The ignorance of SACD & DVD-A marketing idiots....

There is a lot of thinking that Blue_ray will be next: 2 and 3 certainly apply while prices on discs are coming down.

The main issue is that streaming and internet downloads of Movies will also become more the norm just as it has for high-rez music.

On the other hand I have no regrets at all - computer audio has come a long way after audio manufacturers and comsumers are finally seeing potential there.

And yes - I have a favorite format too and it has nothing to do with Apple Lossless, FLAC, DVD-A, SACD or CD...and it won't go away or change anymore ;)

Sony, after creating SACD, follow by not making their own original Blue Ray players SACD compatible?

My Sony Blu-Ray does play SACD, both 2- and multi-channel, though there's nothing in the specs that states that. In the manual, it tells you to go to "Music Settings" and choose it, which I did and played an SACD only disc, no problem.

As far as the formats, DVD-A was flawed by having to have a monitor to easily navigate the disc. Didn't make sense at all.

I had read that one of the reasons for the failure of SACD was the cost, mandated by Sony having to pay three times the royalties, one time each for the CD layer, the 2-channel SACD layer, and the multi-channel SACD layer. Whether that is true or not, I don't know.

Having put out multi-format and single SACD discs, many people were afraid to buy SACD, having been warned SACD would not work on their CD player and the confusion of choosing the right discs.

Sony should have just made all the discs with SACD and put the capability in their players so there would be no confusion. Once people started to play Sony discs in Sony players, they would have realized how much better Sony stuff sounded.

Having said that, I'm not sure it matters anymore, since Hi-Res downloads are the future (or at least the next few years . . . who knows?).

In the meantime . . . vinyl, baby! Infinite sampling!