Sunflower on SACD

[Stephen W. Desper]

Lots of confusion here. As far as I know, this release contains:

- A stereo version - taken from the Two-Track Master
- A discrete four channel surround version - taken from a decoded version of the Two-Track Master

No one knows which method AP used to decode the 2-track into 4 channels. It sounds like it's a different method than a standard Dolby surround. Perhaps they got hold of one your matrix devices Steve.

In any case, this is not a new multi-channel mix. It is a decoded version of the Two-Track Master that was supplied to the SACD manufacturers.

Does that count as "releasing anything other than previously released stereo and mono mixes"? All they've done is decode the previously released stereo mix.

COMMENT:  According to Alan/Marks, only a two-channel stereo version is authorized for release by Analogue Productions. Why?  Because there is no 4-track discrete or decoded master. THERE IS ONLY STEREO.  ANYTHING ELSE IS UNAUTHORIZED by BRI and Capitol. And both of my matrix devices are sitting here in view. Whatever is going on is wrong and may be illegal.

Update:  Mark has been digging into the situation and found that the AP SACD people used the SQ matrix to create the rear channels. Their contract did not allow for this. What the AP engineers did is totally wrong and misrepresents the original intension of the master tape.

The QS matrix is designed for V-Groove record playback schemes, and has little to do with recording technology. The matrix used in these albums is an X-Y-Z matrix (a three-dimensional acoustic matrix) whereas the QS matrix is an X-Y or two-dimensional electronic matrix. One has nothing to do with the other. The QS matrix is shifted 90 degrees from the matrix lattice I used, so it will really screw up the dimensional intensions of the original. It's like taking a film that was shot with a spherical lens and making a copy using an anamorphic lens -- then calling it wide-screen. It is totally wrong. In fact, I would call these SACD issues bootleg copies. They are not authorized, violate the sonic copyright of the original, and misrepresent the original master to the public.

Anyone thinking of buying this SHAM COPY should save their money. Make a copy from my website and get the real thing. Besides, a regular CD will sound the same as a SACD if you are making a copy from an analog master tape. There is no sound improvement by using additional resolution. No dynamic range increase, no response betterment, no less noise. The AES proved that years ago, which is why the format failed. Again, given what has been uncovered, your best listen is from my website. This is what Carl and the boys wanted their music to sound like -- and there is no cost for learning. ~swd

[king of anglia]

Thanks for that explanation Steve. It's all clear now.

Just to confirm: there is no such thing as a true 4 channel surround version of Sunflower. Is this correct?

[Stephen W. Desper]

Thanks for that explanation Steve. It's all clear now.

Just to confirm: there is no such thing as a true 4 channel surround version of Sunflower. Is this correct?

COMMENT to king of Anglia:  There is no discrete 4-channel format of Sunflower.  The two-channel commercially released version is a musically compatible two-channel stereo rendition. Within it is an unresolved surround matrix. This is an acoustically derived lattice that can be decoded using an x-y-z configuration that will produce a virtual surround panorama.

King, why don't you read all about it in my book. I keep providing the link and you keep asking questions that are all answered in that book. I wrote the book for people like you, who wish to know more. Take the time and read the book, or at least part one. 

Meanwhile, the presentation of Sunflower at my website is the only true and definitive version of this record. Certainly the current SACD from AP does not represent the album as it was originally produced, unless you are listening to the stereo track, but then this is without resolution of the playback matrix. ~swd

[lukpac]

Meanwhile, the presentation of Sunflower at my website is the only true and definitive version of this record.

Why wasn't that presentation put on LP in the first place in 1970?

[Stephen W. Desper]

Meanwhile, the presentation of Sunflower at my website is the only true and definitive version of this record.

Why wasn't that presentation put on LP in the first place in 1970?

COMMENT to lukpac:  The answer to your question is in my book. READ THE BOOK !!  http://swdstudyvideos.com   Thank you.  ~swd

[lukpac]

Meanwhile, the presentation of Sunflower at my website is the only true and definitive version of this record.

