Have you gone hi-rez? Which format and why?


I've had a taste of SACD and really liked it. I have an inexpensive Sony SACD changer and a few SACDs. I have not heard DVD-A. At some point I'd like to get a higher-end hi-rez player and I'm leaning towards SACD. My search at Tower informed me that there are more SACDs available than DVD-As, but some research suggests the availability of either runs along record label lines. I also get the impression that DVD-A leans toward multi-channel listeners where SACD still addresses both equally (is this a valid assumption?).

There are some universal players coming to market, but you know the old addage... jack of all trades... Regardless of my hi-rez choice, I will keep my redbook CD player for some time. I read today that Arcam is releasing two new DVD players in March that support DVD-A. Their news page stated that it would be too difficult to incorporate SACD and I wonder if this is a sign or if it's just Arcam's choice to support only one format for whatever reason. In my searching I also noticed that the number of CD players is decreasing (at least in the mass market) and most are producing DVD players with CD playback. According to the Arcam news page, it's easier to incorporate DVD-A into a DVD player because SACD requires a separate reading mechanism.

I'd like to hear whether or not you decided to add hi-rez to your system and if so which format and why? FWIW, I don't have and won't have multi-channel. Thanks!
budrew
I backed my way in. I have a dvd changer for my HT system that displeased my wife when she wanted to rent a dvd and play it once. So I picked up a single dvd player, a Sony that has SACD capability (quite inexpensive). I now have a small SACD collection that I play on occassion through the HT system in 'music' mode (Lex DC-1). It's worth having but I don't have any interest in pursuing SACD in my main listening system. Nearly all of my music collection is unavailable on SACD and I doubt I'd want to repurchase everything anyway. Like most, I'd need a lot more reason to take it seriously at this point.
I went with SACD for one reason, the DVD player I wanted ONLY played SACD's. Of course it was a Sony and there is no way they were going to promote DVDA. I originally wanted a multi-format player but could never find one to listen to. That said, SACD's are much easier to find and sound very good! I still haven't heard DVDA so can't compare. When I heard Pink Floyd was coming out on SACD, that sealed the deal!
I have a entry level Sony DVD/SACD player that has failed to win me over to the HI-REZ camp. Yes it does sound good on SACD but given a quality recording I don't think that HI-REZ is all it's been made out to be. The Police Classics dual layer disc sounds better on my Redbook only Jolida than it does in SACD on the Sony. In fact this disc sounds better than any vinyl or digital version of it I have heard to date. I will admit I'm not hearing all that SACD can give considering the unit I'm using. I have heard some SACD stuff that sounds fine and I have heard stuff that was just average sound quality wise. The recording and mastering process seems to play a bigger part in the equation than does the playback format, IMHO.
Dautch- Not sure why you think DVD-A needs five full-range speakers and SACD does not. There should be no difference if we're talking multi-channel vs. multi-channel. In any case, all of us pretty much being audiophiles at this web site, why go full range in the back?? We should be putting our money to best use up-front. The rear surrounds will mostly contain hall ambience, crowd noise at live events, etc. Full range speakers are not required as such. AND, a center channel is NEVER required. IMHO.
Russ_1 that reminds me of Trent Reznor's quote(s) regarding the center channel.

As for high rez, I've recently adopted vinyl and will purchase an SACD probably some time this year. I do have DVD-A capability with my current DVD player. But so far I haven't been compelled to acquire any DVD-A titles.