Is DVD-A still-born?

The bottom line.... Neither format will survive, no matter how good they sound, if they don't cost the same as a regular CD in the stupid mall! Most people don't care. It's that simple.

Sony doesn't have DVD-A because they don't want to pay royalties. They want other people to pay them royalties for SACD. The DVD-A supporters want to see SACD go away so they get more money. It's simple as that. They don't care what format sounds better as long as their registers are ringing.

Most people do not even know about DVD-A or SACD nor do they care. A lot of the people that have heard about DVD-A do not know that their regular DVD players will not play DVD-A. What will probably happen is DVD-A & SACD will go the way of the HDCD, it'll be packed on to the entry level DVD players without the mass population ever noticing. I'm willing to bet that conservatively estimating that over 60% of VCR owners do not know how to record in EP let alone that EP recording exists, that is how knowledgable the consumer public is. What we have here ladies and gentlemen is a format war again, a corporate battle similar to Coke and Pepsi. I'm curious to know where Djroberts live to actually find DVD-A or SACD in the mall. Enough ranting.

Personally I prefer the SACD. Most of the Sony releases on SACD are remastered from original analog masters but if you ever had a chance to hear a recording done on a SACD master on a higher end system, it is a truly hair raising expirence. There are a few copies of them floating around. To me, DVD-A just sounds flat to me, like it was a whole bunch of unnatural, compressed signals, hey wait, that's just what DVD-A is.

I agree that SACD and DVD-A need software.

But I remember when CD came out. Most CDs cost about $17-$20 at a time that records cost about half that price. CD's cost at least $30-$40 in today's dollars.

Using the logic that consumers only buy software that costs the same oa the old technology leads to the conclusion that CD should have failed.

High Definiton sound will grow in popularity. I can't see a third format overtaking SACD or DVD-A. Like DD and DTS, I see both DVD-A and SACD surviving.

All these postings about SCAD vs DVD-A are all missing the bigger changes coming. Buried in little news reports is the rumbling of bigger changes afoot, all these high performance digital chips are cheap. Look at the Tripath digital amp that is in the eVo amps, and imagine what happens when there are affordable powered speakers with those little amp boards inside. Over the next 3 years I bet we are going to see a huge wave of all digital systems with great sound (notice the new Krell system?). We'll be seeing digital all the way to the speaker, so no need for expensive tone control cables, maybe no player either. Multichannel systems are coming, not just because of the new formats but because the big players know they can sell us entirely new sound systems that will out do most of what's out there today. Will there still be a high-end, I hope so, but just as in the past, today's high-end will become tomorrow's mid-fi. I love my tube pre-amp, but I'm also keeping my eyes opened. Buckle up for a wild ride.

Yes, "all digital" systems are on the way. And I agree have the potential to significantly lower costs and improve sound.

About 20 audio manufacturers (mainly from Japan) have developed a consortium to research DSD/SACD all digital systems. If it's going to be all digital, might as well use the best currently available (DSD/SACD).

But there will always be a highend, as long as someone is willing to pay the price.

BTW times have really changed. In the 1960's, highend was a Marantz receiver or power amp feeding into $300 AR-3a speakers with a $100 AR turntable.

Now, even a $3,000 receiver with $2,000 speakers and a $1,000 CD player is not considered highend by some.