Why wasn't that presentation put on LP in the first place in 1970?

COMMENT to lukpac:  The answer to your question is in my book. READ THE BOOK !!  http://swdstudyvideos.com   Thank you.  ~swd

It's a simple question. Presumably there's a simple answer.

It just seems odd that the only way to "properly" hear the album is using equipment that only you possess.

[Stephen W. Desper]

Meanwhile, the presentation of Sunflower at my website is the only true and definitive version of this record.

Why wasn't that presentation put on LP in the first place in 1970?

COMMENT to lukpac:  The answer to your question is in my book. READ THE BOOK !!  http://swdstudyvideos.com   Thank you.  ~swd

It's a simple question. Presumably there's a simple answer.

It just seems odd that the only way to "properly" hear the album is using equipment that only you possess.

COMMENT:  I don't think it is asking too much to read my book, a book that I took the time to write for fans such as yourself that seek more information than you find on an album jacket. As far as properly hearing the album via equipment I possess.  Since I was the one and only recording engineer and chief mixer for these albums, what is odd about me now having the one piece of equipment that will properly unlock the embedded codes in the stereo tracks I recorded. Equipment that I designed and Codes that I engineered. When I closed the studio I left all the equipment at the studio. What ever became of that equipment is not known, nor was it under my control. In recent years I have continued to refine and develop a playback matrix like the one I used over 45 years ago during the recording process. I have offered it to Capitol, Warner and BRI, but they think the public will be too confused if a resolved version is issued, so none ever was. Now with equipment I more recently designed, engineered, and built you may hear the definitive version for a visit to my website. I could be selfish and reserve playbacks for only myself, -- I think that would be odd -- but I have chosen to share with my fellow fans the sound of these albums that we (The Beach Boys) experienced in the control room those many years ago using equipment of more recent design that mimics the same lattice as was in use back then. Take advantage >>> http://swdstudyvideos.com  
~swd

[lukpac]

As far as properly hearing the album via equipment I possess.  Since I was the one and only recording engineer and chief mixer for these albums, what is odd about me now having the one piece of equipment that will properly unlock the embedded codes in the stereo tracks I recorded. Equipment that I designed and Codes that I engineered.

It's extremely odd. Why mix something so it can't be properly heard by anyone other than yourself? It would be like creating a 3D film that must be viewed with special glasses, but nobody actually owns the glasses except the director.

[king of anglia]

Thanks for that explanation Steve. It's all clear now.

Just to confirm: there is no such thing as a true 4 channel surround version of Sunflower. Is this correct?

COMMENT to king of Anglia:  There is no discrete 4-channel format of Sunflower.  The two-channel commercially released version is a musically compatible two-channel stereo rendition. Within it is an unresolved surround matrix. This is an acoustically derived lattice that can be decoded using an x-y-z configuration that will produce a virtual surround panorama.

King, why don't you read all about it in my book. I keep providing the link and you keep asking questions that are all answered in that book. I wrote the book for people like you, who wish to know more. Take the time and read the book, or at least part one.  

Meanwhile, the presentation of Sunflower at my website is the only true and definitive version of this record. Certainly the current SACD from AP does not represent the album as it was originally produced, unless you are listening to the stereo track, but then this is without resolution of the playback matrix. ~swd

Thanks Steve. I have read all of your descriptions in your study videos and if the book was available to buy, I would do so immediately (perhaps a kindle version?).

I know that there is no such thing as a four channel version of Sunflower. Its just useful to have it confirmed here in this thread by the engineer.

Lukpac, the answer to your question is in the Sunflower study video from about 6.31 minutes in. Simply put, the recorded company wasn't prepared to cut the correct resolved version of the album to vinyl as it would not have complied with RIAA standards. Therefore a consumer version of the matrix device was required.

This could have been corrected with subsequent digital releases as the same RIAA standards don't apply - no extra tech is needed to cut a fully resolved digital version.

