SACD 2...for those who have not heard

As long as they don't make me use a video monitor to navigate the disk or compromise sonics, they can include as as many pictures on the disk as they like.

Does it mean though Sony already have doubts about SACD breaking through?

I have always thought the only reason SACD (and DVDA) have made it this far is copy right protection for the record companies. The fact that they sound better than Cd's (while a bonus) is certainly not going to assure the success of either media.

SACD 2.....better known as the RIAA seal of approval.

Budrew, after looking at my post, that should read they have it backwards Sony/Phillips and not you.
Sorry about that.

I agree with bld63. That is clear. The Sacd format is better than Dvd-a sonically. That is clear.(CES proved that)Sacd is for us, Dvd-a with video is for mainstream. Dvd-a is inexpensive relative to Sacd to produce. This has always been my worst fear. If Sacd were to ever switch to include video and add enryption layers to match Dvd-a, who do you think would win the format war. Take it one step further and one can see that if the formats are providing similar features, the Sacd quality is a good bet to take a hit. Why do you think Dvd-a is inferior? Just as Sacd is approaching vinyl(there is a unit reviewed to be on a par or better), we get this setback. As for the equipment issue, If there are two more levels of encryption included in the new players, it would mean that sometime in the near future, the newer cd's will not play on the old players. The biggest joke on me is that I am upgrading my new player(modifier receives it tomorrow). I am thrilled with plunking down $600 on a player whose Sacd component is, in my eyes, obsolete!! I think I shall retire my audio addiction and renew my wife addiction. Sony cannot make us incompatible!!!