I auditioned SACD today

After reading the first posting and others it made me think that maybe the new hi-rez formats maybe in trouble. The poster is obviously a music lover with an exceptional collection. If he is reluctant to jump into SACD what is the everyday Best Buy or Circuit City stereo customer going to do? I just don't see a mass market appeal if the most serious music lovers among us aren't jumping in. I don't know, it's just an observation, what do you all think?

I think the premise that "the most serious music lovers among us are not jumping in" is flawed. Serious audio enthusiasts *are* jumping in. Secondly, I think you have to do a little study of adoption cycles. I just read a curious fact; The first VCR was built in 1956 and was as big as a piano. How many people bought one of those puppies? The Automobile industry had a tumultuous infancy -- many people didn't want to trade in their horse and buggy for an automobile because there were very few gas stations and even fewer people who knew how to fix one. It took the microwave oven 20 years to catch on. So -- the *MASS MARKET* is never the first to jump in -- they are always the very LAST to adopt any new technology. The first to adopt any new technology are called "Early Adopters." They are always a tiny esoteric group, usually affluent, and usually male. The first to adopt High Rez certainly fits that demographic. So, what you can say is that there is nothing about this early adoption phase that makes High Rez Audio unusual in comparison to other technologies that were eventually adopted by the mainstream consumer. So far, it looks like a typical EARLY ADOPTION phase. But, this does not
necessarily fortell the success of High Rez Audio, either. Unless the EARLY ADOPTION PHASE is eventually followed by a wider pattern of adoption, it *could* reach an evolutionary dead-end. Anyone who claims to be able to fortell either the failure or success of High Rez Audio AT THIS POINT -- is pulling your leg. On the other hand, virtually everything is going digital and digital tends to evolve towards HIGHER RESOLUTION. DVD replaced VHS. The first DVD players cost thousands of dollars. TV's have evolved towards higher resolution. HDTV and HD-DVD are on the horizon. Digital photography started with one pixel cameras that cost thousands of dollars and have evolved towards higher resolution and the price has come down along with the spread of the technology. High End SACD players like the Meitner EMM LABS Dac6, which costs around $15,000 (Transport plus DAC) are enjoying sold-out production runs, with lines of back-orders. Finally, when I read this writer's experience, it illustrates perfectly why it is the best interest of the music industry to push a High Rez revolution. When this poster switches to High Rez, he will likely want to replace some part of his collection with SACD's and he'll want to replace his CD player with an SACD player. It is in the music industry's best interests to get us all to buy our music again. It makes great economic sense. Similar to how many of us had to replace our VHS library with DVD's, or Vinyl with cassettes or cassettes with CD's, etc. And, the music industry is employing a sort of "Trojan Horse" strategy with mainstream consumers by selling them "remastered CD's" which have a High Rez layer. At some point, the average CD buyer will wake up to find that he/she already has a music library stocked with "HYBRID" CD/SACD's with a High Rez layer -- and by that time, the technology in high end SACD players will have filtered down into lower cost machines. A consumer will go to buy a CD or DVD player and will be told that he/she can listen to the High Rez layer on those HYBRID CD/SACD by buying a UNIVERSAL player for a little more money. Like buying a progressive scan DVD player instead of one without it. And by that time, you will be able to hear the difference between CD and SACD even on lower end players. How long will all this take? Your guess is as good as mine, but I see it happening at some point. Because it is a superior format and there is money to be made by getting consumers to switch.

Rsbeck, you made some good points. However, Rec found that the performance of SACD did not clearly better CD or LP. Personally, it appears to me that the trend that the mass market is being fed is convenience rather than sound quality. The masses seem to be targeted by the idea of hundreds of songs on one small convenient package. I just saw a commercial for some new fangled device that allows for playback of hundreds of songs on one small device with no loss in sound quality (yeah, sure).
There are many vinyl recordings that better CD and vice versa. I think that this whole new format idea is a great one for sony, after all, their patent on CD will soon expire. Why not get the masses on some new technology in which to collect royalties for another twenty years.
It is all about the blood, sweat and tears that goes into producing a great sounding recording. It has been done with vinyl, it has been done with cd and it has been done with SACD.
The people who frequent the high end stores and these forums are mostly the only ones who appreciate the different levels of sound quality that the (any) technology strives for.
Twenty some years after the advent of the cd, many still tout the LP as superior in producing the ultimate audio experience. Neil Young believes that too much is lost in the ones and zero's to produce the entire musical picture.
It is like looking at a digital picture. If you look close enough, you can see the tiny squares that make up the picture. You will never see the entire picture as clearly as if you were there. Your brain will eventually decipher all of the info that the ones and zeros offer, but the seamless flow of info that analog offers will leave your mind exploring the recording possibly indefinitely.
I am young enough to be one of those guys who didn't begin their music collection until the age of the CD. I have a few LP's lying around somewhere and nothing sends shivers down my spine more than a stylus touching the vinyl. There is some kind of intangible quality to the microphonic retreival techniques used by a nice TT setup that the digital format just doees not have.
That being said (I hope nobody has fallen asleep yet), I personally believe that the ultimate format (for those of us who actually care)will be a convenient analog format. Until somebody finally does this, I believe that Sacd will eventually line the pockets of the Sony. Not because of the sound quality. The average consumer (read mass market big box store stereo purchaser) wants a cheap, CONVENIENT way of listening to music in the background. The potental for better sound is an issue for the small percentage of us who seek the "nirvana" of a carefully put together system. There is no new level of convenience of sacd's, but like Mr, Rsbeck said, the new format will be implemented.
The vcr was new. The auto was new. The sacd is a rehashing of a 20 year old idea. It is a subtle tweaking of a well accepted technology.
I was over at a friends house last weekend and he just got dvd player that can play CD's , Sacd's and dvd-A. This is how this new format will be distributed.
Remember what cd players or vcr's used to cost (mass market ones)? This unit at his house cost not even a few hundred bucks. And it was a higher end mass market player.
The point I am making is that the dollars that will make the profits will not come from those who want the better sound. The dollars will come from the people who probably don't even know the difference (or can't even hear the difference). It is about new formats and new patents to keep the money flowing.
Sorry to all of you who have fallen asleep during this post.

Rec wrote, "There was no question that the SACD layer had a bigger soundstage and better detail than the Redbook layer..." So, it is not correct to say that he heard no difference.

The sonic improvements of hi-rez are not likely to compel the masses to make a switch. But the multi-channel afforded by the format may.