However, no digital releases have ever contained the decoded mixes - apart from the version in the study videos.

The SACD is just another in a long line of incorrect versions of Sunflower. AP have attempted to do something with the surround version, but they've missed the point entirely.

[Bicyclerider]

I'm not sure what you mean by a long line of incorrect versions.  The stereo versions released through the years from the master are not incorrect, they reflect the tapes used and the engineering decisions of the mastering engineer of those releases, just as the original vinyl reflected Stephen and Carl's decisions.  Since the original vinyl mastering instructions in terms of EQ and volume are lost, these are about as correct as anyone can expect.  People who want the original vinyl can search out and purchase that version.  According to Mark the original vinyl was used as the reference for making the current stereo version on the AP SACD, so this may actually be the most "correct" version yet, despite what they did with the surround version.

[lukpac]

Lukpac, the answer to your question is in the Sunflower study video from about 6.31 minutes in. Simply put, the recorded company wasn't prepared to cut the correct resolved version of the album to vinyl as it would not have complied with RIAA standards. Therefore a consumer version of the matrix device was required.

What RIAA standards, specifically? The EQ curve and dimensional standards wouldn't be an issue.

http://www.aardvarkmastering.com/riaa.htm
https://linearaudio.nl/sites/linearaudio.net/files/RIAA%20Bulletins%20E1%20%26%20E4_1978%20LP%20dimensional%20standards.pdf

[Stephen W. Desper]

As far as properly hearing the album via equipment I possess.  Since I was the one and only recording engineer and chief mixer for these albums, what is odd about me now having the one piece of equipment that will properly unlock the embedded codes in the stereo tracks I recorded. Equipment that I designed and Codes that I engineered.

It's extremely odd. Why mix something so it can't be properly heard by anyone other than yourself? It would be like creating a 3D film that must be viewed with special glasses, but nobody actually owns the glasses except the director.

COMMENT to lukpac:  As King points out in his post, Warner did not wish to explore anything other than what they were use to doing. Actually the matrix version of Sunflower could meet RIAA specifications if one adjustment was made to the cutting lathe, which was demonstrated to them and they acknowledged. Yet, they were unwilling to advance the art and so stuck all the fans for the next fifty years with the same old stereo. And as King says, even in the digital age, the record companies were unwilling to release the intended versions (post LP). I have tried several ways to get the real version to those fans who wished to hear it, and the present idea, set forth in my website, is about the best one person can do. Please read the book and enjoy the sounds.  ~swd

[Stephen W. Desper]

Lukpac, the answer to your question is in the Sunflower study video from about 6.31 minutes in. Simply put, the recorded company wasn't prepared to cut the correct resolved version of the album to vinyl as it would not have complied with RIAA standards. Therefore a consumer version of the matrix device was required.

What RIAA standards, specifically? The EQ curve and dimensional standards wouldn't be an issue.

http://www.aardvarkmastering.com/riaa.htm
https://linearaudio.nl/sites/linearaudio.net/files/RIAA%20Bulletins%20E1%20%26%20E4_1978%20LP%20dimensional%20standards.pdf

COMMENT to lukpac:  "RIAA Standard" is herein used as a catch phrase. The RIAA standard for V-groove LP and 45 RPM records does give the cutting engineer a degree of leeway to practice his craft. Each cutting engineer has his own set of requirements of how the V-groove looks in cross-section -- requirements he has grown to trust and practice, knowing that the disk he cuts will not come back as un-traceable. In my case the engineer did not want to change settings on his lathe to bring the look of the groove (through a microscope) back into his comfort zone. (All LP cutting lathes are fitted with microscopes.) You won't find exact specifications for the V-groove in the RIAA spec just as you don't find exact specs for hysteresis curve requirements in NAB specs for tape recorders. Part of that is left to the "practice of the craft."  ~swd

[Stephen W. Desper]

I'm not sure what you mean by a long line of incorrect versions.  The stereo versions released through the years from the master are not incorrect, they reflect the tapes used and the engineering decisions of the mastering engineer of those releases, just as the original vinyl reflected Stephen and Carl's decisions.  Since the original vinyl mastering instructions in terms of EQ and volume are lost, these are about as correct as anyone can expect.  People who want the original vinyl can search out and purchase that version.  According to Mark the original vinyl was used as the reference for making the current stereo version on the AP SACD, so this may actually be the most "correct" version yet, despite what they did with the surround version.

