SACD - Dying already?

Jdaniel, you misunderstand some of my opinions. In saying Sony "had" to try to keep their market share, I wasn't implying they shouldn't make business decisions that are in their best interests. For them it was the right thing, they risked losing a very profitable sector of their business and "had" to try and save it. My point was that a result of Sony's business decision was to cause confusion among the public, slowing the growth of hi-res digital.

Also, just as most people were content to play vinyl on their integrated Panasonic radios/turntables in the past, and cds on $150 cd players, they would also be content playing DVD-A on their dvd players. It's the audiophiles that would have to go out and buy the DVD-A players to extract the full benefit of the format. The point is one disc, we don't need two competing formats for digital audio. Elizabeth is partially correct in saying competing formats KILL any chances of one or the other becomming mainstream. Betamax didn't kill VHS, it just made it take longer to become the standard and resulted in lots of people buying betamax players that became obsolete once Sony gave up the fight.

As far as cd being dead, no, not yet, just look at the numbers. For most people it's still the only game in town.

Even the profusion of cheap universal players has not sparked an increased interest among the general population for hi-rez formats. Even among audiophiles the most excitement recently has been around the 2 channel 3950/3960. If the hi-rez formats have not already taken off after years of exposure it's unlikely they ever will. SACD may remain around as an audiophile format for things like classical music. But I agree that computer-based systems are more likely to take off in time.

I think Sony came up with SACD to get back money lost when CD royalties ended 2-3 years ago. There is also a concept in business which says "keep the pot boiling" which means keep talk, action, stuff going on - it will spark interest and keep customers occupied which makes it eaiser for them to spend. You always want potential customers coming in and out of your store/business and activity is the best way to do it sometimes. SACD advertising, articles in newspapers, etc., and some word of mouth was supposed to get this actiicty going - looks like it didn't work.

And what's this stuff about "local record stores"? I can just see someone sitting in a half darkened room with the glow of a computer screen shining on their face, eyes glazed and fingers flicking away. Get out and see the world every once in a while, for God's sake! I have actually met people at record stores who have become friends, even met a great girlfriend there once (long before I was married!). Ever hear of socialization?

My point was that a result of Sony's business decision was to cause confusion among the public, slowing the growth of hi-res digital.

When I have talked about SACD with my non-audiophile friends and acquaintances, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM has said, "SACD? What's that? I've never heard of it."

Amongst that same group of people, if I mention DVD-Audio, they all think I'm talking about concert DVDs or movie soundtracks. They have no idea that there might be special music-only DVDs.

So I ask you: how can something the public has never even heard of and doesn't even know exists cause confusion?

The "public" isn't confused about hi-rez digital, because the "public" isn't even aware of it.

(1)You suggest that SACD is dying because they don't sell in local record shops, without realizing that record stores are dying both because of competition from the net and mega-stores.(BTW, I socialize where all the action is, not in places where the has-beens go.) : ) 2) Some claim that multi-inventory products, (competing formats) can only spell disaster, without realizing that it's not 1980: multi, or redundant inventory only causes space problems and extra inventory expense for the local middle man, (see issue (1)), who, in the 2004's, is not an issue anymore. (3) Sony came up with SACD because there were more than a few people who had been complaining for years about PCM and digital harshness. EMI/Warner came out with DVD-A for people who...weren't complaining. (4) While there are classic turntables, classic amps, speakers, etc.; there are no classic redbook CD/PCM players. (Type "classic CD player" into ebay if you must.) (5) According to one of this month's Hi-Fi mags, Japanese companies are no longer mass-producing CD players, only Universals. (6) People buy DVDs because they want to collect movies, not because they love the format. (7)"Let's just buy all our music on DVD...." Do you know how many people are going to have their hands in the royalty cookie jar then? You ready to shell out even more money to pay Madonna'a hair-dresser? (8) Cheap Universals have only been out for a year. When I bought my Marantz SA-14 v.2 SACD/CD player, I had to wait because it was on back-order--the US inventory had sold out. Hmmm. No one is going to want SACDs after paying 3K for a player? Question: how many of you have a decent hi-rez player, have listened to it in your home with a broad range of recordings for at least 3 months, THEN came on here with an educated point of view. Uh huh, I thought so.