Sort of like the difference between the 60s and other well-made speakers that sound similar. Not always right in your face apparent differences, just subtle differences that make you sit up after a while and smile.

I didn't say it in my post but I also meant the differences are very small. I'm also the type of listener who sits in the dark with my eyes closed listening very sharply. On those two discs my ears are telling me the SACD sounds marginally better. Is it worth it to repurchase the same cd twice? NO. But if I had a choice between a redbook cd and 2 channel SACD I'd take the SACD almost any day of the week (see: MJ's Thriller).

Yes, in the majority of instances.

Re; Player8 & Riffman-
Absolutely. I Totally agree. Very Small differences.
But one that I am willing, and can afford, to pay for.
Heck, that is how I ended up with these beautiful 60s and a 2900.
I don't know if I will ever be able to afford anything up from this level, but all of it, from the new SACDs and
DVD-As to the Axioms and the new Denon and Yamaha stuff has been money well spent on toys that I am convinced makes a difference in what I hear.
Big Emphasis on "toys" and an even bigger one on "I"!
It's all about rationalization and justification, right?

Totally agree.

Except I don't have the money you do at this point in my young life. Thats why I have to keep my 8yr old radioshack bookshelf surrounds and cheap a$$ kenwood center channel (although I'm gonna try to replace that with a VP100 or M2 this summer). But I do love your setup and probably would be more than content (and probably even happy) with your setup.

PM me and I would be more than happy to hook you up with some really nice Polk stuff that got booted by the Axioms.
It served me well for years, and I would rather see it go to a good home that just sold off to the highest bidder on the internet.
Does this get me scolded for selling on this site?

I wouldnt scold you, but you might take it to PMs so nobody else does.

Thanks alot seabear but I really have no funds right now. I'm trying to look for a job (or an internship would be even better) for the summer. Plus, I'm living in dorm rooms for another year so even if I wanted to upgrade to towers or wall mounted surrounds I couldn't. I am very limited on space. I have had fights with roomates to keep my 5.1 setup (which does sound pretty damn good if I do say so myself for my smallish room) somewhat intact.