COMMENT to Bicyclerider:  Of course in art there are no correct or incorrect versions, but since the art of recording and playback is an art based in science, there can be standards set to insure duplication of an original work of art does not deviate too much from the intentions of the artist. What King of Anglia means by stating that many of the reissues are "wrong" is that they deviate too far from the standard set by Carl as producer. What happens is that artistic judgments and flavorings are imposed by the mastering engineer which have the effect of moving too far from the sound of the original.

Now I know many of you are in love with digital sound or the digital method of mass-distribution. And digital has its advantages. But if you look at this from an engineering aspect, the ability of a master analog tape (15 or 30 IPS) recorded on a professional machine can be fully captured by any LP or CD. That is the frequency response, dynamic range, noise floor, harmonic and intermodulation distortion generation and such measurements are exceeded by the LP or CD over an analog master tape. Given that fact, why not stay with the LP, that is, why change from analog to digital when the most complete representation of the original wave form is found on the LP. No matter how much the sampling rate is increased, it is still an incomplete representation of the complete analog waveform. If your source is an analog master tape, then the CD as a digital copy is just as capable of capturing all the tape can offer as the SACD and to think it somehow is an improvement is just in your head.
If the LP can capture all the master analog tape can offer, why not stay in the analog medium. What advantage is there to sample the analog and expect a computer to fill in the gaps between samples. Is this to somehow be superior?  I don't see the logic.
But the music business is a business. Digital copies have been sold to the general public as better than analog and so are a new source of income to many people. The music business has been saved by digital. That doesn't change the fact that analog is the standard, at least when it comes to Sunflower/Surf's Up and much before that. So when Mark says he used the original LP as a reference for mastering the SACD copy, I assume he is using an LP with the Artisan logo in the lead-out field. That is the original. But trying to match one sound to the other is very tricky and involves artistic judgment calls -- so again, we come back to the question, what is the standard?
In the study-video needle-drop section, I go back to the standard that Carl and myself approved. I used my original reference copy, a first pressing from the first LP-matrix cut by Artisan. This is an analog copy of the master tape with mastering changes approved by Carl and myself. Using the best A to D converters I own, I did convert to digital, but before that I applied the matrix and leading waveform reservation, to present the best representation of the standard approved by the artist (producer) that could be mass-distributed to those fans who wished to hear what we all heard and intended to be released to the public. As I said, that did not happen originally as the matrix was not included, but now available is the resolved version at http://swdstudyvideos.com as an educational reference. If you wish to spend money on something else, thinking it is somehow closer to what Carl intended, go ahead. However, I believe what you will find at my website is as close to the standard set by the producer as you will get. The only thing closer is to play the master tape through the matrix and listen over tube equipment. Unless you come to my house and listen to the LP through the matrix over tube equipment, you will have to settle for what is offered at my website. ~swd

[king of anglia]

Thanks for your detailed explanation Steve. Yours is the final word on this subject.

[Bicyclerider]

Steve I agree with almost everything in your post - I never meant to suggest that digital is a better medium or can sound better than a well crafted, engineered, mastered and cut LP.  In fact SACD and 24 bit sampling was specifically developed to get a more accurate reproduction of the sound on a master tape than a 16 bit CD - more sampling, less gaps to fill in, less digital artifacts introduced.  Note I said "more accurate" - it will only ever approximate the original master and LP, not improve upon it or match it.

