absolutely uneven on these "first" (ahem; for me) releases. Let's see what I got. Pink Floyd - DSOTM: Heck, I bought my player just to listen to this one single album, so I really don't care if everything else released on SACD sucks. Orff - Carmina Burana: This one made my day. Even my (semi-deaf) dad thought it was the best recording he had ever heard in his life, period. It sounds so amazingly real, it's my new reference disc. Toto IV: Here it all starts going downhill. What was the mastering guy thinking? All he had to do was take the MoFi UltraDisc II and use it as a reference. The sound is so shrill and bright it even sounds a bit worse than the standard CD! (IMHO). The Police 25th Anniversary Remasters: OMG. What were these people thinking? I compared them to the Message in a Box set. The SACDs sound tinny, shrill, bright, with excessive ammounts of treble and weird (bloated, perhaps?) bass. My girlfriend (who is nothing of an audiophile herself) detected immediately that something was wrong with the SACD. I thought she was bluffing, until she told me "this disc (the SACD) sounds so tiny... as if Sting had a little kid's voice". Yep. the Message in a Box remaster, done 10 years ago, sounds better than these SACDs. So, what's going on in here? Do you think engineers must first get the hang of how to master / re-master stuff in SACD? Will someone tell us someday that the problem was something like the jitter issue on early CDs? Or do people simply are mastering SACDs with lots of treble so people will think they really sound different than normal CDs? Ack.... I wanted the Police masters to sound so good.