Why HDCD did not become a dominant format?

I've just listened to the NS9100ES again in my system.
I found it better than the Toshiba SD9200. More detail,faster & more dynamic as well.
I had not matched power cords when I previously listened
to it, which was a mistake on my part.
Although it's unquestionably better, I think I'll wait a bit for a move to a Sony XA9000ES or Lexicon RT20.
I was not able to audition the XA9000ES at home as it sold; but I believe it must be a fair amount better. It was impressive through a pair of JMLabs speakers.

I guess I may be in the minority here, but as much as l like the sound of HDCD discs played on my Arcam CD23, in my system the 96/24 DAD discs I own sound even better played on my humble Sony DVP-C600D DVD player via it's analog outputs. One listen to Alan Parson's "I Robot' on Classic Records DAD will make you a believer.

With the mass-adoption of the DVD format soon after it's introduction, I will never understand why stereo 96/24 never caught on as the next logical step beyond redbook CD for music. I mean, originally, the term "DVD" stood for "Digital Versatile Disc", not "Digital Video Disc". Meaning, it should have been developed as a high-resolution stereo audio format as well as for the dominant movie format.

"With the mass-adoption of the DVD format soon after it's introduction, I will never understand why stereo 96/24 never caught on as the next logical step beyond redbook CD for music. I mean, originally, the term "DVD" stood for "Digital Versatile Disc", not "Digital Video Disc". Meaning, it should have been developed as a high-resolution stereo audio format as well as for the dominant movie format."

What John z said !! Seems like the most sensible way things should have gone !!

John z, I'm with you on that.
Digital music has certainly been confounding.

I prefer to purchase HDCD or hybrid SACD when available just for the red book CD playback, which generally is better than average on these discs. I assume the red book benefits from the quality of the mastering of these better formats. However regarding HDCD, I have my CD transport (EAD T-1000) going out to two different DACs 1) an EAD DAC that supports HDCD but doesn't do upsampling, and was new in 1997 and 2) a Bel Canto DAC-2 that doesn't support HDCD that is newer, 2002 and supports higher resolutions and up-sampling.
The Bel Canto seems to sound a bit better, even on HDCDs, although I have a hard time detecting much difference.

One thing I like about HDCD is its ability to live within the red book standard: CDs can be ripped using apple lossless and stored on a server, and played through a squeezebox, and the HDCD on the DAC still lights up.

My squeezebox is routed through the same 2 DACs (they each have two inputs) and my impression is the same as for CDs. Basically my take: HDCD discs--good. HDCD player--not necessary if you have a very good DAC or output stage. All things being equal I would take a DAC that didn't support it over one that did, but things are never equal so you should take the one that sounds the best.

HDCD white papers did claim that HDCDs would sound better than normal CDs even when played through non-HDCD equipment, IIRC.