Where some may disagree is whether one can hear the difference between 24 bit sampling on SACD and DVD and 16 bit sampling on a regular CD - Many believe you can, including the editors of Sterophile and The Absolute Sound.  More presence in the vocals, more air around the instruments, instruments like piano and violin sounding more like they sound in real life.  This will always be a subjective judgment and so can be impossible to prove or disprove, but there are some with"golden ears" who can perceive the difference and do it repeatedly in blind testing.  There are some audiophiles who can identify a digital cable's sound signature over another cable's reliably, as incredible as that seems to me.  

I understand and agree with your preference for analogue especially when that was the original artist's medium, but digital is how most people enjoy music today, and we wouldn't want to deprive the current and future generations of the pleasure of listening to Sunflower and Surfs Up and the rest of the Beach Boys catalogue in as good a sounding digital version as an be produced.  For me that was the intent of the AP SACD's - how well they succeeded is yet to be determined.

[Custom Machine]

Where some may disagree is whether one can hear the difference between 24 bit sampling on SACD and DVD and 16 bit sampling on a regular CD - Many believe you can, including the editors of Sterophile and The Absolute Sound.  More presence in the vocals, more air around the instruments, instruments like piano and violin sounding more like they sound in real life.  This will always be a subjective judgment and so can be impossible to prove or disprove, but there are some with"golden ears" who can perceive the difference and do it repeatedly in blind testing.  There are some audiophiles who can identify a digital cable's sound signature over another cable's reliably, as incredible as that seems to me.  

Actually, using double blind testing, there are no documented cases of anyone anywhere being able to repeatedly tell the difference between high resolution recordings of music and the exact same program material played back via a standard CD at 16/44.1. The same is true of high end cables vs well designed standard cables. There are many who claim to hear significant differences, but they almost always refuse to participate in a scientifically controlled double blind listening session in order to back up their claims. (This is not to say that a listener cannot enjoy a level of psychic gratification when listening to high-res or using expensive cables, feeling the music simply has to sound better or be blessed with various sonic qualities as a result of the fact that they aren't listening to standard CD quality or standard quality cables.)

[PS]

For me, the glory of the SACD format has been in the 5.1 mixes and re-mixes and re-mastering of stereo music that I'm overly familiar with (e.g., Talking Heads, first four Elton Johns, Yes' Close to the Edge and Fragile, early Genesis, Pink Floyd, King Crimson, Beck, Bjork, etc.). Steve Wilson's 5.1 re-mixes and Giles Martin's great work on LOVE in particular have refreshed music in ways that are what I imagined I was hearing when i used to get high. I realize that surround sound in the 5.1 format is not to everyone's taste, but when you hear something like Crosby's If I Could Only Remember My Name or Blood on the Tracks come alive into the room, it is genuinely thrilling.

Having said that, when I recall the great moments of aural joys in my life, nothing can compare with putting Sunflower on the turntable and putting on the headphones for the first time after i picked it up without any prior knowledge about it's release at a Korvettes department store in 1970. Who can forget reading Stephen's liner notes with such anticipation of what it would sound like? Still the greatest blend of foreground and background vocals in the history of popular music to these ears.

[Custom Machine]

For me, the glory of the SACD format has been in the 5.1 mixes and re-mixes and re-mastering of stereo music that I'm overly familiar with (e.g., Talking Heads, first four Elton Johns, Yes' Close to the Edge and Fragile, early Genesis, Pink Floyd, King Crimson, Beck, Bjork, etc.). Steve Wilson's 5.1 re-mixes and Giles Martin's great work on LOVE in particular have refreshed music in ways that are what I imagined I was hearing when i used to get high. I realize that surround sound in the 5.1 format is not to everyone's taste, but when you hear something like Crosby's If I Could Only Remember My Name or Blood on the Tracks come alive into the room, it is genuinely thrilling.

Good point. One of the nice advantages of remastered albums appearing in the SACD format, including those done in stereo as opposed to surround, is that since SACD listeners tend to be a very discerning bunch great care is typically taken in the remastering process, which isn't always the case with run of the mill remasters.

