I never got into SACD although I guess in the world of streaming the hi-res masters it spawned will no doubt not be wasted. (Though I suspect there are hi-res digital masters of almost everything produced in the last 20 years ... 24/96 and subsequently 24/192 have between them been the studio standard for a long time.)

I could never see the point of dedicated SACD players, although I owned a couple out of curiosity (Sony and Denon, can't remember the model numbers). Why? Because with a proper DAC like my Audio Note, redbook actually sounded better than SACD through your average SACD player ouput stage. I think redbook, done properly (that is, with due attention paid to the output stage, just as much as to the digital side) can sound amazing. SACD likewise ... but nothing I've heard really made the effort so build a separate setup seem worthwhile.

My AN DAC can do 24/96 (I've had some fun with the hi-res version of Qobuz) but the quality of the musical experience seems to me to be completely decoupled from the resolution or bit rate. The quality of the performance and its recording and mastering is far, far, far more important than the resolution of the media it's recorded to.

Anyway FWIW in my view it's a 'nearly' format, killed off ironically by shitty low res MP3s as the great unwashed moved to listening to Britney and Beyonce on their iPods, rather than spending money as they were supposed to on a 'better' digital format.

Sony might see a new lease of life if they allowed direct DSD digital output from a new generation of SACD transports (their refusal to do this all but guaranteed SACD's irrelevance in the world of hi-res DACs and streaming) but I suspect it's too late now regardless. A curiosity, a dead end, a nearly idea with a few diehard fans, like Betamax and Laserdisk. Close but no cigar.