Having said that, when I recall the great moments of aural joys in my life, nothing can compare with putting Sunflower on the turntable and putting on the headphones for the first time after i picked it up without any prior knowledge about it's release at a Korvettes department store in 1970. Who can forget reading Stephen's liner notes with such anticipation of what it would sound like? Still the greatest blend of foreground and background vocals in the history of popular music to these ears.

My reaction was the same when I picked up the Sunflower album in late Aug. 1970. I was listening with speakers (Fisher XP-5a's) rather than headphones, but the songs and the Beach Boys vocals, coupled with Stephen Desper's recording techniques, all combined to create a level of sonic nirvana which has never been duplicated in my listening experience. Sunflower instantly became my favorite album of all time, and has remained that way for the past 46 years. I feel we are very fortunate to have the engineer who was responsible for the amazing engineering work found on this album not only participating in this discussion but also making his study videos available to us.

[Custom Machine]

However, I believe what you will find at my website is as close to the standard set by the producer as you will get. The only thing closer is to play the master tape through the matrix and listen over tube equipment. Unless you come to my house and listen to the LP through the matrix over tube equipment, you will have to settle for what is offered at my website. [/size] ~swd

Stephen, how close would I come to replicating the sonic presentation of Sunflower heard through your matrix device as it exists in it's current form today, when using the 360Surround matrix decoder I received when I purchased your original Recording the Beach Boys book back in 2002?

How about listening utilizing your consumer level Spatializer circuit or your pro Spatializer device?

Also, considering how technology has advanced over the years, how would you characterize the psychoacoustic sound and capabilities of the matrix device you would have used to encode Sunflower on LP back in 1970, compared to your modern matrix device?

[Bicyclerider]

Where some may disagree is whether one can hear the difference between 24 bit sampling on SACD and DVD and 16 bit sampling on a regular CD - Many believe you can, including the editors of Sterophile and The Absolute Sound.  More presence in the vocals, more air around the instruments, instruments like piano and violin sounding more like they sound in real life.  This will always be a subjective judgment and so can be impossible to prove or disprove, but there are some with"golden ears" who can perceive the difference and do it repeatedly in blind testing.  There are some audiophiles who can identify a digital cable's sound signature over another cable's reliably, as incredible as that seems to me.  

There have been single blind testing of individuals reported in audiophile magazines, but you're right, double blind was an overstatement.

Actually, using double blind testing, there are no documented cases of anyone anywhere being able to repeatedly tell the difference between high resolution recordings of music and the exact same program material played back via a standard CD at 16/44.1. The same is true of high end cables vs well designed standard cables. There are many who claim to hear significant differences, but they almost always refuse to participate in a scientifically controlled double blind listening session in order to back up their claims. (This is not to say that a listener cannot enjoy a level of psychic gratification when listening to high-res or using expensive cables, feeling the music simply has to sound better or be blessed with various sonic qualities as a result of the fact that they aren't listening to standard CD quality or standard quality cables.)

[Bicyclerider]

That was difficult to read so my comment was that there have been single blind testing of individuals in the audiophile press, but you're right no double blind at least in the scientific sense - I.e. The individual is blinded to what he is listening to but the person doing the testing is not.

[Stephen W. Desper]

Steve I agree with almost everything in your post - I never meant to suggest that digital is a better medium or can sound better than a well crafted, engineered, mastered and cut LP.  In fact SACD and 24 bit sampling was specifically developed to get a more accurate reproduction of the sound on a master tape than a 16 bit CD - more sampling, less gaps to fill in, less digital artifacts introduced.  Note I said "more accurate" - it will only ever approximate the original master and LP, not improve upon it or match it.

Where some may disagree is whether one can hear the difference between 24 bit sampling on SACD and DVD and 16 bit sampling on a regular CD - Many believe you can, including the editors of Sterophile and The Absolute Sound.  More presence in the vocals, more air around the instruments, instruments like piano and violin sounding more like they sound in real life.  This will always be a subjective judgment and so can be impossible to prove or disprove, but there are some with"golden ears" who can perceive the difference and do it repeatedly in blind testing.  There are some audiophiles who can identify a digital cable's sound signature over another cable's reliably, as incredible as that seems to me.  

I understand and agree with your preference for analogue especially when that was the original artist's medium, but digital is how most people enjoy music today, and we wouldn't want to deprive the current and future generations of the pleasure of listening to Sunflower and Surfs Up and the rest of the Beach Boys catalogue in as good a sounding digital version as an be produced.  For me that was the intent of the AP SACD's - how well they succeeded is yet to be determined.

COMMENT:  Well stated bikerider!
Stereophile and Absolute Audio are well familiar to me having been the subject of articles, had records reviewed, and equipment analyzed of mine between their pages. I also am a member of several engineering societies including AES (Audio Engineering Society) for which I have also contributed papers.
Throughout my association with these groups, I along with others have concluded that they generally fall into two camps of thinking. The audiophiles like to make judgments from listening (subjective) whereas the engineers form their judgments from measurements (objective).
Each approach has its merits, but nether group should be taken as superior.
When I say that the master tape can be fully captured by a CD or an LP I am speaking from the objective viewpoint. When you measure the frequency response, dynamic range, noise floor, or harmonic and intermodulation distortion of magnetic tape, the CD and LP can outperform magnetic tape. Therefore, from an engineering standpoint, nothing is compromised by mastering magnetic tape masters to the CD (Redbook) or LP (RIAA).
But in the subjective camp, listening to the magnetic tape and then the LP will give very little difference in quality, in fact if you use top-end analog equipment, you will be hard-pressed to tell the difference (once the music starts). However, a difference can be heard via the CD and in double-blind tests one can always be discerned from the other.
Is this difference a function of the sampling rate? A few years ago, when the SACD came into being, the AES (the objective guys) assembled a panel of mastering engineers, equipment designers, and experienced listeners, and involved them in a serious of double-blind listening tests designed to ascertain if music sounded better with the higher resolution of the SACD when compared to the standard CD. After many sessions, no one could repeatedly tell the difference. In fact, one group found the CD actually sounded better than the SACD. When looked into further, the engineers noted that artifacts generated by the increased processing of the higher sampling rate was creating artifacts that were audible and not part of the original. This phenomena was only present if the source was magnetic tape, but not if the source was of a higher resolution. Thus these engineering committees concluded that there was no discernible difference between a CD and SACD if the source was magnetic tape or analogue, and may even be more accurate with the CD. But, if the original source was high-resolution in the first place, then some improvement could be heard from the SACD.
Over the years, I have been involved in all manner of recording from direct to disk recordings, pure analog and recordings involving 196Hz/24bit, pure digital. I have listened over high quality studio monitors. As a recording engineer, I will say both are quite good, but analog always has more of a musical quality to it. It is easier to listen to and is less fatiguing. I find this true when listening in my home for my own pleasure. But that's the way for me. Other folks may prefer the digital experience over the fuss it takes to make an LP really sound good. That is one of the great benefits the CD has over the LP.  In the overview, if I compare the playback of an LP to the same downloaded file in 196/24 resolution over my own pristine playback system(s), myself and others who listen will always prefer the LP over the digital.
We are talking two-track here. In two-track land, only virtual surround schemes work. If you wish to explore peripheral surround schemes, then the consumer is stuck with digital. And if you are going to be using digital multi-channel formats, I find that Bluray has a more natural sound than SACD. ~swd  

[Dirtyfaz]

And God blessed me with the set of ears I got.
Can't tell the differences but I know if I enjoy what I am listening to.

[Bicyclerider]

Interesting Stephen - I've heard some prefer DVD-audio to SACD as well for 2 channel.  Have you explored the new digital format, MQS (master quality sound - I'm sure you would take issue with that name!) that does lossless encodes in smaller digital files and then decodes them in 24/194? The different digital encoding/decoding supposedly removes the major sources of "digititis" or digital artifacts in the sound.